wisedog

Among other things, Whateley said that there was another club (Carlton) whose tactics were very close to if not worse than Melbourne's.

He then asked where the AFL investigation into tanking concerns was at this time. Wilson replied 'their heads were in the sand'.

Since Wilson then acknowledges this, it's strange that her attack has been solely directed at Melbourne over the past three months.

Good get wisedog . I had no idea myself but you've twigged my memory . Johnno and Hughes played very well in that series and it was regarded as an unexpected series win by the Aussies . From memory Andrew McDonald picked up some vital wickets in that series as well .

Yeah, I think he came in for the Sydney test and took some big wickets in the second innings.

Those first two matches were probably the most frustrating games of cricket I’ve ever seen. Two extraordinary comebacks by South Africa...

It is a dead rubber though, Wyl . If we do lose this test it won't be remembered in future years . We used to lose the odd dead rubber when we were no.1 in the World but so what ?

You never like to lose a test but we've won the series and this is in some ways a practice match . For instance, would the selectors have only played 5 specialist batsmen if it were a live rubber ? Play the extra spinner if you're going to experiment (as preparation for India) Now that was an error (in my opinion) .

I'd like to see us chase down 250 odd though - for a few reasons .

Edit : without the aid of google or 'Alto Vista',(yes, it still exists!) can anyone recall the last time we lost a dead rubber? Against which nation and where?

I think it might have been against South Africa in Cape Town, 2009.

From memory, the results of the series mirrored South Africa’s tour of Australia the previous year. Both home sides lost the first two tests and won the dead rubber.

I remember they were annoyed when we picked him up ahead of them in 2008.

It's funny, when these games were played and were most relevant, there was none of the outrage we see today. It was as if people understood the position Melbourne was in, and turned a blind eye to what had to be done.

In fact, I recall an episode of Footy Classified where Craig Hutchinson openly implored the club to do everything in its power to secure the priority pick. (I don't recall Caroline Wilson referring to those sentiments as "disgusting" at the time.)

Now 3 years later and without proper context, some journalists have decided they were outraged after all.

May end up needing this pick if we lose our first 7 picks from tanking. This could be used for Viney

And we thought getting him at pick 26 was a bargain!

I can't imagine anything more fitting than for Brock Mclean to have embroiled his 'new club' in a wider tanking investigation. I'm sure he'll be Mr Popularity down there.

Signed statement of testimony by more than one witness at this vault meeting would be a very big smoking gun.

From past examples, draft penalties hurt a club for up to 10 years.

In a year in which Melbourne effectively delisted a former pick 4, pick 11, pick 12 and pick 13, I’d say we’re all pretty familiar with the effects of draft sanctions!

As long as we can hold on to Viney, then along with Hogan and Barry we should be relatively shielded from whatever sanctions come our way. However, I would expect more pain in 2014.

W don't have to use them all. IMO some will obviously be rookie upgrades, & we may be able to use unused picks in the preseason or the delisted free agencies?

But surely there's just not enough space on the list to go hunting for late gems and delisted free agents?

As Jose said above, I can't sunderstand why Melbourne would push for pick 73 in addition to pick 53, when we already had 49, 58, 66, 84, and 88.

Something has to happen in the next 10 minutes...

That means we've received picks 49, 53, 58, 73, and 88.

There has to be more trades in the pipeline, otherwise I can't see why we would be racking up low picks we don't have room on the list to use.

Given that Morton was contracted until the end of 2013, it seems the whole exercise was only to free up another place on the list. I suppose it's a strong indication that we're expecting more deals to be done tomorrow.

We've already replaced the 5 players who've left the club and at least 3 more will come in on draft day. If we're not intending to make any more than those 3 selections, it wouldn't matter if we received pick 88 for Morton or pick 57, because it won't be used. Perhaps the club just accepted 88 to get Morton back to WA?

Old, has succinctly summed up why the club would prefer the File to Martin.

Martin isn't a great tap ruckman, but plays his best footy as a first ruck and he's useless as a forward. He's a very athletic player that certainly has his moments, but his limitations get exposed when his best value is an area we already have covered.

Pedo, or the File as he's affectionately known, is a far better forward prospect than Martin and I'd expect Clark to do most of the rucking in the forward-line if Jamar plays a kick behind play. I really see the File as a terrific third banana to Clark and Dawes. But he can also play in defence. He's got good pace and is agile. He may take the odd ruck contest, but his value lies in being another big forward. Clark is the best ruckman at the club, so I don't mind him taking those 20 minutes when Donuts is getting his rub down.

[media=]

When you're a bottom 3 side, you don't really mind losing a 28-30 year old player if they're not going to be around when it matters.

I would certainly be viewing the departures of Rivers, Moloney and Jurrah much differently if we were vying for a place in the finals.

Of the OP list, Thompson was the only player I was disappointed to lose. (I wasn't following the Dees much when we lost Farmer and Woey.)

I'm a bit of a traditionalist, so I like to see loyalty shown to club and player, but I have to say it's great to see a few clubs take control of their future and get aggressive during trade week. I was so tired of seeing clubs have their 5 years up top and then drop down for 5 years to 'rebuild'.

I think after Denis Pagan disastrously overhauled the Carlton list, clubs were a bit weary of playing the 'Moneyball' game, but the Swans have proved it can work.

Of course clubs need to invest in the future, but you should also take the opportunity to fill the gaps in the list and free agency has made that easier.

So yes, good on Geelong. They've bolstered their defence and midfield with three quality players and still have a first round selection in the bank. Melbourne have done well, but if we were a top 8 side, the loss of Rivers and Maloney for nothing would be a massive blow.

I've always liked Martin, but from a list management perspective, he's the sort of player we should consider trading. He's got a little bit of value, but doesn't seem to have a big role in Neeld's plans.

