praha

Hmm bit rough I think. We all had the same thing to say about Jetta, Gawn, Watts at some point in their careers. Jetta is proof that you can turn things around with the right people around you. Grimes was a "good ordinary footballer" in a terrible side, but so were a few others who have improved. Pederson was a joke for a while there but he's a solid contributor now. Not the future, sure, but a required depth player. He was nothing more than a filler a few years back, taking up space until someone better came along. Matt Jones had improved tenfold this year before he got injured. He's a different player this year. Ordinary footballs in bad teams often become solid players in solid/good/great teams. There are plenty of examples throughout history. Grimes I feel is the kind of guy that can really step it up and become a good player. He might turn it around. Sometimes depending on the character, it's hard to be your best when everyone around you is right at the bottom of the barrel. I'm betting on him being really influential when he comes back into the side. I just have a feeling. He was primed to be a young star when he started. We essentially got him for Travis Johnstone and at the time we were all loving him. He dropped away and fell off after injuries, and came back to full fitness around the time the club was in the midst of arguably its worst ever era. The fact the club muffed the development of so many players, yet he still managed to be a "good ordinary football" whilst taking on the captaincy of a club with no leadership and no talent I think says a lot about his character. He deserves another chance. I completely sympathise with his frustration. Probably more than any other player at the club who had to put up with the crap the club put the players through from 2010-2013.

Gee you'd think a win against the Crows would get it done.

In the journo's defense, it's in the management's best interests to deny it.

People said that last year.

Should have beaten them last year. Adelaide is playing good football atm but this is very winnable. Beating a good side that's on a role would be amazing for this team's development. We've gone to another level the last two times we played them. Must win imo.

Astonishing how Hawthorn is first on the ladder more than half-way through the year despite looking more vulnerable than they have at any other point since 2011. If they win the flag again this year, it would be an indictment on the league's equalisation measures.

It's not undermanned. Inexperienced, sured, but get used to the cattle currently out there. That's our backline for the next decade.

Well yeah. But it's not like Melbourne has been the one to prove that right.

Fremantle, St Kilda and Carlton are far from probable wins. We *should* beat all three but don't match up well with them and in the right conditions they could beat us. St Kilda is far from probably. It's more like a probably loss considering their form and where we're playing them. I would be very surprised if we went into any of these games bar Gold Coast as hot favourites.

Yeah, in 2015, their worst season for a decade.

People keep saying they'll drop off once their older brigade drop off and retire. But you can't understate the importance of having them around. They were always ahead of us in development because they had blokes who had played finals and Grand Finals, who were guiding their young brigade. This team would never lose to Essendon, or lose to a team for 10 straight years, no matter how bad they are. They'll once again rip us a new one at Etihad.

Saints have snagged some great wins the past two seasons. Meanwhile, we keep beating Collingwood, Richmond and the two QLD sides, struggle against everyone else and can't even beat teams around us on the ladder. Adelaide, Freo, Eagles, Saints. We need to take it up to these four.

Howe would be useful in defense this year. Great as a floating wingman-type defender. We have managed without him but we might have been better defensively with him there. He obviously fell for the pre-season hype about Collingwood being top-4 quality.

Still reckon we should have taken Wines ahead of Toumpas.

Beat me to it. Essendon in 2001. Geelong in 2008. Collingwood in 2011. "Unbeatable", yet beaten. Let's also not forget that GWS is yet to get the job done on the big stage. What's the biggest crowd they've played in front of? 50,000 at Adelaide Oval? How many times have they played and won on the MCG? I am skeptical of their capacity to win a flag at all. They haven't even played a final yet. I'd put my money on the Dogs to absolutely smash them in a GF.

Well those four aren't long-term prospects, with Dunn, Garland and H probably on their last AFL contracts, and Salem due for a move to the wing or middle as per the original plan. Salem's skills and poise don't make up for his lack of defensive accountability imo and he's no less a liability than having OMac down there, who can at least play the man and hit the body. Jetta is our "loose" defender and certainly our most reliable defender, so we don't need Salem down there. I would argue that those four being out is a blessing in disguise. Hunt, Wagner, OMac, TMac, Jetta and Bugg are probably our long-term defenders. It's funny how when we win, we love this dynamic, but when we lose, it's basically they're all dumb footballers. Yeah, they play dumb football occasionally, but is there a younger, more inexperienced backline in the comp? Comparatively, I'd say we're doing spectacularly to develop this lot, and I'd say they're doing wonderfully. We're doing better defensively overall than we were with Dunn, Garland, Frawley down there every week. Hunt and Wagner provide fantastic run, something we haven't had out of half-back for about 10 years. Good defense leads to attack. We're much better in transition with our current defensive structure.

