1858

Pretty much. I agree which is part of my point.

I'm not trying to and I doubt Bailey would either. You and I aren't really at odds at all. The crux of my point is that whilst Bailey (not us) wants to keep Robbo in the team we will have to accept both his pros and cons. Where Robbo is at it is unlikely that he will drastically improve in his accountability to match many of the other players. As I keep saying he should improve within his own limitations and that is the best we can ask. Bailey will ultimately decide if the whole product so to speak is acceptable and if he doesn't then I certainly won't argue. In principle everything you have said about team rules and what is good for one player is good for another I agree with and I hope Robbo improves in this area. Bailey's decision on whether to drop or play Robbo is hinged against what he does do for us in the context of our forward line and how much he can personally improve this year. My point about expressing respectful opinion was not aimed at you but many of the posts I read prior to my initial post. Cheers also, I don't have anything against any posters on here and I agree with most of Rhino's view points on the game and MFC.

Absolutely but you are missing one thing. His time at the club will be as long as Bailey requires it to be. Regardless of his accountability (which Bailey will press him on), Robbo will be in the team whilst he serves a valuable role and there is nothing any of us can do about it - this is something we have to accept. A hard reality to face but a reality none the less. We can point out his lack of accountability and where he needs to improve but surely we can do it with an ounce of respect.

Once again you distort the game style of a player with one game. Lucky enough there are some posters who understand football, footballers and the significance of one game without tossing out one of our best forwards as a selfish non-contributor. Also not circumstances Rhino but facts. In every post I have made in this thread I have noted Robbo's lack of accountability and stated that it is not acceptable. Furthermore I have not defended the stupid act of that goal attempt. As you don't seem to comprehend my points and prefer to use emoticons I will point it out again: Defending a lack of accountability is futile - almost as much as this thread. Understanding on the other hand why it is occuring is not. It is quite simple, Robbo is not optimised for the type of footy we want instilled in our current and future players but as a forward we need him. Within his own ability I beleive there is room for improvement and that is the point, I expect him to improve (as he needs to). The tag of "selfish" however has been used by some posters to encapsulate everything about Robbo so it only stands to reason that if he is "selfish" in entirety that we point out some of the benefits of this within the context of the Melbourne forward line and understand his role. The heart of my posts since the first post is that many comments about Robbo as a player have been excessive.

In that case lets give Bailey the chance to reinforce this with Robbo and Robbo the chance to get better physically in the next few weeks. 30 and back from an achilles yet he still puts his body on the line and tries to be as dangerous as he can for his side. We have no optimal game plan when we go forward so Robbo is sticking with what he knows. If people think he is just going to spring up like a 20 yr old and run down players then it won't happen. I am sure as the year goes on he will improve with the chasing and tackling within his own limitations. Not having a go at you mate but some posters have misconstrued certain aspects of Robbo's game as being selfish without due consideration to the circumstances and nobody is defending his lack of accountability which is unacceptable.

In other words your opinion is compromised. On the second point I won't argue the showman aspect he has displayed on occasion but it seems to distort for some people what he actually does do in situations where he is against the odds. The kick on the goal line was perhaps a clown act but he is not the first person to go up for a hanger and land square on his ass (possibly winded) to consider a short cut. He was quite simply blind sided and opportunity bit him on the back side. On Ablett, ability aside, Ablett is fortunate at least to not have the best defender or be the sole player to perform for his team up forward. Yes he has tags and is a machine player to brush them aside but Robbo plays above his height and is a go to man - this is not an easy task. So indeed, Robbo was/is not the only apparently selfish footballer. Again the task that Robbo has in an unfamiliar forward set up means he has to play to his strengths - that is not selfish football but sometimes his plays can be a gamble for a multitude of reasons - no crumbers for one. Also Robbo has been institutionalised to the Daniher era and is 5 years older than Johnson, Johnson was lucky that the coach intervened when he was so young that it changed the fundamental way he approached the game, not just mentally but when he has the ball. Yes, the attempted goal looked embarrasing and the coach dealt with it accordingly. Well you may be right here with some supporters but I don't think this is a very common belief. The club accepted mediocrity here and there under Daniher and didn't iron out problems with players when it should have. Robbo in some respects is indeed a symptom of this but I think people are missing the point with the way he plays some times because he has to play that way. Nearly every poster on this site acknowledged Robbo's goal attempt as unacceptable. We all know that he has to be more accountable. I agree wholeheartedly that he isn't part of our future focus and our youngsters are showing more accountability in general situations. Putting Robbo in the context of where we want to move forward is pointless. The thing that people are not considering is that besides being 30 and coming back from an achilles, Robbo performs as best as an individual to achieve team goals not to be above them. Let's not hang him for the fact that he plays like this because this style of play has rewarded us time and time again and without it he wouldn't be as effective on bigger defenders - he hopefully will work on other aspects of his game and I doubt he will be as stupid to try another goal from his ass again. Rhino, Robbo's style of play is old school and no doubt is not what our future is about, I too hope we move in a direction where team, accountability and excellence is demanded all over the ground. When we have system and quality all around the ground this will occur - Bailey is a good coach and worrying about Robbo's 1 %ers isn't really the point, he won't be around much longer unless he is used next year to take a KP defender.

