praha

I'm sorry, but there's no "reason" for losing by 140-points other than just not being up to the task. Having the "flu" barely passes for a day off from preps, let alone to be let off the hook for two weeks of insipidness.

I blame the trumpet guy. Started blowing that horn in 2007. You get the point.

Michael Jordan played with the flu once... I admire your optimism.

Sorry, but the problem lies in the fact the players appear particularly engrossed in a beard-growing competition, yet fail to actually compete on game day.

Media's responsibility is to scrutinise. The club needs to know how people feel. Amplification is important in ensuring people know what the club is doing at all times: we need to put the club under the microscope so that it truly understands the extent of its issues. The best way to avoid this is to do what you're paid to do. The club simply is not doing that. I take pleasure in seeing the media stick the boot in, because it is payback for what we have to put up with in the stands on a weekly basis. We're not paid to be there. They are.

I actually agree with you. The reason I fail to feel sorry for these players is because I am almost certain it is a mind thing. I think it's all in their head. They need to eradicate that and part of that is on the administration and coaching team to assist them to make that transition, so no one should avoid scrutiny. This team is not without talent. It is just grossly lacking confidence and a drive to win.

Oh, well that's OK then: a 140-point loss in our modern game where brand means everything wasn't as bad as losses in the '70s when players were earning $50 a game. That's it: close it up folks. Everything's gonna be allllllllllrighttttttttt. IMO better perspective is look at how North made the finals despite being flogged by 100+ points last season and also being belted a few other times. Comparing the game today to how bad things were in the 70s is, again, apologist.

You don't need to. My boss lets me have it when I don't perform. 'Cause accountability.

What he says is that players earn a very large pay packet relative to the standards expected of them. If you're not up to the task in a competitive environment then of course money is an issue. And please, PLEASE, don't start with the "systematic bullying" crap. The guy plays in the top-tier premier sporting league in the country. He's made it there in-part because he knows exactly how to deal with scrutiny. That comes part and parcel with being a professional in the public eye where the general public are your primary stakeholders. People are being far too apologetic. Oh, he's grandfather passed away? Welcome to the real world. I don't start sucking at my job every time I have personal issues in my life, and I earn a 1/20th of what he probably gets.

Not to justify the actions of those idiots on Saturday night, but we shouldn't feel sorry for the club. The club should feel sorry for us. Great perspective. We don't boo because we think the team is crap or because we hate them. We boo because we expect more. But heckling and hurling personal abuse is not on. But it is emotional and people get angry. The game is the fans though and instead of asking HOW people acted like that, we should look at WHY those actions were initiated in the first place. We can't sit back and be apologetic supporters. We need to hold the club accountable to its words and actions. In a way, booing the team is representative of that accountability. We all respond in different ways.

A few updates since last night.

Fitzroy's last few years were really bad but there have been far worse teams over longer periods. If I remember correctly Fitzroy flogged us by 10 goals in the last round of 1993. They were OK in the early part of the decade. And it was hardly poor drafting that hurt them: they were just not financially viable as a team. What's Melbourne's excuse? Fitzroy was a victim of league politics. Melbourne is a victim of its own ineptness. Carlton was very, very bad for periods in the 00s. Richmond has been bad in large periods since the early '90s. Melbourne's 2010 and 2011, excluding 186, were OK, nothing more. If anything the last few years have been Richmond-esque: fall to the bottom, show a glimmer of hope, and then fall back down again.

Not bitching and moaning Just constructive criticism.

I fell for it initially...looking back, I am truly astonished at how blind my faith was in this club.

http://beingademonsfan.tumblr.com/post/46924154640/cameron-schwabs-whiteboard-wednesday

Do stakeholders in any company anywhere in the world have any idea how to fix a company's issues? No. We pay a membership because ultimately the club doesn't pay us a salary to win premierships. Apologetic thread is apologetic.

Nah.

They started cheering when he got on his feet, not when he injured himself. I was sitting very close to the PA cheersquad.

