rpfc

It must be very freeing to think like you do. We tanked. That's not to say there isn't any benefits from the tactics. Jetta learnt from playing on Cousins, Warnock and Frawley got a bit of freedom, Miller and Bate got to Ablett and Bartel for a half, PJ got punished and played on Brown, and Newton had the chance to be the loose man accross the backline and get some easy touches. Jetta learnt, Miller, Bate, Frawley, and Warnock got new perspectives and we all found out that the careers of Newton and Johnson will be over in 4 or 26 weeks time.

We have lost 51 games since 2007. A couple of scrappy wins against pathetic opposition does not a winning culture make.

That's a very 'results driven' attitude. Commendable. Unless you are trying to build a team to win a flag... Then it becomes naive...

We tanked, but come on 45H16 (?).... They were 4 and 7 FCS... 4 and 7! Equal, I think not.

DB just did what he had to do with the circumstances he has been dealt. I guess this is harder for some, but I haven't been 'results driven' since the 'footy sucks' game in 07.

Unequivocably correct, YM. If anyone from our FD told a forward to miss deliberately I would demand they be removed from the club. You're an idiot, Freak.

Yeah, I did. I wanted fate to do us a favour for once.

I think you have a case of premature expectation when referring to Jurrah and Scully. One will be a 21 year old forward and the other will be a kid in his first year. If they are in our top 6 next year we will be bottom two again. Out of the youngsters coming through you missed the one that looks likely to step up considerably next year - Jack Grimes. It's all about capabilities and responsibilities. These are my justifications for my top 6 players in 2010. Morton - Wing/HFF, high on Inside 50s, assists, averaging 20 touches, and around 20 goals, with at least 1 contested mark a game Davey - Wing, most Inside 50s, most assists, averaging 25 touches across the middle delivering into 50 Sylvia - FP/RR, moderate to high number of tackles, clearances, and Inside 50s, and around 30-40 goals Garland - HBF, most rebound 50s, averaging 20 clean touches off HB into the guts, QB role (Hodge 08) McLean - C, most clearances and tackles, 25 to 30 touches giving to Davey or Grimes or Sylvia to deliver Grimes - RR, high on clearances, Inside 50s, assists and tackles All in important roles with impressive output. I can't see Bruce or Green outdoing any of them for output or to be put into important roles. Moloney is a tough one and it was a close one with McLean in terms of output in the stoppages. Frawley is an interesting one because he could play a Scarlett type role with his ability to beat an opponent and run with the ball. And here is an odd one - If Jamar plays every game like he has this year he will be in their aswell. However, HO to advantage would have to be high.

Not again! The reason to exist can't be to 'continue to exist.' You exist, therefore you have a purpose. That's it, I'm out of this thread. It's done. Now let's go and lose today and try and win that flag.

Are you being ironical? Because you haven't provided references... And I think you're wrong - Richmond and NM are no longer eligible for PP after the 1st round because of their 18 points.

Just on Jetta, we know he can hit a bloke on the chest and also tackle, but there was one effort on the Southern Stand HFF against PA where he made about 3 tackles in a row, and kept on harassing and eventually affected the kick and PA turned it over. Very impressive for a 1st year. With Jetta and Wonna it makes it easier to keep Davey up the ground as he is desparately needed to kick the ball into the forward line. On Bennell, he's got something about him but I wonder where he will be positioned over the next few years and where he will end up. I really think he should, from next year, do the set-up kick off half back instead of Morton and Grimes and try and ge those two in the middle more. Eventually, Bennell could be a very capable wingman IMO.

Enjoying yourself and enjoying the taste are all by-products of the necessity of sustenance. It's your analogy. You eat because you have to, liking it is a bonus.

I think you do. Winning flags is the MFC's reason for being. You have taken exception to that idea, have you not?

It isn't the Melbourne Social Club with a Football Department. It's the Melbourne Football Club. Winning AFL flags is its business, its raison detre.

Phew. There's a load off. Thanks Dean...

I'm glad we have gone past the 'circular existence' reason (because you can't exist to exist), and past the 'emotional enjoyment' reason (because it is the journey for a flag that brings those emotions) and now we are on to a narrow argument about a few members bringing down the argument because of their disagreement being proof that the "sole reason for the existence is NOT to win flags." However, touching on 45H's post, we need to think as the club as an abstract entity and not a collection of indivual members (otherwise we would have 31500 different views of the MFC's essence). As an entity, in the AFL, the sole reason for the existence of the MFC, in these circulstances, is to win flags.

