old55

Didn't seem to hurt Matthew Knights. How many here would prefer to be the Bombers right now (ignoring their extra $ resources for a moment)? Not me.

FWIW I do have sympathy with what you want - I agree that a tall contested marking type would complement Watts and Jurrah and make all 3 that much more dangerous. I also agree that they're very hard to come by and if you've got early picks that's the place to get them. But I definitely don't want us to take a strong KPF at 2 just because the need is there if they're not guaranteed to be a star. I know it's hard to compare mids and KPFs if they're both quality but it's not hard to compare stars and players with question marks - it sounds like a midfielders draft and it sounds like we can get a star mid at 2.

It's rubbish night tonight and I'm hoping to find a diamond as big as my fist when I open the bin too.

No way. The guy who had $200K on the Dogs over WC was thinking similar I'm sure. We missed top 4 in 2006 by losing to Carlton twice. We missed Callan Ward and Nic Naitanaui by beating Carlton twice in 2007. We've come this far - there's two more weeks to go.

Last time we had the priority pick in 2003 we traded our 2nd rounder pick 20 for Ben Holland on the back of drafting two superstar midfielders at 3 & 5. And we got another "top 10 pick" as F/S at 36 too. We were rolling it it!

I'm definitely not suggesting he's #1 flag ruckman. I'm a fan of a robust clearance creating/clearance winning/hard tackling ruckman like ... gulp ... Jamar, but I think you can only afford one in the 22. Spencer may develop into another of this type. I am suggesting Hale as a tall marking forward target who complements Watts and Jurrah. He has shown he can kick goals and will require defensive attention - to some extent it's about the threat. This will free up Watts and Jurrah. Also I think a mature tall now will help accelerate their development by taking some focus - assuming Robbo is gone the alternatives right now appear to be Miller and Newton who have their limitations. In turn ultimately Hale wont get the best defender, they'll go to Watts and Jurrah, and he can be a more effective player than he is now. He took a really heavy knock early this year against Hawthorn and was stretchered off - this may have affected his performance this year. The other half of the equation is he provides is a 2nd ruckman who earns his keep on field and doesn't take up a place on the pine - we can run 4 midfielders off the bench which gives a huge advantage. It's just a suggestion, there are alternatives, Martin may be able to develop into this role, we've got a few more years up our sleeve before we're challenging and we could do this type of trade in any of the intervening years. Hale will be getting towards the end of his career around 2015-6 when we'll still be challenging (for our 3-peat?) but I'll take the 2014 flag thanks.

Who's undervaluing him? I just equated him to pick 18. If you want quality you've got to give quality. North wouldn't trade Hale for a battler. I like Rivers and I hope North would too. We've got to look where we've got excess to fill deficiencies

Would you think 18 is reasonable? I would consider it - he'd solve a major gap (depending on where we think Martin will end up). We've maybe got an excess of tall backs and depending on how North want to use Hansen (i.e. forward if Hale was gone) - maybe North would be interested in a player trade, how about Rivers for Hale?

I like the Hale idea, he would complement Watts and Jurrah and give ruck relief without having to carry 2 ruckmen. I believe List Manager Tim Harrington came from North - I reckon we'd be unlikely to threaten them - we'd need to do a fair deal.

Agree on pick 1 but the chances of the bottom team getting a pick somewhere in the first 4 is still something like 75%. You could increase the number of balls (as discussed here by others) and decrease the number of teams in the lottery to get an acceptable formula which balances giving a fair chance with elimating certainty. I think the 128 balls and the 100 balls scenarios tip it too far towards the current situation but there's a balance in there somewhere.

Yeah sure WC, Collingwood and Adelaide will all be killing each other to win an extra $100K

Small enough risk to tolerate to stop talk of teams losing deliberately - one number on the roulette wheel. Maybe teams will tank out of the finals to get the chance? You could restrict the lottery to the bottom 4 if the odds make you queasy.

