mauriesy

Probably. They sell on the lows and buy on the highs.

Of course, if we win on Sunday, it'll be Jim's "hands-on" involvement that caused it. I'm waiting for him to walk across the Yarra.

In your mind.

It's common for board or committee members of any organisation to have some liaison or communication responsibility for one of the organisation's divisions. It could be HR, marketing, finance etc. It can also be part of the "sub-committee" or "divisional" structures and provides some protocol for board communication and effective operation. So the previous football "director" was Leoncelli, who would have met with the football department in formal meetings, and probably many times informally. He'd report to the board in relation to the football department, the go-between if you like. Now Stynes has taken that role. I just think that Caroline Wilson has either naively, or deliberately, inflamed this into something it isn't and supporters have been sucked into speculation given the current mediocre on-field performance. Stynes' acceptance of the role vis-a-vis the coach's and the team's current performance has conveniently coincided for a sporting journalist looking for an angle. There are two problems however. Firstly, the timing is in fact totally out of synch with the current FD issues ... Stynes "appointment" was in March, not last week. Secondly, no one has focused on the actual role itself (which the press release from the club this week was supposed to clarify). The club implies that the role Jim has taken is no different to what Leoncelli did previously. Those looking for a story to link it to the team's performance and performance of the coach have centred on the new, supposed 'hands-on' role (that Wilson reported), when it doesn't seem to be anything of the sort. However, never let a few facts get in the way of a good conspiracy. I also think that labelling people "apologists" is totally unhelpful to the issue, in fact it diverts the whole debate. It's a sloppy way of arguing because it just uses easy-to-apply labels at any time to avoid real issues and to win the argument. It's as illogical and useless as dividing the climate debate into "warmists" and "deniers". When Stynes comes out and "supports" the football department, some claim that means it's the "end" of Bailey. But what's he supposed to say? It's akin to the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" conundrum.

Did anyone at all read the last two sentences of the Melbourne FC press release? "Melbourne’s football director represents the football department and communicates to the board on football matters. It is not a management role." Just wondering.

Suggestions of Blight and Ayres are signs of totally irrational desperation.

Doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far ... so well done Big Russian.

No, you're not. You're being the extreme pessimist.

Gosh. We've turned over nearly 100% of our list in the last 3-4 years and brought in the likes of Trengove. I thought that's what we've been doing.

Who says? I love it when supporters project their thinking and attitude onto the team. You don't know what the team was thinking.

He had a finger injury. It's not as though he couldn't run and build fitness.

I'd say given these Casey reviews that Gysberts and Wonaeamirri are likely promotions, probably for Maric and Jetta. Austin Wonaeamirri: I played Aussie as a midfielder and he had seven clearances up until three quarter-time. He finished with nine for the match. He showed a different type of fitness, which was good. Aussie is a smart player and it was the best game I’ve seen him play for Casey - from a consistency perspective. It was a really big game from Aussie. Jordan Gysberts: Jordan had 14 clearances and 30 touches and was outstanding. He was really good around the stoppages and he used the ball well to set up the game. Jordan was the architect behind the game.

We didn't lose yesterday's game because of game plan, lack of endeavour, Bailey or strategy. We lost it because we were slaughtered in the clearances and contested ball. All our problems started with failure to win contested ball. Sometime during the game the clearance stats were something like 35-12. The more it occurred, the more defensive we became, and the less players attacked the ball, which lost even more clearances and balls in dispute. If we'd won more, the ball wouldn't have been locked in Hawthorn's forward 50 for large portions of the second half of the game. Until we get 75-100 games into players like Scully, Trengove, Mackenzie, Gysberts, Grimes, Bail, Bennell, Morton and Tapscott, we simply won't have the experience, the mid-field depth or the bodies big enough to compete with the likes of Hawthorn and Collingwood in those contested situations. So I agree with RR's 'experience' analysis. We've also got to find other ways of beating a forward press than "kick it to Jamar". "Kick it to Jamar" will work if either Jamar marks it, we can win the ball when it comes to ground or it goes out of bounds and we win it from there, but we didn't and it came back countless times. I think there are a number of ways to try and beat the forward press, among which are: Take the kickout quicker before the opposition has a chance to establish the zone. Accurate short passing to leading players until the ball is outside the 50 (good teams though simply roll their zone back to counter though). Station your talls in one area, supported by midfielders to try and win contested ball when it comes to ground. The good old 'huddle' Long bomb down the middle to a marking contest. Kick to yourself and play on from the square, supported by a block from another backman, gets the ball further out But we haven't been successful with any of these, and the fall back position yesterday was only number 3. Again it's an experience issue. Yes, we would have been a better side if we'd snared one or two of Judd, Ball, Burgoyne and Hale, or retained Macdonald and Bruce. But maybe they'd have taken us only three-quarters to a premiership, not the full distance. There's not much point topping up when you're not in the 'window'. I think the Bulldogs and St Kilda might find that out sooner rather than later.

