Adam The God

Agreed. I'd play Cheney ahead of Bell. Bell's had his chance and he's not good enough. Give the young kids a go. Harsh? Maybe, but justified, I think.

I was thinking about this only about a week ago, when reading about the Bulldogs and their venturing up north. We've got quite a few boys on our list and it currently makes perfect sense to allign ourselves, with a few NT games over say the next 5 years. Give ourselves two years establish ourselves in NT, with a few home games and then when we become successful again in 3 to 4 years, people will hopefully sign up ala Tasmanian Hawks.

Because only women talk? Or is that just sexest? Sounds like a good initative. Even if it doesn't rake in the cash, it's a positive move and typical Jimmy. Go Dees!

Yeah. The Hawks'll do.

Agreed.

Well said and I agree whole-heartedly.

It doesn't make it acceptable, just because 'he's always been like that'. We have to stamp out that sort of attitude. It's one of the reasons we never won a premiership under Daniher. He had his favourites (as all coaches do, admittedly) and let them get away with murder. Robbo has always been one that has got away with everything. I knew we needed a strong coach, who could make the tough decisions and I think we have one in Bailey. Granted, it is a lot easier to come into a club and clear out players, than be there already and know the players well. I'm glad he's been dropped though. I'm not saying I wouldn't play him next year, but that would be his last. He really needs to demonstrate he's worth the 1 year contract.

Interesting. Roobo and Pettard out. Perhaps the match committee has been reading Demonland.

Yeah, agreed. It doesn't matter how many loose players the opposition might have. These days, the game is so much about hitting up a leading forward, inside 50 and if Hawthorn have free men on the wing, this will mean we will have 3 or 4 spare in our defense and if the opposition turn it over (like Hawthorn did, with surprising regularity the other night), we can stream with numbers through the middle. It's good old counter attacking, modern day football. Not always good on the eye, but when it comes off it sure is. We just need to develop our forwardline, with Watts and these types and in a few years, we'll be a great shot at a flag. Bailey's game plan is finally coming to fruition. I haven't heard Melbourne supporters saying it. I know it was started by Collingwood and Eddie, on the Footy Show a few years back (2004, I think?), but I've only ever heard opposition supporters saying it, not our own. Apparently, there is at least one idiot out there.

Collingwood might be a rubbish football team, but they still draw the numbers (even if they are down this year) and as long as they do, it makes sense that the bigger teams play in Melbourne, in the bigger stadiums. Until we lift our game as a supporter group, our fixtures won't improve. That said, I think we've got a reasonably good draw this year. Okay, so we play Geelong, Bulldogs, Hawthorn and St Kilda in a matter of 5 rounds, but at least we're playing in Melbourne.

Yeah, had a read of it over a bowl of cereal this morning. I'm glad a few people in the media (including some of our players) are encouraging Sylvia to find some consistency and not settle merely with the Hawks performance.

Like I actually said to my old man after the game and something Clarkson later confirmed in his press conference, was that if we had another quarter we would have over run them. Hawthorn actually became more ineffective in the 2nd half, when we applied the pressure. Just as their kicking went off and they became less accurate.

Obviously, no one saw it as a potential financial abyss. Let's not forget, that the 'powerhouse' Essendon football club also signed a deal there.

These sort of ideas annoy the crap out of me. Just like us, the Doggies are a Melbourne team and should always remain a Melbourne team. If you must have a West Sydney side, the AFL should make one off their own back, not at the expense of another club.

Fevola will probably be too old for even Carlton, when they get into their premiership window, let alone when we do. Would have been a horrible, horrible idea. I'm glad they've gone with the youth policy.

They've been nothing but efficient in my dealings with them.

I think I'll be there.

As strange as it sounds, all these things help.

It's a bit of a stretch comparing his kicking to Wheately, admittedly, but from what I've seen of him so far and particularly the other night he might be that player.

It's disappointing to hear our fans holding them up, but we need to start up something like this with Hankook or Kaspersky. I've mentioned it in another thread, it might just get a few more Dees along to the games.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. In a way he'll kind of be taking Wheatley's half back role. Obviously, Wheatley's strength is his long, accurate kicking. The next Wheatley?

McLean is one of those in and under players that all sides need. We almost have too many of them, as they sometimes lack leg speed and ours certainly do. BUT, put a star midfielder next to Brock, for example a Judd (our best bet is obviously the unproven Scully) and all of a sudden he becomes a wonderful asset. Brock still needs to work on his disposal and decision making, because he could still let the side down with those traits, even with great players around him. There's also a guy called Morton who could play in and out of the midfield too. We need the Brocks, just as we need the Judd's.

I'd agree with that as well. That said, I think Rivers did a fantastic job on him in the final term. The tackle was first class, in a pressurised situation.

I'm with you for the latter part of this post, but the first bit on Robbo, he certainly straightens us up and we do look better with him on the ground, that said, his selfishness and lack of team awareness often gives me the shits. In some ways, I would rather them give a young bloke a go and see if they can't present a focal point up forward.

Agreed, but I would have been interested to see how Garland would have dealt with it.