praha

I hope he goes for 650k. We'll get another pick straight after our inevitable top 10 pick for ladder position. That said, Howe has the potential to be a very good player and has been very serviceable since Roos arrived. Sweeping half back that will learn a lot from H. But he's not worth more than 450k.

He marketable and recognisable. Still only ranked 100 in the league. Has a face and demeanour that stands out, easy for people to remember. He needs to go up a level though.

Not getting my hopes up...it's hard not to, though. I'll be filthy if we lose this, but if we do, I want it to go down to the wire.

He really, reallllllly isn't. Both figuratively and literally.

Contacted the club.

What's an "effective" tackle, though? Is this stat taken? Because you can "tackle" someone and get it added to your stat sheet, but if the player you're tackling is able to dump the ball off to an opponent with an effective possession, then the tackle isn't really "effective", is it? Watts can make a tackle, they're just not very effective.

What else establishes "culture" if not performance, because you said performance is not a big concern? Every player needs to perform consistently. If they do, you win games of football. Say performance doesn't matter seems at odds with your claim he is trying to "change the culture". They'll just play it the night before. If it's a Tuesday night, I imagine it would carry over from the previous round, and the ANZAC Day clash the next day would be the start of the next round. In 2006, ANZAC Day fell on a Tuesday, so it was part of the round from that weekend. The following year it was a Wednesday, so it was the start of the next round. So I imagine any ANZAC Eve clash on a Tuesday night would be the end of the round, with the next day being the start of the next round.

Here are some ideas: Clubs that finish in the top 8 must pay a luxury tax, which is a percentage of the acquired player's salary, with the percentage increasing the further up the ladder you go. For example, Hawthorn finished first last year, and then signed Frawley to, say, $650k a year. They finished first so they pay, let's say, a 20% luxury tax on his salary (which doesn't contribute to the salary cap). So they'd have to pay a further $130,000 to the league for the acquisition of the player. Alternatively, create a "transfer fee", which is paid to the club losing the player, but only if they finish below a certain point on the ladder. That'll "equal" things up quickly if lower teams are losing out: more money in the coffers equals more money on football development. I don't see how this is a solution for the growing gap. If Melbourne played on the national stage *more* during 2012-2014, it would have only further damaged the club's brand. Broadcasters have a lot of say in fixturing and it's not good for the game if poor sides are put on the national stage. The reality is that good football equals better exposure. I understand that the catch-22 is that more exposure equals further reach of your brand, and the less exposure your brand has the less people are interested which means fewer members and less money. But you have to look at it both ways: it's not good for the sport or the league if bad teams are the highlight of the league during primetime. But it's also bad for the sport and league if lower clubs don't get exposure which helps them expand their brand. For one, Melbourne needs home games against the likes of Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn, Carlton and even Geelong. We constantly get away games but then get home games against Fremantle. From a business perspective I'd rather travel to Perth to play Freo if that meant we got a home game against one of those teams (even in NT). Isn't this already the case? On a case-by-case basis. Melbourne in 2012, 2013 should not have been paying the full cap.

You mean he hates the contested ball and has the face of a tailor from the 1950s?

Added Friday night, more so because we haven't played a Friday hight match for three years, and haven't won one for four.

Good thing we're going to win, then.

I'm guessing 34.5k is where it'll peak. 35k by round 1 was always a pipe-dream with two away games straight after round 1, and that Essendon loss. A win against Richmond might jump things up but I think the club's peaked atm.

It's far too early to tell. Games like this Friday, and how we perform away from Melbourne and against the likes of Hawthorn and Sydney, not to mention mid-range teams like North, Adelaide, Port etc will tell us a lot.

All this talk about Watts. He's Travis Johnstone 2.0: he's the kind of player you want in your team when your team's playing well. He gets the ball, hits a target, can kick a goal or two. But when your team is struggling, he won't win the game for you, or stand out. Dumping him would be silly, because whenever the team's on a role, he tends to be at the forefront. Yeah, that makes him a downhill skier, but he's still blasting down the mountain faster than the opposition. He's a role player. People want him to be a superstar but he's not. He plays a role and that's it. And his role is particularly highlighted when we play well. He's kind of like the icing on a cake, the "cherry on top". He's going to be a real asset when this team plays finals. Reliable. Until then, he can only do so much. We need the true leaders to stand up. The guy isn't superman.

It'll sure be interesting to see how Melbourne plays given the contest on Saturday. We could either be absolutely stuffed and get run over, or really rough it up and keep it tight. I can't seeing us 'smashing' them though. I honestly think that this is the type of games for BOTH teams that will determine how far they've come. If Melbourne wins this, they will have performed on a big stage and turned a corner. If Richmond wins, well, they'll have played consistent footy at the start of a season for the first time in a while. Richmond needs to win this if it wants to be a respected finals contender. Melbourne needs to win this to turn a corner. It's going to be epic.

I believe it was promoted as a "training" jumper. And by "training" jumper they really mean "another jumper for you to buy".

