Rogue

I'm not sure about the format but we did do some research with some junior members recently, yeah. It seems many of the ideas tossed around have already been implemented - at least in part - by the Club. I think it probably indicates both some half-hearted (or under-funded/resourced) efforts by the Club and a lack of exposure to/knowledge of existing and previous Club initiatives on behalf of the wider supporter base.

My thoughts exactly

Apparently many players live in the bayside area and only travel ~30 mins to get to Casey. Btw, thanks for the goss from DB. I didn't know Maric had surgery. AFL's pretty tough on the body. I wonder how many operations a player would have over a lengthy career - for many I'm sure it's too many to want to count.

Yep. I replied to a post from RR which mentioned this. As you note, we weren't playing at Sydney - it was the WACA and it was still a decent track. We set South Africa 491, which would have been a record-breaking chase had they made it. However, at the end of day five we'd only captured five wickets while they were over 200 behind. They did bat fairly conservatively, but if they'd played more aggressively we would have had a higher likelihood of getting into the tail.

You could argue the proof's in the pudding - we were unable to knock them over and had plenty of runs to play with. At the time I felt we should have declared earlier.

From what I've heard virtually all of the ideas were unrelated to on-field performance (in so much as a football Club can disentangle itself from the on-field). I'm sure the pink group had the greatest ideas

Haha, so true. It can be unbearable after a loss (and equally cringe-worthy after a good win). Ryder's sick.

This point can't be emphasised enough.

9AM on a Sunday isn't civilised

Where's the causal link between talking the talk and performance on the field? A realistic assessment of where your list is at that suggests you're not a top team doesn't preclude you from playing decent footy. If talking the talk meant you walked the walk then we would have performed much much better in 2007, when ND was still reaching for the stars, than in 2008 under DB's rebuilding. I think you should dissassociate your link between the assessment of where we're at and perceived effort on the field, but of course it's up to you.

I share 45's sentiments I'd rather hear about some realistic aspirations for the upcoming season than false bravado about how we're a decent chance at winning the 2009 premiership. Both Stynes and CC have said that we're a few years away.

If I was in Goose's position I wouldn't name a source (regardless of whether I had one). Understandable to cop flak for it though.

Yeah, that's the first thing I thought... I agree on both points.

Welcome to the forum and thanks for the update - sounds promising. Hopefully it's a productive relationship for Melbourne and Casey

+1 You read the comments regarding (lack of) office space in the rectangular stadium, right?

I guess he's trying to cash in on the Brown and Bradshaw era. Neither are youngsters, and Brown isn't the type of guy who's likely to be playing at 35.

Indeed. Fwiw, most of the time I heard someone in the crowd yelling 'just kick it long' we had nothing up the field.

If the players were offered a choice why did the admin make the decision? Do you mean that the Club was offered a choice? Are you suggesting the players wanted to be in the Southern?

Yeah, I thought that was odd when I originally read it.

Good luck with that :\

...and if they're young the parent will need to pay / buy a membership to come along :D

There is a Melbourne members reserved seat area on the flank of the the Southern Stand (Punt Road end) next to the AFL Members Reserve.

No surprise - something that's been mooted on these Boards for a while now. For those who can remember, I believe Schwab expressed similar sentiments regarding the MCG back when he was appointed CEO.

Like I said, semantics re: the phrase 'winning position'. WYL hasn't asserted that we were favourites at that stage but that we had a serious 'sniff'. You might argue about the odds of Australia winning at that stage, but I think you're pushing it a little here. Sure, Australia may not have had any quicks who were 'likely to run through the Indians' but I think it's pretty clear that White and particularly Hussey were less chance than some of the other options.

I think you two are playing at semantics From what I can see both of you agree that we were a chance of winning at the time Ponting decided to bowl White and then Hussey, after which a win became a remote possibility.