praha

This. I find it astonishing how people try so hard to push socialism into so many facets, even sport. IMO it is the clubs' responsibility to ensure equality: you're only as bad as your performances. And the league does not control performances.

This makes me sick. While I agree the club NEEDS equalisation to stay competitive, it's a travesty it's actually come to that. Let it be known I'd much rather the club die on its sword than die with a leash around its neck. You don't earn respect by being given leg-ups by the league. And also, the comparisons with the EPL are pathetic and defeatist: a much better comparison would be the NBA. Each team has the same salary cap, but the big-market teams (Lakers, Knicks, Heat, Bulls) can afford to pay the "luxury tax" -- a tax on all salary beyond the cap -- which allows them to sign multiple superstar free agents. In the case of the AFL the big clubs have the capacity to spend more on football development because they have the finances. The EPL has no salary cap and is essentially compromised by ultra-capitalism. The NBA, AFL etc. already have elements of Marxist socialism in their regulations on spending. PLEASE stop with the comparison to the EPL. Please. The reality is that no matter how much you assist a club like Melbourne, it will always be burdened by a distinctive LACK of culture -- rather than a culture that's bad: it simply has NO culture whatsoever. No matter how much money you throw at Melbourne, it's still INDIVIDUALS pulling on the jumper, and if there is nothing to play for, the players won't play. Eddie is taking pity on Melbourne, not because they have fallen behind because of inequality. He is taking pity on Melbourne because it has fallen on its own sword. Melbourne's ineptness has N.O.T.H.I.N.G. to do with inequality in the league. Inequality exists BECAUSE of clubs like Melbourne.

The Hawthorn game in 2011 was the beginning. I remember being so frustrated at how bad they played in the 3rd quarter. They simply couldn't get it past the defensive 50. Luckily the Hawks weren't on their A-Game that day. Different coach then but the team struggled with the same things that day as they do now.

Firstly, don't EVER, EVER believe a single thing that comes out of Lyon's mouth. I can't wait for the day that it comes out how he crippled this club financially back at the end of the 90s by being given a contract despite both he and the club knowing he'll never play again. Schwab, Stynes, Lyon, the "boys club" that have actually crippled this club. Secondly, Jackson staying on as CEO is a given. At this stage it was always just a "go in and check it out" mentality as you can't expect a CEO to just magically fit into the role without having a pre-season to understand the functions of the club. It would be like a CEO joining a company at the end of a financial year, or a day before an AGM. Thirdly, there is no possible way Neeld survives beyond the bye. What I am worried about, however, is that 10-12 goal losses against the Pies and Hawks will be seen as "improvement", as the Blues, Tigers matches were. Once again it appears as though the club is relying on loses to determine its future. What a rabble.

I am also certain he will leave. Just a few murmurs around.

Is that you Cameron Schwab?

Morton was at the club in 2012, Neeld's first year. Yet he still noticed a difference. Telling me that 18 months isn't enough time to enhance training capacity? Funny, hey? Please don't tell me that training hard equates to 100-point loses. I might throw my remote at the screen (for the 10th time this year).

Pathetic clubs get pathetic fixturing. It's not rocket science: winning games earns windfall. You don't get a financially-promising fixture without first winning games. Bewildering this club says "it is what it is" and "this is where we're at": losing games by 100 every.single.week. is not where anyone ever expects a team to be at. Truly an indictment on this great game. Can't expect fans to show up. But I'll be there.

It's VERY easy for the playing group to come out and take the blame, because ALL players are on the SAME LEVEL. If Garland, or Dawes, or whoever comes out and says, "It's us, not the coach", then they can shoulder the blame collectively, rather than hold a coach accountable for his team playing arguably the worst brand of football the league has ever seen.

lol

2008 had good times though. The team also pushed finals sides at time. This team will get pounded by 10 goals against the Dogs. The Saints, maybe 5-8 goals. Far worse than 2008, 2009.

Yeah, that's to be at liberty to speak, rather than "democracy" (isn't "democracy" a buzz term these days? Seems used to define "mob rules").

It is what it is...

I'd rather watch them beat a team in Perth like Freo on my television then see them beat up on GWS at the MCG. The team's record since 2007 is entering catastrophic levels.

wut

Yeah, I always gathered the VFL report was more of an off-beat, "this is what you missed" kind of thing, because no one watches VFL, let's be honest.

That is pitiful.

It's great to see they performed well 50-60 years ago. Really, it is. But in another 10-20 years, few people will be alive to have remembered it. Time to move on and look forward. We need to replace all of those "19s", "50s" and "60s" with some "201x".

Frawley always gets up against good ol' Mr Punt Road Jack Riewoldt. I love their contest, every time these two teams play. Trade Frawley.

He contributed more today than the person he replaced has contributed over about a 20-game period. Just putting it out there.

Can we blame Dean Bailey? I don't know. Not enough blaming going on in this thread.

We'll have to wait until 2017 to find that out

Skill and decision making. I'd suggest that attack on the ball is driven by your capacity to urge your physiological traits to excel and, hopefully, come out on top in a one-on-one battle. I mean, a strong, little guy, for example, needs a real passion just to: a) simply get his hands on the ball, and, b. have eyes for goals. It's no coincidence that guys like Jake King, even someone like Rodan, has a particular demeanour on the field, generally a personality that allows them to exceed well in a sport where height as well as strength are two of the physiological perquisites -- yet these guys are able to play at the highest level. Prestia I guess also falls into this category, in that someone of his stature would NEED a strong urgency to attack the ball rather than, say, get caught up in processes. Whereas a guy like Watts, he gets away with that apparent lack of self-urgency because of his pure talent. I also like to call that "potential". Nothing more. Imagine a guy like Watts with Jones' endeavour. Oh yeah, every single AFL team has a player like that. Except for Melbourne. Who hasn't since 1964. Much better to invest in guys like Nathan Jones. But guys that might shy away from a contest, or appear to not attempt the contested ball, they'll be nothing but "sweepers" of the Joel Bowden variety. It's plastered all over history.

But if there are positives it doesn't matter if they win. Or kick goals. Or tackles. Or get the ball.

Also consider GWS and GC last year. I imagine that would bump up possession, goals for/against count.