Little Goffy

Was VIC Health a sponsor previously? I just visited the MelbourneFC wesbite and there's a full set of Vic Health banners and ads, based on the women's team, and they are listed as a Major Partner, same category as NT tourism, China Southern Airlines, Haymes paint.

Thank you for bringing that thought into the conversation, always nice to remember Eddie McGuire is still miserable and only going to get sadder. I don't think Collingwood or Carlton have made much progress on their lists for quite a few years now. Between them, all they seem to have done is keep on feeding the GWS beast. Carlton keeps bringing in bundles of semi-adequate or 'might be handy' players without much real quality being added. They have lost more 'sure best 22' players in trade in the last five years than they've gained. The deficit from losing Eddie Betts alone hasn't been covered. There's been a few good draft picks, like Cripps and Weitering, but at the moment the best they can hope for is the Richmond situation of loitering around the middle of the table, with the same 10 players getting all the spots in the best and fairest every year for a decade. Collingwood have grabbed Howe, Greenwood, Dunn, White, Mayne and Wells in trade or free agency, because obviously the secret to sustained success is to bring in more of the older non-leaders with no big game credentials. Interestingly, all their recruiting under the age of 26 has been from GWS. Adams, Treloar, Hosking-Elliot. And they probably paid 'overs' for all three, even if the first two have been core players since arriving. Two first round picks for Adam Treloar, and then Heath Shaw for Taylor Adams. Meanwhile, Melbourne have managed a total list rebuild. As for our trading - I don't see a lot of overs, and most importantly, we didn't move ourselves out of any top-end draft positions. Bugg - acquired along with a pick upgrade from 10 to 7, in exchange for a third and fourth round pick. Kennedy - A complex multi-club deal, our share was "Melbourne received Kennedy and picks No.29 and 50 and gave up Howe and Toumpas " Frost - traded from Greater Western Sydney to Melbourne in exchange for pick 23, with the Giants sending picks No.40 (Nibbler) and No.53 (O.Mc) back to the Demons. Garlett - Picks 61 and 79. Haaa ha ha. We'll have to wait and see how Melksham (pick 25), Hibberd (pick 29) and Lewis (pick ha ha bite me Hawthorn) turn out. Tell you what, all these trades go direct back to the Taylor stamp, the total absence of draft picks from 10-39. He must really hate that range.

I do think Gawn will 'beat' Kruezer position for position, but we would be foolish to underestimate the potential for Kruezer to in turn bob up at the right (wrong) moments and cost us the game if we let it be close enough for that to happen. He may look like someone glued a dying salmon onto the neck of a baby giraffe, but Kreuzer can be dangerous. Which is kind of the mantra for understanding Carlton overall - awkward pieces stuck and stapled together, but a lot of those awkward pieces can do damage if they are allowed to, and the only way to be sure of beating them is sheer weight sustained competent effort. In other words, no "5 goals in 15 minutes" lapses. Kruezer in one of those players, like Murphy, Cripps, even (shocking I know) Casboult, who can turn it on in a burst and be the catalyst for one of our traditional five goal failures.

Only just noticed, we should add the two 'season long' results - Finish with a % greater than 100 Finish with more wins than losses. An odd one we knocked over last year thanks to Clayton Oliver is 'have any player experience more wins than losses in a season', last held by Lynden Dunn in 2006. Something I would love to see (and definitely counts as an embarrasing record) is removing our set of three players (Jones, McDonald and Watts) from the list of 'worst winning percentage' of current players. They are between 27% (Jones) and 29% (Watts), and would need to push to over 30% at least, to clear the list. For Jones than would need maybe half a dozen wins without a loss. Coincidentally, Jones is also the individual current player who has played in the most losses (162), despite being as much as 100 total games short of close rivals Robert Murphy (161), Kade Simpson (160) and Nick Riewoldt (157). This can be easily corrected in just a few games. Taking Watts, McDonald and Jetta off the current list of 'most games without ever playing a final'. Watts currently tops the list, and we MUST break the run this season, Watts moves onto the all-time list as well as onto the all-time list of most games prior to playing a final, even if we do make it next year.

If the turnaround really bears fruit, we will also have to say 'PBUH' after every mention of Paul Roos. Later on we can all argue about whether it was Goodwin or McCartney who should be considered the true successor.

In 2006 Carlton had three wins for the season, and two of them made the difference between a third place finish and our actual finish at 7th. I've not forgiven them, or us, for that yet. We play them twice at the MCG this year. If the combined margin is greater than 20 goals, and we make top-4 on percentage, I will officially let go of my bitterness. I set high criteria for letting go of bitterness.

