Little Goffy

Funny story - The Sydney Swans have been fined $20,000 for failing to properly update the central database of what injections and treatments two players received, ...on one occasion, ...although they did have detailed internal records which were readily available for cross-checking. So, let's see... Essendon... some 40 players, about twice a week, for at least 6 months, with no internal or central records kept. 2080 incidents x $10,000 an incident = $20.8m fines, minimum, if my quick maths is right. And that's just the central record-keeping side, not the failure to keep internal records at all. And of course, the record-keeping problem at Sydney was entirely involving common and explicitly WADA-approved injections. Y'know what, I really hate the Essendon Football Club. For everything they stand for, but most of all the 'we're so hard-done-by' whinging and the strutting around like they've successfully come through a period of being victimised.

They'd want Mitch King as part of the deal, and I'm not willing to pay overs.

It would be a good bit of fun if we set up some kind of repeat of the Tyson/Salem/Kelly deal. Trouble is, what does GWS really need, at all, let alone what we have to offer that we'd willingly lose? Who knows, maybe they'll imagine Spencer as the successor to the great Simmonds, Jolly and Martin tradition of Demons rucks blossoming at other clubs.

Just playing Devil's Advocate... but what if Hird was telling the truth, and he really hadn't known about the illegality and scale of the Essendon supplements program, as adminstered by Dank, reporting to Robinson, reporting to Hamilton? What if he had sincerely believed that his admonishments, and request that no further injections be made without Dr Reid's approval, were taken seriously and had established a safe line of reporting? How is it that Hamilton and Corcoran, for example, haven't been drawn and quartered for public entertainment during one of the 'We are Essendon' marches?

Watched a couple of old highlight reels and the 'arrivials lounge' interview with him, and I must say there's more to him than my memory was telling me. He's actually capable of doing a whole lot of good things. He can kick it a long way with an excellent fast low arc. He can snap goals instinctively. He can chase opponents down. He has that energetic attitude of fast thinking and action in chaos, and trying things that aren't regulation. Now, I've sat with Essendon supporters many a time and seen them beat their hands on tables in frustration at Melksham because of the turnovers and the blunders, but I think a lot of that comes down to him actually trying to do something useful. A lot of those same Essendon supporters (back at the time) would spend the rest of the game groaning about handballing in circles at half-back, or tedious switches of play that come to nothing. So, anyone losing the plot now about how there's been a post about Jake Melksham in the Jake Melskham thread?

I think if a deal came down to "Hibberd and Melksham for two second-round picks", I'd take it. Hibberd a much more valuable player, both in quality and position. I'd be quite content if it took an earlier second rounder gained through the 'academy points package deal' process to get Hibberd. Let's be honest, our drafting this year and maybe another is about running the turnover for any 'discount gems'. We have depth across midfield, forward line and even tall defenders. Basically, with Hibber adding an extra piece of consistency and class in defence, we're fine for 'ok, AFL-level' players for now. It is going to take a year or two to find out where the real deficiencies are in this young group (other than learning to run in supportive packs... sigh).

If anyone has reached their The Age limit for the month, remember you can just switch to 'incognito mode' (on chrome, or the equivalent on any other browser) and The Age's website wont be able to recognise you. Or you can find their counter cookie in your internet history files and delete it. State. Of. The. Art.

Something funny I noticed when I was looking at the charts in the article about "How Roos finally turned the Demons around". Our current run is our longest stretch of consecutive 'improved seasons' since the 1940s. Win count 1942-46 - 5, 7, 7(%), 8, and finally 13 (and a grand final appearance). The only other run of 4 in a row is 1923-26, going 3,4,12,14 and culminating in a premiership. It gets better for Mr Roos. That 1940s run is shared between Percy Beams and 'Checker' Hughes, who each coached a couple of those season, and the 1920s run is shared between Rattray, Wilson and finally Chadwick. Meaning that Paul Roos holds the Melbourne Football Club record for consecutive seasons of improvement as coach.

Progressing nicely, could become my favourite type of AFL player - a reliable best-22 quality who gets the job done and doesn't often stuff the whole thing up. May we see 200+ underrated games from the kid.

