Ron Burgundy

I reckon Evans will become a very handy player for us - an opinion shared by Schwab and Craig, who said as much at a recent Debt Demolition Dinner. Essentially they said if he can get his body right, he'll be a bloody good player. Has the skills and the pace. They also liked Tynan. No idea about Taggert.

I reckon our coaching group is one of the better coaching groups in the league now. Neeld, Craig, Misson, Rawlings, Brown - on any construction, that's a bloody good group. The training sessions seem to run with military precision. They seem to be very well organised - energy levels seem to be high. This is all good. I also can't believe how effectively they've tweaked the list this year. Imagine if we managed to pull off an Oakland Athletics revival circa 2002, and actually make the finals in 2013. I'd give the middle digit to every single person I pass in the street for three months straight after September. Yep - it's not the flag. But it's not that long ago that we got thumped by 186 points in an AFL game - and, at that point, I had pretty much given up hope of ANY light at the end of the tunnel. Thank you Mark Neeld. Good training reports by the way.

Notwithstanding the selection 'process', I wouldn't be surprised if Dawes and Byrnes were told they'd be in the leadership group when they negotiated their MFC contracts. Jordie McKenzie is clearly a little ripper. Seems always to be the coach's favourite. He's done well, because I don't reckon Neeld rated him at all when he first arrived at the club - that's obviously changed. Despite some of the carp he receives here, it's no secret that Adelaide are red hot for him. And they don't recruit muppet mids. To me, this means the club sees him in our best 21 - and, as everyone knows, a true blue heart and soul character. I love the bloke. I'm going to the TAB now and putting a couple of hundred bucks on us winning the NAB Cup. Irrational I know, but for some reason I'm pumped up. Bring on 2013! (Think I'm still p1ssed from last night ... )

Thank you Brock McLean.

And I reckon even Watts would probably think that's fair enough.

The reality is that loads of 'required' players would be discussed during the trade period - very few players would probably be off limits from such discussions, at least in a hypothetical sense. Doesn't mean the club receiving the offers for a 'required' player would actually wish to trade them, but I'd imagine it's hard to have sensible trade talks if 85% of each club's list is 'off limits' from being discussed and all such discussions are limited to the fringe players on each club's list. That said, Denham is a fool - but I think we've established that.

Classic comeback. That said, I defer to BH on this. Everything he's said about Barry seems pretty compelling.

Always loved this bloke. Every AFL club needs a few guys like this on the list.

Totally agree. It's become tedious. Not to mention unprofessional - sings of 'amateur hour'.

Limited myself to only 2 wishes - not too much to ask, surely.

The club to play the entire season in a way that earns the respect of all other teams in the competition, and which builds genuine momentum for a top 6 finish in 2014.

You have concluded that the MFC tanked. Some here agree, most others seem to disagree. Some good, and some not so good, arguments have been advanced in respect of each position. From that, you have then said that the club 'deliberately' tried to lose games, which impacted negatively on the club and that the 'the record speaks for itself' in this regard. The only 'fact' I see in this analysis is that we actually have had a bad record in recent years, including, relevantly, in 2009. I do not otherwise see any other 'fact' in your analysis to support your conclusion that we 'deliberately lost' games, or how this accounts for why we've had such bad record in recent years. For instance, I don't believe Neeld manufactured any 'deliberate losses' last year, despite our poor record in 2012. (And I think he is, and will eventually prove to be, an extremely good coach for us.) In short, there are a multitude of reasons as to why we've had a poor record in recent years, and they're pretty bloody obvious to most devoted supporters here. Relevantly, there is no concluded definition of 'tanking' and, from what I've read to date, there is no credible evidence I've seen to suggest we 'deliberately' lost any games. Taken at its very highest, the evidence appears pretty weak - and even that would be adopting Ms Wilson's anti-intellectual way of reasoning, which is inductive (ie, selective), rather than deductive, which is generally how educated people think. In short, our record has not been very good. It has not been very good for a long time. But for you to suggest it's because we 'deliberately lost' games in 2009 is not, to my mind, credible. The evidence, taken as a whole, doesn't support such a conclusion. I assume you disagree, in which case would you please point to the specific compelling evidence to suggest otherwise? I would say that the club's priority in 2009 may have been in developing younger players and trying to build a better list (ie, positive long term strategy), but to suggest that the club 'deliberately lost' games, which is essentially tantamount to saying the club was fraudulent in its approach to each game and in its application within each game, doesn't reconcile with what I have observed in the last pathetically painful six years, or from what I have read as being the evidence that has emerged from this 'investigation' to date.

