DeeSpencer

Lynch (who has lost his pace and kicking distance) had 5 shots on goal on Pedersen. Sure Pedersen can get involved in play a bit but he doesn't defend any better than Sellar. I had no faith in either Pedersen, Sellar or Gillies and the next option should be Davis (who I'm not convinced about either).

Remember how we got into this mess - lets get rid of McDonald, Bruce, Green, Miller etc. Jamar should stay. Jamar is a limited footballer with the ball that's for sure so I don't care how many marks or kicks he gets around the ground. He certainly needs to win his share of disposals around the contest and also provide a target down the line but disposals I'm not too worried about. Gawn should come back in for Fitzpatrick this week so we stretch the saints but people are in such a hurry to expose a guy whose had 2 knee reco's and remove a guy who consistently wins the hit out battle and gives our mids a fighting chance. Yes Gawn is the long term future but don't rush him! We can ship out Spencer, that would be a much better idea.

It's funny how the players try until 3 consecutive goals get kicked and then it's all just meh who cares. Also the way they look completely spent after a couple of efforts tells me they aren't fit enough still.

To be fair to him his first quarter was good when his intensity was up, but the longer the game went the more it dropped. If it was one area that would make him look better it would be tackling. He needs to back himself to stick a decent tackle and drop his weight into an opponent. He's actually started to at least attack the ball on the ground to a degree. I'd still trade him though for any half decent young midfielder.

Pedersen, Sellar, Gillies, Davis, McDonald, Dunn..... Could play any or all of them wouldn't matter May as well go with McDonald and Davis

obviously they don't have the professionalism of Biff but the Russians and Chinese would like to think their athlete breeding and development programs were very successful thank you very much!

Just looked at the final team and thought this is a good move. Allows him to find the ball and work on his physicality but also play to his strengths. We have to stick by him if he makes a few mistakes though.Garland Pedersen Terlich Toumpas McDonald Dunn Evans Jones Howe Blease Dawes Sylvia Watts Fitzy Davey Jamar Trengove McKenzie Rodan M. Jones Tapscott Kent I'm hoping guys like Watts, Blease, Toumpas and Fitzy who are pretty much in the team to prove themselves can play with some spirit and how they are up for it. They've all got the talent to be good enough if they believe they can be.

So who's everyones nominations for the 6th defender this week - so far we've got McDonald, Pedersen, Garland, Terlich, Dunn and ???? after Strauss was dropped and Frawley came out for McDonald in. Sellar is on the extended interchange but surely playing him is going too tall. Other options include Watts, Howe, Evans, Bail or Tapscott. It would be unconventional (or conventional for Melbourne) but I'd go with Tapscott. Arguably the best footy he's played was down back in 2011 and he'll find more of the ball. Plus you know if its his turn to go he won't die wondering.

ive never seen the sense of blanket rules. The simple fact is that the team needs a big strong experienced body like Sylvia. It would be letting the 22 out there down if they had Sylvia available and didn't pick him

Our players are clearly held back by skill deficiencies, they may (and I and lots of others believe) that Neeld is holding them back through poor training/development/coaching, they've also done a wonderful job of setting the bar super low for effort. But the Hawthorn game they did try, that much was plain to see and that was Dawes' point. The only way to rebuild this team is one step forward at a time. Effort has to come first. Games against Gold Coast, GWS for 3/4, Port, Essendon (after 10 minutes trying), West Coast second half there was 0 out of 10 for effort.

Pretty much said he's got faith in the people running the club - Neeld and Craig and that there's been more effort the last couple of weeks and all they can do is keep giving effort and results will hopefully improve. Answered a few more questions about the his move and the club with clarity. Then after Garry asked him to give supporters something he promised effort and said its our grand final this week. Good on him for getting on the show in what could be a very hard weekend for him. Hopefully he can back it up with another strong performance.

The way I see it it's McDonald in ahead of Davis. Really though I think you wouldn't be overly impressed by Davis. His skills rival McDonalds for poor and he doesn't have the speed, height or endurance of McDonald.He'd be a fresh face and robust as opposed to Sellar but not clean with the ball.