Yes, indeed some perspective is needed here in order to understand why Robbo plays the way he plays some times. The "hangars" he goes for are some times unecessary but more often than not required as he is 184cm and playing on a KP defender. Not to mention that we have no forward system what so ever and he is one of the few dangerous forwards we have who has the courage to commit. We don't have crumbers at the moment up forward and this hurts all our forwards but especially those who can actually get off the ground and go for big grabs. Our forward line is a drop in centre from one week to the next so structure and understsnding between players is not what it could be (Martin made a visit this week who will it be next week?). It is easy to be called a lair when you have to play a certain style to be effective. There are aspects of his game which should have been ironed out under Daniher but alas Daniher coached the team as a collective but not individuals. We are stuck with Robbo for all his pros and cons and Bailey will address some of these cons but it is important to understand the job he has and how he is doing his best to do it within his ability without letting one stupid act distort that. Whether he plays next year or not Robbo is still our most dangerous forward and whether we like it or not it is because of the way he plays (or has to play).

I didn't say that one act was acceptable, I was answering to the comments in general about selfish players - people in this thread all of a sudden want to rite off his career as one big selfish act. You know full well from my post that I said it was a stupid act to take that kick - it was unprofessional and unnecessary and he was rightly dragged. I agree with others that even if he had kicked the goal he still should have been dragged. The thing to understand however is what was going through Robbo's head when he did it - obviously it was an opportunist instinct similar to a player running around the mark to catch an opponent off guard. Unfortunately he was blindsided to the player and when he kicked the ball he looked like an absolute spud, now he should rightly wear it. I notice that you didn't mention Ablett after his latest criticism about being selfish. Throughout the time Robbo has been a footballer there have been heaps of forwards for many teams who have played "selfish" football in order to optimise their personal performance - whether this be good or bad. It is a trait that many forwards have needed to be their best. What can not be tolerated is lazy or unaccountable football from a player and that is what was the problem with Robbo on the weekend. The fact he had a brain fade on the goal line didn't help him but his instinct is still one that we want forwards to have albiet with common sense. Johnson hasn't always been a squeaky clean team player for Geelong either. Robbo just needs a kick up the ass about being a senior player and accountability. The fact that he goes for hangers and the ball is back out of defense by the time he gets back up has infuriated most of us and hopefully Bailey will address this but chastising his career now is the issue I am taking. In the context of the game he may be dropped this week and I would understand why but is it necessary for some posters to bag his whole career?