Was taking a look at the round 1 results in more detail and figured I'd go to the trouble of posting the Rnd 1 teams, for the sake of comparison. Here they are as a reference, lined up as accurately as I could be bothered. MELBOURNE F: Garlett Hogan Weiderman HF: Watts Petracca Brayshaw C: Lewis Viney Vince HB: Salem T. Mc Stretch B: Hunt O. Mc Jetta Foll: GAWN Jones Oliver Bench: Smith, Hannan, Neal-Bullen, Melksham Discussed on afl.com as 'in the mix' for round 2 - Dom Tyson (16 inside 50s!), Kent, Wagner, Frost, Bugg Caaarlton F: Silvagni Weitering Wright HF: C. Curnow Casboult Smedts C: E. Curnow Murphy Thomas HB: Simpson Marchank Docherty B: Rowe Plowman White Foll: Kreuzer Cripps Gibbs Bench: Petrevski-Seton Armfield Pickett Macreadie Discussed on afl.com as 'in the mix' for round 2 - Harry McKay (4 goals), Nick Graham, Rhys Palmer.

I'm a little annoyed that Varcoe's premeditated full-speed sniper charge that cleaned up an unaware opponent got the same as Vince's idiot flappy-arm moment. Did somebody say muppets?

I wonder, if you could put a team together of the players who didn't make it onto the field in Round 1 for Goodwin, would it still be competitive against the round 1 from 3 years ago? F: Kennedy-Harris Hulett Kent HF: Vandenberg Pederson Johnstone C: Bugg Kennedy Hibberd HB: Wagner Garland White B: Keilty Frost Harmes FOLL: Spencer Trengove Tyson Bench: Filipovic, McKenna, Maynard, T Smith Geebus, it's not that far off.

Whoever set the headline like this needs to be found and added to the injury list.

Yeah, remember when Strauss, Blease and Watts all played for the same under-age teams and how great that would be for their cohesion. And how Tapscott and Trengove were absolute best makes since way back? Ok, I'll concede, that comment was a bit snarky and the basic concept of the article if perfectly valid. But I do think it is a bit overstated, certainly the idea that it can be measured in terms as simple as 'time spent in shared experiences'. I think there's something a bit backwards to the reasoning. Like the false reasonings of having players with 100+, 150+ games in your side being a factor in premierships. It is not that having 150 games to their name that makes them good - they've played 150 games because they are good. All it says, to have a bunch of experienced and veteran players on your list, is that you have a bunch of good AFL-quality players on your list! Similarly, saying 'this playing group is stable, therefore achieving and united' is nothing more than the reverse of saying 'this playing group is united and achieving, therefore stable'. Oh, what's the other one that keeps coming up in population health.... oh yes 'Being in a stable relationship greatly reduces the risks of severe psychosis'. That actually gets trotted out periodically by the 'silent majority' types.

Personally I'm a big fan of the 'high-low' draft strategy that the Taylor-period Demons have leaned towards - on the one hand using genuinely early selections and making them stick, and on the other hand being ready to 'churn' the late picks, giving multiple chances each year to bring in 'possibles'. High-low drafting under Jason Taylor: 2016, first pick at 46. 2015, picks 4 and 9, then 42. 2014, picks 2 and 3, then 40 2013, pick 9, then 40 At the Demons, Jason Taylor has never used a draft pick from 10 to 39. Anyway, sometimes it isn't just who you take or pass on in drafts that matters, it is who you keep or de-list. I don't think with our current administration we'll be seeing errors like the 7-year career of Michael Newton. Again that points to recognising the value of late picks and keeping them turning over. If a player is not going to deliver AFL quality, then they are not valuable to an AFL team, even if the replacement might be even worse, you can't rate below zero!

Well, others have noticed a lack of speed. But Carlton supporters will tell you he's got a maddening lack of interest in defensive running and working to lock the ball up forward. He could be very dangerous even still as a kid, he's got a footy brain no doubt about it. We need to respect that while also exploiting his weakness all we can. Maybe try to match Hunt up on him early, force him to decide whether he wants to get into chases he knows he can't win. It's a pattern across their forward line - they actually managed to get a mark up there every third time the ball came in, they have a mix of players capable of grabbing it. But I'd argue that Silvagni, Kreuzer, Casboult, Weitering, Wright or Curnow are not very good at applying pressure in the forward line. In their game against Richmond you could see over and over again groups of three or four Richmond players being able to form up and control a contest, running off with it while Blues were still arriving. Looking to exploit the Carlton forward line's lack of speed and defensive energy brings us to the issue at the other end of the ground. Rowe, Marchbank and Plowman are adequate tall defenders, but the Blue's defensive system just got cracked open and confused when the play came surging back across the ground at them. Their 4 taller defenders had 40 1%ers between them, but that can only go so far, as we saw ourselves with Oscar's all-too-visible failures to decisively kill attacks and get the ball clear. Put that together with Melbourne's creative and cooperative forward/half-forward mix, and there's a potential bloodbath. The Carlton first-choice midfield is a genuine danger, but it drops away. People constantly underestimate Murphy and Gibbs, Curnow is handy, in-form Kruezer is a genuine weapon, and Cripps' down day against Richmond isn't something you'd want to bank on. But where we have option after option to call on as clearance and contested ball winners, Murphy and Gibbs shared close to 1/4 of Carlton's contested possessions against Richmond. If the Demons are to win the midfield and clearances battle, then it will be because of sheer weight of capable effort, rather than any special superiority - for all the legitimate Oliver hype, we still don't have any inside mids with the capacity to move the ball from the contest with the poise and penetration that Murphy and Gibbs have. Right, now that I've got that out, I reckon we can take 'em.

