Blistering

Wilson's populist attack isn't as classy as you think. Most of us are entitled to be critical of Essendon for its doping programme but she does tend to conflate governance issues which have already been dealt with by the AFL via the sanctions imposed in August with the issue of the alleged use of performance enhancing drugs. There's a real live issue of denial of player rights to confidentiality which Essendon and Hird maintain they are entitled to protect. We may disagree that there's an issue here but the Bombers are entitled to their day in court. Wilson was also being premature in whacking Gillon McLachlan for being silent because McLachlan came out swinging today -AFL boss Gillon McLachlan backs top medico Peter Harcourt. People might like to read her views but there's nothing new there, nothing all that clever and a few things that aren't particularly accurate.

I think it's a question of getting our heads used to being positive when we approach a game as Chris Dawes said in the article linked to the four points. The win was psychologically important to the team. We could easily have had it in round 1 but we messed up. Now that we've had a taste and the coaching was so evident in the outcome, we can believe in something and I agree - the team is best placed now to take in others like the Suns who are probably down in confidence after last week.

Edging closer to 4 2 6 with every passing day.

When Collingwood did the same thing but imposed a harsher penalty it wasn't a humiliation. It's only considered a humiliation at Melbourne.If that's the way we think about how errant players should be treated i.e with kid gloves, then no wonder we've been and undisciplined rabble for years and no wonder we cop floggings like the one we copped today.

That's a loaded question since Neeld's reign only lasted 1½ years which means you only have one end of season period to go by and, at that time, two experienced players left of their own volition to go elsewhere, Moloney and Rivers and Green retired. It's an open secret that the experienced players were already disgruntled by the time Neeld arrived with Moloney wanting out to Essendon at the end of 2011 and Neeld holding a brief to clear the decks after 186. The fact of the matter was that neither Rivers nor Moloney were offered big contracts elsewhere which shows that they weren't in that high demand in the rest of the competition.His predecessor didn't exactly cover himself with glory on that score anyway, costing us James McDonald, Cameron Bruce and Brad Miller at the end of the year before, action which saw our leadership positions crumble and played a part in the instability that followed in Bailey's last season as coach.

The different style is also a function of the type of players that Roos has brought into the club. For years we've been screaming out for a midfield and haven't had the cattle in that part of the ground with the strength and know how to get the ball out of stoppages to our advantage. It's also been years since we've had a cohesive forward line capable of taking marks inside 50 and crumbing the ball when it hits the turf. The club did not have the benefit of twin towers Clark and Dawes playing in the same game all year in 2013. Nor were they there on Friday night but you're right - when targets like those two and Hogan are on the park getting the ball delivered by a winning midfield we will improve 1,000%.

Roosy was there and he was interviewed on the podium by Robbo. Both real good performers with the microphone.

The way Roos is talking, I doubt we'll see him in the first month of the season proper.

On a lighter note, ASADA's CEO Aurora Andruska writes to all sports fans (at least I think its on a lighter note).

Although Georgiou put his hand up in yesterday's match simulation, the indications coming from Paul Roos about going easy early on younger and untried players suggests that Jetta should be the frontrunner but it will ultimately depend on our needs at the particular time.

?So who coached us in 2010 and 2011?

With all this footy talk on the AGM thread, does anyone know why there were no questions allowed on the night about the football operations part of the club?

Hoopla, there are so many things wrong with this - you really need to read through some of the earlier discussion on this thread. For starters, you have the standard of proof wrong which suggests that you miss the point that the investigation is being carried out not in the way it would be under our common law legal system but in accordance with the WADA Code which the AFL and it's players accept as the applicable law in these cases.

There are a number of elements at play when we ask players to produce contested two way football. There's the physical side which requires mature bodies of which we didn't have enough last year. Then there's the mental side including belief in your capacity to go harder and longer. We didn't have that either and, as a consequence, we couldn't produce that sort of game. Roos' recruiting has IMO been structured to overcome this and I expect the group will have more belief in his game plan than that of his predecessor.

I think this speaks a great deal about the direction the club was taking under Stynes/McLardy and that it was not all negative as many would paint it. Where they failed was to produce a strong or even competitive team on the field and I suspect this came about initially because our debt forced us to accept second best in terms of coaching and facilities for players. The mistakes were then compounded and this led us to where we were in 2013. The recruitment of Roos and other football related innovations under PJ suggest we're turning things around on that front and better performance on the field should see us move away from any concerns with debt.

So you're not exactly one of the delirious fans in the video then.

I think it's a bit of both actually. We need to build up confidence and ensure we don't crack under the weight of failure as indicated by posters above. Port Adelaide gradually built up their confidence last year but we also don't want to go down the path of the Pommy cricketers either.

My guess is that it was indeed an attempt at some humour.

Could have fooled me the way you carry on about agendas, [censored] canning and letting go but why don't you address the points he's making?

I suppose it wouldn't dawn on some posters that this is a forum where people can hold views other than theirs and that those others can think more logically than they can.

It was a good game for both WJ. Daniel Cross finished with 25 disposals and 1 goal for the Doggies while Bernie Vince had 27 for 1 goal.

You obviously don't care.I think WJ was referring to Mark Neeld being accused of racism and the fact that the accusation was a lie. Why was the reference removed from Grant Thomas' article?

Nice get and interesting that the comment was paired with the discredited allegation about Neeld and the club's indigenous players. I always thought there was something contrived behind this story and there's prizes for guessing who was behind all this. That whole sorry saga needs to be independently and properly investigated.

I like this but add that Neeld was undermined in his efforts as a coach by a number of circumstances beyond his control. The Jurrah incident, the poor attitude of some of the senior players to preseason, Jimmy's death and criticism about the team attending his funeral so close to the start of the season, critical injuries such as losing Mitch Clark (twice) for a season, the racism lie, being the butt of some unwarranted media attention, the background controversies about bad sponsors and the tanking enquiry and lots more. I doubt whether Ken Hinkley or any of the other young coaches would survive that sort of onslaught.

Ray Ellis, was CEO during the Szondy era - Ex-Melbourne Football Club chief Ray Ellis accused over sacking of First National executive