The Chazz

Deezee, I'm tipping it's because he has been asked to work hard. Let's face it, for the past few years, any new Melbourne player coming in to the AFL system for the first time, have had a fairly easy ride. While they play to win, they get their pay cheque at the end of each game and turn up to work the following day and do it all over again. They haven't been made accountable, mainly because any time they have been, there's been a player-driven revolt and as a consequence, the bloke setting rules has been sacked. Howe in particular just had a free licence to roam around the half forward flank, take a hanger here and there, kick the odd goal every game or so, and he was a given to be selected. Now that we've got a coach that most of the players are following the instructions of, and one that we know, win lose or draw, will be here until at least the end of next season, hopefully longer, that what Roos is asking for is what's going to happen. Unfortunately, it used to be the attitude of the majority of the team that made it hard for the minority. Fortunately now, the attitude of the majority of the team is making it hard for the minority.

A majority of Vince's long bombs were on his left foot. I reckon he had about 5 kicks in a row that required him to use his non-preferred, and as a result, didn't hit the desired target, although did clear the congestion. Not sure why I noticed that - I think it's because I hate it when players use their non-preferred when they don't need to (ie Grimes), but in each of Bernie's instances, he had no option. Might also have something to do with the fact that I love Bernie, and would love to go on a footy trip with him, then sit next to his sister at their family Chirstmas lunch.

I'm a Watts lover, but bloody hell he is making it hard for me to continually defend him. If he were to remain in the team this week, which I personnaly don't think he or Howe should, I would have him play 30-40% of the game in the ruck. He's got a leap, he's got height, he's got the smart "touch" where he can put the ball to the advantage of a teammate. Will it open him up for potential injury? No, I don't believe so, and even if you do, what's the worst that can happen in a ruck contest that couldn't happen in any other contest around a ground? Playing ruck demands physical contact, there's nowhere to hide, you have to hit bodies and wrestle, and most importantly for Jack, your body will get hit and you will be wrestled against. If Cam Pederson can prove to be an effective 2nd ruck, then I'm sure Watts can. I know who I rate higher out of those two, although the gap is fast diminishing.

In: Gawn, Riley Out: Watts, Howe Salem to start as sub again - Roos did it with JKH (making him sub for his first few games), and we are being rewarded now because of it. Gawn to play as 3rd tall forward. Byrnes plays because really, we don't have anyone at Casey putting their hand up to take his spot, and I also don't think he was as bad as what some are suggesting. Kent has to come back via Casey. He only needs one game back there with a strong performance to earn a recall, given he was out of the senior side due to injury, not form. Evans was dropped from the senior side, and has yet to prove he is eligible to be re-selected. The sooner Nicholson is not considered a potential inclusion, the better off we will be. Jetta plays on Betts, simple as that. Alexis plays, he won't get suspended.

Dom Tyson will go down as one of the best players to wear a Melbourne jumper in the past 20 years. He makes other players better, which is a remarkable achievement for a kid who has played 20-something games. In the coming years, I look forward to Dom developing a tank that can see him clock up the kms that is standard for the AFL's best. When that happens, he should be in the Top 2 or 3 of the competition. The fact that the current Football Department have the runs on the board in terms of developing players with great potential and turning them in to stars of the competition gives me great confidence that Tyson will reach the levels I am expecting him to reach. Even if Roos leaves at the end of next season (I doubt he will), that'll still add another 35-odd games to Dom's resume, getting him up near that 60-70 game mark that industry believes is the experience level that players will start to consistently perform at high levels. Salem, Viney, Toumpas and even Tregove should become very good friends of Dom's - he has the ability to make them very, very good players.

I'm more amazed that Melbourne members feel the need to buy a reserved seat. Why do you do it - just in case we might have a sell out?

Things must be travelling pretty well in the Hellfish household if this is one of your great concerns at the moment.

I find it staggering that some have such a black and/or white view of topics, to the point where they will write off any other suggestion/view as incorrect, based on absolutely zero evidence, other than what they think. At times it feels that some supporters are hoping the MFC does something wrong, so that they can unzip their fly and try to start length competitions again.

Since when has that stopped him? Maybe we should start a thread "Has Robbo turned the corner?" Fixed. (No offence intended)

Ask Col Sylvia.

BS, he's just as much a front runner as Lyon is. Will never forget the time when Sheedy was sitting next to him on the panel of AFL Game Day, they asked him (KS) about coaching Melbourne, and Sheedy said "who'd want to coach Melbourne?". Schwarz just sat there, didn't say a word. WAP. Then to come out during the Neeld years saying that he would do anything for the Club if they asked him, and just sat back and waited for them to ask - what a hero. Then to say, in a public forum, that he hoped our team got "walloped" in a game to help with getting our coach sacked. Yep, really respectful towards his old club. These blokes rely on potting their old club whenever possible so that they continue to get a pay cheque. They have their own best interest at heart, first and foremost, the club is a distant and insignificant second. Articles read "so much better" when an ex-champion of a club is coming out criticising their own club.