Yep I'd go with McKenzie, Blease, Kent and either of Bail/Tapscott not too fussed. Probably prefer Tapscott to get some big game experience and see if he can get back in form. I know Strauss was pretty awful last week but you'd think the coaches would have some faith and just remind him of some defensive things. His kicking was super and set up a few nice plays. If as this team suggests he gets replaced by Joel Macdonald I shudder at that kicking from the backline. Could do Howe to HBF for some run and creativity. Or Watts to the backline again?! Another option would be just that, Watts to the backline and Gawn to full forward, Fitzy to a pocket and be tall up forward, but we might only get beat by more going tall. Pedersen or Tommy Mc for Cloke? That won't end well either way. Maybe Pedersen from in front and McDonald from behind?

At the same time the new wave of "senior players" - Trengove, Grimes, Jones, Clark, Garland, Dawes, Byrnes, Rodan seem on side with Neeld. Davey seems to have come around. The alienated group may include Frawley (we aren't sure), Sylvia (again not sure) and possibly Jamar. Green I think had just had enough and thought life would be easier assistant coaching regardless of whether he was pro or against Neeld. That said the fact he went and worked for Malthouse shows some kind of agreement with Neeld's philosophy (maybe). We know Rivers wasn't overly happy but he got a great opportunity and even Moloney got an opportunity to play for a coach who wanted him more, that doesn't necessarily mean he was completely alienated by Neeld. If by some miracle Sylvia makes it to the end of the year then he'll be the perfect test case for whether Neeld can get senior guys on board, but it's much more important he keeps the Jacks, Jones, Clark and co.

Moloney sat down with Neeld at the end of the year and said he wanted out. So I don't think we offered a contract. If he thought there was more money on offer at Melbourne he might have played it out a bit more but obviously what/if anything coming from Melbourne contract wise wasn't the issue. Most people agree Neeld's treatment of Moloney led him to leave and was a bad move, but what we don't know is exactly what that treatment entailed and whether it was a reasonable expectation. If I was coaching Moloney I'd be harping on to him about improving his dynamic speed in close and laying more tackles and running harder defensively. Because that's what stands out when he plays against good teams. Yet at the same time I think I'd value what he could do and keep him in the middle not playing forward or for Casey. Interesting though we are see a very Moloney/Neeld dynamic play out with Swan/Buckley at the moment. If anything it's only Swan's greater talent than Moloney which hasn't resulted him getting to the 2's. Although publicly Buckley has been supportive of Swan. On the other hand we see Malthouse at Carlton fine Jarrad Waite for a stupid suspension but also bring him straight back into the team and into an important role.

http://sen.sportal.com.au/site/_content/audio/00008183-source.mp3 Ox's comments here make a lot more sense than his article. Except they are wrong about a win and further wins for the rest of the season being a band aid. It would be a monumental surgery and a great recovery! Certainly paying for a review and failing to implement it (yet alone make it public) is just stupidity in the highest order. Also he's been reading demonland it sounds like!

