praha

So the logic is that: being shopped = gone? What a load of crap! If your manager isn't trying to source at the asking price for your talents, you have a [censored] manager. How does anyone know if Melbourne won't match the price if the club doesn't even know his asking price? Anyone that follows US sports knows that looking around at offers is nothing more than a bidding process. Even if he WANTED to go, the club is still in the same position as all others to offer him a lucrative deal. They say it's about "money" but the club has it. If he left it would be about more than money. "Hey Melbourne, I'm out of contract, but I want to stay, so offer me your best price!" If there's no market for the player, the club can offer him whatever they want! If he is being shopped, then that would give the player leverage in getting the best deal. Aussie sports journos are sometimes so clueless when it comes to free agency it hurts my brain. Suggesting he is gone simply because he is being shopped around is just a moronic stance to take. THAT'S WHAT FREE AGENCY IS! Generating a market price. It would be very bizarre if the club didn't match the offer. Whether he took it or not would be a different situation, but saying it wouldn't at least match it is silly. Why wouldn't they?

The "lack of skills" thing is a cop out. IMO it has more to do with confidence. The Cats and Hawks, more so the Cats, trust each other in ways befitting of a battlefield. They trust each other to win a contest, or at least put the team in a position to win the ball. The lower teams don't do this. I understand that it is in theory a "skill", but saying the lower teams "lack skill" sounds more like an excuse, like as if to say "We're not up to it skill which is why we can't compete". But you ARE up to it, otherwise you wouldn't be playing AFL. Confidence is an amazing thing. You'd be amazed how much more skilful a player becomes when they have confidence. They hit targets, back up their efforts. I believe myself that without a robust faith and confidence in your own skills, you can't be successful. The team lost on Sunday, not because it lacked skill. It was because it lacked the confidence to take the game on when it was there for the taking. The Suns also struggled with this. No one is denying the Suns' class.

Why should we "genuinely have won"? Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Reality is that unsigned members are unsigned because the club isn't winning games. Improvement will not be enough short term to attract people to games apart from the faithful that have sat through 100-point losses. The diehards will judge this team after 5 rounds and say they have improved. The bandwagoners that signed up after 2010 that dropped off after 2011, 2012, are not going to sign up again until they aren't embarrassed to have a Melbourne sticker on their car. Let's face reality here: the club needs to start winning games if it wants to achieve its off-field goals. That's not to invalidate the team's growth and improvement, but what we've seen so far will really only satisfy those with a strong knowledge of the game. Otherwise, it's just another 4 losses, one of which was a 100-point loss, and two against teams that have three wooden spoons between them in 3 seasons. That is not going to having people rushing back to buy memberships. It's imperative the club wins at least 6 games this season. Otherwise, growing membership next year will be very, very tough. Is the club still optimistic about breaking even this year? Its two home games so far have been against the Eagles and Suns, both would have been substantial losses. The first two rounds are the most important for attracting members: one was at Etihad, which Melbourne fans hate, the other was at the MCG where we lost by 100-points and played Neeld-era football. Yeah, there's improvement...comparatively. But so far as growing as a CLUB, it needs to win more games. What happens if it goes into Round 10 bye 1-8? That would be no more an improvement than in 2013. Statistically, maybe there's an improvement, but for those that dropped off and didn't resign as members, it'll be the same old. It's a lot more complex than "improving". You need to win games. I was filthy after Sunday. My girlfriend fed me the typical "at least they only lost by 8 points". I am sick of that rhetoric.

Only on a Melbourne forum are people getting excited about round 1 when we haven't even reached round 6 yet.

Carr would be the second coming of Moloney: no side vision, in love with his own talent. Putin? I'd throw a million a year at him.

Jones - Hardly surprising but has lifted his game to another level. Viney - Still seems like a kid that's played less than 50 games but has already developed a "don't argue" run through packs and is a joy to watch when he has the ball. Frawley - After an unacceptable outing against the Eagles has improved dramatically as a forward. IMO he should remain there. He is explosive but not very quick over long distances. Opponents make ground up on him very quickly.

If Rising Star nominations meant anything in the broader sense, Melbourne would have had 14 flags between 2000 and 2014.

He looks for the contact. Surprised he doesn't get called on it more often. TBH we're still being far too harsh. The kid has played, what, 30 games?

Would like to know if they train well so that if they lose this week at least they'll be one positive.

Yay! We're not losing as bad!

I don't see why the club doesn't campaign harder for an ANZAC night clash against Sydney at the SCG.

That would be an outright joke. If there is an issue so bad that it can't be diagnosed, you don't say "4-5" weeks, you say "indefinite". That is, lasting for an unknown time. That would be inline with the injury's actual definition. If he ends up going from "round 1 chance" to "round 4-5" to "round 10-11" to "out for the season", it will be a true insult to the fans. At this stage had they said "indefinite" from the start and at this stage he'd reached 4-5 weeks, we'd all be a little more optimistic. But now we just see a predicted return date that doesn't actually change week-to-week: it's been 4-6 weeks since round 1. Oh God...426...*head, desk*

Considering Vlad has gone to great efforts to keep the MFC sustainable and functioning, I wouldn't be so quick to wish of his demise. But yes, ANZAC Day game is a joke/.