Thanks Ben. Interesting that you see Dunn competing with Garland for a spot - I wouldn't have had them as likely competitors, but perhaps you're right. I agree with your comments on Nicholson and Jetta - will be interesting to see who gets the ascendency there. Both strike me as pretty determined types.

Ben Hur, you obviously see Terlich as being a better option than Strauss and Dunn. I've not ever seen him play and rely entirely on reports such as the ones you provide. I think you've said before you're impressed with his skills, but that his fitness may need to improve (given that he's coming in from the SAFL). That said, what is it exactly that you see in Terlich over what Strauss and Dunn offer?

Bump. I think predicting our best 22 is harder than it's been for several years. This is partly due to the significant number of new recruits, but also due to the expected improvement of some players who've been around for a while (eg, Evans and Davey). I would've thought it unlikely that Davey and Byrnes will both play in the forward line. Byrnes was clearly not recruited to play at Casey, but from all reports Davey is starting to look sharp again. It seems to me that Tapscott and Barry are also being considered for forward line roles. One would think the forward line talls are pretty obvious - Clark, Dawes and Pedersen. We have more midfield options than last year. Rodan seems to be a likely starter, and I would've thought Viney, Matt Jones, Toumpas and Evans will push for selection in round one. Howe seems to be a midfielder these days. Jetta and Nicholson seem to be competing for the small back position. Dunn, Strauss and Terlich will probably compete for the half back flank positions. I don't really have any sense of how Gillies is progressing. Is he likely to replace Sellar? Or Garland? Clearly, we'll have a core group who demand selection week in, week out - Frawley, Jones, Jamar, Clark, Dawes, Trengove, Grimes, Sylvia, Watts (hopefully), Tom McDonald, Howe, probably McKenzie, but the other spots seem genuinely up for grabs. Interesting times. My round one team (based on training reports): Back: Jetta, Frawley, Garland Half-Back: Strauss, T. Macdonald, Watts Centre: Nathan Jones, McKenzie, Grimes Half-Forward: Sylvia, Clark, Howe Forward: Pedersen, Dawes, Byrnes Followers: Jamar, Toumpas, Viney Interchange: Dunn, Matt Jones, Blease Sub: Rodan Emergencies: Barry, Evans, Tapscott Injured: Trengove Unlucky: Davey, Joel McDonald, Nicholson, Sellar, Tynan, Kent, Spencer * Pedersen and Clark to assist Jamar with some ruck work (assuming Clark is actually available for selection)

This has got to the stage where Haddad and Clothier are actually damaging the AFL. The allegations against us are bordering on comical. I can't believe the AFL actually hired these bozos. AFL HQ is generally more professional than this.

From what I've read in the various training reports, it wouldn't surprise me if Barry gets quite a few games this year. We need outside run and carry. I'm really looking forward to seeing him play - along with Toumpas, Rodan, Evans, Matt Jones and the Aaron Davey of old.

I convince/delude myself each year into thinking our list is better than it actually is. But, this year, it seems to have much more depth and better balance to it - Neeld, Viney and co seem to have tweaked it very nicely indeed. I'm excited about all of the new recruits - and also by the prospect that Davey and Evans may be able to add greater dimensionality to our list this season. Only January obviously, but I'm quietly optimistic that we will show tremendous improvement this year. Thanks for the reports fellas - really appreciate them living in Sydney.

Sensational stuff. I love these threads.

Bloody good report. Thanks.

It was a competitive decade.

The cheesiest song of the 80s - The Final Countdown by Europe. Would be hilarious.

We needed to get Pederson, and trading Gysberts was what North demanded to get that deal across the line. I suspect Neeld, ideally, would've preferred to trade a nothing pick for Pederson and give Gysberts another year on the list. He could do well at North, as could Morton and Bennell at West Coast. I'm hoping Pederson will do better with us though.

On the basis of what I have read to date, the evidence in support of these charges is so ludicrously weak that it may ultimately end up doing us a favour. Thus far, it's bordering on comically pathetic - and, despite all efforts, they've not seemingly uncovered any genuinely 'new' evidence. Hopefully neutral observers will begin to see this, and actually also get behind the club in relation to this witch-hunt - sorry "investigation".

It'd be interesting to know what Richmond's rotations were like during the course of the game. Anyone know? (I've not read any of the commentary yet.)