Bad kicking style. Confirmed going to Freo.

Spencer and Gawn are fine imo. They're very raw but expecting a Sandilands with your ruck stocks is futile. You need a strong midfield and a ruckman that will simply make a contest and get the ball to the ground. We've also got Frost now who reminds me a little of Jason Ball. Dawes can ruck around the ground, so can Hogan and Lumumba. We're serviced well in ruck stocks imo. We need better ball winners. Our defense is nice and our forward line is better, but for the amount we rebound off 50, we don't go forward anywhere near enough. Our mids still don't run hard enough going both ways. That will come with experience for Tyson, Viney. Vince never goes back and Jones can't do everything. Brayshaw will be special. Gee come to think of it if we're not playing finals by 2017 at the latest there really is something wrong with this club.

Another good option is Baden Powell on Victoria Parade. Amazing grub, sensational pizza, and a big screen. Again, it's hit and miss with what games they're showing.

We should have won 10-12 games last year. Not winning that this year would be a failure.

I have no problem with Essendon. I have many problems with Collingwood. During World War 1, the clubs with the highest tally of players serving came from "upper-class" (at the time) clubs: Melbourne, Geelong, St Kilda, South Melbourne. Essendon had many players serve during the war, but Collingwood was very under-represented: of the four "working class" clubs -- Collingwood, Fitzroy, Richmond and Carlton -- the Pies had by far the lowest amount of players serving. Melbourne stood aside from the competition and along with University had the highest number of players serving die: 16. In WW2, Melbourne lost a further 13, including ‘Bluey’ Truscott, and the Rat of Tobruk, Ron Barassi Senior. Collingwood's enlistment was half that of the Lions, Tiges and Blues. But this pisses me off the most: Melbourne name its best-and-fairest trophies after fallen war heroes, whereas Collingwood named theirs after Copeland and treasurer Bob Rush, who disguised gifts to players and committeemen during the wars as presents to soldiers, when they were anything but. Also consider that the neighbourhood was mainly Irish Catholic, heavily unionised and against conscription. In the 1916 and 1917 conscription referenda, Collingwood voted against conscription. Whether you agree with conscription or not (I can't see how you would), it seems bizarre that a club so aggressive in its campaign against the wars would be rewarded with arguably the biggest game on the regular season schedule that recognises those who served. If ANZAC Day was about "tradition", Collingwood most certainly wouldn't be there. The day is about nothing more than branding and corporate exploitation. If it had anything to do with the "ANZACS" and tradition, Melbourne would be playing. But it's not like Melbourne was smart enough to conjure up the day itself. It had an obligation to. It didn't. Now it's someone else's day, evidently, someone that most certainly shouldn't be held up on the day as a "club for the ANZACS".

Can we translate that same sort of defensive consistency that we saw against Adelaide against Richmond? I'm not convinced that this team has the capacity to play well consistently, two weeks in a row. We haven't seen it for four years. I hope they prove me wrong. Let's look at the stats: Richmond averages 60 more possessions a game (387) and 20 more marks (98). They lead the league in marks-inside-50 at 17.3, which is 10 more than we do (7.3). Adelaide averaged 19.5 marks inside 50 in the first two rounds but only had 5 on Saturday. That said the conditions didn't suit the forwards so it definitely made it easier for us. We average 7 more clearances per game (40) but we both average 11.3 center clearances. This should be a good tussle between the midfield, but I hope the likes of Jones, Tyson, Kent and Bernie can rough the Toiges up a bit like they did the Crows. We average 5 more stoppage clearances (28) and 4 more rebound-50s (40). We average almost 20 more tackles per game (70). It's just our capacity to get the ball forward inside-50 with good delivery that kills us: we're 17th for inside 50s with 42.7, whereas Richmond averages 55. We're also not that efficient going forward: it's 4 inside 50s for every goal, compare to Richmond's 3.6 entries for every goal. How can we win? We need to limit their marks inside 50, and translate our 40 rebounds per game (6th in the league) into goals. Richmond averages 5 more goals per game. Because of our inefficiency, if we permit Richmond too many marks inside 50, we'll need to rely on inaccuracy to keep us in the game, because we've really struggled to get the ball forward and score in rounds 2 and 3. Maybe playing on the MCG again will change this. Tackle hard, win the stoppages, restrict their push forward and completely cut off the supply to their marking forwards. We can get on top of their mids. My Tip: Dees by 123

"Melbourne are right up the backside of Adelaide so far." Yesterday's gem from Riccuito.

Sports Bar at Crown is good but it's a gamble (pun intended) on which game will be on the big screen and with audio. Essendon v Carlton would have been the preference yesterday. Other games are relegated to smaller screens. They have a schedule on their website but don't list what's showing on the big screen. Love going there though. The Parma Burger is a delight.

"I miss the days when players didn't have as much say in where they play." Inorite? Who would want employees to choose where they work! Adapt or die. The club has to find a way to keep (and develop) talent.