It's has far worse consequences these day. In the days of social media where everyone is online and brand mean everything, the club has been irrelevant and garbage. The age of Facebook has not been kind to this club, and it will hurt it moving forward. Many people don't understand this, but you can't go through sustained periods of failure anymore. You could in the 70s, but these days people will simply turn off. The club needs to start performing. It's on the brink.

Progressive sentiment of positivity and "not making them feel bad" during times of extreme failure in an intensely competitive environment is not necessarily "support": support can be both negative and positive. Fans boo because they expect better, and today was an important day, both on and off field. I'd argue that remaining positive after initial success equates to "support", but critiquing those that scrutinise after multiple failures -- say, 50 years worth -- is bordering delusional. I am not driven by emotions in my support for melbourne; I love the club, but will hound down upon it with great fury if it does not live up to the standards set by both the history of the club, and the league. The club has failed immensely during a period in which social media enhances brand worth extensively, and so expectations are very high: the club must start performing or it will be at the bottom forever. In this day and age, you simply cannot survive a Richmond-esque hibernation. In the US, no matter how inexperienced or whatever a team is; an inability to perform to the standards set by the guernsey you put on will lead to being boo'd by the home fans. There is no exception to the rule there. Home teams boo'ing is very standard: it is not taboo, and the media usually jumps on it as being "the team played bad". Here, whenever the home fan boo, it's, "Oh, how bad are the fans?" Accountability is already lacking from Australian society -- let's wait and set that catch up to us in 20 years -- but in a league like the AFL were it's a dog eat dog world, even fans being sympathetic to their team will shape a culture drowning in medicority. I will boo this team until my throat is sore, but I will be there every single week they play in this amazing city at that amazing stadium If they don't want to play befitting of the gorgeous stadium, then they will hear my already roar. Today, the club -- not just the team -- deserved to be boo'd. And if you don't like it, then I'm sorry I made you tear up. I guess I'm a bad, bad supporter. I wonder if I can get 20 years worth of membership fees compensated as part of your amazing, "Bad Supporter" initiative?

Good to see Progressive Australia seeping its way into football culture.."BLAME THE MEDIA!" Any media scrutiny is completely justified and anticipated. They were embarrassingly hammered.

Bailey was sacked because accountability was non-existent among the playing group. The buck has to stop somewhere and if you don't hold the head coach accountable for the playing group dictating off-field matters, then who is accountable? Where do you draw the line? Bailey was a good bloke and the team structure was on the right track but he epitomised the way the club has been for the past 50 years: no real grunt, and no capacity to draw a line and say, "this simply isn't good enough." Neeld has come in and done that now, but at the same time he lowers expectations, which is dangerous because eventually it's going to start sounding like an excuse. When I first start a business I lower expectations because the reality is I won't be making millions out of the box, but perception means everything and I don't go around saying, "Well we're far off making people notice...but we will some day." The rhetoric fit the team well last year when people were bedazzled at how quickly it dropped off, but if you've given the players the pre-season and training you said they needed there needs to be improvement, at least initially. I can foresee a very tough 2nd half of the year but the team simply cannot start as poorly as it did last year, not only for player confidence, but from an off-field perspective too. A lot is hinging on Neeld's plan and we should expect a few beltings this year but this club needs one game -- just one -- where it sticks its head up and says hello to those it's been looking up to since 2007...and they'll notice. But at the same time forcing this "lower your expectations" narrative onto fans and the media is going to slap him and the club in the face if it can't improve. I'm not talking about a top-8 finish. I'm talking about not letting teams kick 10-12 goals in a quarter of football, nor getting consistently smashed in possessions and inside-50s. Neeld is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't: at the end of the day we're all talking about what the club has SAID, because we never have anything to show. The only way it can avoid the scrutiny is to perform. Neeld has done the complete opposite of talking the talk. Hopefully it will wield an opposite outcome to what we're used to.

I wonder how long Neeld will be able to set up camp under the "lower your expectations" narrative.

22k, if that.

"Better" clubs? The entire league smothers Melbourne's midfield. We are below GC, and maybe even below GWS some days.