That game was a mad crazy party for kids. 18 - Oliver 19 - Stretch 20 - Petracca, Harmes 21 - Hunt, Hogan, Wagner 22 - Viney, Kennedy, Tyson, Kent. Eleven players on the field under 23 years old. And meanwhile, waiting injured, there's Salem, Brayshaw, ANB, O.Mac and the draftees. It doesn't mean a dynasty is starting, it doesn't mean all our problems are solved, I'm not getting ahead of myself, the lid is on, some of these kids wont sustain the standard long term, we're still getting a huge contribution from veterans like Jones and Vince, Pederson and... Garland? Lumumba?

Max Gawn circa 1500BC

Top effort Rance, fail to compete, drop an elbow into the back of someone's head while they are lying on the ground, and then take a dive as soon as anyone gives you a shove. You're written off, pretty boy. You'll never get those three seconds back.

Wow, here's a shocker. The only player* on our current list to have ever had a positive win/loss balance at Melbourne is Lynden Dunn, after playing in most of Melbourne's hot streak in 2006. Dunn's balance went below 50/50 in round 15, 2007. *with at least 10 games experience.

Last time we went a season without a 15 goal (90pt) or greater loss was 2010. Last time we went a season without a game where an opponent doubled our score was 2006! Also since 2006 - the deepest into a season that we've been a) in the 8, and b) had a percentage >100 would be round 7, 2011. There are some worthy targets for the season.

We're really having this conversation, again? Mitchell, Gaff, Prestia, Hannebery, Murphy, Steven, Jones, Adams, Hill, Wingard, Shiel, Montagna, Coniglio and Viney. The quickest way to assemble a list of 'undersized' midfielders is to look at the Brownlow Medal count. I'm not saying that being shorter makes someone a better player, but if you're imagining that being around 180cm makes you inadequate for the midfield, you're a mile off the mark. As for Clayton Oliver, I'm warming to him solely on his resemblance to Brienne of Tarth. I say these things to remind myself that I (and most of everyone else) have no idea what the detailed merits of each player are, and will trust pilot to fly the plane. My preference list for the 3/7 combo is still some arrangement of Francis/Parish/Weideman.

Some people add muscle much more easily than others, some people retain fast-reacting muscle for much longer, some people have better base VO2, some people have shiny hair and soft smooth skin even though they grew up on a sheep-station. One of those "Dr Karl Kruzelnicki factoids" is that historical family names were associated with profession, and people named 'Smith' are heavier than people named 'Taylor' even hundreds of years later. As for why people seem confident that Parish will be a Smith not a Taylor, hard to say. He does seem to have a pretty solid torso, and there's some photos around where there's a lot of sinewy muscle in the arms and legs. Really the only way to find out would be to cook him and find out if he is more like kangaroo or wagyu.

That is one of the best ruckman highlight reels I've seen in a while. Project player to pick up with 46?

Hmm, I worry a little that he looks like the next Brent Moloney. You know - if a coach says 'move the ball quickly, take the first good option' he will be thinking 'ME! I'm the first good option!' There's just something in those highlights that made me think he wasn't as aware of his teammates as an onballer needs to be at AFL-intensity.

Geez Dazzle you're on the sads about Hogan today - in two different threads. Though both relevant. Hogan will stay at Melbourne over Freo because it will be a career path choice between emulating Norm Smith or Matthew Richardson. (For the record, Richardson has played in just three finals, for one win, Norm Smith played in 16, for 10 wins, 1 draw, 5 losses, including a triple-premiership which he was a decisive factor in. Just in case anyone forgets!) As for the complex issue of who fits where, personally I wouldn't mind a structure of 2xCHF and one resting ruckman at FF. I think the 'modern game' demands a workrate from CHF that is more than any one player can contribute. By alternating who goes for the searching lead and who lurks menacingly in and out of the forward 50, both CHFs are always offering a target while also allowing for variation in the intensity of effort/comparative rest. I think it would be very good, especially for a young team, to have certainty that there will always be someone there to kick to when they look up.

It's the day for it. We're just now getting in touch with Marty McFly to get his signature for next season, last season, and 1987.

Well, that's the best thing about us having pick 3 and 7. We're in a position to be the club that takes whichever player Melbourne foolishly overlooks at 3!

