Ungarie boy

Okay this seems mildly fun, need something take my mind of Sundays Horror Show. B: Garland Dunn Jetta HB: Trengove McDonald Malceski C: Vince Jones Howe HF: Toumpas Cameron Okeeffe F: JKH Hogan Dawes R: Gawn Tyson Viney Int: Grimes Bail Michie Cross Emg Riley Salem Fitzpatrick Okay Pederson is probably in ther for Cameron

Changes will come (and are needed), but so will progression. Glass Half full: Viney like Nathan Jones before him will step up, maturity and more importantly space around the contest (provided by teammates sheparding, bumping, blocking) and options outside; will see his disposal efficiency skyrocket. Barry (when he does finally get possession) makes great decisions and back this up with his disposal - just doesn't get enough of it yet. Gawn a strong marking very big ruck, if injury free, he'll make it - would love for him to shave the cuddly bear beard and tattoo the face or something to add some fear for the opponent Dunn needs/must play defence - when he's not there if falls apart, and he doesn’t take enough marks in the forwards Howe - his running game continues to improve and maybe he could play the wing role originally marked for Watts at the start of the year, it would be one hell of a match up in the air; and opposition coaches would be in constant fear he could float forward and take numerous marks Obvious N Jones, Tyson, Jetta don't need mentioning Glass half empty: Watts - many hear praise him with ball in hand, but I now fear it; for though he has the skills he dosn't take the game on; to often it's a floating handball backwards; not a rapid pinpoint pass to a player that opens the game up Frawley - Can play, if he wants to!!! Cross - was shown up for speed, and there only one direction this issue will go Dawes - Could just be a form slump brought on by being starved of opportunity by Melbourne’s woeful delivery (form requires consistency); but is not the #1 KPF player, plays more like a 3rd tall (great pressure, marks in space) Jamar - Big hearted and knows how to ruck, unfortunately the game is going past him as opposition mobile ruckmen become an extra player through the midfield Obvious Strauss, Blease, etc, don't need mentioning

Or mention someone else, and help the MFC achieve it's goal through miss-information .

Reading Roo's comments concerning players that are scarred by the last 8 years, then it would be a reasonable expectation that some of the players under scrutiny could be: 5-8 years Watts - Can see him being trade bait Blease - what little he does offer, pace has been overtaken by others i.e Kent; pace can also be found in the draft Strauss - hasn’t made it, doesn’t look part of Roo’s style McKenzie - seems to follows coaches instructions well, this may save him Garland - should be safe Frawley - good if committed, but shows signs of scarring Grimes - Hard to trade out a captian (not good for culture), but could be trade bait Bail - there’s been subtle improvement, but started from a low standard, seems a Roo’s style of player Spencer - Should keep a spot on the list, but why the extension Trengove - Can see him being trade bait, for top end talent Tapscott - I believe will make it when given consistent chance, hasn’t played enough 1st grade to be scarred Fitzpatrick - I see a Pederson type progression here; or Sellars While the following have been at the club 3-4 years (Wow 2011 was a disaster for us re trading/draft) Howe - already a veteran in 4 years at the club, possible classic example of scarring (knows nothing else at AFL level) McDonald – Considered young and looks to be coachable, a Roo’s style of player Nicholson – noting comments on skill, very vulnerable Evans – just plain unlucky Noting that Clarke and Byrnes are already gone, and Frawley is likely. Probably the most the list will be turned over is 6-8 players. Targeting this group you could easily see Blease, Strauss, Evans and Nicholson in trouble. Fitzpatrick may just be saved by the loss of Frawley and the difficulty in finding a tall in the draft (note Roo’s traditionally trades in tall’s rather than drafts them) of course the recruitment of Cameron would see him gone. Hole in list Likely Replaced by Evans Top 5 draft pick Frawley The bonus pick as part of a Tyson like trade, converted to an emerging tall at another club Blease Stretch Strauss 2nd round pick Nicholson Jetta Upgrade Clarke Hidden fringe player (aka Rielly) Byrnes Emerging young midfielder (think Tyson like trade) Fitzpatrick Cameron (but would need to give up something i.e high draft pick; or quality (think Howe, Trengove, etc in combination with picks) which would create another hole in the list, which ironically makes Fitzpatrick safer Would like to see us bring O’Keefe in as a Rookie, but top up his role/salary with a development coach role Delisting Tapscott/McKenzie would mean brining in a 4th round pick that is more than likely no better (you would only consider this if they are part of the ‘scarred’ brigade. Note: It’s easy to get rid of players, but in reality we don’t have the capability to replace them, our 4th pick would be around 60 – 70, while the 5th pick rarely brings in quality; and NO, other teams are not going to trade for them (Players we have identified to move on). edit: Grimes included