Robbo is not the only selfish forward in the AFL. A part of an AFL forward's instinct is to play as best as they can and get the goal on the board, some times this involves backing yourself and perhaps putting yourself first. A good forward adds other attributes to their game and uses their head a bit more which is where Robbo struggles. Unfortunately in 2009 there are a lot more aspects in modern footy which are void with Robbo but lets not distort the issue here. This is the same Robbo we have had since day 1 so berating him now is kind of pointless. He quite simply stuffed up with the attempted goal whilst flat on his ass and there is no arguement that he let himself and more importantly the team down - it was simply stupid. He also had a poor day in general - yes, he played like a millionaire. Having said that he is still one of the few forwards we have who actually has a go at getting a goal in the first place. Perhaps if some other forwards had the same hunger at slotting them instead of offloading the footy at the nearest opportunity we would be more dangerous. I have not lost perspective on why Robbo is not viable in modern footy for the things that he simply does not do but we are in a situation where his value for the remainder of the year and next year is taking a defender away from say a Watts or Jurah - if opposition teams don't pay Robbo respect as a forward they will pay. He has been in the wilderness for a while and an achilles is a big thing to come back from. He is in a forward line that is bereft of structure and ball delivery from the mids is not overly great and quite simply he does not know any other way of playing - it might look like selfish footy at times but common sense would dictate that he is trying in his way to help the team. His way is not the modern way but we have to understand that you can't teach an old dog new tricks - not completely anyway. He is not part of our big picture but still has his uses and I am sure he will work on some other aspects of his game after yesterday. He has been a good player for us and deserves a little more respect than what has been shown in this thread. He needs a little wake up call from the coach about other aspects of his game but some of the comments here are excessive.

This has been my way of looking at it. When a coach is under the pump both young and old players are generally tentative on how big a clean out there will be and you'd think personal performance would be on their agenda. Having said that, this is Richmond and we still don't know what is really going on behind closed doors. I think that as long as the RFC board have not made any concrete decisions then we can't really tell how they will go gameplan- wise, player-wise and hence win-wise. I expect they may finish last but still too early to call. The other factor to consider is if there is any hint of dissent now, how will things be by round 11 or the end of the season? What ever the club desires as a long term season approach I doubt they will get it - in my mind if Wallace is kept he will serve his own interests what ever they may be.

Great news. Interesting that the term "rushed back" was used. In our second game last year against Hawthorn Green was used as a 2nd man on Franklin (ie a chop off man) to help Garland who was on him 1 on 1. Will he get the same role? Obviously we will have a different defender on Franklin to Garland so it could be important. Green put his body on the line a few times in that game so with his recovery I am not sure if it will happen again though.

Agree here ^^^^, 1 win at the most is possible. ______________________________________ But... Let's just say worst case scenarion we actually win one of these, we can then afford nly 2 more wins for the rest of the season. The draw for the rest of the season looks like this: The others are questionable though... WEST COAST EAGLES - MCG (chance) Given how we went in Perth againt them this is almost a lock in win. PORT ADELAIDE - MCG (chance but highly unlikely)Not highly unlikely at all - they have beaten us only once in Melbourne (by 5 points) in 2007. GEELONG CATS - Skilled Stadium (pencil in a loss)Agree SYDNEY SWANS - Manuka (as above)If Sydney have a full team then sure they are obvious favourites but I wouldn't pencil this one in yet. RICHMOND - MCG (chance but unlikely a 2nd time this year)I don't understand your logic, we will probably be better odds to beat them compared to last time. NORTH MELBOURNE - Etihad (should have no trouble losing this one)Agree, we won't win this. FREMANTLE - MCG (chance, but "list management" period with plenty of players off for early operations)What's to say Freo won't be doing the same "list management" at that time of year? - big chance IMO. CARLTON - Etihad (No chance)Agree ST KILDA - MCG (Won't beat the eventual GF runner-up)Agree That's 4 games in which I think we have even a remote chance. Of course we won't winn all of those, and with our inexperience, we could at best hoope to win half the winnable ones. So that should still leave us with 4 wins at best without even having to try very hard to lose. I can't agree, for those of you who hope we win 4 games or less then hold on to your seat, it will be touch and go.

I don't see how actively boycotting the team you love can solve anything.

6 Davey 5 Morton 4 Moloney 3 Bate 2 Whelan 1 Bruce Quite a few unlucky to miss out, nearly everyone gave their all today.

Perhaps I missheard this but I'm pretty sure I heard a commentator say a week or two ago that Morton's family has also moved over to Melbourne. Can someone please confirm this if true as it could be a factor for him (along with his brothers being in Melbourne as previously mentioned).