I don't mind the idea of Banfield as another small forward option, but now that we have Byrnes, it seems unlikely.

Martin + pick 58 for Banfield + pick 43? I guess it depends what North are willing to take for Pederson.

Considering we traded pick 12 for Mitch Clark, who had shown substantially more than Dawes, I feel pick 20 is as close to a FAIR deal as can be achieved given available draft picks. Perhaps if Lucas Cook hadn't been talked down so much in the media, he could have been thrown in as a sweetener.

We would have traded pick 4 for Wellingham and Dawes (reportedly). What's to stop Collingwood demanding pick 4 for Dawes and pick 17 (which they got for Wellingham)?

I've heard it said from Collingwood supporters that later picks are of no interest to them, as there isn't enough room on the list as it is. So from that perpective, I'm not sure why they would be interested in any of our players either.

It does seem the only thing that could hold up this trade is Collingwood pursuing pick 4, (perhaps with Dawes and pick 17 in return).

However, we all assume that Collingwood is playing hardball on this one, but it could be that we haven't even offered pick 20 yet.

This coming from a team that has only had 2 top 10 draft picks since 2000. And we continue salivating at our next crop of top draft picks and still flounder at the bottom. Not just culture but organisation. We have been run by a bunch of F%$&wits for too long.

I heard one of the commentators say there were only 4 members of the 2005 premiership team playing tonight. They've managed to completely rebuild their side and have only missed the finals once in the process. Incredible.

I still haven't found anything saying he has won MOTY, anyone?

According to the AFL website, it will be announced at the Grand Final.

I know the mark and goal of the year aren't all that signigicant, but this is a highly flawed voting system.

If it were a 50/50 decision, the Melbourne player wouldn't have a hope against a highly supported club like West Coast. Newton's mark in 2007, wasn't even nominated in his week becasuse he lost to a West Coast player taking a diving mark in the goal square.

Howe has taken the two stand out marks of the year and will probably win, but vote splitting could cost him.

has it ever occurred to you that Sydney and Collingwood MADE their players like that? I mean seriously do you think their recruiters have some magic crystal ball that ours don't? What do they do take their draft profiles to a fortune teller?

I think there's definitely something in that argument, especially in the case of Sydney, but I do think shrewd recuiting is just as important.

There's an article in the Herald Sun today about Dayne Beams. Although he was a Queenslander, playing in the 2nd division under-18 championship, Collingwood recuiters were so keen on him that they considered taking him with their pick 10 instead of Steele Sidebottom. As it happens, they got both.

I haven't been this impressed by a young player since Scott Thompson in 2004... Hopefully things don't turn out like that did.

I'm just glad that that after 6 years, we can finally see a genuine talent emerging.

Couldn't watch the game, but Blease's stats are pretty impressive today...

Was it a break-out game or did he just jag a few junk time goals?

We've never had much luck finding that elusive key position forward...

Luke Molan - pick 9

Aaron Rogers - pick 26

Nick Smith - pick 15

Brad Miller - pick 56

Matthew Bate - pick 14

Lynden Dunn - pick 16

Matthew Newton - pick 43

Jack Watts - pick 1

Jack Fitzpatrick - pick 50

Lucas Cook - pick 12

I agree with the OP.

If the club tanked, it should be punished, and I'd like to see it punished.

Success on the back of throwing games is absolutely disgraceful. Fans deserve an apology for this rubbish, and compensation.

What a joke.

If you look through the threads from around July 2009, you'll find that most fans on this forum were in favour of tanking as well.

In 1999, Craig Cameron pulled off one of the great drafting performances, selecting Green at 19, Wheatley at 20, Whelan at 50, Bruce at 64 and Godfrey in the PSD. Without a single first round draft pick, Cameron managed to pick 5 players who would all play over 100 games for Melbourne, obviously Bruce and Green played many more than that.

Along with Johnstone, Yze, McDonald, White and Brown, they would take the place of the retiring Balme-era players. However, when these players left the club at the end of Daniher's tenure, we soon realized there were very few players ready to take their place.

Only 8 players remain on the Melbourne list from the 2000 - 2005 drafts. Of those 8 players, only Jones, Rivers and Jamar could be said to be established in Melbourne's best 22. This has made the loss of Thompson such a bitter pill to swallow.

2000 -

2001 - Jamar (rookie draft)

2002 - Rivers

2003 - Syliva, Davey (rookie draft)

2004 - Bate, Dunn

2005 - Jones, Bartram

When Cameron drafted young midfielders and defenders he was quite successful: Thompson, Jones, Bartram, Rivers, Garland and Frawley were great selections. Even in 2004, we did as well as could be expected in a poor draft, taking Sylvia and Mclean.

However, looking over our other selections over these years, it seems that Cameron and Daniher were instead preoccupied with preparing for Melbourne's future post-Neitz. In 2001, Luke Molan and Aaron Rogers were taken with picks 9 and 26. In 2002, Nick Smith was taken with pick 15 and in 2004, Bate and Dunn were taken with picks 14 and 16. Miller and Newton were also taken as more speculative picks.

In addition to this, older forwards like Gary Moorcroft and Ben Holland were taken with picks 35 and 21 respectively. Other 1st and 2nd round draft picks were used to bring players such as Bizzell, Heffernan and Pickett to the club.

Unfortunately, none of the forwards Melbourne drafted ever came on and the recuits quickly fizzled out after a few seasons. In hindsight, it was a disaster waiting to happen.

Some are already viewing our 2006 - 2011 draft selections as another series of blunders, but I think we need to realize that our young players have been hopelessly exposed over the last few years. In contrast, look at the way players like Jetta and Beams have been protected throughout their development.