sue

Isn't that true of every decision we make.

Leaving aside asking how you know that, it still proves nothing about leaks. Entirely possible that a senior player's partner is overhearing or just watching the zoom call, hears Goodwin is sacked and rings some mate with the news and off we go. I'm more interested in the future than witch hunts about leaks.

For those who hate Facebook: Roos declares Melbourne 'could win a flag next year' amid...Melbourne currently has no senior coach and sits 13th on the ladder, but Paul Roos believes the club could have a quick turnaround next season.

I think Turner bounced off the side of the post while Naughton ran across, poked the ball into play etc. Turner may have been unsighted by the post and didn't realise Naugton had kept the ball in until it was too late.

Surely that was a one-off set play which would be dangerous to repeat and a surprise to the oppos. If they saw Gawn heading to the centre again...... Probably also done to give Jed some fun in his first game. After that a return to kick-ins as usual is not surprising. But it would be worth doing more than once a game if it was planned carefully to ensure we controlled the middle and all players including backs were on board.

Quite likely. But a lot of us also thought we'd get smacked by Footscray. Did you?

Gosh, that's a number to make a club have a serious think. But before taking it too seriously I'd want to see a breakdown of the position of each club (talent, aging players etc) and the time it took the first timers to get a flag. Do their circumstances resemble ours?

Sorry to be seen to be putting the boot in, but it was all game. I'd need to look at a replay carefully, but I think he was unsighted by the post (as well as it getting in the way of him taking action in time). He played a pretty good game overall IMO

come on. The post got in the way of him getting to 0-ten. Great effort and good signs by the team. But someone has to say something to Max about centre hit outs. Did we win more than one clearance? Actually his hit outs almost anywhereon the ground are almost never to our advantage.

Doesn't bode well for a decent effort today I fear.

So you only were able to find one good thing, namely May. Every club delists several players who won’t quite make it. Naming 2 of ours doesn’t count.

To be fair to CF (hard as it is), he may have meant he should have been rested 6 weeks ago rather than the 2 (or 3?) he hasn't played.

Good grief. Can you list 3 things that the Goodwin era has done right? Even one would impress.

Really? Lifted his shoulder? I must need new glasses.

Love Max's reponse to being asked who he wants for new coach. Had suggested Captain coach but it didn't go down well.

Well said. If only some others also put this at the end of the posts Demonland would be a far better place.

It would be if it is true, but we really don't know, do we. And what if you are right and they hadn't been told, but the person who leaked it to Morris was someone like a relative/friend of Goodwin? How would the experienced Board members here have avoided that? Tell the players before you tell Goodwin? Nothing easy here I'm afraid.

I've watched a few Sydney games this year. If Grundy is in AA contention he must have player extraordinarily well in the ones i missed.

I know this isn't a rules thread but since 15m is mentioned..... Players kicking out after a behind often seem to run far more than 15m without bouncing the ball. It easy to see because the goal square is 9m, so if they run twice that they have obviously exceeded 15m. Have the rules changed while I was napping?

No we don't. But if we happen to have a welfare officer who can run and knows a bit about footy, why not. May even save a salary.

No problem. Just C Wilson was so keen to put the boot in she kicked an own goal IMO by raising this.

I rarely disagree with much you say Binman, but as I've argued, the best person to tell a young bloke he is being subbed is the welfare office since he should know all about that players's circumstances and how to best deliver the news.

I think it's more than a bit of nothing. By bringing up the runner-welfare duplication role Wilson show she enjoys putting the boot in regardless of relevance. In fact as I wrote above, you could well argue it is a good thing to combine the roles. But she implies the opposite just to sink the boot in. That casts doubt on everything she says about anything, not just MFC. I'm not saying we are not in a mess etc, but as a general policy, I'd look at everything she says as liable to have been twisted or exaggerated to support whatever case she is making.

Yes the club is in a mess - I'd say that even if the CEO/Board etc were perfect - playing badly is what matters most and that's what we've been doing. But typical C Wilson. She looks to put the boot in from every angle, however absurd. For example: "An even stranger double-up was the move to use player development manager Reece Conca as a runner on match days, a clear conflict given he was delivering instructions to players at the same time as he was also responsible for their welfare." Even stranger?? You could argue that the welfare manager(with footy experience) is the perfect person to be the runner. A person without current experience in that role is more liable to cause damage than one who knows the welfare situation of each player. C. Wilson has been contacted for comment. (Actually she hasn't, but what a slimey line she repeatedly uses.)

Yes. It's amazing how many people have said 'it is inexplicable' meaning that as a critism of the club rather than an acknowledgment of their own lack of information. There are of course good arguments for playing more new players, but there might be several other players who should be 'rested' before resting a slightly injured Viney (depending on which new player is brought in and other factors).