Doubt that sponsors would drop off because we're sitting comfortably at around 35k average per home game, better than Bulldogs, North, Blues, Saints, even Cats who play more big primetime games. Generally good press this year and a lot of positivity so I would think we're safe for sponsors right now. Membership is still a concern because there's little growth. We also have a relatively small support base next to other Melbourne teams. Making the finals this year would push us beyond 45k in 2017 but 40k would still be a stretch in 2017 (although I would think we'd get there). I always thought that in 2014 and 2015, Roos' style was at odds with what Jackson and co. we're trying to achieve. We played ugly, unattractive football, and no one outside of Melbourne supporters wanted to watch the Demons. Roos is really applying a similar philosophy here as he did with the Swans. Melbourne isn't in a situation where it can afford to drop off again, so it needs sustained success over a long period. Sydney in the 2000s was looking down the barrel and now they're in a position where as a club, it's success or bust: they simply can't afford to bottom out like a Collingwood or a Hawthorn or Geelong. Those teams would survive bottoming out, but Sydney just isn't in a position where it can take that risk. Melbourne as the club we know absolutely must be relevant and successful for a long period. The way the league is now and the way information is spread through the internet and social media, when you're down, you're really down. When it rains it pours. It's a long climb back and my pass mark for this year was 10 wins, not finals. I'm fairly confident with where we're out. We need to iron out the kind of losses against Essendon, St Kilda, but tough loses will still happen. As frustrating as Sunday was, it was no disaster. We'll bounce back against the Crows and the media will jump back on us and start talking finals again like they have after every Melbourne win. That's the best we could ask for from a branding perspective at this point. Dees 2017 premiers.

Gawn will definitely make it. Viney would need a spectacular second-half of the year with at least 4-5 BOGs to get close.

The SCG is pretty great. I'd like Sydney more if it wasn't Sydney.

Feminism is not a theoretical model, because that would suggest coherence and consistency in the model, even where there are contesting theories. Contemporary feminism has distanced itself from and is hostile towards old-school feminism, because the two are very different, competing fields of social theory. Where feminism used to be about individual empowerment and the woman being treated equally to the man, modern feminism is much more about the collective, with a different interpretation of sisterhood in that it's less about "having someone's back" and more about "social justice", which really means public lynching. It is less a "stand up and be heard" movement and more a "SIT DOWN AND LISTEN" movement, which aims to replace the patriarchy more than merely break it down. You also amplify a narrative that in my opinion epitomises the incoherence of feminism, "social justice" and the modern far-left: you're so smothered in your own non-subjective interpretation of morality and society that you can't separate the [censored] from fact. This quote in particular had me rolling on the ground in laughter: There is no "view" of journalism. Journalism is the amplification and sharing of information. It is the role of the journalist to inform. The modern-left see journalism as a means to initiate change, but that is not the role of the journalist: the role is to inform true to the facts, and allow the reacher/viewer to make up their own minds based on those facts. The "social justice" journalist that we see so prominently these days is no different than the state-sanctioned journalist in China, because they are amplifying a non-subjective, hardline stance and definition of morality: "This is how things are, but this is how they should be". That is not the role of the journalist.

We are a fascinating football club. When we were god awful, we tended to play decent football in the wet and occasionally troubled some teams in those conditions when we were set to get belted. In 2014 and 2015, we had a solid backline, but a terrible forward line and midfield. In 2016, we've dropped off in the wet, picked up significantly in the middle and up forward, but have major liabilities across the defensive structure. We miss Frawley, but the plus side is we have Petracca. We have played terrible wet weather football twice in three weeks now, and went in unchanged in trying, hard conditions against a top side away from Melbourne after a mere 6-day break. When it rains, it pours. We have made massive inroads as a club on and off the field but we struggle to "turn" corners. It took us so long to win two in a row. Now we can't quite get over the line against teams we don't know how to beat and haven't for years. Geelong last year was an anomaly, and it came in a rare "off" year for them. A win against Adelaide will right a lot of the wrongs this team committed in loses to the Saints, Port, Hawks, Swans and Bombers. We have to compete and beat teams around or above us on the ladder to really take the next step. Carlton's win against Geelong would have done wonders for their development, for their ability to evolve that "how to win" mentality. Loses like today always seem like efforts in losing margin minimisation, not so much in "trying to win". We play either dumb or defeatist football. We still need to turn a corner and it won't happen this season if we let Adelaide run over us in two weeks.

I think "dislike" invites too much negativity. If you disagree with someone or dislike what they've said, quote them and explain why. A "like" is a way to simplify "I agree", or that you endorse/ appreciate the comment. If you agree then there is nothing else to say, so you "like". But simply clicking "dislike" or "disagree", it might discourage interaction and response because all you do to do to let someone know you don't like what they've said is click a button, without really validating in any way why you think they're wrong. Just my thoughts.

Called it. Also, on 774 they just said Longmire gave the Swans an absolute baking at three quarter tim

Can't imagine this going any way other than Sydney running out with a 6-7 goal last quarter . Those tackles, Melbourne would be sore and battered. Gonna be a long last quarter.

Anyone know goals from turnovers stats? Swans have 3 by my count.