mauriesy

Come on, Bruce is a parody of himself. As far as I'm concerned he can load up and go bang.

I think that undersells Howe's 24 possessions and 6 marks.

From the Laws of AFL Football: 12.1.1 Scoring a Goal Subject to Law 12.2, a Goal is scored when the football is kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team without being touched by any other Player, even if the football first touches the ground. 12.1.3 Clarification and Examples For the avoidance of doubt: ... (d) a football passes over a Goal Line or Behind Line only when the entire football has passed over the Goal Line or Behind Line, as the case may be. The goal line is the white line marked on the ground. It has a few inches width. You can see from this photo (goals at Aurora Stadium) that the back of the goal line is virtually level with the back of the posts. In regard to Nicho's kick, if the Essendon player touched it before the entire ball had passed behind the back of the posts, it's a point.

I think at the moment he'd prefer him in the position he can physically adapt to and play best. That's probably the backline. That's 'cutting his losses' on his draft position, but so be it.

I'm just surprised they haven't got a camera in a technically correct position for such a situation.

Yes, good to know we've got away from trivia on to the more serious stuff.

Tell them we are building a: A nuclear-powered battleship b: A luxury cruise ship c: The Titanic Take your pick.

He did the occasional good thing for Melbourne too, you know. Ask yourself why was he sub and not playing the whole match. The Tigers got Deledio, Cotchin and Martin, and with similar picks over the last few years we chose Morton, Scully and Trengove. Only one of ours is still any good for us, all three of theirs are gun midfielders. Agree with those posters who are saying how important it is to make sure we get a couple of gun midfielders from the pointy end of this year's draft.

For heaven's sake, do you think the fitness and medical staff are ignoring whatever is troubling him? So many desktop doctors. Thank you.

You've got no idea how hard we tried, or how hard he refused, or how wedded Ball was to getting to Collingwood, in order to make that assessment. It's just another opportunity for you to diss the club. Ball is now a premiership player, he got exactly what he wanted by refusing to go anywhere but Collingwood. It was a potential we couldn't offer.

I think the issue is not just whether they were experienced players, but whether in fact they offered adequate leadership. We could have kept James McDonald for one or two more years. That would certainly have left less of a leadership void (but at the cost of a new recruit like Tom McDonald or Troy Davis). As for the rest of the recently departed players, I just don't know what leadership was there. Cameron Bruce? Who was a good leader among journeyman players like Warnock, Paul Johnson, Miller, Cheney and Simon Buckley? All the res tof the departed are even worse. And certainly not Nathan Carroll. When he came in, Neeld was faced with a dilemma: either accept the modest leadership credentials but greater experience of the remaining senior players (e.g. Green, Moloney, Sylvia, Davey) or make a 'break' and give young players that were showing strong leadership potential the nod (with all the inexperience, pressure and accelerated learning that entails). Like any dilemma, you have to seize one of the horns, and while there are certainly some arguments for players like Green and Moloney, Neeld chose the second option as the better long-term proposition. Like everything else at the moment, we just have to back him on the decision.

Bate, Dunn, pick #75 and some steak knives.

You're right. Ostrichism is believing yet another sacking will change the fortunes of the club, when it will just throw the club back into crisis after the groundwork for improvement has been done. Ostrichism is believing we need to go back to the insipid football we have played for the last four years, when every team that has won a premiership this century is in the top 4 for defensive stats that matter. Ostrichism is believing we can develop and mould an adequate game plan around our soft players, when the style of play required to win a premiership is hard, tough and non-negotiable. Ostrichism is believing players ought to somehow just be able to 'enjoy' their football, when in reality winning requires fitness, effort and sacrifice for the team.

Hard to believe that a team with 15 top-20 draft picks is "poorly skilled". I think fitness and confidence are more likely issues.

For what it's worth, Fremantle are going through the same process with Ross Lyon. Just a better list and not starting from as low a base. Everyone thought they would challenge for top 4 this year, but they've been shown up as a team of front-runners with no defensive structures and average fitness.

Some people aren't happy that the tree has got stronger roots, and buds may be just forming. They want showy flowers, and they want them now, out of season. So they want to chop it down and plant another one, again.

So you're not prepared to acknowledge that the 'drastic action' at the club since 2011 has actually taken place with Schwab at the top? Who exactly was CEO then? Journalists are not immune from bias. They often have opinions that are wrong. They are not immune from failing to check their sources, or asking unreliable sources. I also doubt that Sheahan has much knowledge of what the football department is doing. He's just viewing immediate results like everybody else that's whingeing. For instance, what does "beef up the coaching panel with more successful people" mean? Exactly what are Neeld, Misson and Craig? Sheahan's statement is either dead ignorant, or just a cheap and slack euphemism for "sack the coach and put in Malthouse".

The cynics would say Sunday's opposition as at VFL level.

I thought we've had the drastic action. Do you want to throw out all of the last nine months since last season and start all over again? To me that's a recipe for disaster Now it depends on whether you think the change is working, or will work, or not. I think the coaching staff are saying all the performance indicators are that we have a long way to go to be a good offensive, defensive and battle-fit side, but that we are working towards it. Neeld, Misson et al know exactly where we are and where we want to get to, and how big the gap is. There now has to be some trust from supporters that the club has made the hard, 'drastic' decisions, that it is going to mean revolution not evolution (at least in the beginning), and like all revolutions, things will be tough for a time. Mike Sheahan wouldn't have a clue about what those indicators, goals and projections are for the team, or what the football department is actually doing. Schwab is just an easy target. By the way, my understanding is that the football department sees no problem with Schwab's management, nor any 'interference' that is detrimental.

I don't understand why anyone would write a 'making the call', 'he won't make it' type of post. More big noting themselves about their so-called predictive ability than making any useful contribution to a discussion.

I don't agree. At the moment he's an outside winger in a 196cm body, who can't stand the body contact to be a leading forward. Leave him in the backline where he can learn to toughen up, not shirk, and where his kicking skills and running ability can be used effectively to rebound.

Moloney is just McLean with big biceps and boxing gloves.

I don't think we've had four years of list development. We've had five years of list change (and will have another couple yet as we exit a few more NQRs). The development is really starting from now.

I'd play him in the backline where the pressure is for the rest of the year, and next season as well. It will teach him many facets of the game, and he can't hide down there.

Playing soft, run and carry football that beats up some lowly opposition only on the wide spaces of the MCG, and loses by 100-186 points to the best teams, especially interstate or at Geelong, isn't playing to the players strengths, it's compromising for their weaknesses. Those weaknesses include the inability to defend strongly against good sides, inability to beat a good press and the inability to play hard, contested football. If you all want Melbourne to continue the weak, lily-livered football it's been adhering to for the last four years then by all means be happy with 8 wins a season. But it won't take us to a 'Grand New Flag' (nor will micro-waving your membership cards and calling for coach sacking). I'd much rather have a revolution that brings some period of tears and hurt but ultimately a better team and style of play in the long run. If that means disposing of some players that refuse to put-in and adapt, then that's what needs to be done. I don't see why the club should compromise in the face of public pressure, or from a few bleating supporters who are happy with continuing soft, mediocre football.