So the biggest issue at the moment facing that AFL is how to fairly equalise the comp. Obviously the AFL are pretty strong on not ever changing the fixture back to a proper draw or distributing a fair number of high drawing games to the lesser comp. That's their prerogative and I can live it. And the rich clubs are heavily against handouts. So how do we even the comp out? Higher salary caps- no thanks, cash handouts, extra priority draft picks - I don't like any of that. The main problem as the Bulldogs will tell you now and as we can clearly see form Melbourne right now compared to 2010/2011 is what happens when you are a bad side and a small drawing team. You get a double whammy effect that really hurts the club. Another big issue is the future of the VFL and the unfair advantage Collingwood and Geelong have got from fielding their own reserves whilst other teams like Melbourne prop up the standard of the competition. It's also unfair for interstate teams to have their players spread throughout several teams and for the northern teams for their players to play in the substandard NEAFL. So I propose we use the equalisation money to fund a proper reserves league again. I'd split it into two conferences - the West conference (WA, SA, 5 VIC teams) and the East conference (QLD, NSW, 5 VIC teams). Now to construct the 5 Victorian teams I'd split them based on the latter. The first, 4th and 5th placed VIC teams go West, the second, third and sixth VIC team go east. I'd then have a lottery with pre-draft percentages (which can change based on who played where each year) for the bottom 4 to split them one way or the other because to me playing the West teams is probably a disadvantage with the longer flight and time zone change to Perth not to mention the standard of the teams currently. I'd then make it a 16 a side competition to try and make more AFL players available for selection and to keep costs on non AFL listed players to a minimum. It will also produce a less congested and more skillful form of footy. I'd have a bench from minimum 3 to maximum 6 taking it to 19-22 at the discretion of the clubs with a 23rd man from a relevant junior club ie. TAC (but more on that later). I'd also place training (to stop exploitation of AFL hopefulls) and salary restrictions on non AFL listed players to maintain the integrity of the reserves and not rob the state leagues that now stand alone. Clubs could have up to 2 marquee signings who could earn AFL rookie level wages. Guys like Troy Selwood at Geelong. To me playing in line with the AFL fixture will represent a problem with ground allocation and timings. I'd go for a separate fixture. As for the fixture I'd have 3 preseason matches the last of which would correspond to AFL round 1. From then I'd run a 16 match season with 2 byes, one before and after the AFL bye weeks to keep the reserves running during AFL byes. For the interstate teams I'd give them 1 preseason match in the other interstate (ie. WA to SA) and 2 home. Same with the VICs, 2 home, 1 away. From then on I'd also draw 3 rivalry rounds a year allowing the interstate teams no travel with derbies and play everyone else twice a year. With the one non conference game also involving minimal travel. Now how does this factor on equalisation when it's only going to cost the clubs more money? Well my idea here is that all teams end up playing finals come the end of the year and that prize money be distributed based on final result. I'd start to the finals in the fourth last round of the AFL year and have the top 7 in each conference progress through a finals system with second chances and wild cards and the bottom 2 fight it out for rankings 8-9 in each conference and playing the teams from rival conferences in the bottom 2. That way it stretches into September. Then of course a combined grand final. The idea that almost all clubs get to partake in finals is to allow clubs who have been injury ravaged throughout the year to overcome that. If you have 12 injuries on your list you are down to at most 10 guys for your reserve side compared to no injuries at 22 so injuries have to be accounted for. Now this is where equalisation can come into part. I'd make the prize money very generous and the finals qualifications very relaxed - 4 game minimum in reserves or no more than 5 senior games and 2 game minimum in reserves. That way struggling clubs like Melbourne can field a very strong reserves side towards the second half of the season and give us something to cheer about. Then come the end of the year we will be in reserves finals. Stronger AFL teams will be playing AFL finals and not have the luxury of strong reserves teams. It keeps reserve footy running into September for weaker clubs as well. I'd also introduce a mandatory away from clubs holiday period of October and November for all clubs. End of the day we make it towards the reserves finals and we pick up a couple of extra million. I'd have 6-9 in each division receiving - 0.5 to 1 million in staggered amounts 5 - 1.25 million 4 - 1.5mil 3 - 1.8 mil 2 - 2.1 mil grand final loser 2.6 mil grand final winner 3 mil Now I believe the NEAFL in QLD/NSW/NT would struggle without the QLD/NSW reserve teams they currently have but I doubt anyone will miss it. NT has a strong league, QLD had a pretty decent stand alone league and NSW/canberra can have a league developed without Tom Mitchell running around getting 56 touches. I believe the WAFL and SANFL will survive without each team having a couple of AFL players in them each week. The VFL is in for a big change but it's already struggling to accommodate more stand alone AFL and VFL clubs. I suggest the VFL re-emerges as the VFA with Port, Frankston, Werribee, Williamstown, North Ballarat, Bendigo Gold, Sandringham and Coburg. At the same time teams that want to continue alliances like Casey and Box Hill are allowed to with these clubs being their respective AFL teams reserves. There would have to be a separation of lists though otherwise the depth for teams like Casey/Melb would be far greater than anyone else. The Casey demons can play in the AFL reserves with the Casey scorpions playing in the VFA reserves with both teams under the Casey Scorpions club and playing at Casey fields. Also in line with other states I'd like to see the TAC merged with the (reborn) VFA. The clubs should roughly match up to the TAC clubs - Bendigo, Ballarat, Sandy etc. already do and others make simple changes(Frankston-Dandenong), Williamstown (Western), Coburg (Northern), Werribee (Geelong falcons). It will keep AFL support into the VFA through the under 18 program and provide them with ready players. It would also equalise junior pathways with that of the SANFL and WAFL. So thoughts: Positives - Gives bottom AFL teams a shot at success for the end of the season in the reserves - Allows struggling smaller teams a way to prevent financially disasterous seasons - Gives bottom AFL teams a chance to develop a wining culture in their younger players - Maintains the AFL clubs will focus on keeping a high standard of experienced players who will be vital to be seniors and reserves coming through - Gives struggling financial clubs a way to earn money legitimately - 2 teams to cheer on each week - Opportunity for reserves footy at traditional AFL grounds - Vic park, Princess park, Geelong, Windy Hill, Western Oval - More big games in WA/SA for footy fans to go to - ie. West Coast fans who can't get into AFL games would attend a Freo v WCE reserves match - Lets the WAFL, SANFL and VFA stand alone and continue their traditions Negatives - Is open to tanking/manipulation - but with no AFL priority pick the incentive isn't there and if you are boosting your reserves for the sake of the seniors in August then what does it matter? At least you are giving your fans something to cheer about and not deliberately giving guys weeks off/sending for surgery - Dismantles the current VFL structure and changes second tier footy in other states however I can see this as a positive as the current VFL structure has been rewarding the rich at expense of the poor both for AFL and stand alone VFL clubs. - Increased travel for young players - however for example Freo reserves I'd schedule 8 home games, 2 away to WC, 1 away to Port and Adel and 4 trips to Melb. For Melb reserves 8 home games, 4 away in Melb, 4 away in WA/SA. - Increased expense for the AFL/Clubs - travel allowance for the interstate teams extra 2 travels and prize money to be funded by the AFL. The clubs should be able to recoup their costs in prize money along with ticketing/sponsorship etc. The AFL can diminish the amount spent on equalistion which is much higher than this prize money - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/rich-clubs-kick-up-stink-over-funding-20110926-1ktlh.html - If your list is a complete mess and also you have terrible coaching you might end up bad in both competitions leaving you in a financial and football black hole