IMO there is no doubt what so ever that Jamar is an AFL quality tap-ruckman. Which at least is the main facet of being a ruckman in a football team. As we all know, Jamar does not have the mobility required to be a genuine 18th footballer on the ground and Rhino's statement "Neither are satisfactory AFL ruckman" is the point here. I guess my point is that Jamar (for all the criticism he cops) at least deserves some credit as his craft of tap work is easily up to AFL standard. To say he is not a AFL quality is a bit misguided IMO, to say he is not "satisfactory" (which is what Rhino actually stated) is a more accurate depiction as he is not a complete package with his around the ground work. I may be a bit picky here but I don't think Jamar gets the recognition he deserves as a tap ruckman by our supporters. IMO, last year Jamar's tap work was one of the main reasons PJ was free to play as a tall utility so often.

A passage from 'Melbourne F.C. Since 1858 - An Illustrated History'... "Men from around Melbourne started playing matches in 1858, and the club was founded that year and formally constituted in 1859,"

That, like most things in life is something you can improve at over time. An excellent example is Michael Long. When he was first on tv he was very nervous and his articulation was quite limited. Over time he became a better public speaker as a player and now he does adds, ambasadorial work and sports commentary amongst many other things. Sheedy was a big part in helping Long come out of his shell though in the public sphere and I am sure Davey would have people around him to help out if he was ever in that specific situation. Just as a little side anecdote, apparently when Long first joined Essendon Sheedy asked him what his favourite position was and he replied "on top". :D

Good management.

I will reserve my judgement on Dunn (career wise) until the end of the season on principle. IMO this is probably the best opportunity he will have to exhibit his football repertoire if given the opportunity - which he seems to be getting so far this year. To me it stands to reason to give final judgement after he has been given that opportunity ie after round 22. With injuries mounting and many youngsters for him to shine out against you would think he would show his hand this year. On the same token, if he hasn't shown a standard of football far superior to what we have mostly seen from him then he is in trouble and won't have anyone to blame but himself. Being moved around different positions probably doesn't help but he has to be in it more and look like a strong and willing contributor. If he doesn't take the bull by the horns throughout the remainder of the season then it could be sayonara.

I am happy with most aspects of Bailey's coaching so far. The best thing about Bailey is that he is at the start of hopefully a very long stint with the Dees. At 42, he is primed to grow along with our squad of players as well as with the game itself. The Dean Bailey of 2009 IMO is not the complete package Dean Bailey we will have in say 2011. I think if you look at a fair few coaches in the AFL, there is a fair proportion that you could argue have reached their potential or have shown their hand so to speak. Bailey is still a new boy despite his experience at other clubs and IMO the game is taking a new direction (even this year) so now is an excellent time for him to be in his 2nd year at a developing team. There is a definite response in the playing group to his coaching and I am looking forward to the day that we have an accomplished group of talent across the whole ground who can exhibit the Bailey game plan at the highest level possible.

I get the feeling that Grimes will be that special type of player (throughout his career) who steps up when the team is going bad and can turn things.

Luck had nothing to do with it but that isn't to say he was overly great in his first couple of games. The reason he was kept in the side was for the exact development we are seeing in him now. Bennell is obviously a quality prospect and Bailey was never going to drop him after 2 average games - you can't improve at AFL level if you aren't in the side. The same goes for Maric - he wasn't lucky to keep his spot after the Geelong game it was just common sense to give him another game. It's all about development. All this conjecture about this kid not earning his spot or that kid not earning his spot after they have been at the club for 5 minutes is rediculous - this notion of luck is irrelevant.

It depends on the full definition IMO. "Hands in the back" as an outright rule needs to be abolished I agree. McLean was robbed of a mark IMO and in many cases if a defender is backing into a forward you should be able to hold them off with your hands. "Push in the back" IMO should remain as a rule. You can't have players blatantly pushing another player out of the contest. There will still be grey areas but umpires should be able to tell the difference between a push (ie defender is propelled forward) to a hold off where the forward stands their ground and goes backwards off the defender. Edit: in light of golly's new thread I should stipulate that this is with respect to marking contests and I agree with what he has said in his new thread about other instances of "in the back" such as with tackles.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't imagining things but they said before the game yesterday that Bate was 2nd in the league for goal assists. I was naturally surprised at this fact (if it was in fact true) but it shows that he does do a fair bit of hard work which can go unheralded. Anyway, OUT: Rivers, Frawley IN: Cheney, McNamara (now is as good as ever), Spencer (if fit - which means dropping another). Whether it be this week or next week I wouldn't mind seeing Bail play as well. I don't know what the situation is with Jetta or Whelan.