Tony Tea

Stakeholders, proactive, branding... and another little part of me dies.

If Scully leaves, how will posterity record the 2009 draft night at the MCG?

You'd like to think we could say exactly the same if it was Scully/Melbourne.

That's the kicker. How will it look if Kreuzer, Martin, Ward, Swan and the rest stay, but Tom goes? (Not including OK players like Walker & Palmer.) Apart from painting Scully as a greed-head, it will be used by many to paint Melbourne as a hack club incapable of keeping its top pick.

It was as simple as that for Kreuzer:

You're up, Tom:

Ancient Chinese proverb: "footy is lies."

And in selection news - Melbourne have cut a swathe through last weekend's team which was pumped by the Bulldogs at Etihad. The Dees have made wholesale changes for this weekend's traditional bye.

Scratches head. Furrows brow. Wonders how Tony Shaw knows these details.

The guy who put a million dollars on Geelong has already put a million dollars on Judd.

No doubt the bloke could afford to put a million on the Cats. And, give big bettors usually straddle several options, he might even have put, say, 125,000 on Essendon (plus $8.00 pre-game)and broken even.

Does Jack have hangover points from his previous tackle and/or his two umpire collisions? Could well be that Jack gets a caution and points for Friday's tackle, but the addition of previous points see him suspended.

At tonight's Kerry v Cork Gaelic final there was a minute's silence for Sean.

Sloppy journalism? Making stuff up? You be the judge. Over to you, Tony Sheahan: But next paragraph, perfect is downgraded: And yet. Nowhere in the article is Gieshen attributed with "perfect tackle". Nor did I hear - although I could have missed it - Gieshen say "perfect tackle" in the Saturday interview.

Should have said he was "98% sure".

It's my experience that pointing out to people that they are "illegal and immoral" almost always sparks a loud and angry exchange. Speaking of which. I would have got loud and angry if I had bet a million dollars on Geelong to beat Essendon, like some bloke did yesterday.

Melbourne getting belted by the umpires when we play the Bulldogs is traditional.

The Dogs were clearly bigger and stronger, more experienced, better drilled. Our less battle hardened team were always going to be pushing the proverbial uphill last night if the Dogs got their act together. The Dogs' crisp ball use around the clearances was particularly instructive. They got quick hands straight to teammates who were then able to break tackles with strong hipped running. Cooney & Griffen in particular. Compare that to the Dees, who continually gave namby pamby hand passes to teammates who were then unable to beat the pressure.

Guess I should have read the other thread first.

Sylvinator has a point, mind you. The more we develop, the more chance there is our gameplan will hold up better against a better side. Speaking of which. How much development there is in our list? Rodney Eade just mentioned our "young list" on Crunchtime. But we need more grunt, bigger players, power. How much can our smaller players be developed into bigger & stronger players? Our list is unbalanced - too many slight players, not enough power players.

Many thanks to Dermott for telling us the bleeding obvious.

Written, (un)spoken and authorised by Velocity Sports Management (or the AFL).

Hats off.

I tweeted him back, asking about the backflip. He is yet to reply.

Tweet from Jay Clark at the Hun: