RalphiusMaximus

Very interesting game today. Great to see it on the TV. Fitzpatrick goal was awesome. Jetta started well but faded out later in the quarter. Gys in everything and leading our disposal count. Moloney hasn't done all that much. Morton is involved but not getting enough ball and it's great to see Evans on the field again. As KC says, Bendigo really took control in the second half of the quarter. Winderlich made a real difference for them. Casey also made some silly kicking errors to give them free counterattacks.

Two teams who are known for not being able to play Etihad. Could be a contender for the worst game of the year. I don't see us winning this one.

I have to say that I am intrigued by the write-ups on Stringer. Comparisons to Pavlich are pretty impressive. If he lives up to that sort of rating he'd be worth one of our first picks. My question would be on his engine. I suspect he'd wind up playing more as a mid than forward given his size and our glut of tall prospects. Still, he sounds like a great prospect. I would also love to get Menzel if he's still there at 13. He could fill the need for a small forward on our list and clearly knows how to hit the scoreboard. I know there's been talk of Garlett, but I wonder if he can produce those sort of numbers (to be fair, they both sound like ripping young players).

If someone is insane enough to risk their 1 or 2 pick on him then I say let them have him. He isn't going to be rated that highly given that he's lost half a season and missed a fair chunk of the carnival (and AA selection). There will be many higher rated players in the draft. It will hurt us in the short term in that we have already indicated that we will take him and could be considered to be lacking in integrity, but it will hurt the club who bid on him more as they will be giving up a very highly rated pick. In the long run I can only see it helping us. If we burn a club badly the first time, will anyone be game to play silly buggers with us again? It would be sending a clear message to the rest of the competition that we will burn you if you try to screw with us. The above being the case, I feel that I should say also that I love JV and really hope to see him in the red and blue next year. I just think it is more important to the club to stand their ground and not be caught bluffing or waste our early picks.

You missed a few there. Blease is a very good kick, although he hasn't really shown it at the top level yet. Garland is an odd one. I don't really rate his kicking, but he is our highest rated player according to the stats in the article. Jetta can kick 50m on the run, although I think he'd struggle with a set shot from that sort of range. I find it very interesting that the best Melbourne players listed in the article were all defenders given how often our backline is accused of poor disposal (and I maintain that this is the case). Is it a flawed system they are using or are they factoring in elements that mitigate the terrible results we see from our kicking out of defence so often?

It's a possibility, but the AFL would have a hard time selling it. It would basically be an admission that not only were their concessions poorly put together but also that their precious expansion club is already in need of further aid. I tend to think they'd want to hold off for a few more years to see if the club finds it feet before intervening more than they already have.

You want us to blow pick three on a Ruck? You don't burn high draft picks on rucks unless they are certainties. Look how well Kreuzer is working out for Carlton right now. There are three things we are desperate for right now. Quality mids, a legitimate small forward and a decent back pocket. Grundy may go early, but it won't be to us. I also have to wonder why you have GWS with the first pick. As it stands they are in 17th and GC are looking like keeping the wooden spoon. If we are going to look at trading for one of these kids it would have to be with pick 4. In terms of other clubs outbidding us there is absolutely no difference between 3 and 4, but it would give us the pick ahead of GWS rather than behind, which could be a huge difference. There is a slight risk of being forced to use 3 on Viney, although we could always leave him to GWS if they force the issue, but it's a worthwhile one. It would leave us in a very good position in the draft and bet us access to a very good kid in next years draft as well.

When was the last time someone was suspended by the AFL for doing something to a Melbourne player? Anyone remember?

Cook at FF won't be so bad. He'd be up against NOS, so he won't be bullied or monstered. Might get outplayed, but that comes with being a beginner. As it stands right now we need someone tall down there rather badly. Martin can't do it all on his own.

Subscription pages worked fine for me.

Equal with Spencer! That what I call an achievement!

Disagree with most of your list. The vast majority are too old for our needs. A few just aren't worth the effort. While I can see the appeal of Cloke, he would be ruinously expensive and would more or less kill the career of Cook. I would prefer we stay clear of him and look at players who are a little more reasonably priced and who will help our midfield to function.

Morton has been used as a tag before, and done quite well at it. Improving his contested and defensive work can only improve his ability to fill this role.

Haven't seen the game, but the stats say he was one of our best.

It's an odd one. On the one hand we want him to show an appetite for the contest and ability to win the contested ball, on the other we want him to be the man being fed the ball so he can use his burst of speed and excellent kicking to set us up. I clearly remember Mick Malthouse saying that one of our biggest problems was not trusting the man at the contest to get the ball out, which led to us playing like under-10s and all rushing to the ball. Having a player willing to hang off and be an outlet is a good thing from that perspective, but not if it comes from an unwillingness to get stuck into the rough stuff. So how can we tell which it is?

The FD look at Richmond and say "they still have bugger all in the way of decent talls, but their midfield is cutting teams apart. Perhaps we should bring in a couple of smaller running players to give us more of a chance to match their run. Who have we got who can come in with pace?" Couch is a lot of things, but I don't know that he's quick.

Interesting to read the player review. Looks like Fitzpatrick had a very good game, and both Cook and Williams impressed.

I quite like the write ups on Stringer, but he's not really something we need right now. I still think we need back and forward pockets and another couple of mids as priorities.

Close game. How's Fitzy doing?

He really didn't do much given that he played for a whole half. 1 goal, 7 disposals, 0 marks and 1 tackle. I don't think those numbers are really enough to justify keeping him in the side in hindsight. Didn't Neeld say they have their own set of indicators and players have to score a certain number of points in their system to stay in the side?

Do you think it will actually get to the stage of the judge deciding on things? I can see the battery of lawyers making a deal before hand for slap on the wrist sentence and the judge simply signing off on it.

After last Sundays fun and games with banners and supporters getting stuck in to The Turncoat, I thought it would be interesting to find out exactly what the policy was at the MCG regarding banner size (especially given the rather unhelpful 1.6m claim of a spokesperson after the event). I started out by going through the MCG Ground Regulations which are available at the MCG website. There is absolutely nothing in there regarding the displaying of banners or signs of any sort, although there is mention of the use of offensive language. Failing to find the information in an accessible location, I next e-mailed the MCC at [email protected] to see if they could enlighten me. Here is the reply from them: So in essence the figure of 1.6m mentioned to the media is a complete fabrication (and what is it referring to? Width? Height? Area?) made up on the spot by an MCC spokesperson. I think that if we are to take this e-mail as an accurate representation of their policy then we can safely say that at least one banner was taken down without justification.

It's not telling us anything we don't already know. I wonder if Vlad will have anything to say or will he just ignore it.

And we could've had him! Oh the angst!

Jetta is back on the primary list and looking like playing for Casey this week. Awesome news. On the down side, Couch is now no longer eligible to play in the senior side. Still, of the two I'd rather see Nev up and going.