It's disappointing that some posters could find a spot for Grimes in the best 6. Co-captain, zero tackles off a half back flank. Had every opportunity to damage Swallow in the last quarter I think it was. What did Grimes do? Stuffs up his timing when attempting to spoil allowing Swallow to take an easy mark and in the end, kick a vital goal. If I played under Grimes' leadership and saw him do that when the game was there to be won, it'd break my heart. Couldn't imagine Hodge/Selwood/Bartel doing that.

Had the opportunity to totally dominate in the ruck. The amount of times Nicholls jumped way too early, leaving Spencer a "free" tap should've seen us own the clearances, thus reducing Ablett's impact. Bordering on inexcusable some of that ruck work on Sunday - and that's just the tap work. Don't get me started on the 3 disposals for the game...

So, we saw Spencer lose the following statistics against his direct opponent; * Kicks * Handballs * Marks * Tackles * Hit outs * Inside 50's * Goal assists And as a team we lost the clearances. NB. I will acknowledge the fact that as a team we won the hit outs total When TF is Jamar back, pleeeeeeeease?

WJ, I think so much more could be done in the MFC/Casey relationship. It comes across to me (keeping in mind that I'm interstate) that we are a very selfish partner in all this. We just have to look at Sunday's Casey team-choc full of MFC listed players. That's fine as it's developing our guys, while at the same time making Casey very competitive. Come seasons end when Casey are playing finals and we're not, we reduce the amount of players they can pick from, this making their team weaker. From a partnership perspective, I think it's a disgrace. I feel that we need to give more back to the Casey area. Sure, we run holiday clinics and are active in the schools, but I think we could do more. How about we have dedicated Casey day at the MCG, where Casey members get in for free to one of our games (ideally an interstate team). We should also ask the AFL for 1 or 2 Casey home games to be played on the MCG prior to out match. Broadcasting of games that coincide with MFC games, similar to my proposal above, would generate further exposure for the Casey team. Let's gave it, regardless of who you barrack for, if there's a VFL game televised on the screens at the MCG while you are there, you're going to watch it. The MFC, like all clubs, expect so much from us, at some stage they need to give back.

This is where I would love to see the MFC show some initiative, as well as respect for our aligned team, and broadcast the first half of the Casey game on the big screen at the MCG. I'm not sure if it is done already, but giving score updates on the screen during our game would be great too. Personally, I don't like the "reserves" competition-much prefer the traditional format where every club had its own reserves team that played before the seniors, but as this isn't what's in place, let's work with what we've got, and provide exposure for the Casey team, as well as giving some value to those who attend the MCG.

Do you speak on behalf of the 500,000 other residents of Tasmania? Don't think Geelong are too fussed that a large number of GCoG residents don't barrack for them.

Given the Tasmanian government spend a significant amount of money with both Hawthorn and North, I'm sure they would see the benefit in investing that money in to their own team. The ripple effect that a national team has on a state's economy is significant, especially for one like Tasmania. I have no doubt you would see an increase in net memberships. As it is, local footy supporters are limited as far as teams they can go and see. It's great if you barrack for Hawthorn or North, but even then it's limited viewing. Knowing you can buy a membership and get to see 11 or so home games is a big attraction. I would argue that Tasmania vs Collingwood would draw a more significant crowd than North vs Freo. You won't convert more punters to AFL footy, but you will convert them to go to AFL footy. Again, I would argue that a North game would have less TV ratings than a Tasmanian game. I'm basing my views on very limited resources, and obviously the AFL would be well equipped to know if it would work down there. I am playing devils advocate, and I think it's genreally a good discussion. Where possible, I try and back up my opinion with facts or (what I consider) reasonable views, as opposed to "Tasmania's not growing so they can't have a team down there" type responses. I'm a firm believer that if the AFL want something, they will get it. I'm a bigger believer that, like all that have previously held the role, the new CEO will want to add their "personal touch" to the competition. Will expansion be on their agenda? Who knows. But one thing is for sure, if we have a team in the AFL based in Tasmania, that IS expansion. How is it not? Going from no team there to one team there is, in a simple view, growing the competition. They might sacrifice one Victorian team to do it, but it's still growth.

DC, what's your definition of "growth"? How could a "new" team, that would be based in a state with no other national team in any other sporting code, not be considered growth?

Nasher, as you asked "who would" barrack for a Tasmanian team, can I ask you "who wouldn't"?

