harry

Yeah, I can't believe Ricky P got dropped after one poor performance. He almost won the game for us against the Swans and was our most damaging forward last year before he got injured.

Thanks for this post - really great info. Go Dees!

Couldn't agree more. Whilst it would be disappointing to lose and great to win, this match is no more important than the game against the Gold Coast was, or the game against Adelaide will be. Good summary of what the FD has achieved this year. It's been under fire in some quarters, but there have been success stories as you've mentioned.

I'm pretty sure that the sub can play in the VFL.

Good post. All those idiots on tv who crap on, "Hurley hunts the ball, that's something Watts will never do." Do me a favour.

hahaha water bottle and zumba dvd. Yeah, the trakkies were sh!thouse. Likewise, the flag raising. I don't mind the idea of the 'grand old flag' featuring in some way, but not raising it to remind us that we've not won a flag in 47 years.

Being a young side, I wouldn't be surprised if we dropped one of the next three and picked up one or two of the next, more difficult, five. Performances will be up and down, both from us, and our opponents. BTW, St Kilda, Carlton and Essendon are all very beatable.

I'm flabbergasted Petterd got dropped. He was our most dangerous forward until he got injured last year. He almost won the game for us against Sydney in Round 1.

Speculating about whether we will beat Collingwood on Queens Birthday is so 'small-time'.

I think Collingwood and Essendon deserve credit for making the day what it is. That said, the only argument that gets put forward for restricting the match to Collingwood and Essendon is the size of the crowd. The basic flaw in this argument is that teams apart from Collingwood and Essendon fill the MCG every year at the Grand Final, usually at least one preliminary final and sometimes once or twice at other matches. If the match were to be played between the grand finalists from the previous year, it is realistic to expect a similar size crowd. Firsly, this is because the number of neutrals attending would increase owing to the fact that the match would probably be closer, of a higher standard and would be more of an 'event' as opposed to an Essendon V Collingwood match. Secondly, the crowd would be of a similar size because supporters of the competing clubs would know that it may be a generation before they get the opportunity to play on ANZAC day again. The desperation to see you club play on ANZAC day would be reminiscent to seeing them play in the Grand Final. The obvious flaw in my argument is when interstate teams are in the Grand Final. To this, I would say that if an interstate team wins the premiership, they should have the right to host the match. Do we really think the occasion wouldn't achieve its purpose (honouring the diggers) if it were held in front of 50,000 at Subiaco, instead of 100,000 at the MCG? As I've said above, Collingwood and Essendon deserve credit for what they've done, but not only is it unbecoming to suggest that a club can't pay homage to the diggers if it can't fill the MCG, it's incorrect.

I think the comment about expectations is a good one. They were meant to be terrible and they have done quite well. I don't think people realised how bad North were going to be when they beat them. Also, I think their performance against Hawthorn was rated pretty highly. I think the size of Subi suits us; we did quite well last year against Freo. I'm reasonably optismistic about this one.

I agree. I'm looking forward to the next few matches - WC (Subiaco), Adel (MCG), North (Etihad), St K (Etihad) - it will be a good barometer of how we're travelling.

Well said.

I'm glad he's back with his family.

The 'dribble' kick is fine when you're in the pocket on an angle, but it gets used a hell of a lot when players are running straight at goal (or close enough to straight at goal) and could kick a drop punt in the air.

Is anyone going to write what was said?

Happy Birthday Jimma!

Yeah, it certainly puts our 'awful' 90 point win in perspective.

Her big fact was that Schwab did the Moloney press conference instead of Connolly. Does us a favour Caro. Seriously poor article.

I think it's great that the club is trying to add to the experience of a home game at the MCG and I love the old banners they hang up on the Olympic Stand, the list of premierships, the new emblem, the stars on the back of our jumpers and even the bloody trumpet player. But, I reckon they got this one wrong. The 'Grand Old Flag' is a famous motif of our club, but raising a flag is synonomous in our game with winning the premiership. I'm happy to keep the 'grand old flag' somewhere in the matchday theatre, but not in this manner.

