praha

Dawes has struggled without having a crumbing forward around him. It makes his 10 dropped marks per game look worse. At least with a crumber he can attempt to palm the ball down a bit more. So...like Yze?

Totes constructive response.

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here. A few questions we need to ask: 1. Does free agency punish the "poor" teams, or the teams that are poorly managed? 2. A "rich" clubs immune from losing stars through free agency? 3. Is Melbourne losing Frawley, Sylvia and Rivers more a product of free agency, or the club's inability to satisfy player needs? I can't help but wonder had Melbourne not been run by amateurs for most of the 00s and particularly 2008-2013, if we'd been able to retain those players. 1. If we were playing finals in 2011 as was envisioned in 2010, and if we were still playing finals, would Frawley still have left? 2. Is our inability to attract the likes of Dangerfield more telling of the club's past, the club's present, or the club's potential future? Free agency isn't "killing the game": it's killing clubs that are poorly managed. Port Adelaide went from a NOTHING club two years ago to suddenly a juggernaut that has the potential to overtake the Crows on and off the field. Free agency hasn't and probably won't hurt them: could we have said the same thing a few years ago? Free agency was inevitable. Rather than pointing the finger at what should actually be a pretty simple transition for the game, let's consider how and why clubs like Melbourne appear to be suffering more than most. And we all now why it is: it's not free agency that is pushing players away from Melbourne. It's Melbourne pushing players away from Melbourne. It's a new era and this is make or break for the club. Continue to be run like a nothing club, and you will get nothing in return. You need to *earn* respect, not expect it. Frawley leaving is not a surprise and it shouldn't be. We're blaming free agency when really, we need to get our heads out of the sand and realise that if Melbourne were actually a decent side like they had the opportunity to be 2-3 years ago, we'd probably be praising free agency for bringing us players, rather than pushing them away. There's no reason why a club that is well managed and successful shouldn't be able to reap the benefits of that. Melbourne's being punished for being run like crap, and it's pushed good players away.

Far too rational a post for Demonland. Someone ban this squib.

Was that in '98? He was super that game. I remember him getting jeered by the MCC members as he was benched in the 2000 Grand Final. He was god awful.

IMO it was a request for special assistance of any kind, and in that request they probably put forth their case for a priority pick, which was shot down, but there are still other potential assistance packages available (like helping pay 100% of the cap, getting Dangerfield on a big contract, etc.)

Rumours by definition can't be "legit". If they were legit, they wouldn't be rumours.

Sign & Trade.

I think it's possible. A full pre-season for more players, some solid acquisitions in the off-season and those 6 or so games we led in the fourth but lost become wins. 12 wins get you in. To be honest though I'd much rather see this team beat or at least PERFORM against the likes of Geelong, Hawthorn, North and Collingwood. Those teams have pushed us around for too long.

https://twitter.com/melbournefc/status/512433546099585024 Peter Jackson: We've asked for special assistance (under Rule 19), not a priority pick, just to be clear.

And not as one dimensional.

This reminds me a lot of Primus and Boak: I remember Boak was rumoured to be heading to the Dees, Primus gets the sack and suddenly Boak is 100% Power. On top of that, Goodwin is now a chance for that gig. It just gets better and better for this club! Certainly the latter. At times it's seemed that players just haven't wanted to be at the club.

I'd say he won us the game against Carlton, and was prolific in some capacity in all four of our wins. Even when we lost he played his role very well, leads strong, puts pressure on the defense and works his butt off to keep the ball forward. If Dawes played to half to level of Pederson, he'd be AA.

lol that would make him the only player at Melbourne with such a trait.

I was going to correct you but you did yourself in your follow-up comment. Dangerfield is exactly the kind of midfielder we'd be hoping to draft with picks 2 or 3.

He is what Blease should have been.

Oh well there we go. No player in the history of ever has moved because he owns a pub in another city...

The problem with that gameplan is, as Melbourne showed in *almost* beating them twice, is that they have no plan B. A team with an aggressive offensive plan needs a similarly aggressive defensive plan. Whenever Port was challenged defensively this year, they struggled. The way to beat them is to slow the game down and turn it into a slog. It's not rocket science. You can try and beat them at their own game but they'll out-run you. The Kanga want to run with Sydney this weekend and have a scoring fest. Imo, as Richmond showed, if you can zone the ground well enough and stem the run, you can beat a team like Sydney. Port stood up defensively on the weekend and the right time. They'll need to do it again against Hawthorn.

Love this bloke.

What's 100-200k if you're already earning 800k? Most players have left in FA to chase success. Only the outrageous, ridiculous contracts of the Scully and Franklin variety have bucked the trent. Unless Melbourne can offer him 350k+, it might be hard to persuade him to agree to a trade imo.

I must one of a few that genuinely doesn't care and enjoy seeing young kids play well. I'm admittedly angry that he's playing well while the guy we chose over him (when we appeared split between the two) can't get a kick at VFL level. But that's how drafting works. One kid got drafted into a team now destined for greatness, the other into one of the worst teams of all time. If it wasn't us that picked Toump over Wines, it would have been someone else.

Break even at the MCG is about 20k, so let's be conservative and say 23k. v WC: 22K v GC: 17K V Syd: 23k v WB: 36K V Port: sold home game, profit V Pies: 68k V North: 28k V Freo: sold home game, profit V Geelong: 36K V Lions: 18k (Etihad) V GWS: 17K So of our 11 home games we've seemingly achieved a profit, in most cases a small one, in 7 of them. Compare to last year: 2013: v Port: 22k V WC: 18K V GWS: 20K V GC: 13K (urgh...) V Hawks: 28K V Pies: 50K V Bulldogs: 21K V Syd: 26K V Brisbane: Sold home game, profit V Norf: 18K (Etihad) V Freo: 13K (urghhh...) That's 4 games where we've broken a profit, and consider we had one less sold home game, a crowd of 18K less v the Pies, two games of 13K, an Etihad home crowd of 18K. We've done okay this year considering. Replace the Bulldogs and Sydney home games with Carlton and Richmond/Essendon and it would have been even better.

Stop living in the past.