praha

Mick is always spot on. He's never wrong. The guy picks it right at the same time I see it. He knows the common fan, he knows the common game.

We needed to win more of the hard ball. That requires extensive effort. Neeld commented on how poor the playing group's level of fitness was when he came to the club, at least compared to top-tier clubs. We are winning the hard ball, but losing the uncontested possession count because players aren't getting back into position. The team is grossly unfit. It'll take a year and another pre-season before those kinks are worked out. Makes me that little bit more frustrated at the club, that the players can be so underdone.

Neeld would have driven that imo. I don't think Watts will play AFL this week tbh.

I'm also strongly of the opinion that ever since he ditched the mop and opted for a more clean-cut hair style, we've lost our drive out of the middle. Just sayin'

So I'm sure some of you saw both Watts and MacDonald giggling like little boys at the site of them on the screen at Kardina. I thought it was a pretty awful look considering we were down by 6 goals, and both had just been dropped. Watts was in hysterics, seemed to be quite the happy chappy. I know a few of you will look at this as a beat-up, just another way to attack Watts. But I've actually been vocal in the last week about his performance last week, that it was a tough game for talls and he had a tough game. See my previous posts for proof. If ever I need convincing that this "kid" (and I mean that in the literal sense) was just not the professional we need/ed him to be, that moment was it. MacDonald's response was a bit like, "LOL...ok cool, calm down Wattsy". But Watts just kept going and going. I'm VERRRRRY surprised Malthouse didn't say something. You could just tell that he wanted to. Both times the camera was on Watts, he had a big smile on his face.

This has been an issue all year.

Yeah, umpires are bad, but it seems like a pretty trivial thing to complain about when your team is down by 9 goals.

The article teaches us nothing. It just reminds us that things were so bad that players felt they had nothing to play for. LITERALLY. People always throw that saying around -- that they are playing without heart. That day was truly indicative. I still haven't forgotten the club. Won't until we win a flag. Simple as that. I'm still putrid about it. And I personally don't think much has changed.

There's nothing wrong with the article. It's an opinion piece, which provides facts, makes subjective opinion based on these facts (Melbourne's record, PR fluff, McLardy's comments) to make a judgement. He's not wrong. The club spins a lot of crap, and sadly, a lot of you fall for it. It's not that, if you disagree you might be making a difference. But acknowledging it and failing to acknowledge it and fall for every little piece of fluff are two different things. I am not getting excited over anything anyone has to say, be it in the media or from the club. Sure, Neeld's first speech to the players was cool, but talk is cheap. Let's see if they club's bite is as big as its bark. They have 5 years. I'm serious.

Absolutely no doubt? Have you watched the club over the past 50 years? I'll wait until we're a top-tier team until I even contemplate such blindsighted rubbish.

I think it's quite obvious that one of the driving forces behind Melbourne's new "Business Community" is having external sources to help get big names to the club. If Jamar leaves, that would give us the room to potentially get one superstar, one established, older player.

I was one of those critical at the start of the year, mostly made the mistake of agreeing with those that made damning posts. BUT I've always been a fan of Neeld. I'm still a critic of the administration, and we haven't met KPI in membership and social media, so I think someone should be held accountable for that. That said, Neeld's aim to make us a hard team to play is working in some regards: we win the hard ball. It's just a matter of getting the fitness levels up so that players are in position. They haven't done that so far, hence the differential in uncontested possessions.

Would be tough to dump him after a wet game where he was essentially playing as a leading forward along the wing. Also, the delivery to him was shocking all game.

I'd have thought the rule was clear: if you focus on the player and compromise their ability to get the ball, it should be a free kick. If you're blocking out while your eyes are on the ball, that's just good positioning. It's when you are solely focused on the player that a free kick should be given against you. Unfortunately, the umpires rarely play it. Zach Dawson was one of the worst offenders of this in recent times.

I am admittedly like that quite often. I was that kind of supporter in rounds 1 and 3. Rounds 4 and 5, I've been on the edge of my seat, praising almost every possession. I loved every minute of Saturday, but had a pretty rough go at Bartram when he dropped a mark with about 4-5 minutes to go, only for the Saints to get a chest mark inside 50 about 5 seconds later, before kicking a goal and confirming the win. I had a real go at him. Looking back I was probably harsh, but he played an awesome game imo, and has had a pretty good year. I see nothing wrong with calling out players that make mistakes, and players that consistently fail to put in an effort required to win the ball. But you'd have been harsh to be entirely critical on Saturday. They put in a tough effort.

You guys don't know much about new media. These days if you're just a "print journalist", your worth is very small. You need to have a wide range of skills across print, broadcast and online. At the moment there is a learning bridge between old-school journos like Robbo moving from print to TV. Don't worry: a new generation is coming. People like Robbo won't exist must longer in that capacity. He's awful and not a lot of fun to watch.

