praha

This was always going to be a 50/50 match. Can't keep up with them so have to play it on our terms. You can tell Roos is coaching today.

Roos style to slow it down. They're too quick. Probably a good thing.

No Dunn was a shocking oversight.

It's certainly one of the round's most interesting.

Debatable. They're more like Melbourne of 2007 at this stage, though. And Melbourne "topped up" in 2002 and in 2003, which was a "mini" rebuild after the disaster that was the 2002 finals. Finals in 2004, 2005, 2006. We had zero depth though and fell away every year after looking the goods around half-way through. Richmond will either fire and make the top 4, or crash and burn...hard. Last night's match reminded me of Melbourne v St Kilda in Round 1, 2007. Melbourne expected to win comfortably but it was the beginning of the end. Start of the rise for the 'Aints. Only difference between that Richmond was playing a pretty inexperienced and dysfunctional (at times) squad that doesn't run two ways hard enough for long enough. Toiges very lucky to get away with that last night. Blues were a 4-5 goal better team for 70% of the match.

Just another player from the Daniher era that probably won't be part of the club's rise. Don't mind him and much prefer him to Garland but I guess playing and developing Oscar is more important at this stage.

Gee, that voice...

No sun in your eyes on level 2. Level 2 Southern Stand and Level 2 Olympic Stand are more or less the same view: best view in the house. Olympic Stand is much nicer though. Nicer crowd. Noice.

I want to know how if at all this frame will help Ugandan children and if putting this frame around my profile picture will raise awareness about the Paris attacks kthxbai

Except we wouldn't lose.

I still question the financial viability of Etihad even once the AFL takes over. They are not going to run the stadium at a massive loss. Etihad ran only up until recently on a loss every year, primarily as a means to keep costs for clubs as low as possible, and they were still astronomically high. Of course Eddie is talking about this from Collingwood's perspective, but at the end of the day if it benefits Collingwood, it's probably going to be beneficial for everyone else. Even they run at a loss at Etihad for their home games there. From the city's perspective, Etihad is the elephant in the room. It more or less breaks the entire Docklands precinct off from the rest of the city. Anyone who doesn't factor in the stadium as part of the reason why Docklands stinks (metaphorically) is very naive. The Aus Open has demoted Hisense Arena and replaced it with Margaret Court Arena. I don't see why the idea of knocking it down and replacing it with another stadium has been met with such contempt. And I find it ironic that you're worried about the parks along Swan Street while standing behind the ugly concrete heap that is Etihad and the surrounding Docklands area. I agree with others here that this all seems like a pipedream and the logistics of Eddie's and Richmond's plans make both very difficult to ever come to fruition, but I think that Etihad, its design, and its placement weren't thought through very well. I think it's clear that the city of Melbourne, the government, and many of the clubs share this train of thought. Etihad is going to be left behind, already is being left behind with the likes of Adelaide Oval, the new Perth stadium etc leading the way. Mark my words, Etihad will eventually go the way of Waverley.

brb changing pants

You're welcome.

Good read. Predicting a ladder during the pre-season is pointless. Especially this year where the gap between 5th and 12th will be miniscule.

Watching replays on YouTube.

Etihad is not financially viable, and probably never will be. Its facilities are ageing far too quickly for a stadium that was built only 16 years ago. The fact you stand to be better placed hosting 20,000 fans at a 100,000-seat stadium than you would hosting 20,000 at a 50,000-seat stadium shows just how important a new stadium is. Teams like North, Bulldogs, Saints would probably be better placed financially now if they didn't lose thousands at every home game there, even with decent crowds. Melbourne probably lost 250k for the game against GWS there last year. 16,000 at the MCG might have only been 50k loss. Money matters. Income distribution isn't the answer. It's a bandaid solution. Teams need to be in a position where they are self-sustainable. Melbourne is well on the way but we're lucky to call the MCG home. Carlton says it wants to come to the MCG to better service its fans but it's most certainly more about the money. Eddie's plan isn't anywhere near as crazy as everybody makes it out to be. Any rational thinker can see that a stadium built with financial gain in mind from the start is important to the future of the league and its smaller clubs. No doubt Collingwood and Richmond would benefit the most from these plans but smaller stadiums that don't lose clubs hundreds of thousands of dollars is definitely the direction we need to go.

