Dr. Gonzo

Even if he wasn't quite as good as Carey that's no great insult - Carey was the best the game has ever seen! I just had a look back at that 95 season, I've got a pretty good memory but most of those games are wiped completely. So many games we lost by 2-3 goals and still only missed out on finals losing to the Bears in the last game (where Smith took his famous mark - I was sitting right behind the goals!) With a bit of luck with injuries that year we would've been a formidable side. Ah, what might have been.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if Trengove comes back and makes an impact. As it is I'm not factoring him in and if he does come back it's a bonus. That's not to say I don't think he'll make it, just that I'm not factoring him in. I'm hoping he doesn't become another Mark Coughlan who looked like a future captain at Richmond before injury destroyed his career,

On another note, I can't wait until we can add Hogan, Brayshaw and Petracca to this side. In fact I'm salivating over it, especially considering the form of Viney, Oliver and Gawn in the middle. Can't wait.

If this was a game for 4 points I would agree, bank the 4 points and move on. In the context of it being a practice game I think it's fair to look at more than just the final scores to have a look at how we played and how we played against the opposition in front of us. Those of us saying it wasn't a good performance aren't the ones overreacting here - I don't think any of us are really getting too hung up on it. On the contrary it's those who refuse to acknowledge the poor performance who seem incapable of taking on board any critical analysis. Again, I was far more impressed with the game the week before against Port than this week against the Dogs. That is regardless of the outcome, simply looking at the style of play, the effort, attack and execution. As an example look at Dean Kent's game against Port compared to his game against the Dogs. That's just one example of many. At the end of the day it won't mean anything in a couple of weeks but right now there was enough to be disappointed in the weekends game. Not angry or frustrated, just disappointed.

Why??? Because we fielded a near full strength side while they were missing their best dozen players. Quite simple. I didn't answer my own points, I provided what might be reasons but also stated that's really not an excuse. Our team is known for mentally switching off when they think things will be easy for them, that's the whole point. We've been doing it for decades so it's not a good sign if we went at 3/4 pace yesterday just because we thought we were playing against a bunch of kids and so could afford to.

Did we play with the same intensity as the week before, particularly the second half? I was happy after the Port game, not because we won a practice match but because of the way we attacked the ball, ran with purpose and executed some good passages of play. Yesterday was a lot of bumbling skill errors and players going half arsed. There may be reasons for that (wind, players taking it easy due to NAB Challenge/nature of opposition meant they thought it would be easier than it was) but the performance was pretty poor overall with a few exceptions. Again, it's only practice games so no one is going all doom and gloom - it's just that we are pointing out the obvious that it wasn't a great performance and with the level of opposition out there we really should have won with ease.

The Dogs will be fielding their "round 1" side this week against the Pies according to Beveridge. Let's see how many of them weren't playing against us once they are named. By the way, your assertion "Claiming that the ones they played yesterday are lesser players than the ones they didn't is a fabrication their fans have cooked up to make themselves feel better about the loss." can easily be reworded to state "Claiming that the ones they played yesterday are better/equal to the ones they didn't is a fabrication Melbourne fans have cooked up to make themselves feel better about the game."

And it's not based on "potential" as in the past (although we haven't seen Petracca yet I am confident he'll "hit the ground running" once he gets senior games too).

They're a vocal group but not representative of all or even the majority. Plenty of them know their club has led them down a merry path and are extremely disillusioned with them especially Hird, Little et al. The great thing is this will foster division within their club for years if not decades.

Does anyone else remember playing the Bombers in the NAB Cup at Docklands the year Hird took over as coach (2011?). They beat us and as Hird walked the boundary in the final quarter their supporters all did the "stand and bow" in praise of him. It always makes me laugh to think back on that with the hindsight of knowing what destruction he would subject them to over the next few years. I hope their club is divided for decades over this, the same way we were/have been since Smith was sacked, Richmond since the late 70's/early 80's and Carlton since Elliott/salary cap sanctions. It doesn't just create poor performance on-field it destroys the fabric of a club off-field and creates a politically divided club. I think/hope we're coming out the other side now with the work of PJ and to a lesser extent Roos and if we can hand the baton to Essendon for some decades of pain that would be just great Let's smash them in round 2 and destroy their fragile psyche before they've even had a chance to get the season underway.