The draft system needs to change to stop all this talk about tanking. Lottery system from BF (and elsewhere): 16th 8 balls 15th 7 balls 14th 6 balls 13th 5 balls 12th 4 balls 11th 3 balls 10th 2 balls 9th 1 ball 1 ball from the 36 is drawn for the number 1 pick. Continue until pick 8. If a team that has already been drawn is drawn again that ball is discarded until an undrawn team is drawn. 8th gets pick 9 thru to 1st at pick 16. From the second round onwards just revert back to 16th getting the first pick in the second round. There is not sufficient incentive to try to finish 15th or 16th over 13th or 14th. The 9th placed team has odds of 36 to 1 of getting the number one pick so you can imagine that it wouldnt happen very often. Priority pick: Retain it but have it always at the start of the second round. There's benefit there e.g. a player like Blease but not enough to tempt a team to deliberately lose.

I don't know about you but some ambiguous feeling of honour that we defeated Richmond and North Melbourne late in 2009 is going struggle to sustain me thru another 46 years of watching other teams coaches and captains holding up the premiership cup.

I agree many thoughtless and potentially hurtful things are posted anonymously on internet forums. But there's a difference between the two cases you raise, in the tanking case the mainstreeam media is cooking up a storm on the topic and more and more often goes to the internet for content - let's face it they don't have any real content on the matter. Posts like yours throw petrol on a raging fire - and can cause only problems in the court of public opinion. The individual player posts are potentially individually hurtful to the players involved but are unlikely to have any major impact on the club - if it is communicating properly with the players they will know where they stand with the people who count at the club and that's what matters. I do agree that the "we're not like Carltank" position is ludicrous and people like Robbo (recently saying on MMM that he was amazed in 2007 when they missed early goals and left Travis un-marked) should shut-up and concentrate on their knitting. There's absolutely no proof that any club has tanked and there's definitely no value for Melbourne supporters in trying to make a public case that MFC have. If you feel that way and can't handle it, you'd be better off communicating directly with the club and making a judgement about whether you can support us in future. IMO it would be the height of hypocrisy if you're cheering Tom Scully on in future. FWIW I communicated directly with the club and proferred my total support for their current strategy.

Absolutely agree regarding stars - we need them badly. But with the modern game and fast ball movement thru many hands it's also important not to have weak links. You need around 30 capable players. I see even Carlton isn't playing CJ (injured but just not good enough), Bentley or Wiggins. From next year as Maric, Blease, Strauss and early picks from this year force their way into the team we're going to have players like Jones, Petterd, Wonna, Jetta, McKenzie and Spencer on the fringe of the best 22.

I'm really struggling to understand the benefit to the club of Melbourne supporters/members arguing strongly in a public forum that we are tanking??? So I'm struggling to understand the motivation of those of you in this thread who are taking that position??? Whether you believe it's happening or not - arguing that it is, is not helpful to the club in any way. Andrew Demetriou gets it, Cameron Schwab gets it, Dean Bailey gets it, rpfc gets it - can you get it?

Your posting doesn't have the best interests of the club at heart - try and think it through - it's not that hard!

I just wanted to start a thread to express my thanks and support to the Melbourne Football Club, the Football Department and in particular Dean Bailey for the great work being done under difficult circumstances to deliver a more successful and enjoyable future for all members of our great club. Go Demons!

How should a hard man dress for premierships? Is mid strength in a plastic cup flag food?

well not since WC and Essendon last Sunday anyway ...

Kudos to Bailey. I understand, I sympathise and I wholeheartedly approve. I reckon Judd has been under a heavy tag in every game since his first, let the Judd run free a la 2007 R22 Travis, that would be great to watch. The ride has been going for a while now and we've navigated some big speed humps. Even WC fell off the track. Grit your teeth, tighten up your seat belt and hang on. Look away if you can't watch but in Dean we trust.

B: Spencer Jetta Newton HB: Jamar Petterd Hughes C: Valenti Miller Johnson HF: Warnock Bartram Rivers F: Buckley Bruce Bail R: Jones Robertson Zomer

Half-witted answer - they're not the only factor involved, or even the main factor. politician's answer - too cute by half. This whole thread is about this: Yes a flag is the ultimate. Yes we should do everything to win one. But what does everything include? - Losing on purpose to get the priority pick? - Cheating on the salary cap? - Taking performance enhancing drugs? - Merging with another club? People draw the line at different points.

Is losing on purpose cheating?