praha

What's this got to do with Cameron Schwab? Why have a history section if you're not going to put the club's history there?

So I spent first semester doing a subject called "People and Change", which is a theoretical look at organizational change and how people adapt and react to it. Fascinating -- but challenging -- stuff. I decided to do the "advanced" version of this subject this semester, and decided to choose Melbourne Football Club as my case study, at the support of my lecturer, who said it was a great example (after I showed her evidence to back up my case, as she is American and didn't understand the situation or sport). Fascinatingly, there is an uncanny correlation between the issues the club has faced in the past 16-or-so months, and the issues that company's face when they fail to adapt to change. Basically, going by what I've learnt in the subject, the Melbourne Football Club has failed miserably in its effort to change, but I don't need to tell you all that. The problem I see immediately -- I haven't analysed the situation extensively enough yet -- is that the club isn't quite sure whether it's implementing an "evolutionary" or "revolutionary" change: it's taking a little from column A, and a little from column B. For your records: Evolutionary - Slow, but persistent change and progress, far more reliable and stable. Revolutionary - Immediate change, the hardest to deal with, far more unstable. So what's the problem? The club's "boys club" culture would suggest a slow, evolutionary change would be more beneficial to avoid a complete collapse of the like we've seen over the past two season...however, that same culture would be hostile to change, so a slow, evolutionary change would be equally good and bad, and equally as risky as a revolutionary change. It's a mind-f*** of a challenge for anyone in charge. I've developed sympathy for McLardy, and even Schwab to a degree. The club, however, as adopted a revolutionary change, which would explain the collapse. 1. Neeld came in with a clear, direct idea of what needed to be changed. 2. McLardy drove these changes home, and argued for a completely clean slate for the club (a diplomatic way of saying they're completely changing the fabric of the club -- awfully risky considering the club's persistently unstable financial situation -- a double-edged sword because change was needed). 3. Older, leading players struggled to adapt to the changes (Moloney) and were therefore made the equivalent of redundant: I'd argue that being traded or given the freedom to sign elsewhere is the same in active AFL playing terms as being made redundant by your employer. 4. New, young faces are unsure how to incorporate the changes, or how to embrace the club, because it's at such a low point and struggling to form an identity. Imagine going to an organisation as an intern, only to learn the organisation is bleeding money, is far, FAR behind its competitors, and has no clear future. I'm sure you might be regretting your decision. Now, this is all a very mechanically theoretical way of looking at how change happens at a football club. The fabric is different because the teammateship is far more embedded into the foundations of the organization than it would be in a corporate world, where individualism can still take priority: you want to eventually strive for the benefit of yourself, rather than for the success of the wider team. I'm still very early in my case study and have months of reading ahead of me, but I am really looking forward to applying different theoretical frameworks to the club, its recent changes, failures, successes and challenges. I also hope the final outcome will provide more of an insight into how the club has gone wrong, and perhaps how it can adapt to change in a more efficient, effective manner. Although, Peter Jackson may do this more promptly than I can between now and November. /thesis

not be surprised. hahahahahaha

I highly recommend reading any of the many Greens manifestos out there. Especially Adam Bandt's university thesis. Second coming of Stalin that guy. Disguises it as "progressive" thought. Pathetic. Tony Abbott is the lesser of two evils. Hostility is there because some people have an inherent hatred for conservatism. If only the Labor wasn't so dysfunctional, split and inept.

Watts' time at Melbourne: 1. First game is played out like the second coming of Christ. He is introduced over the loudspeaker as the team runs out onto the field. He has absolutely mauled by a pack of lions. 2. He struggles to make an impact under Mr No-Accountability Bailey. 3. The club's CEO and football department cause a rift with the playing group. 4. Bailey is sacked. 5. Neeld is instated. He throws Watts down back to get easy possessions. 6. Club is belted almost every week from late-2011 to the present day. 7. Second coach in his short career is sacked. Watts clearly has very little faith in the club, and I don't blame him. The only thing valuable about Watts is his potential, and it's more the club's fault than his. Potential is enough to get you an average league salary. Unless you're Tom Scully. The guy wants to know who his coach will be. Why commit to a club that has failed so spectacularly to guide you through your employment? Why stay there under the uncertainty of another poor decision when you can bolt to play under Mick Malthouse, who provided more of a shoulder than anyone at the club at Watts' lowest point in his career? Some people need to wake up and smell the roses. The problem isn't Watts.

Well dah!

He isn't up to it? He was one of if not the best player against Geelong in HORRID conditions. The kid just struggled to play in Darwin heat after a tough outing the week before. It's not surprising. Give him a break, guys. He's played like 10 games ffs.