Please expand on how recruiting, management, fd and player satisfaction are all minor probelms? They are major problems. Our recruiting has been overhauled with a talented replacement but it's going to take a long time to see the results. List manager Tim Harrington has done a good job with contracts but hasn't got a good list, although that might be due to the recruiting and development being so bad. The development will only improve with better coaching and Bailey and Neeld whether they were the problem or not weren't the solution. We at least assembled a greater number of coaches under Neeld. But even now that will take time. Obviously the footy department and management structure was wrong. We didn't fix that in 2011 but Jackson will fix that now (hopefully). The thing is the club did identify problems in 2011 and have since made changes, unfortunately it looks like the changes made were worse than the original decisions. That's the great shame.

It seems Ox is hurting from the scoreboard pain and not looking at the bigger picture: McLardy - will go when the time is right to ensure a smooth transition for a new president and a stable board Football department structure - Jackson will aim to fix this and restructure the way the FD reports to him and the board so he can actually operate as the CEO and be across all aspects of the business without interfering. This is probably just as important as the senior coach because we need someone who can take responsibility for the department. Neeld - again will go when Jackson thinks the time is right, Jackson has to operate in a commercial reality and make sure The Ox like others are saying we are bleeding now and getting rid of Neeld will stop the bleeding and all of a sudden some optimism will take over and we will be fine. I disagree with that. I think getting rid of Neeld would only help for a couple of weeks and then we'd have the rest of the season in misery with a caretaker coach in limbo. Also whilst we are at it I'm sick of Queens birthday being used as our grand final or special day. It should be that for the fans but for the players and coaches it should be 4 points just like any other game.

Seems unnecessary from the ox. Just inflames the situation. No doubt McLardy should go but you shouldn't blindly call for his head unless you are running or supporting a run for the board. Especially as a past player. Or calling for Freeman. Same thing goes for sacking Neeld. We can't make that decisions as fans we need to support the club. This article is everything that is wrong with Melbournes culture!!! Silly from ox.