I agree that we were kept in it by poor kicking from the Hawks in the first quarter, but no-one would've condemned Bailey had we not played the third quarter that we did. Had we won or narrowly lost, having played such a poor first quarter, the situation regarding Bailey would be different. Besides, regardless of whether it was one quarter, two quarters or a whole match, my point is that one game doesn't warrant a complete re-evaluation of how we view the progress of our club. Our performances against Collingwood and the Bulldogs last season were the performances of a team who had improved markedly on the season prior, as opposed to the match against Hawthorn in Round 1 last year, which was more of the same. Do you disagree that we improved significantly last season and that the match against Hawthorn in Round 1 was an abberation?

I agree that the frustration stems from that quarter. I also think that the reaction to one very poor quarter of football was over the top. Firstly, in the quarter prior to that we played some really great footy. And secondly, the same thing happened last year against the Hawks in Round 1. Everyone was convinced we were just as bad as we'd been for the last two years. In the end, we proved to be a much better side that had a couple of really big wins and almost beat Collingwood twice and the bulldogs. The reaction is unbecoming of Melbourne supporters and similar to some of the peanuts on the television who don't think before they open their mouth.

The attitude towards Bailey amongst Melbourne supporters who post on the internet has changed full-circle since the end of last season. Prior to this point, most Melbourne supporters who post on the internet had maintained faith in what Bailey has been trying to do and have demonstrated patience. Undoubtedly, this turnaround is because our start to the season has been perceived by many to be poor. This is a misnomer. In reality, our start has been inconsistent. Nonetheless, being inconsistent is better than being poor and we have got the results that most would've expected of us. Criticism has generally centred on a lack of a 'gameplan'. I would be interested to hear some of the accusers try and define exactly what they mean by gameplan and try and define the gameplan of some of the better teams in the competition. I would hazard a guess and suggest that this criticism is born out of the frustration of the inconsistency cited above more than other factors. Individuals who claim Melbourne don't have a gameplan need only watch Melbourne's second quarter against Hawthorn this year and the games against Sydney and Brisbane at the MCG last year. This is the type of football Melbourne aim to play all the time. This is the type of football that had members of the media and some over-excited supporters claiming we were playing the same style as Geelong and would be as good as them very shortly. I wonder if some of those over-excited supporters are the same ones who raise grievances today? I think Bailey is a good coach for the following reasons: - we have got significantly better every year since he joined. - individual players have got significantly better every year, particularly those who weren't obviously superstars straight from the off. - we have traded well. - we are a mentally tougher team than under the previous regime. - he promotes a culture of professionalism. - he conducts himself in the media well. - at times, albeit fleetingly, the side has absolutely sparkled. I view our start to the season as somewhat of a form blip and I believe we will improve as much this year as we have in previous years. I think we will finish between 10th and 7th. Despite our relatively small number, I have always thought of Melbourne supporters as the best fans in the country and am disappointed with the backlash against Bailey. We should continue to support the side, as we have with distinction through the dark times, and I've no doubt that the team will improve in the coming weeks and go on to eclipse last year's achievements. Give em hell demons.

Absolutely no way you give it to a kid who hasn't played a game.

Those old grouds were great. They were being phased out just as I started going to the footy (I was only 6 or 7 in that story I told above) but I've managed to get to the Western Oval, Prince's Park, Victoria Park and Kardinia Park. They were a key part of a footy club's identify; a sense of place. Many would argue that it simply was no longer possible to play matches there for financial reasons and this may or may not be true, however, Geelong make pretty much more money than anyone by playing games in their small suburban ground. It begs the question whether Melbourne clubs couldn't play the interstate teams at their original grounds. I feel fortunate that we are the only club in Melbourne that still plays at its original ground.