Then we offer $200,00 more than expected. His price still goes up hamstringing Geelong, or he leaves (not necessarily to us, but that then potentially hamstrings another club). Note: Dawes and Collingwood is not dissimillar and they still haven't found an adequate replacement; and if they had of kept Dawes on a contract close to the Melbourne deal, then that would have put more pressure on keeping their midfield/emerging stars (think beams, elliot, reid). All clubs are vulnerable to other clubs talkiing up the price of their players, the good ones manage it better by offloading overvaled players well - Brisbane with Des Headland, Hawthorn with Clint Young, Sydney with Everitt.

A good summary. For Chip another likely contributing factor is the close mates he has remaining at the club; and just as importantly those who have left. I don't know but seem to recall he was close to Petterd, Rivers, etc. A lot on here think loyalty is all about clubs, the reality is loyalty at clubs is more about mates. The comradeship gained season after season battling through all levels of adversity and the enjoyment of celebrating the victories and achievements. The close bonds (and it is not with every member of the team, that doesn’t happen) formed over 5-10 years at a football club will normally last a lifetime – break this up, then the reason is to stay is diminished. Of course clubs are good at providing new bonds when they maintain the spread in age demographics. and yes there will always be individuals that differ from thisfor example B Harvey. A good mate of mine also continues to play on with predominately players 15+ years his junior, devoid of any of his mates from yesteryear or even a couple of years ago; but thats more about the enjoyment of the game (on and off field).

I have held the same view for some time, and really glad someone else has brough this up. It really is a no brainer, creates a level field for everyone and removes unecessary distraction from the season proper. The only losers is the media who like to 'make' news!

but this is also offset by the increase in overseas players.

I believe they are stalling for time, so that the can maximise turning their list over and therefore be able to field a team when the players are suspended. Otherwise "Essendon" will not be able to exist. "They" being Essendon are all about the survival of the Essendon Football Club, unfortunately the players haven't caught on to this yet. Also it could be an interesting trade period as other clubs may look at a player with a potential suspension as an opportunity - where the damage to the clubs list is minimised (1 player missing 6 months is worth the risk) if it is offset by a promising future, think Heppel, Hurley, Bellchambers, Melksam, etc; while Essendon brings in players who are not at risk of suspension and therefore minimising Essendons risk of not being able to field a team. Edit - formatting

Tapscot will improve to the point of remaining on the list. Dee's will kick 100 points in a game (this could be literal or figurative). Dunn to make the all Australian Squad if he remains in the backline N Jones to win the Brownlow. Hogan to only kick a couple of goals on debut, and demonland will go into a meltdown about what such a poor trade it was, or decision to extend his contract. And I would like to see J McDonald announced as the coach in waiting or senior assistant to Kirk!

Was going to add this to the herald sun comments on the article "Essendon’s High Stakes Court Case Challenge ...", but I refuse to pay the subscription fee; have seen better examples of journalism in my children’s primary school newsletter. Still I felt it should be shared (not sure if it has received as much attention as it should) - even though it is bloody obvious, there is still so much acceptance of the "no records kept" argument forming a major basis for the commentary on this saga: "Talk about gullible, I cannot believe anyone actually believes that an organisation would implement a program to improve performance without tracking and monitoring the effects of every aspect of the program: on what was delivered, to whom, when (timing of day/week), levels of fitness, quantity of what was delivered, combinations, etc, - even having comparing data between players including those who have not received anything (as a baseline). If for no other reason, this would have just been in place to measure the effectiveness (and return on investment) of the program; and to enhance, develop and improve future program(s). This lack of record keeping and data collection just wouldn't happen, even at the most basic level, in any organisation beyond that managed by primary school kids. Incompetent (beyond reasonable) or criminal (destroying/hiding records) should see the club turfed and rebuilt - perhaps as the Tasmania Bombers, or North Australia Bombers."