Agree with HT. Very well put.

The club's existence is the most important thing to me. But it is not the sole reason for its existence - which is the bloody question. The sole reason for the existence of the MFC is not its continued existence, it is to win a flag (How many effing times do I have to point out the illogical, circular nature of this view?). If we merged and won a flag, that would mean nothing to me - a flag is the be-all and end-all, but the MFC (Est. 1858) would not have won it. If you were to personalise it and say a flag isn't the sole concern for me - that would be true. The club continuing to exist as it is would trump that. But while the club exists, the sole reason for its existence is to go out there and beat Carlton in Grand Final and see one of the Jacks get up there and give a patronising speech toward Judd and co. and their 'effort on the day.'

I understand you are torn. But the PP system was designed to help basket cases like us. You say leave it to fate and if we are "good enough" to win 5 games so be it. With all due respect, if we are 'good enough' to win 5 games this year it will mean we have won 13 games and lost 53 since 2007. With only Sam Blease given to lift us from our mire over and above what all clubs get. That is a pitiful record and all we are asking is that for the next two weeks the Footy Dept ensure they do everything to not win - with selection, positional changes, and injury sensitivity. And, lastly, the Footy Dept look like they are doing what we ask. This team has 14 players 22 or younger and the blokes that are playing have been tried in alien positions (ie. Morton as tagger last week). Yes, we are that bad. Let's make sure we get what we 'deserve.'

You may not care, but it matters. And Jetta has had a fine debut season as a floating FP/HFF, and managed 14 assists (4th to Davey, Bate, and Sylvia) from only 33 Inside 50s. As a reference - Nathan Jones has 12 assists from 57 Inside 50s. He makes things happen with his 11 touches a game.

I think I first penned the prediction after the Bulldogs loss. Right now it looks extremely ambitious. If we are to beat Rich, NM, Sydney, WCE, Freo, Ess, Carl, PA (here), BL (here), and, possibly, Adel (here) and WB we are going to need a lot of improvement from particular individuals...and a good draw. Our top 6 will have to change from Green, Bruce, Davey, Moloney, Sylvia, and McLean. I'm hoping that the top 6 in 2010 will be Sylvia, Davey, McLean, Morton, Garland, and Grimes. As I write, I realise the pressure I am putting on Morton and Grimes but I really believe that both can spend most of their time in the midfield and deliver most of the Inside 50s (instead of Jones and McLean) which would make us an infinitely better team. Saying that, my prediction looks patheticly optimistic but we will see...

Now you are being cute... Every team goes into every season with 44 capable footy players. And every week you have to play 22 of them. I would like us to "tank" or "list manage." I'm a not a cheater. I'm not being cute anymore, hopefully?

We have had 'the cue in the rack' (employing the tactics of 'list management' or 'tanking') since ND's last game. I just don't know why we would want to pull the cue out now?

Not so silly. The reason there are whispers of a rift out at Windy Hill is because MK can see the holes that Lloyd, Lucas, Fletcher, and, to a lesser extent, McVeigh will leave in a few years. By May next year Fletcher will be 35, Lloyd and Lucas 32, and McVeigh 29. They have a heavy reliance on all except for Lucas, and the fact that he is back in that forward line means a delay in the progress of a player that will eventually replace him. Times that problem by 3 and you have a significant issue, for 2012 when only McVeigh will still be around - and he will be 31. Promising players they do have but I would like to see how Hurley, Hocking, and Pears operate in a backline without Fletcher mopping up for them - they tried earlier in the year when he was out for 5 weeks and did an OK job but I wonder how the team would go without Lloyd and Fletcher - two decade long bookends.

Are we deliberately losing? Or are we minimising our chances of winning by playing kids, not playing the mildly injured, and playing blokes in foreign positions. It may be semantics, but is a kid entering the British Open to get some experience, but knowing he has no chance, deliberately losing? Because we have been employing the tactics of 'tanking' ever since ND played Newton in his last game, and Garland and Weetra played in DB's first. So I guess the question is: Is 'list managment' or 'player development' (something DB recently stated as more important than winning) cheating? It isn't, so we aren't.