praha

Yes, Mark Neeld was also "talked up".

Yes, last year was a pleasure to watch.

Two moments stood out for me, both when the game was still up for grabs (first 10 minutes or so). 1. It was a one-on-one contest in front of the AFL Members. The ball bounced awkwardly for both players. Watts never, not for a single second, seemed like he would win the ball. Both players at one point touched the ball, but the Hawthorn player crisply managed to brush Watts off, balance his footing and drive the ball forward. 2. About 5 minutes later the same thing happened. He was playing in 2nd gear. Either the guy lacks the confidence to excel at AFL level, or he simple has no urgency to win even the simplest of one-on-one contests. I think that since 2009 I've seen him win maybe a handful of one-on-one battles. Damning for a guy drafted as a KPP. He is failure of a draft pick.

I think what you're referring to is Obama's attack on civil and financial liberties.

Wouldn't be surprised. And if his runs with injury are still like what they are now, then I'll drive him to the airport. We don't need another injury prone coulda-been that hangs onto the club's salary like Lyon used to.

IMO Neeld, Lyon and Stynes should be removed, and replaced with Jones, Terlich and Viney. Smith, Barrassi and Flower are all we need of reminders of the past. There is far too much looking back in the Demonland banned -- and at the club -- and we need to start looking forward. Ditch them.

I find Neeld's vision to be ambitious, and on par with the vision Schwab and co had -- the "Red and Blueprint". Unfortunately, I fail to comprehend how a rebuild, even one as a rebuild of a rebuild, can be to the level it is. The club has risked, not only onfield pain, but off-field pain, for what it hopes will be "sustained success". In a grand of view of sustained success, the club has been brought to arguably its lowest point yet. I'd argue it is the lowest point, simply because the club is arguably below GWS (there is NOTHING to suggest GWS is behind Melbourne in development). He came in saying there would be paid, but 100-point losses every week pain? I can't cop that.

I love selective counting.

He's basically said what we have all known since half-way through season 2012.

Schwab and McLardy moved him out of the FB? Lock this thread up!

So basically Moloney spit the dummy because the club didn't think he was up to the task as captain. Is anything surprised? As for Sylvia, if he leaves imo it won't be because he is frustrated with the club, or wants to leave of the irk of Moloney. He'll leave to play finals. Even that isn't guaranteed to push him out. Hope he stays.

One in the same?

Sorry to disappoint you. Here, have some nostalgia.

Ah yes, Melbourne Student Union and Socialist Alternative.

Hearing it before the game means nothing anymore.

They're doing that now, though.

The reason some believe he only has two weeks left is because if the team can't lift after 11 rounds and at the very least be competitive for 4 quarters, what reasoning is there to suggest the team would beat either of those teams? It's a silly logic.

You mean the spin the club fed us about meeting financial targets as early as the pre-season comp? Seriously, if there is smoke there is fire. Please stop blaming the media. It is a deflection.

The main reason for low crowds is not the competition. Please stop deflecting blame. Melbourne was pulling 40,000 to the 'G in 2004, 2004 in games against West Coast, Adelaide, etc. The reason is that the team plays an insipid brand of football.

I love how people equate sacking a man with an 80-point average losing margin and essentially no wins against reputable opposition as a "knee jerk reaction". A "knee jerk reaction" would have been to sack him at the end of last season, or even after round 1 this year. Now it's just a formality.

How many opportunities per game do they get to clearance? Consider Geelong goes forward 50 very often and also keeps the ball alive with silky skills. It's like watching hot potato when they have the ball but they keep possession. It's OK to not win clearances if you still manage to beat your opponent in possessions. You have to balance it out. Melbourne can't get clearances but also can't: 1. get the ball 2. get it inside 50 3. tackle 4. hit targets 5. run 6. actually score Geelong can do ALL of those things better than the competition.

Nah. I don't how good the team is: the modern game has no place for 148-point losses, let alone 186-point ones. And the gameplan had NOTHING to do with that loss. Watch the game. The players simply did not care. It's all over YouTube. The reaction was swift and the decision wrong. Schwab should have gone.

OK guys, enough with the puns, it's So not funny anymore.

Disgraceful. The entire board should resign. If this was the corporate world -- or, say, their own companies -- they'd have been kicked out the door long ago. Why were you surprised? Stynes had to reinstate his good ol' buddy ol' pal, Schwab. He wasn't a "failed CEO". It was a failed hiring. He wanted to attract a marque player to the club, someone that would sell memberships and get bums on seats and, like, you know, lead the club. The club kicked him out because of his "errancies" (actual word used by someone in the club).

I disagree. Wholeheartedly. Firstly, he is partly responsible for reinstating Schwab. No surprise there. Secondly, Stynes was a demanding individual, and those sorts of people work wonders for charity organisations. The club benefitted by taking advantage of a man who had normally received charity for depressed children. I was always uncomfortable that a man that had dedicated is life to helping young people was helping gather millions and millions of dollars for a club fractured by its own ineptness. On one side you have charity for people that genuinely need it: on the other you have a basket case delinquent of a club begging people for cash to prop up its elitist factions from within the bellows of the MCC. Stynes was a great man for this club but what he did was a bandaid solution. A quick fix. The fact the club has buried itself into what will eventually become just as big a deficient as there was when Stynes arrives demonstrates how much of an indictment the club as a whole is on the league, not to mentioned the professionalism bestowed upon the club by the parents of the young men it drafts. Would Stynes being around last year have saved it from winning 4 games (1 if you discount GWS and GC)? Would he have led the club to more wins this season? If I remember correctly, he was President during 2 wooden spoons, and eventually oversaw a failed rebuild. Remember, he was around when 186 happened, and he was around at the start of 2012: the start of the SECOND rebuild in five years. Stynes, for all the great he did, is also part of what will be one of the darkest periods in the club's history. His contributions should not dilute the error of judgement he made in rehiring Schwab, and in putting the trust in people that clearly don't want anything to do with the club (Lyon). His vision was one of desperation. It always was. He couldn't have done anymore, though. But he hardly saved this club. You could have said that three years ago. Not anymore. McLardy and Schwab and co. merely continued on what Stynes started. IMO the club would be in the same dire situation now if he was still with us.