Reading the Herald Sun story "Email trail traces history of talks over Bombers supplements program", it states: "The original agreement between the AFL and ASADA — finalised on February 20 — stated that “to provide an immediate level of comfort ... it will be explained to players that under a no fault or negligence defence a player can receive a complete elimination of sanction”." The crucial part of this correspondence is "... player can receive a complete elimination of sanction." if this is the case then there seems to be a lot of noise around nothing. Players might have been duped by the selling of the agreement, but the agreement itself doesn't guarantee them 'getting off'.

Acutally another signigicant factor would be any admission of finding or guilt will likely see the club suspended, which if not terminal will have them very well placed for relocation or amalamation. This is not about the players, it's about Essendon's survival - regardless of the financial cost. Essentially they are a cornered animal with only one option open to them - Fight to the Death; every other outcome will likely lead to the same result i.e. Death. Pity the players can't see this, for it will likely cost them - if they continue to ignore the lifeboats and sail a sinking ship!

and lastly, It's actually in Essendon’s interests to drag this through the courts for as long as possible. This would then minimise their exposure to potential claims for loss of income by affected players due to their retirement, delisting’s, etc; while a lot of the remaining would only having a couple of years left in their playing careers. Also keeping it in the courts gives them a chance to build their list up, with non-affected players, should they lose( and suspensions are served); allowing them to field a team (maybe even competitive). Of course there is even a chance they could win. None of this, though, is for the benefit of the players, it's about the club!!! The players are better served by taking voluntary suspensions as per Samantha Lanes article Can someone remind me whether Essendon themselves can be banned if more than two players have been found guilty?

Interesting that the language from Essendon has changed significantly over the last few months, to challenging the various technical and legal processes (regardless of the cost) but not setting out to prove (and insisting on) their innocence. My amateur observation is this is normally the approach taken by the guilty.

This is purely speculation but I would think ASADA's eveidence would be something like this (in simplistic terms): We have records of Thysomin Beta 4 being purchased and received (by the club) We have records of Thysomin Beta 4 being supplied (by the supplier) There is no evidence of Thysomin Beta 4 remaining with the club There is no evidence of Thysomin Beta 4 being disposed of by any other means than injection into players Players had to sign a waiver for the injection of Thysomin AND CRUICALY there is no evidence of the legal version of Thysomin being purchased or recieved there is no record of the legal version of Thysomin being supplied by any potential supplier (they would have sound record keeping practices, even if Essendon doesn't) Records of the number of injections don’t reasonably match the number of drugs/peptides purchased (excluding the Thysomin Beta 4) Provides a pretty strong argument that the players were injected with Thysomin Beta 4 and not the legal version. With an ex judge overseeing the process now, you have to assume that the evidences would be extremely compelling.

We can win!!! but one aspect where we will need to be on the top of our game is ‘manning the mark’. Port, at their best, are a very low (trajectory) kicking team which results in: the ball travelling quicker; benefits leading forwards; and negates a third man up role defender. However by forcing port to kick over the player manning the mark, particularly if it done aggressively (jumping with outstretched hands to their optimum) then the result is more hang time for the kick, equating to slower ball movement and most importantly the likelihood of aerial contests (suiting our defence which is well catered for in this aspect by McDonald, Garland, and to a lesser extent Dunn; while Howe's great marking attributes would also come to the fore). Note aside from Shulz, Ports contested marking capability in the forward line is average. Of course aggressively manning the mark is a 1 percenter, that the goods team do extremely well, and is an indicator that a team is switched on. Another consideration is that the port player should always be put on the ground when they have possession, so as to reduce the amount of open (free space) possessions/options. Accurate bullet passes (which port are extremely good at, even over long distances) are so much easier with time and space. So even if it meant giving away a kick, forcing port to kick over the mark will help reduce the effectiveness of their game and bring to the fore our strength (aerial contests). A by-product of these tactic is that it also slows down the game (speed of ball transition) which is another port strength.

