rpfc

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.

I think he has turned the corner. So YM is right... But he gave a bloke a roundhouse just for being a Selwood. Ok, maybe that is just cause but... You're right WYL he should go back and give RR some company and earn back a little respect.

AoB - Are you seriously trying to tie up H with the notion that he wanted to win the flag 'at all costs'? You are putting words in his, and my and others, mouth if you are implying that having a 'sole purpose' indicates moral bankruptcy - that we would cheat to win that flag. The sole reason for the existence of the MFC is to spend sh!tloads of other people's money and try to win the AFL Premiership (and adhere to the rules of the competition as per required of every participant). And everyone can enjoy the ride as we try to achieve it.

That supporter is an idiot. Player's don't tank. Miller is a hardworking player who puts in an enormous amount of work on the ground and off it but has badly lost confidence and form. He has teased us numerous times and I can understand the frustrations of the fans. Newton may have turned the corner, I don't know, but we won't find out in these last few games where he will have some good games, some bad games, and some middling games. We will find it out next February when he comes back from summer training with a body that a dedicated KPF should have. If he has defined arms, and shoulders that are wider than his waist than he really has put the effort in that he hasn't in the past. And he deserves no free rides from the fans. Morton is a fine young player, but to play him on Adam Goodes was a surprise and a risk. It pays off even if Goodes gets 35 touches and 3 goals but Morton showed Bailey something that he hadn't seen before. McKenzie and Valenti ran with with McVeigh for a lot of the game - a teachable moment for both on one of the hardest working and underrated mids in the game. Miller started as a floating wingman-type that got a few kicks in the backline but looked lost across the middle. No-one was told to curtail the run of Mattner. Our best tagger - Clint Batram went ball hunting. There were plenty of positional experiments and why shouldn't Bailey employ them? He has got to build different aspects of his player's games. And you do that by challenging them to things they aren't used to doing. I beleive this to be PR if this official was in the Footy Dept., and if he wasn't in the FD - he wouldn't know anyway. Unless you have a good mate in the FD who trusts you enough to let his guard down and tell you the truth. We really don't know. My belief is that Bailey can see what is on offer to be 4 and 18 instead of 5 and 17 and he will try, and I stress try, to engineer or ensure losses in the next two games. Then they can go hell for leather as Freo is an easybeat, and Carlton and St Kilda will be too strong for us at our very best.

If losing is an infection we must be on death's door - this weekend will see our 51st loss since 2007.

Yeah, who cares about Tom. I want Dana... She can de-bunk my work any day of the week... (And, no. That wasn't dirty. Avid watchers would know the joke.) (It was a little dirty...)

So I require vengeance because I think Newton should play games at the end of another losing season, or that Miller should be given games to resurrect his career? Newton is lucky we are 'list managing' - he gets to play a game. And if you are alluding that I, as a 'tanker,' thought Newton and Miller missed on purpose you are way-off. Bailey will go into the game as he is about to, as young as he can, and will try people in positions they are not used to, he will put the kids in the important positions, at the important times and if they still win he will say "Oh, well. I tried to do what I had to do but we were never going to lose that game." And BTW, the only poster that I can recall that alluded to Newton or Miller missing on purpose (not tongue in cheek) is a NON-tanking proponent True Believer. Apparently, she loves the club so much that she accuses players of missing goals on purpose for draft picks.

Some people are way off track here. The MFC is a footy club in the AFL. There are 15 other clubs competing in the league. A flag is the prize awarded to the best team. Each club enters the league with a desire to be that best team. It is the sole reason for its existence. If it isn't - it is a social club that plays some park footy. But we don't play park footy - we pay millions to be apart of, and try to win, the AFL Premiership. The elite league of Aussie Rules. I enjoy the rollercoaster of emotions too, but it is in pursuit of that flag that we feel those emotions. That Jeff White goal against the Dogs 'kept the dream of September action alive,' the excitement of the Freo comeback let us hope that perhaps this Wonaeamirri fellow was the FP we haven't had since 2001, and the ease of the Port win got us going because two 20 year olds kicked 8 between them and won the game. The emotion comes from the belief that what you are seeing is the beginnings of a team that could challenge for a flag at some stage. A flag that is the sole reason for the MFC's existence.

It sure is. And, yes, go and find these 'incidents' where a first year player didn't show complete comittment. It'll be groundbreaking... The kid is doing fine. He's courageous and he has impressed a lot of people.

He's 53 games away from that. Cheney and Grimes should be ahead of him in the backline. E: Spencer Whelan Sylvia