Seems like Blease will be in after watching the Craig report. I'd have Sylvia back and after much thought I'd take Sellar in and go taller rather than shorter. IN: Sellar, Sylvia, Blease OUT: Frawley, Tapscott, Bail Terlich Sellar Garland Strauss Pedo Dunn Howe Jones Evans Blease Dawes Macdonald Fitzy Sylvia Davey Jamar Rodan McKenzie Trengove Watts Matt Jones S: Kent There are just not enough difference makers in this team. We really are set up for at least a 60 point loss. Jamar can win the ruck against Jolly but not around the ground, Garland can take one Collingwood forward but the rest won't make a difference down back and in the midfield Jones can compete but everyone else will be fighting to stay in the same ball park as their opponent. If there has been one vulnerability to Collingwood this year its the personnell in their small defenders has been struggling. Obviously we need Dawes to play a good CHF game like last week but then I'd try and structure Watts and Fitzy as largely decoys with the aim of taking Reid/Maxwell etc away from the play. I'd like to see Sylvia trialed as a focal point because on a Marty Clark/Marley Williams etc he might be the one with the edge in matchup. It's wishful thinking in the highest to suggest we could get the ball down there enough but if we somehow could Sylvia along with Davey/Blease might be our best chance of getting a score. Whilst I'm dreaming I'd love Maxwell to trundle over to Jack Watts and for Jack to really show him up. Especially if Maxwell is keen to drop off Watts and head to Dawes etc I'd like to see us play through Jack and really get him involved. Of course the hard bit will be getting it out of Collingwood's defensive pressure which means Garland/Terlich/Strauss and Dunn have to be daring but accurate and take the game on.

I think in this weeks Craig report (or somewhere else) Craig says he ran as hard back as he did forward. That was/is Blease's problem. He'll sprint off at 100 miles an hour when he gets the ball (often only to burn team mates) but sometimes with productive play but as soon as the ball is going to the other team he'll look completely flat. Of course other problems he faces is his disposal is mediocre and his decision making often poor. But it will be interesting to see if he's got any better since we last saw him. I certainly think his play last year was promising but I 100% agree it wasn't enough to indicate long term success.

The reason we don't hear from Mahoney is all related to the structure of the football department. He's really head administrative officer more than manager. At the same time we have; Viney - ? Development Misson - Fitness Craig - God knows Harrington - List management What Peter Jackson wants to do (From my understanding of his comments) is tie up the structure of the department and get one footy manager heading it up and actually managing all his troops effectively and working with Neeld. That means actually having someone across all the areas above so that when something happens at the club they are aware and can feed that up to the CEO. It's the position where Essendon broke down in this drugs scandal and where Coll (Walsh), Geel (Balme), Haw (Evans) in particular have succeeded. It's funny how 2 of those are ex Melbourne people. Now I don't know how good an operator Mahoney is. If he is up for it I say we promote him and get him taking a more active leadership and outspoken role. If not we go for a Rendell, Daniher, P. Schwab, Donald McDonald. No doubt our current football department results lean more towards a fresh recruitment than keeping someone from within.

It depends if he is specifying strictly international competitions with Australian teams: I'd say The ashes is still number one but cricket is on the decline lets see how this one goes Other options: Bledisloe cup - another sport on the decline Australia v NZ rugby league - no thanks Australia v India cricket - hmmm probably not Australia v NZ netball - no Australia v US swimming - probably not Australia v Ireland International Rules - no Australian sailing v the world Of course if he includes all the great rivalries within Australia - League State of origin blows it away, Coll v Carl, ANZAC day, a good Western derby etc But if we somehow bludge our way into this world cup and can find some decent players after it for another golden generation (ie. 11 guys actually getting games at decent european/top asian clubs) soccer will go from strength to strength and Australia v Japan will start to mean something like the ashes. With Rugby and Aussie Rules not having great international competition the socceroos look set to become Australia's number one national team.

Port Adelaide, Western Bulldogs, Carlton - that's 3 clubs bailed out because of poor management. Not to mention Gold Coast and GWS who are both fully funded by the AFL. The AFL have set up a system where the clubs get bad stadium deals if they can't keep big crowds (even moderate crowds don't make big coin) and the AFL then pocket the TV money which is the main form of income for the game. It's led to this situation where periodically any of about 8 clubs (Port, GWS, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Melb, North, WB, StKilda) can end up in trouble if they have a bad run. At the same time the disparity of footy department spending almost insures some of these clubs spend time at the bottom.