Adam The God

Except taking a dig at our young talent based on this year's performance is like taking a dig at our young talent in 2019 or 2020. Strawman.

It's quite well known that the more games you get into youngsters, the more they'll be able to impose themselves on games. When McVee, Langford, Lindsay start to impact games and stay in contests for longer, run harder, concentrate for longer, as we've seen with Kozzy, they have the potential to change the way we play. We have been on a list shift since the end of 2023. We're resetting on the run and it's making for some ugly results and a very poor ladder position. We need some aggressive trading and list management this year (again), and we'll start to see more improvement. But to imply we've got little emerging talent is nonsense.

McVee, Windsor, Lindsay, Langford, Turner and Bowey is a pretty good start. Add JVR, Kolt and maybe even Picket's mate and we've got some good developing youth. Along with Chandler, Kozzy and Rivers on the next age bracket up. Please advise whether you support Melbourne. Thanks very much.

I don't buy this train of thought. We don't have trouble getting it in there. We have trouble converting. Ironically, McKay probably doesn't help with that.

We never actually had 70,000 physical members. Definitely a significant membership drop off though.

He should have gone with option #1 for CEO, who would already be at his desk and working. Our FD problems stem from a nothing, charade of a review last year. Brad was the football director, he should have been the conduit between FD and board, along with (likely) the CEO. And yet we had our two beat midfielders, arguably of all time, trying to request trades out of the club last year. They both love Goody, but things in the FD were allowed to fester. Whose fault is that? The board should take no ownership over the demise of things both on and off field?

Letting your mate Greeny off pretty easily as usual. Our board has been asleep at the wheel since at least 2020. An interim president and an interim CEO. As @rjay says, how was this allowed to happen? Not good enough.

What a [censored] post.

Hyperbole as usual. Caleb is not a poor kick. Neither is he an elite kick. He's a decent kick who is a pretty bloody good kick for goal on the run. He had an incredibly consistent first season and then has spent time learning a new role at the same time as battling injury. Give him time.

Do a bit of googling with Caroline Wilson. He was strongly favoured by AFL HQ too. Just as Peter Jackson was back in the day. Instead we got a guy with no footy background at all.

From Caro's reporting he was the lead candidate and had the job.

Keith Thomas.

We should have gone with our first option.

But what a stuff up. Fancy hiring a new CEO during the season, having taken 6 months to hire a new one, and the new guy can't start for another 6 months.

The only reason Barlow would have a seat at the table is if he was willing to put his hand in his pocket big time...

Think it would have been nice if the president emailed members to update them of the change in plan, rather than us read speculation in the media. Green has been pretty email happy all year, but silent on this.

That's not true. A very good example in AFL that many point to is Collingwood. They finished 17th in 2021...

There is definitely a middle ground, bing. A different coach could change things, but Goody is also coaching to the list that won a flag and finished top 4 with the old game style. IMV, our best approach is to be super aggressive with list management, make some tough decisions at the end of 2025 and let Goody coach for his Melbourne career in 2026.

Speculation only, but the way Guerra talked in his first two or three interviews as incoming CEO, already shifting the possibility to somewhere other than Caulfield, I think the club knew this would likely fall over, or at the very least were trying to temper expectations. As for this careful piece of framing "Melbourne is hopeful its business case on the new site will be complete by the end of the year amid what the club says is broad support from local residents for the project." This sounds like it's all over this year.

It's too simplistic to correlate inside 50s with scores. With repeat entries, you have an entire side defending and neutralising those entries. Geelong and Collingwood have spent years often losing inside 50s and winning matches. Because if you can slingshot back into a relatively empty inside 50 at the other end, you get easier chances. So they've made their relatively poor contested winning midfields work by focusing on post clearance and winning defensive 1v1s inside D50 and then transitioning the ball up the other end with precise and fast ball movement.

I do wonder how much our poor ball use from the midfield prevents our forwards from leading up at the ball carrier. If I were a forward, I'd be leading up at Kozzy, Bowey, Salem, Langford and Lindsay. That's about it. The rest of them wildly kick to the disadvantage of the forwards. Viney was back to his worst again yesterday. Like Rounds 2-5. Compare Langford's kick on top of the head of a Port defender, which allowed Turner(?] to have the sit was brilliant. I think we can turn things round, but I agree with you, @Howard_Grimes , we need to make some bold and aggressive trades.

What a pathetic performance.

May loses a contest against Horne-Francis, runs underneath the ball and Max has to make a dangerous tackle. May then lets Burgoyne mark uncontested 15m out. 🤦

They have managed Lindsay...

We create more than enough shots to win. And your argument is our kicking inside 50 is bad, so get rid of our best kick inside 50? Spargo is statistically our best kick inside 50.