Roos has done a fantastic job, but really Ken Hinkley has shown last year was no fluke, has a team playing a exciting brand of football (it's a model I would love to show my kids on how to pass a football - in general their passes are worm burners which mean they travel the distance quicly and accurately), they could easily have been undefeated, and when he started the job, came from a position not much worse than the Dees. For all those who are looking at "what if" for justification; note that we could also just as easily be 0 - 9 if a couple of things went against us in our wins (straight kicking for example). Still Roos is worth every cent and more, for what he has achived with the team/club, regardless of the results.

So, What does Melbourne Demons stand for? It stands for the "Game of AFL"! The game originated with us, and was saved by us. Perhaps we can put that on our banner for Saturday and keep the free publicity kick we recieved this week, going.

After taking particular notice of Watt's game, it becomes obvious that what he really lacks is 'closing speed' (my 11 year old boy is the same). This is something that is really hard to coach as it in part reflects desire, (something that is normally inherent in someone’s psyche) – those few quicker steps required to ‘get the ball or man’ should be instinctive (my 9 year old has this, even to the point of screaming in a blood curdling madmen’s voice “my ball” as he attacks it, regardless of obstacles in the way). Still outside players are also worth their weight to their team if they are prepared to run, the better ones also have that ‘breaking speed” to get away – which unfortunately Watts seemed reluctant to do; there was on one occasion he received the ball to his advantage running towards our forward 50 only to stop/prop let the player chasing him dart by, to then chip over his head; far to many time he also received the ball stopped/propped then handball to a stationary teammate (players from better teams would take a couple of quick steps to commit a tackler and dish of the handball in the tackle; this would create space – which at the very least would provide one less person to kick the ball over, resulting in flatter kicks and faster ball movement). Still I am a Watt’s fan and believe it will pick up when his confidence is back, as I have seen him do acts of courage; at the moment his hesitation is manifesting into desire/intent that is reactive, not proactive/aggressive. A possible exercise that works with kids is to just throw the ball on the ground about 5-10 metres away (in a small circle), and have him chase/dive/scrounge it back to you (that is there only focus to get the ball, if someone else has got it then they has to get it off them); when the ball is returned you bat it away for repeat efforts; Other players involved will be given instructions to gather the ball and release quickly to ensure he gets reward for effort, while a couple may be required to run the ball until caught so as to encourage disposing a player of the ball (again the objective is, as my son puts it “my ball”). After a while it becomes instinctive, and if not then it never will.

If you observed Paul Roo's comments on AFL 360 regarding taggers, then it would be fair to say he is more interested in the taggers ability to restrict their opponents influence on the game and not the number of possessions (cheap) that the opponent gets. Jordie was very effective, in this respect.

Not sure how he managed a Grandfinal, with just "1 finals win", Daniher is clearly a genuis!

I was hopin someone else would pick up on this, so maybe my memory is not as accurate as I believe ............................... but pretty sure Joshy (kennedy) and Pykey did not play in his two grand final apperances!

Essendon doctor Bruce Reid warned the Bombers about the club's supplements programhttp://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-doctor-bruce-reid-warned-the-bombers-about-the-clubs-supplements-program/story-fndv8gad-1226701308598 Wow just Wow - Very interesting reading The way this is playing out is really starting to feel like war between The AFL/ASADA and the Bombers

Has anyone considered that the reason Essendon are fighting this so hard; is that if all the varying governace and legislative obligations which may yet come in to play (Worksafe, AMA, ATO, etc), followed on by likely potential law suits by affected parties; that they would cease to exist! Therefore they don't have anything to lose by taking on the AFL, ASADA, ETC