BLWNBA

Do you have any insights on McVee you can provide? I'd even be interested on your own take. It's been put to me at best it's a 50/50, and this was a few weeks ago. Personally can't see a signing happening now, unless of course it's still somewhat dependent on the coaching move/announcement.

Cornes' analysis is usually pretty spot on. He can overcook things for the sake of clicks and engagement (which he does extremely well), but generally the gist and context of what he says is excellent and on the mark.

Pleasingly younger than I actually thought he was, he'll be turning 23 just before the start of the 2026 season. Definitely should get an extension with us. Unfathomable that WCE let him go.

The sooner the new coach comes in and moves the MFC butcher on the better. Absolutely heinous ball use on show in the fourth.

Damn son, definitely playing like an individual ‘invested’ in the club.

As a grammophile, yes you are correct. ‘Unique’ is a binary concept. Something is either unique, or it isn’t. But I would expect that my learned colleague would understand that in informal language, or as a rhetorical tautology, the use of ‘unique’ is often used a scalable term to convey how strikingly different something feels. Therefore, something can be: Unique: in a literal sense, no other is like it; Extremely unique: so different that concept or item feels more exceptional than other ‘unique’ things one has seen; Somewhat unique: unusual traits, but not essentially one of a kind. So whilst your learned colleague may frown on “extremely unique”, for many the use of term would act as an intensifier for emotional impact, rather than the mathematical application of binary logic. Though for the sake of sanity, would it please my esteemed colleague if I referred to items as: Barely distinctive; Mildly unusual; Distinctive; Remarkably distinctive; Rare; Singular; Astoundingly singular; and World-changing singular. If we wish to be strict about our interpretation, points 6 - 8 are the only true indicators of “uniqueness”. Points 1 - 5 would typically refer to degrees of distinctiveness (cf. uniqueness). I’ve enjoyed this exchange on this forum.

Only after 7PM.

Closer than you think.

In what world is reporting linear and binary? The constant obsession with self-victimisation r.e. the media on this forum is petulant. FYI - Oliver himself stated that he was put on the trade table: Clayton Oliver says he ‘doesn’t blame’ Melbourne for putting him on the trade table last year

Have heard similar; likely two-pronged r.e an immediate interim base and an update on the long-term.

He's not really wrong with anything he said and if you listen to the context and don't just take the headline, it's reasoned. But cue the line of media haters constant victims on this sight who will decry everything he's opined.

Brilliant, that's how you present a professional and unified club. " I'm a supporter of the team. I'm a lover of the Melbourne Football Club. They've sacked people I've loved before and I've moved on and so have they. ... I'm a lover of the club. I'm excited for what is next ... Football doesn't wait for anybody. Goodwin sacked, I'm like geez my life is over ... I'm down in the dumps Tuesday morning and then we train Tuesday arvo ... and I come here today and I'm like 'I can't wait for the Bulldogs, I can't wait for what we do in the trade period. I'm really excited about what coach we get in'..."

It comes down to perception. You can ethically disagree with the actions of your employer, but I don't overly think it's professional to air them in a public forum (although the microcosm of the AFL is a unique environment and workplace). To be fair, I do think that this is somewhat of a storm in a teacup. I'm not overly disenfranchised with his comments, but my immediate reaction was to think it was a poor choice of words because naturally, it enables a situation to be presented whereby there is an inference of a divided club.

Charlie, Paul and Bob are also all members of the 'first kick, first goal' club. Extremely unique!

This can be said of both angles; look at all the people who constantly sight Hardwick at at Richmond taking them from an 8 win and 13th placed season in 2016, to premiers in 2017 and then going back to back in 19/20 and use these anomalous yet spectacular results as an indication that this will somehow occur at Melbourne had we persisted and continued with the known quantity of Goodwin. Now, I'm not necessarily saying you're doing this at all - but your point stands that looking at a coaching path that leads to success occurs on both sides of the spectrum, in both the keep Goodwin and sack Goodwin camp. I think ultimately, we need to look at the longitudinal results post 2021 success. Four years is a reasonable level of data and despite what any of us think on here, the Club has stated multiple times that they were expecting the club to be contending in finals this year.

I find it it somewhat difficult to make a call on Spargo, especially not knowing who our coach will be going forward and what our game will look like. I think he's the type of player we need, overall. He's one of our more damaging kicks going inside 50 and can be creative around the ground, particularly with linking play and his run. However, he is also a limited player; he's somewhat undersized, lacks significant penetration on his kicking and doesn't hit the scoreboard often. The scoreboard factor could potentially change if he was utilised differently and we look to change the F50 game, but that's speculative. Given he is one of our better users and also plays a linking role when fit, I'd be inclined to retain him. His 2021 was very good and it's no surprise his game improved when our side was looking far more dangerous and holistically sound.

Whilst I'm not a fan of the input (player selections), this enabled us to move the entirety of Grundy's salary off our books. The result would have been different if we were offering to pay a portion of his salary at Sydney.

I must've missed this! Any chance of a link?

Yeah it definitely feels he's been around a far bit longer than what he has. Great player with talent and diverse range of competencies.

Not sure I'd say spectacularly bad. The Dawes trade wasn't fantastic, where we sent Pick 20 and 45 and received Dawes and 58 in return, though I'd say that was more because of the career that Dawes had with us in the end. Would it have been slightly different in Clark worked out for us? Maybe, but who knows. Probably the only trade that wasn't great was the four way trade with us, Collingwood, Port and Adelaide. Where we received Ben Kennedy, Pick 29 and 50, and gave up Howe and Toumpas. Outside of that the only other trades I can think of are the Paul Ridley trade, Lumumba and Clark to Geelong, and then Grundy. I wasn't necessarily a critic of the Grundy trade either, it just didn't work out and I think we were partially to blame - I wasn't necessarily unhappy with the trade per se.

Missing the mark with this one mate.

In addition to Wilson who would be one of my top targets, McCreery would be another player in my top 2 -3 in terms of a current wish list. He would add significantly to our forward line; this year he's currently ranked 19th in the AFL for tackles inside the forward 50 (ranked as elite this year, as well as over his career), and he can hit the scoreboard. Given goals aren't necessarily his biggest contributing factor, he is a player that would really increase our forward 50 pressure and he is able to play as a linking player outside of the D50 and bringing the ball into the F50. Personally think he can actually also hold a mark, unlike many of the players we have moving through the forward. He's still only 24 too. CONTRACTED Collingwood premiership star Beau McCreery is the subject of significant trade interest, with rivals believing some Pies players are disgruntled by the club’s recent recruiting raids.

Trade bait.