Chook

I've left at half-time before, but I'd never do it again. I was annoyed at how badly we were playing, but as the day drew on, I was more annoyed at myself for not watching it all.

Exactly this. My grandfather and I often go with his new son (yes, I have an uncle less than half my age) and we'll be watching our players butcher the ball time and time again, then we'll turn to little Michael who's playing with his iPod Touch. My grandfather gets all mad, but I reckon if you can get them to be happy to go to the football when they're young, the rest is easy. Once we get good, then it'll be more interesting, so as long as you can keep them happy about going to the footy (regardless of whether they watch what's going on or not), then the hard part is done.

In my opinion, the ultimate aim of any organisation that is not a charity, is to make money. But I guess money is only earned so that it can be spent on something. Perhaps having a successful footy team is one of those things. In the same way that a person works to earn money so they can buy a membership so they can watch their team do well, a football club has a responsibility to transform the money it receives from members into what the members bought their memberships for - to see their team do well. If their team doesn't do well, then either not enough money is being spent on that area - or it's being spent poorly.

But the point is that when you're low on confidence, you can't do what would normally be easy. It's not that we don't have the talent, but rather that the talent we have is being wrecked by what's going on between the ears.

Then conceivably, we would be better-served by implementing a simpler form of our current game-plan for the time-being. Then, as we begin to master that, we would move to a more complex, multi-faceted version. Perhaps that would help us. Great post, Goodvibes.

I'm actually really excited to see what we will do against a really, really good team. If we get smashed repeatedly, then maybe something interesting will happen.

No. We had Bruce and McDonald. That doesn't mean we were older and more experienced. If we had a hundred-year-old playing for us, we would have lost by more, despite having an even more "experienced" side. That statistic is as much a lie as "Quarters Won" when the only quarters you win are the last.

In my opinion, the Club owes me 13/14ths of what I've already payed it. Every home game Melbourne plays is return for the money I've already put in for a membership. So, I feel that they owe me and all the other members good on-field performances, as much as they owe it to themselves.

This is what I do. I get my grandfather to by me a Melbourne membership for Christmas. Then I run to and from each game (from Camberwell). I bring food, don't drink beer, and am able to laugh at the comedy I get to witness every week. Total yearly cost: $0 You only pay what you're willing to pay. Of course, others have obligations to take their kids, parents, friends, whatever, so I guess I'm likely to be on my own here.

Newton 4 apparently. Bring him in?

How was your trip to the bizarro world, YM? Have we won a flag there yet, or are we still stone cold last?

I'm not laughing.

Hell, Richmond supporters can probably say to each other, "Yeah, we lost to Carlton, but at least we're not 'Melbourne bad!'" Oh, the shame, the shame, the shame of it all.

So, put simply, an inability to execute a), b and c) are results of d) and e), which are in turn caused by f), itself the result of an attempt to provide options so that a) may be executed. Thus, b and c) are caused by an ill-conceived attempt (f)) to rectify a). Am I right about that? If so, then the elimination of f) would vastly improve our chances of properly executing a).

In all seriousness, this is our actual gameplan. It's a shame we have no plan B and no ability to even execute plan A.

The only people who shouldn't be in our forward line are those who can't take marks, for that is what we need. Anyone who can't either take a mark or pick up the crumbs of someone who is capable of creating a contest needs to get the hell off my football field. HF: Sylvia Green Petterd FF: Davey Jamar Maric Is my forward line for next week. But really, Green, Petterd and Jamar would be fine. I don't care who else is there, just as long as those three are.

6 - Jamar 5 - Green 4 - Petterd 3 - Trengove 2 - Dunn 1 - Scully Dunn was actually okay. In a team of absolute dunces, he was one of the least bad. EDIT: Voted Trengove twice. And yes, wrong as I may be, I thought Dunn was okay.

Extremely harsh on Petterd, who I think was one of our only three forwards today - Jamar and Green the other two. The rest can go jump.

I remember that passage of play, but I don't recall the comment. I had the sound up, so I guess I'm just going deaf in my early twenties.

No, I must have been at the footy. Either that, or in that hole I mentioned.

You damn well better go to every game this year, then. Oh, by the way, have you got your ticket to Darwin yet? After all there are no excuses for not going to a home game . . . Not everyone is as passionate about Melbourne as us. The key is just to improve the ratio every year. As long as we're improving, we'll one day get there. It's when we go backwards that we are in trouble.

Provided you don't by any of either venue's outrageously priced food, the footy costs twice as much - and you generally don't come out of a movie wanting to crawl into a hole and die.

Good question. I guess we would have got Naitanui last year and Watts and (if I had my way) Trengove this year.

I agree with that.

"Just kick the bloody thing!!!!!!!" yells some genius. Player complies. Opponent takes uncontested mark. Ball rebounds and a goal is scored. "Thanks genius," I think to myself. Needless to say I won't be booing Brock when we play the Blues. As much as I hate 'em, Brockie's cool with me.