PJ_12345

Confirmed on 9 News too and apparently Little has issued a statement

Why shouldn't I be able to mention Rodan considering what we are talking about? It's the same situation isn't it? What position was he wasting? Was there someone else better? In my view he wasn't taking up any spots. Who whould you rather have kept? Morton? Gysberts? Martin? Petterd? Bate? Bennell? Cook? Sheahan? Viney wasn't going to play every game, and in a team with a lack of leaders (Moloney and Rivers leaving) I think Rodan it was a good decision. I don't think he was the best player, neither Byrnes, but similarly ROK would still be in our best 22 whilst some of the list gets restructured and some young draft picks are developed.

Do you see a place for Blease, Bail, Tapscott, Mackenzie, Strauss, Clisby, Byrnes or Fitzpatrick in the future? I know they are all play varying positions but I think there is room. Toumpas and Salem have a way to go. He could be what Rodan was for Viney last year (replacement for when they cant play) As I said before, its interesting.

Would he be in our current best 22 - absolutely. For me its worth it if he doesn't take the spot of a long-term prospect.

A lot of people thought Chappy had most of his good playing days behind him and he has been on fire. Throw in how old Fletcher is and how well Cross has done and there is a case for players like ROK. Ultimately ROK would be a band-aid solution. He would be replacing a spot on the list which could otherwise be taken by a young player who the club could get 5-10 years out of, not 1. BUT, are there players on our list which I don't think have a long-term future which he could replace. This all rests on a lot of factors but I think it's pretty interesting.

If you base that he should replace the new players with the same standard as the exiting ones, then you're right - terrible idea. If you base it on that the new players should be a better standard than the exiting ones (which it should be and what Gorgoroth originally said), then you've just described list management which all clubs do - great idea.

3 against 8 meant they kicked 2.67 times what we scored 8 against 18 meant they kicked 2.25 times what we scored Based on pure numbers you should want the latter. This doesn't take into consideration that we were clearly robbed of the Vince/Jetta goal, the impact that had on momentum and also how Collingwood got a free when Blair clearly ducked his head in our forward 50

"Jones kicked our first 23 secs in, so we technically went the whole match with only 2 goals." You've made it out that the first 23 seconds don't count by incorrectly using technically and whole. If you said; "Jones kicked our first 23 secs in, so for the rest of the match we only kicked 2 goals", that would be correct and interesting...

Jetta - best game yet and was one of the only players to shepherd Tyson - he can pencil that down as the worst game so far in the red and blue. Got caught with his pants down and turned it over too many times Salem & JKH - forgetable. There was moment in the final quarter when both were chasing one Collingwood player, provided no pressure and Collingwood rebounded Viney & Watts - need to nail those shots Garland - extremely rusty and cost us a few Jones - reliable I still don't understand why Jamar was subbed off. It should have been Gawn and the results after the substitution speak for themselves. A very big reality check.

Collingwood has subbed off Fasolo for Ball Melbourne has subbed off Jamar for JKH... should have been Gawn

HOW WAS THAT NOT 50?!?!?

I was going off the stats from Fox but the AFL app says 6 - 3... either way it's not good

Tyson needs to do something about Macaffer. You can't get shut down and let your tagger kick goals

5 - 2 (to Collingwood) * we only got one in the last 5 minutes of that half...

2 years http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-06-06/evans-signs-new-deal-with-dees

Bit disappointing Essendon has an 8 day break compared to our 6, but I still feel comfortable we should get up... Essendon has been giving Melbourne coaches hope since 2010

Thanks rjay!

What happened? I didn't get to watch the game

I think it the approach was fully justified and necessary... it also worked It's like any other employer giving an employee a performance review. They were spot on. He, and the majority of the list, weren't good enough.

*Without having seen Tyson play...

Languid (in a good way)

Is this based on the presumption that all caps are the same? *cough* cost of living allowance *cough* I'm not saying that players shouldn't wait, I'm not disputing that its a failure of leadership, I'm not saying players should stay on smaller contracts or questioning their right to earn a living. What I was saying refered to WYL's comment. Less successful clubs, like bottom 4-6 clubs, will simply become farms for talent. They spend their top picks, take the risk, develop them and in (now being raised) 6 years more successful clubs which can poach them? Throw in other struggling clubs, new clubs, and what - as compensation IF they are a UFA the most we could get is one after our first pick? Your access to young talent gets gets minimized from increased draft pick competition from new expansion clubs and other struggling clubs THEN you get your old talent poached from other clubs for little, and in some cases no compensation! It will be a cycle... and if you don't pick well in the draft then you're [censored]

That will be the final nail in the coffin for bottom teams... What a joke

Masten for West Coast had some amazing kicks against Collingwood. Considering other seasons, and just the Dees, I'd say Salem's kick is similar to Aaron Davey... definitely no Ben Holland

That's an extremely twisted, and in my view wrong, way of looking at it. The fine was $500k but you've missed out other costs. Would you be saying the same thing if it cost $1m? What about our reputation? In addition, what do you mean "to get our shite together"? The incident happened 2 years before, do you mean we were still tanking? Do you mean getting a new coach? - we already had one. What changes occurred after the investigation? Connolly stayed. The AFL didn't make any changes. They only 'stepped' in after Neeld, not the tanking fiasco. It was a farse of an investigation based on that Brock said what he said because he couldn't sit there, in front of the cameras and the public, and say "I left for the money". If tanking was such a concern why did he go to Carlton after the Kreuzer up in 2007.