If the 4-year deal is heavily weighted to match payments rather than base salary, it would be a good insurance covering time suspended, while also offering Melksham some career certainty. As for trade value... I dislike giving up picks in that top 25 range for players who aren't likely to make a major difference. I've long believed that the most efficient draft approach is 'high-low'. Be involved in the hunt for top-end talent at one end, then shamelessly turnover experimental, speculative, mature-age and 'possible' players on short contracts at the other end. The middle of the draft is much less likely to get you a major player than the top end, while actually not being that much better than the bottom end better when it comes to accumulating role-players and stalwarts. Also worth noting the 'future picks' option and the fact that with a lot of retirements coming through they'll likely be going deep in drafts this year and next. But for us, we seem to do a lot of our list-filling with mature players, and after another likely major cull this year I think we'll be quieter for list turnover at the end of 2016. Would anyone else rather trade two third-round picks than one second rounder? Call it pick 43 (2015) and 47 (2016) vs pick 25 this year?

As a side note - Essendon are rooted. Quick comparison of 'definite' talent under the age of Jack Trengove (just turned 24) Melbourne Gawn, McDonald, Tyson, Viney, Hogan, Salem, Vandenberg, Petracca and Brayshaw Plus a whole host of maybes. Essendon Heppell, Merrett, Merrett, Daniher... Carlisle and Melksham Really only a couple of other possibles - Laverde? Gleeson? They were expelled from one draft, stuffed up a couple more, and tried to cover the gap with veterans like Cooney, Goddard and Chapman, which just clogged their list and slowed the much-needed turnover. Essendon 2015 = Melbourne 2007. Sure there will still be some quality players carrying through, but they will be overwhelmed much like the way Green, McDonald, Bruce and Robertson couldn't hold a team together with so little depth and such unreliable younger cohort. They've fallen off a cliff and really Melksham should pay us for the chance to get out.

Clangers. Really highly visible big ol' clangers. Also, brainfarts. HOWEVER I was just now doing some checking back, because part of the reason Essendon fans turned him into an object of hate was that he had seemed to be developing well, but then tapered off. Melksham played the first few years of his career (to 2013) under Simon Goodwin. By the end of that time he was a useful, quick, goal-kicking midfielder. After Goodwin left, Melksham's numbers immediately declined - halving his goals, knocking a quarter off possessions (particularly kicks), and just generally not being that great. So the 'Goodwin-Melksham connection' is probably more than just nice talk or a bit of favouritism. I'd reckon Goodwin is backing himself to refresh Melksham and have him delivering in a very particular role that we do need more of. I'm feeling better about it with some more facts on hand. Still very wary, but better.

In truth, you lost me at 'top ten draft pick means there's clearly something there'. He was taken one pick ahead of Gysberts. And you kind of managed to get worse from there. Having a few close friends who are Essendon supporters, I've known pretty much the whole of Melksham's career up close. The reason? A lot of Bomber fans get wound up every time they see him. "Here comes a turnover", "oh, let's see him go high and give away a free", or the more simply "what's the point of getting to a contest if you can't actually make a contest". I actually had a bit of sympathy for poor little Milkshake, because he definitely tried. You could see his legs pumping along all day, but the results were a lot like out-of-form Brock Mclean. Get to a contest, fail to really affect result... repeat... Finally, in a midfield crying out for speed, Melksham ain't the answer. You comparison to Garland, and dismissal of any meaning to the Melbourne Football Club Best & Fairest, is odd. I can't think of a time in fifteen years as a member where the Bluey was ever voted on by 'the board', as you say. There have been 'all the coaches', 'the head coach', 'the coaches and even some player input', 'the coaches with Cameron Schwab sending them irritating text messages', really a lot of variations, but it has never, ever gone outside the football department. Personally, I'd recommend trying our luck with a late draft pick, rather than committing to Melksham. Maybe Goodwin is convinced that all the guy needs is some special attention to really improve his game. If we get him, I'll have a little chuckle and look forward to being annoyed by my Essendon friends, but won't write him off completely, not right away. Maybe he will, like Mclean, turn things around and manage a couple of years of solid contribution before fading again.