I don't think Melbourne is specifically responsible. But we (football generally) constantly ask players to 'put their heads over the ball' and brand players who don't as 'squibs'. We can't really escape the consequences of such a demand.

Maybe it's impossible to tell with some injuries exactly how long a player will be out for. Can you tell immediately afterwards what the depth of an injury is and how a player will recover? Whether it will respond to treatment as expected? Whether it will recur under a certain amount of training load? It's not a totally exact science and we're not talking about fixing something mechanical. I'm disappointed but not alarmed by any injuries. They are what they are ... bones, tissues, muscles, ligaments etc. BTW, the club got injury times for Frawley and Morton pretty accurate. They'll both be back soon.

Because there's always a percentage of the population who are slow to get around to doing anything?

There's always a fine line between getting a player fit enough to withstand the demands of modern AFL football, building strength, increasing aerobic capacity and managing training rates and injuries. And sometimes stuff just happens. The club has experienced coaches, medicos, trainers, physiotherapists, physiologists and nutritionists. However, I guess all their professionalism just pales into insignificance compared to your propensity for suspicion and pessimism. At least we haven't heard that it's Bohdan's fault. Yet.

No problems using Windows 7 and Firefox 3.6 (or the Firefox 4 RC).

I don't hate anyone, even Collingwood. I love beating them, but hating other teams is just a misplaced use of energy. Save it for something positive. I do really severely dislike Carlton though.

I forgot to add conspiracy theorists to my list.

Everyone keeps blaming the "media", and there is no doubt some commentators and personalities have inflamed the situation. However, to me, this story illustrate how the non-mainstream media ... the chatrooms, discussion boards, Facebook and Tweets ... can develop or concoct a rumour, fan the flames, and spread Chinese whispers much more easily and more rapidly than conventional channels. Throw in the speculators, rumour mongers, inflamers, pessimists and anyone else with an agenda and away it goes. And it is much harder to dispell or contradict. I am nowhere near convinced the rumours started in the press-rooms of the Age, Herald Sun or any other organisation, or from "inside information" to any journalist.

That figure is totally wrong. The figure given in the AFL match centre was 26-14, still lopsided but nowhere near 52.

Yeah, right. Trengove wants Scully to stay "YOUNG Melbourne midfielder Jack Trengove has declared he wants to be a one-club player with the Demons ..."

I'd have thought the Saints would now be going all-out to rebuild their reputation, not diminish it further by adding Fevola to the mix. And I think the AFL would do just about anything to keep the problematic Fevola away from their GWS love-child.

Correct. I was replying to drdrake's assertion that "everyone is quick to judge". I simply responded that people have been able to judge Fevola from incidents as far back as 2004 or earlier. Whether they were at Carlton or the Lions, the time is irrelevant to the assertion. Indeed, it was very bad recruiting and totally foreseeable. But the Lions gave him a second "major" chance after a host of transgressions at Carlton. Why should they be sacked only for that? Fevola is the one who blew it. There's a behavioural clause in the standard AFL contract that says something about "not engaging in serious or wilful misconduct". A player's contract can be terminated for "persistent breaches of his obligations as a player". It doesn't say anything about these being limited to proven criminal or summary offences.