I'll tell you want I DON'T want to see: A loss by more than 5 goals.

They're not wrong. Two years ago we were beating the Swans by 100 points. Last year, slamming teams, albeit crap ones, by 10-15 goals. Now we're losing to Brisbane by 7 goals, Bulldogs by 4 goals (probably 10 if not for the "Jimmy" factor), Tigers by 10 goals. I think a certain level of accountability should certainly go onto Neeld, even if you think he doesn't deserve it. We're a pretty awful side. I think the discrepancies between uncontested possessions, tackles, inside 50s is certainly indicative of that.

He's not wrong though, so whether you like the man or not is irrelevant. We had a decent burst in the 3rd quarter and were playing a Bulldogs team that is actually playing bad footy, and had struggled to kick goals before round 4. And yet, the team lost by giving away some frustratingly easy goals. We were not very good on the weekend. I fail to see how "improvement" equates to performing well.

The carbon tax.

1. Of the team's next 7 games -- Saints. Cats (in Geelong), Hawks, Swans (in Sydney), Blues, Bombers, Pies -- can you see them winning any? 2. Do you think this team would have been within 8 goals of Adelaide last night like the Giants were? (considering the conditions there and the fact the game was in Adelaide). I don't mean to seem like I'm trolling. I just want to see where my own personal opinion lies with others on this board. I personally think we're a real chance to start 0-11, and I can't imagine us having played as well against Adelaide in Adelaide as I thought the Giants played last night.

Who gives a [censored]?

So it's an elitist environment...

I thought that was a pretty awful performance. I kept saying to myself that we weren't that bad, but I guess I was kidding myself. -92 in total disposals -90 in uncontested possessions 7+ more clangers -15 marks -4 inside 50s Now, these are improvements on previous weeks, but consider we've played a side that will arguably finish 10-15th, and won't factor in finals. A lot of supporters calling up the radio saying there are improvements. Aside from a fun-to-watch burst in the 3rd, the club was insanely frustrating and beaten convincingly in certain areas. I also compare us to GWS and GC. IMO I think GWS are performing better than GC. Would we have been within 8 goals of Adelaide had we played them last night in Adelaide in those conditions? I'm not so sure. We are a very bad team guys. Time to admit it. It's OK to. Let's try and have a constructive discussion on what's wrong with the side, as opposed to looking for positives in a team that has been bad for going on 6 years now. We know what the team is good at: contested possessions and actually scoring and marking once the ball is in the 50. That's cool. But what's wrong with the side? Plenty of hard nuts winning the contested ball, but when they don't, the opposition has 4-5 options. This leads to the large differential we're seeing in the oppositions inside 50s. This puts pressure on our backs. Forces us to press. Gives us little option going forward when we DO get some run out of the back 50. We had this very issue last year in the many games we lost by 10+ goals. Coaching team and gameplan, or the players? I'm certainly leaning towards the latter. We will certainly finish 16th, 17th, or 18th. This will essentially be the final steps of the recruitiment team's rebuilding drafting implementations. They MUST draft players that turn in superstars. There's simply no exceptions for that. Free agency is also coming in. Get us a midfield superstar. Hell, even get Pavlich here if you can and put him in the center. Also, Watts will never be more than a mid-tier player. He's OK. Not great. We certainly made an error of judgement in that regard. Or maybe he just came to a club that doesn't know how to develop players? Supporters need to start asking these questions and addressing these issues, rather than looking for positives in a team that isn't actually progressing at all. We're actually very much on par with both GWS and GC.

I am personally in two minds about the MCC. For one, I'd personally love to be a member (I'm a full AFL Member with Melbourne club support). Yes, admittedly, that want to be an MCC member is driven by a want to be part of that "elitist" culture. I'm not afraid to admit that. However, I do wish there was a better association with the club, in that MCC membership could somehow be better incorporated into Melbourne's membership figures and coffers, like with AFL membership. I understand there have been improvements in this regard, but I'd personally like to see a better fusion of the MCC and Melbourne club members. I am not against the idea of having a "prestigious, elitist" aspect of club support, as long as there is a good balance. Unfortuantely, I don't think Melbourne has that balance, at least not in the same capacity as teams like Essendon and Collingwood, who have high MCC supporter figures, but also plenty of "common man" supporters. It's not secret that Melbourne supporters sit on the Olympic side of the MCG, and this has certainly helped mould the "elitist supporters" stereotype which has ironically been formed into a derogatory status rather than one of prestige. The club should look to clubs like Chelsea in the PL to see how it incorporates its "elitist" supporter group into its more casual supporter base. I certainly think the club needs to be more accepting. I think it's trying to be (McLardy said this recently. That the club is trying to drop that "elitist" stereotype in an effort to be more accepting).