I'm still trying to figure out how to properly process the sensations experienced during the game. My 'emotional vocabulary' has a blind spot. I'm looking for something that is the opposite of 'dread' and 'disappointment'. I asked around at other clubs. Richmond suggested 'delusion'. Essendon and Carlton both nominated 'hubris'. West Coast said 'tabs'. GWS said 'inevitability'. Sydney didn't understand my original terms.

I took this as a challenge, I think I felt a compulsion to get a lid on. But really, even after looking over a whole lot of top picks and players in recent years, there just aren't many cases. I've done a run-through of the other 'teen star' contenders, I would be quite happy to have them be Oliver's peers and equals! The obvious 'set' of stars who managed to dominate a few games even as teenagers includes - Fyfe, Martin, Selwood, Bontempelli, Macrae and Cripps Others worth noting - Toby Greene, Harley Bennell, Chad Wingard, Oliver Wines, Isaac Heeney Lance Franklin managed two bags of six in his second season, but it wasn't until his third that he really took off (game for game, Hogan is a mile ahead of his curve ) For the record, saturday's effort was definitely the best individual game so far from anyone in Oliver's draft.

The Max GAWN injury report probably isn't something to worry about. It as also reported in the AFL website match reports, as 'back tightness'. He went off for a while in the second, even headed down to the rooms, but came back on pretty soon after and played out the rest of the game with no apparent discomfort from his back or Tom Hickey.

When Riewoldt went down with the knee (touch wood it isn't too bad), was anyone else reminded of back in 2005 when we crushed Richmond and Nathan Brown snapped his leg? This game could have as much impact on St Kilda as that had on Richmond. Meanwhile... how eerie was it. The goal after goal just keeping on coming. The commentators having to pick up the speed when Melbourne had the ball. This is also easily our best first round result since, coincidentally with that Richmond game, 2005.

Ah well, the traditional Demon 'dying fish flapping around' 15 minute act for the second half of the first quarter. A lot of our young guns seem to be having a bit of trouble getting involved - Brayhsaw, Hunt, Viney, Petracca, Salem all a bit 'low-impact' at present. Bit of a worry that Gawn is accumulating hit-outs at will, but we aren't seeing any advantage in clearances. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Watts needs to lift from here...

Well, I guess Jetta will prefer matching up on either of them than McCartin!

I just realised that this is the first time in more than a decade where our opponent has had more Jacks on the field than us. End of an era.

Yes, we really need more fan influence. At first, all that can be demanded is transparency. The fans are being kept in the dark precisely so they can't influence decisions. It also allows this awful situation of 'rule by decree' from the AFL HQ, where they just make whatever decision seems expedient to their goals at the time, then adjust the rule interpretations later, resulting in a mad complex mess of on-field and off-field rules full of contradictions. Every bad situation the AFL has experienced in the last ten years would have been eased a bit with just a little bit of decent transparency and even standard corporate good governance.

For anyone unable to watch, get radio, or the AFL website, and now even footywiere stuffing up - Richmond are winning comfortably at the moment, 83-46, but only because Carlton can't be bothered getting numbers to contests consistently, or getting numbers back to cover the turnover breaks, or getting to the fall of the ball in marking contests. Second half has just started, and the first few minutes sum up the game in total. Carlton let Nankervis loose about 10 out, but the Tigers bollocksed the handball. Carlton would have whipped it to the other end of the ground except they didn't offer any leads to get out of defensive 50, now it has come back to Riewoldt who kicked the goal, which traditionally means the game is over. (anyone else noticed that Jack Riewoldt only kicks goals when they don't matter anymore?)

I put these two together posts in my head and got a really uncomfortable creepy result.

Try "You can see why our players didn't take you guys seriously last year"

It's definitely having a bad night. In a pinch, you can track scores/stats at http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/live_stats?mid=9307