"2003 recruiting creating a dynasty" "2009 recruiting creating a dynasty" "2010 recruiting creating a dynasty"

Hate to toot my own horn (not really) but back in the 08-09 years when we had that god awful corporate "Melbournefc" logo, I mentioned on here that it was the right direction, the club had *almost* the right idea at the time, but the branding was downright awful. I was hounded for it. I believe they were trying to distance themselves from "Demons" because of the potential to damage relations with China partners and fans, maybe it's the same logic now, I wouldn't be surprised, but that vision then was to better associate the club with "Melbourne". The only problem was that you had a bunch of old corporates with no previous experience in the sport field, who absolutely fluffed it. Looking at the Schwab era, I won't disagree he wasn't great, he clearly hurt the club in many ways, but you can't criticise his ambition, his vision to reestablish the club and its brand as a league powerhouse. The vision now you can see is all about establishing a brand that doubles as a fashion icon, is accessible, can pass as something other than a sport brand (think NY Yankees). I think I saw someone on here mentioned that in the past. I've always thought that Jackson and co. approach the NT deal with contempt, with a kind of, "well we *have* to, but hopefully in the future we don't have to." Playing a home game there is definitely at odds with Jackson's vision. Hawthorn sell games now, not because they have to. But because it adds a cheeky extra million to their bottom line. And they aren't massive crowd drawers against interstate teams. As "big" as they seem, they are not a Richmond or a Collingwood from a support perspective. I am and always will be highly cynical of the value of their "membership" figures but you can't understate how important that figure alone is. The figure that's important is ratio of support-to-attendance. I think Melbourne is among the league leaders in that regard. Selling games to NT is detrimental to that. It's necessary atm, but once we get up and going, with the way the game is amplified with broadcast and social media, it'll be a thing of the past. It's all about getting it right. The ship has sailed I'm afraid for establishing a "second" home. Hawthorn jumped on a state primed to be taken advantage of. North's exercise is futile in Hobart, but it might work out. What I love about Jackson, even Roos to a degree, they can see the potential. If Melbourne went through an era similar to what Hawthorn is going through now, I have no doubt we'd be bigger than them. Our crowds, our memberships aren't great, but they're on-par with finals-bound teams of the Bulldogs and North variety. I remember one game at the MCG back in 2004 or 2005 against West Coast. 45,000 people at the game. We weren't even that great. We were good. But not great. Melbourne is a juggernaut waiting to be woken. But instead of waking it with a thunderous kick to the belly, we've only poked it with a stick for going on 60 years. Two finals series in a row, a bit of hype and some consistency over a number of years, and we'll be up and about. A flag will seal it and we'll be the league's powerhouse again. People put us with the Saints, North, Bulldogs. We're in a different league. We're in that middle-ground between the upper-tier and lower-tier, but we linger around the lower-tier because we've been so god damn awful.

Hold the phone....Ox getting carried away? Never!

Pederson should be doing more in the ruck. You also have Garland and Oscar M down back who could take it when it's down there. He seems to be all over the ground.

I'm not even lying but part of the reason I went yesterday was so I didn't have to watch Fox Footy. I really hate Etihad.

Great article although a lot of people seem to too easily dismiss Roos' style here. Our defense during the pre-season has been sublime. Our pressure out times in the defensive half was fantastic. And as the article mentioned, our transition out of defense, a major area of issue the last two seasons, looked great. Our forward pressure was also good. There is a defensive mindset that was so lacking that Roos introduced, and combined with Goodwin's bold, striking, fast style, creates a more free-flowing game.

2-3 weeks.

What I've liked all pre-season is that we link together better than we have for years, but skills still let them down. Early days though. We are much better in transition, and haven't really leaked goals in quick succession. Defense looks good and tight with lots of pressure but gee, Garland, McDonald (both), Grimes are going to cost us a lot of goals this year. They work so hard but some of the errors Garland makes, he shouldn't be flunking kicks and missing targets this late in his career. I think half of Saints' goals came from errors.