RalphiusMaximus

Great to see Taggert getting a run. I'm thrilled for the guy. Oddly enough, I'm half hoping we get thrashed here, just so we have a shot at pick 1. We get done and GWS wins and we're in with a sniff of the spoon.

Brilliant initiative by these two. This is the sort of thing we would love to be seeing from a raft of our younger players (not mentioning the W word) when it comes to taking responsibility for your own performance. Even better would be if the leadership group were to organise for the whole team to head out there, even if it meant paying their own way. Again, it would be a statement on their commitment to becoming a truly competitive AFL standard team instead of the amateurs they currently appear to be.

I think you need to look at the following part of the AFL statement in relation to our club as well. As far as we are aware, Melbourne FC did not have a systematic program of supplement use in action. There is no indication that player welfare has ever been risked. We have records of exactly what the players were given. The only question is on point 2. Were any of the items given to the players illegal? The club issued a statement some time ago saying that they have reviewed the medical practices and determined that nothing has been given to the players that they are not allowed to have and that the injections mentioned were vitamin cocktails. Given that they weren't stupid enough to misplace the records of these treatments we should be perfectly safe assuming they are being truthful.

It wasn't an injection. The text refers to a cream.

100% against this rule. Why on earth do they feel the need to constantly tinker with the rules? Because the laws of the game committee are a pack or reactionary old fools who are fighting to convince the world that they are in some way relevant. 90% of their changes backfire, and rather than admitting a mistake and reversing the change they simply make more changes in a vain attempt to repair the damage. I think the AFL need to look at the most successful sport in the world and take a leaf from their book. No rules get changed without exhaustive studies over a number of years and a great deal of political movement to push them through. We need to be far less willing to make changes.

What they have regarding Melbourne is a single text saying that Trenners should stop by the Pharmacy and pick up the AOD cream. No mention of the number 9640 or whatever it is. Given that a pharmacy isn't going to stock a substance now approved for human use, I think we're safe on that front. They also have something about players reporting good results from injections and other players wanting to try. Fortunately, Melbourne have never tried the "We lost the paperwork" angle that the bombers have used, and so have comprehensive records of exactly what the players were taking. The AFL have seen those records and know that they have not had anything dodgy. This whole thing is a non-event and will go away quietly. The only reason there is any talk at all is the Dank was involved.

All in all this looks like a pretty soft penalty, especially given the relative wealth of the club. I wonder whether ASAD and WADA will let it stand? They do have the power to overrule the AFL and take it to a supreme court to get the penalty increased.

I agree, and I would love us to grab him if he drops to late second or third round. I'm not sure I'd be using a high pick on him. Why does this matter? The insistence on drafting squeaky-clean choirboys is a large part of the problem with our drafting from the last few years. We have players who are great at chatting with little kids and kicking at practice, but who can't stand up for themselves in a real game and have no fight to them at all. I couldn't care less if he goes out and gets drunk after a win as long as he plays like a demon on the field.

We have plenty of pace and footskills. Watts, Blease, Strauss, Davey. All quick players with good kicking and questionable application.

So what I'm getting here is that Garlett has great foot skills, great pace and is suspect in his application and effort and is prone to switching off for periods oft he game and letting his opponent have a free run away from him. Honestly, it sounds like he'd fit in perfectly at the Dees.

I think it would only be viable for Craig, and since I don't want him to coach next year, I say no.

Indeed. And here I thought it was down to the umps not paying 2-3 holding the ball/incorrect disposal frees our way and then blowing the whistle on a hair-trigger the second a hint of one came the other. I lost count of the number of times they got a free immediately after there should have been one paid to us (although probably less than 25).

I can see a whole campaign built around "The only way is up"

25 - 11 to the home side. Nothing wrong there, surely.

Liking the pressure we're putting on here. Wish we could do that every week.

How has Fitz not qualified? He played for them for the first half of the season didn't he? I've been assuming he was easily over the required number of games.

Yes, I do. Also, I am more than happy to give you a break, when do you need one?

I am becoming more and more convinced that Craig is not the man for the job. His lacks tactical awareness during games and his selections are mind-boggling at times. Davis, after a year of great form at Casey has been given two games playing out of position and then dropped again. Magner gets 51 touches and isn't played. Taggert gets five goals and can't get a shot. Meanwhile he's still wasting everyone's time with Pedersen. Surely if he's at all serious about getting the job he should be rewarding the players who produce and seeing if they can do it at the top level?

Great news for the club and for Fitzy. I recall someone posting earlier in the year that Fitz was feeling on shaky ground and didn't know if he was going to get another contract offer. Great for him that he was able to force his way into the side and hold that spot with some good solid performances. Now he needs to carry on improving and really cement that spot in the side for next year.

Terlich for mine, simply because he's been in the team the whole year and been pretty solid. Matt Jones has been consistent and performed pretty well, but just hasn't been noticed as much (is that a good thing?) Viney has shown more ability than any of them but has not been in the side all that much. Kent has shown flashes and I think he'll be very good, but there is a lot of work to do to get there.

I know he has a huge amount of work to do to get his game right and perhaps to prove that the club can trust him, but I think it could be worthwhile to give him a rookie spot and have him play next year at Casey. At least then we'd have a chance to set him goals regarding his fitness and defensive work and see if he has the discipline to make himself a modern AFL player. It would cost us a rookie pick and give us first dibs on a huge talent should he prove able to do it.

I would be most unhappy if Craig were given the job next year. He's popular with the players, but he's show terrible tactical awareness and he certainly isn't getting winning efforts out of the team. He really seems to be coaching to minimise the losses rather than to win. That isn't acceptable no matter who we play against. We need a coach who doesn't accept losses and will make the moves necessary to give us a shot at winning.

It could be a good thing, although we do have a glut of forwards at the moment. I could see us with Jurrah on one wing and Watts on the other though. Could be interesting. I wonder if the club will keep Aaron Davey on in a coaching/player welfare role.

That's bad news, but not horrible for Casey. They'd love to have him, but they'll have Fitz, Gawn and Spencer out there, so their forward line still looks pretty scary.

Not sure on outs aside from three injured, but it's time for Taggert to come in. THey are saying that Dawes ad Frawley are ready as well, so both of them. I'll wait until I've seen the game to say more than that.