Of the population of Tasmania, how many are current AFL members? How many of the North and Hawthorn Tasie members are life supporters of the club, as opposed to signing up with the "local" teams? We talk about the "growth of the game". South East Queensland had an AFL boom in the 2001-2004 period. There's a significant bust here now. Queenslanders are a strange bunch (you don't say!), like all sports fans they crave success, difference is, they are also spoilt for choice. If the Lions are up, so are their membership and crowd numbers. When they are down, the locals jump off them and go back to the Broncos - their true number 1 national sporting team. Some facts - Lions memberships peaked at 30,941 in 2004, with average crowds at 33,619. By 2008 (no finals since 2004 runners up) they were 23,079 members/28,000 avg crowd. Last year they barely cracked 20,000 members. In 2008, the Broncos were averagin 33,000 crowd, which was up from 28,000 in 2004. Is it coincidence that the Lions avg crowd dropped by 5,000 in the exact same timeframe as the Broncos increased by 5,000? The point of that? Has AFL grown in South East Queensland? It could be argued that it has gone backwards in the past decade, and given the AFL's special treatment of the Gold Coast, it's clear they too are craving success, as the reward for success in SEQ is clear. So, would a Tasmanian team see the sport "grow" down there? So much would depend on what the AFL defines as "successful" growth. An increase in total AFL memberships would have to be considered growth. Would it see more participation at junior levels? There wouldn't be a drop off that's for sure. Would the AFL see growth in their bottom line when they are playing 10 home games down there with average crowds of 20k? It's the question that the AFL would be asking themselves. Given they have no challenge from other sporting codes down there, do they leave it as is, or do they step in and have a total monopoly of the market? The latter would see a far greater return on investment than what the Western Sydney and South East Queensland landscape looks like.

This is the reason why I'm keeping an eye on it, rather than dismissing it like most. We were in debt, we had an incompetent CEO. If the AFL didn't step in, we would be further in debt each year, meaning the "bail out" package would continue to rise. Cheapest solution - put in your own, competent CEO (with no direct links to the club), give him a clean slate to introduce new systems, put in one of the best coaches available to develop a team, and hope that they improve onfield, to assist the improvement offield. Let's face it, PJ is holding his end of the bargain up. It's too early to make the call on Roos, but it's most importantly up to the players. If we get to the end of 2016 and we haven't improved on field, it'll start damaging the work PJ has done off it. If that happens, given we are run by the AFL's men, we're screwed. I don't know why some are in denial about this. That's why I made the call in a different thread about this week's game being one of our most important of the season. This is a great opportunity to show we are on the right track. We get smashed by the Suns, we're back to where we started. A growing % of the football world population will be watching us this week.

While I don't claim to have any inside knowledge of what the AFL's landscape is in regards to AFL Tasmania, I'm not totally convinced that in the short to mid term we won't see a Tassie team. With Gillon making noise about a team relocating, I think it's the best indication yet that it is something that is on the AFL's agenda. Presuming he takes over from Vlad, I have no doubt that Gillon will want to make some significant contribution (not sure if that's the right word!) to the game. With the expected success of Vlad's Gold Coast and GWS experiment, why wouldn't Gillon jump on board the exansion ferry and cross Bass Strait? The question is then about the team/s to relocate. North is the clear favourite. Does that mean they just get shipped down there, given a new base, new facilities and a regular AFL supported income stream in the initial stages? Wouldn't be the first time they have tried to get them out of Victoria. For the MFC, that would be the best result. I do have concerns though, which I have raised here, only to be challenged by RP, with let's face it, nothing of any substance in his argument other than the "my family member told me such and such". As we know, the AFL has continually said that we need a Melbourne Football Club in the competition. Personally, I would much prefer them to say Melbourne Demons. Am I jumping at shadows? Maybe. I am definintely reading between the lines when the omit the word "demons", time will tell if I had any reason for concern. This leads me to my point - does the AFL see a Melbourne Kangaroos team on the horizon? How could they "relocate" North, yet merge them with us? Firstly, they will want to make sure that the Tasmanian team would still have a strong "North" flavour. So, would they, like what they did with Fitzroy, tell 8 of their best players that they will be the face of the new Tasmanian team, reward them financially for their move, give 2 years of "more" compromised drafts to assist with the development of the team? So what with the remaining North players, and how does it effect us? We would then be required to pick 10-12 of the remaining North-listed players, which will require us to delist the same amount (ie receiving 10 "middle tier" players at the expense 10 "bottom tier" players = improving our list significantly). The Tasmanian team would then have free choice of the remaining North players that we didn't pick up, as well as the delisted players from our list, ensuring they have depth. It could be a case of allowing them a larger playing list, with the provision that they take 3 years to bring it back with standard league requirements. By us losing the Demons out of our names, totally frees up the "Devils" nickname which would make sense for a Tasmanian team. Let's face it, we can't have the Demons and the Devils playing each other. I can't help but feel that the end of 2016 will see something significant change within the AFL. I could be, and hope to Chirst that I'm wrong about the above (espeically the parts that relate to the MDFC). I'm concerned that Gillon will want to make an immediate impact if/when he takes over. The fact that we have an AFL appointed CEO, we are still a bottom side, our membership isn't great, our crowd numbers are terrible, and a coach that at best under current terms, is contracted with us until, wait for it...the end of the 2016 season. There you go RPFC, go your hardest! Don't disappoint me please.

Can just hear the PA announcer now... "Let's welcome our Number 2 pick from the 2012 GWS mini draft, Jesse Hogan, with the Number 1 pick from 2008, Jack Watts, and the rest of the Melbourne Football Club."

Yet the "experts" still think we should've taken Kelly. F-wits.