Will he be worth $1 million by then? Possibly...why not? If he stays healthy, anything can happen.

Melbourne's very own Derrick Rose.

Probably do okay there. Might play 20-30 games.

GWS most certainly a win. GC are far too classy in the middle. North have lost 5 games by 5 points or less. They aren't easy beats. They'll beat this squad by 7-8 goals, at least.

Silly OP. If you're unable to match the average, that's NOT a good thing. Also, it's all out of context: what's the average score and inside-50 count from the opposition in that period? That would be a better determining factor than the team's output, which is only as good as its capacity to counter the opposition.

He's not getting sacked. I find the idea of sacking premiership coaches particularly arrogant. I can understand resigning, or moving on, but at least give the individual -- someone that brought your club a flag -- the opportunity to step down rather than sack him.

This article is hilarious and oh-so-true. Gold Coast I could understand because they have one of the biggest amateur teams in the country down there. But GWS? A Canberra team would have been a better option. Also, the drafting hand-outs were a bad choice. They should have run an expansion draft: each team selects two uncontracted players to enter into the expansion draft, and the expansion team can select one, or neither, of the two players. It seemed like the logical thing to do. GWS is basically on the path Melbourne took: no true leaders, young, inexperienced young tikes fighting it out against men. Only problem is Melbourne is 150 years old and people care about the club.

The scoreboard

I find it hilarious how people seem so certain who will or will not take the job. Unless we're right at the end of the season -- Grand Final week -- or the season is completely over, no one is going to even hint at interest in the job. It's ludicrous to dismiss Roos' possible appointment based on his comments, and equally ludicrous to suggest any of the individuals the club has contacted are legitimately interested. We don't know, and won't know, until much later. This conjecture is so pointless. Roos is still a contender. People are acting like as if they want him to come out and say, "I WANT THE JOB I AM INTERESTED!" You can't do that mid-way through a season while another person is currently in the job, and who could potentially be there next year. It's unprofessional. Gee whiz people lap up everything they read. There is NO chance Roos or anyone else would come out and admit to wanting the job, because that means they'll get it. Craig is a contender so all of this won't happen because no one wants to step on the shoes of a respected individual like Craig. Wait until the season's over. If Roos says he has no interest then, then he has no interest. Until then, everyone is just playing it safe with their comments. I thought it was common sense. "Oh, On The Couch said he won't coach. So who's next?" Urgh. Dah! Of course he said that.

If you're trying to improve the long distance slow twitch fibres -- which allow more oxygen to keep the muscle working nicely for long periods of time -- you can't work on your quick burst fast twitch fibres at the same time (which allows for a quick burst of speed). They require two very different fitness regimes that collectively as a team may be different to train simultaneously. Obviously, considering the widespread inexperience and overall poor fitness, they wouldn't be able to maintain such a high level of fitness training. They appeared to struggle quite a bit in the early part of the season to stay within the contest beyond the first 15 minutes. This probably make sense considering how bombarded they admittedly were at training during the off-season. They are probably fit for their current levels of experience, but unfit by AFL standards. There are many players in the same position in the team that are still below that threshold. Players like Howe appear to have only now started to last 4 quarters, while Blease struggles. Still. It's probably more representative of the club's training regime over the past 4 years, but it's probably fair to give him a bit longer considering just how below standard they are.

He said it. I'd be part of the uproar if such a thing happened.

I found it damning that from around half-way through the 3rd, the work rate dropped off significantly, whereas Geelong's seemed to grow. Players were giving up on contests once a bit of a flow-on began, and even when Melbourne had the flow players weren't working hard enough to stream and offer an option, hence so few inside-50s.

Geelong's highest pick in 17 years in pick 7. You all heard that stat yesterday. The priority pick is condescending, pointless and anti-competitive. It is going to put this team in no better position in 5 years than not having it would.

Reminds me a bit of a movie I saw once... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsA4FnwrR7E

Cool. Is he playing on Saturday?

He is paying good money for the Brownlow. Probably won't play beyond 2 more years though.

I am certain than if Melbourne ends up on 3 wins for the season then, Half-Life 3 = confirmed.

I'm not excited, but I am curious. I've learnt that as a Melbourne supporter, the worst thing you can do is get excited about a player performing well, hell, dominating, at VFL level. He could be the next Michael Newton. Or he could be the next Tony Lockett. Two extremes. I understand how young he is but he needs to perform on the big stage before I give him a metaphorical handjob like some people on this forum.