I don't quite understand why this discussion even exists. Let the game evolve and teams adjust. If we keep changing the rules and how the game is played, it's going to evolve beyond that anyway. It happens. There are too many variables and we keep adding to that number with a "rules committee" that is really nothing more than an act of self-mockery on the league's behalf. It's like it admits that many of the game's rules are open to interpretation, and a call (or non-call) are dependant on the situation and time of the event, so it tries to draw a straight line through things that for 150 years have come and gone without so much as a rule change. It is not like soccer where there is a very technical application of the rules: it either happened or it didn't. Aussie rules has always been open to self-interpretation of the rules and how games are played it. It's part of what defines it. I'd have thought guys like Leigh Matthews would be in favour of allowing players and coaches to get out of a rut on their own accord, but instead he seems inspired by his own faux sense of power. The defensive mindset hasn't changed the game. It's the mindset that we need to keep changing the laws to make it "better". Footy is footy. It doesn't matter how it's played. If Melbourne had gotten up on Sunday, we'd all be singing the praises of Roos. It didn't go our way, so we lament the "defensive style" of the game. Give me a break!

Interesting comments about Roos. With all the frustration aimed at guys like Toumpas, Watts, the reality is that these are kids going from a playground to a professional environment. Even in the corporate world university tries to set you up with realistic expectations and habits. Some people go straight at it after high school but that is a rare trait, even for the super hard workers. There is no point imo bringing Salem into the side now, aside from of course giving him AFL experience. He needs at the very least 10-15 VFL games to even be considered. It may happen earlier but it's a massive step and they need to be eased into it. Viney is an exception: that is a kid that has grown up in an AFL environment and has the insight. There's nothing wrong with learning the ins and outs. Some may disagree but a strong family environment cannot be understated. He mentions his family a lot so the guy knows how important it is to have trusting, caring people around you. Not everyone has this benefit in their private life and I think it will help turn him into a leader for the club. Looking forward to seeing how he progresses at Casey.

He was great in 2010. Injuries have hurt his '11, '12 and '13 seasons. If he can stay fit and on the park he has AA CHF potential. Reads the play well, works hard and kicks well. He's no Cloke but if the ball gets down there enough he is a big enough target.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?tid1=12&pid1=3107&tid2=17&pid2=1488&type=A&fid1=O&fid2=O I don't know, I think we're being really harsh. The reality is that Watts hasn't got the cattle around him to feed him the ball. He is a bit of a pea heart but you can still make it in this league. He's not going to be the guy that lifts the club into the finals, in the same way Franklin never was. We need a good core of grunt players like Viney and Jones, and strong leaders to do that. Watts need not fit into any of those categories to be as good as he can be. He needs players around him to win the ball in other areas. Watts is the necessary player you need when you're flying. He is not the saviour.

If you're the type of player that doesn't like watching other teams for "superstitious reasons", you can right well F off! How the hell are you supposed to scout your opponent and truly understand how a team plays if you're only going to watch, say, a few minutes before you play them?

Toumpas was drafted as this player.

You need a strong upper-body though, and you need to embrace that contact to get rebounds, shrug off the defender and move through screens. Jack wouldn't make it at NBL level. Look at the bodies even in that league. Most small forwards, power forwards (where I imagine he'd play) are twice his size. He'd be a sixth man at Bulleen. But, here we are *head, desk*

Well the problem is that if you kick it long and they are able to win the stoppage you end up back where you started. The best way out is down the middle or slowly working your way out by the reality is the players weren't working hard enough to get to space, particularly in that second quarter. All you need is one or two players to get to space and you can get it out.

The umpires were poor yesterday, both ways. They let it go for most of the time, but made one bad call another way, and seemed to rectify it with a similarly bad call the other way. Melbourne was given 2 or 3 gimmies in the middle in the third quarter. That Abblett free kick was very poor. You don't call that. Fundamental tagging tactics and Jordie was using his forearm to block Abblett. That's fair game. Not much else he can do. To see Jetta get his head ripped off right in front of the ump for nothing to be called was very frustrating. People started leaving at that point. I don't blame them. That goal review was also a joke. It is very clear the ball angle changed when it went past the first. I called it when they showed it on the screen. Was very surprised when it was called otherwise. It would be better to ditch that system and have two umpires there to discuss

Nah. You don't need the attack of a Jones or Viney to win a simple one-on-one contest. He gets man-handeld by guys smaller or even than him. It's not that it's ever an even contest: he is pushed off the contest like a ragdoll, gets tackled too frequently, and simply cannot break through a tackle. You do not need to be "hard" to do those things. You just need a bit of urgency. Pendlebury is rarely manhandled the way Watts is. Watts tries to use his smarts to out-position the opponent, but he fails to consolidate that with brute force to control the ball. He has the strength, he just doesn't use it, and doesn't seem driven to. He rarely seems likely to win a contest, because he rarely out-muscles the opponent. And it's not that he tries and fails: he is pushed aside like someone that has a complete disregard and lack of respect for the opponent. This is what it looks like from the stands. If you can't see that you're blind.

I just threw up in my mouth a bit. That happened right in front of me. He is alarmingly fragile in the contest. It's astonishing. And it's not through a lack of strength. He completely disregards the opponent and plays and moves like he's a man playing against under-12s. The guy needs a reality check. VFL reality check.

Watts could very well be close to the edge. His inability to shrug a tackle, break through a pack, or take a contested mark is becoming increasingly worrying. I've always been willing to stand by the bloke but he is the epitome of the downhill skier. Anyway, I thought the Dees controlled the game for most of the 2nd half but to the Suns' credit they held strong. Our backline was awful today. No run or confidence, and very little rebound. McDonald in arguably his worst game of his career.