Yep, there was a bit of consternation around picking a bolter who didn't play in the nationals but I'm happy to say the recruiting team have got this one right. They haven't done much wrong since Taylor came on board and I think it's an area of our club that definitely deserves some praise, especially turning around from where they came. Well done for backing themselves and not getting caught up in the hype of Parish, a player who we definitely would've picked a few years ago. Targeting these big bodied, aggressive players has been a real focus and will see us be one of the more hard-nosed teams in the coming years.

Look at what Geelong did to Essendon on Saturday in similar circumstances (near full strength team vs 2nd 22) - I'm not saying we should've demolished the Dogs to the same extent but to only scrape in by 2 goals.... By the way I don't think anyone is slitting wrists over this - its only a practice game after all. But some of us are trying to provide some rational/realistic counterbalance to those who are jumping for joy over another "come from behind win" and winning "two on the trot". These are practice games and will be all but forgotten in 2 weeks. But if the team brings the same effort from yesterday against ANY team in the season proper we will get pantsed even by the Blues and Bombers.

Nah just red and blue...

On BF Dogs supporters reckon non of their top 15 from last year's B&F played including "Missing from today's squad that would be best 22 (or thereabouts) are Suckling, Murphy, Wallis, Bont, Boyd, Dahlhaus, Hunter, Stringer, Wood, Macrae, Biggs, Stevens, Dickson, Morris, Johannisen and Picken" That was a pretty pathetic performance, we should've smashed that team today. Some of the turnovers were excruciating, I hope we perform a lot better next week - although perhaps we need a wake up call before round 1.... On a more positive note I'm loving the look of Oliver.

I forgot their top up players so Kelly, Stokes and Crowley will be there as well. That's a third of their starting 22 (close to their best 7) - not saying they'll win more than a handful of games but they'll create headaches for a few. I just hope we aren't one.

To be fair Geelong fielded a near full strength team and the Bombers were missing Zaharakis, Daniher, Goddard, Leuenberger and?? Not sure if there was anyone else but basically their best players were out.

Haha no but it's weird that's where your mind went I'll be verbally abusing them and keeping my own belt tight.

I'll be doing more than merely turning my back.

Haha you and me both BBO. I can see myself being very "vocal" at this game. All I can say is, we better bloody win!

It's not a media beat-up when negotiations have stalled. Regardless how long was left on the contract, negotiations for an extension started and then were put on hold. That's a story especially with the best promising key forward in the comp.

IF he leaves (and I'm not saying I think he will) and we continue to become a successful side it will hurt but the supporters will get over it. If he leaves and we continue to struggle on field it will be devastating for the MFC.

It's not a media beat up when the club has made it clear we want to lock him in on an extension and there is opportunities that will open up for him in WA. The club advertised that we were opening negotiations on an extension now he has delayed talks of course the media will pick it up. He is going to be one of the best players of his generation, this is a story.

You're living in lala land. So the club, who has been trying to extend his contract for the last 6-9 months and who were eager to open negotiations for an extension at the end of last season, has all of a sudden decided that we're ok with postponing negotiations with this generational player for another season when every man and his dog will be in his/his managers ear with an offer to leave including at least one club from his home state. Why the hell would they do that? They've been pretty clear this is the guy we'll be building our team around for the next 10 years so if we could lock him in you don't think we'd do so? I'm not saying he's going to leave but to think the club wouldn't have preferred to keep negotiations open and get something locked in sooner rather than later is delusional. Also if the club has only offered 3/5 year deals they are idiots. Give this guy the keys to the castle, offer him 10 years and we'll rise or fall with him. Lynch was given 10 years from the Bears and that worked out pretty well despite the initial setbacks.

I voted Richmond but come to think of it it may result in civil war in my family so not sure that's what I really want. Collingwood is the obvious one and I'd love to pay back Essendon for 2000. I'd love the Dogs & Saints to get a flag but not at our expense and winning against them would be bittersweet in a way - don't get me wrong I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth but seeing the looks of devastation on the faces of their long suffering supporters wouldn't be as sweet as the schadenfreude of watching the Pies or Bombers lose against us. The Hawks would be great too but really their supporters have had so much success they probably wouldn't be bothered that much. 11 flags in 40 years, losing another one would be like nothing for them.

No. Even if it were, it would backfire spectacularly.