Rogue

Agreed. The delivery to Robertson was terrible, but he presented very well on the lead.

If we didn't select him because of his injury/injuries - which are apparent for all to see - then we wouldn't be dropping him... Absolutely. I think we'd be a decent team. I share your pain re: Grimes. Bleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

The unavailable list (ordered by weeks):

Yeah, fair call - I could have popped him in too.

Indeed. The amount of times we sprayed it over a forward's head on Saturday was pretty disappointing. I agree. Even if he doesn't take the mark, as long as he creates a contest I'm happy.

I think Newton was better than Bate and Jurrah. Jurrah has runs on the board but Bate doesn't - he has received 'worst on ground' votes from MMM commentary the last two matches he's played, including our massive win over Adelaide. Furthermore, Bate can't jump, so he can't help out in the ruck either.

Melbourne should have worn our traditional strip with dark shorts, despite being the away team. St Kilda should have worn their traditional strip with white shorts, despite being the home team. The fact we wore a 'clash' strip that introduced white into our jumped was pretty ridiculous.

We might not make finals in 2012 - so much depends on variables out of our control - but it's certainly plausible. I think we can be a far better football team this season with our best side (excluding Grimes) out there. Furthermore, looking to 2012 not many players face an age-related decline, while it's fair to expect progression from many younger guys.

Bartram has some good qualities that I can appreciate, and I think he is a player who attempts to play within his limitations. I'll be glad if/when we can replace Bartram because it will indicate we're a pretty good side, but I think Bartram is good enough to be a premiership player (have a look at flag sides and you'll be able to pick out players worse than Barty). Indeed. Actually, I think an unusually high percentage of Grimes' mistakes come when he is under little pressure.

Nice turn of phrase.

Indeed. I thought this improved during the Adelaide game, but on Saturday we reverted.

The idea that we're at rock bottom now is ridiculous. I struggle to see how you might think that's the case unless you decided to skip those horrible past few seasons we've had. Saturday's game was far, far better than many matches (including some games this year!). We're not a good team. We are missing 1/3 of our best team. We then lost a player to injury in the first quarter, but were competitive in most stats, played okay footy at times and were in the game. Hardly rock bottom.

I'm still adamant that he only got a game because DB had him confused with Wona.

Indeed - takes his eye off the footy just before the ball is getting to his area and focusses on his opponent, even when Warnock has prime position.

Pretty predictable/positive changes, although Bate for Bennell was a little surprising. I don't think Bennell has played that well, though, and with Newton pretty cooked last week it means we'll keep more structure in the forward line with Bate there.

I agree. I think this is normally the case in the footy market, which is why you see so few trades.

In this post you seem to be asserting that a gap is widening between us and other Clubs etc, but you are defending a position that is different to the one you originally made. The claim, in case you needed reminding, was that our Club's supporters are 'down hill skiers'. I suggested you were wrong, and made two quick points, including the fact that membership has increased in recent times despite the fact we have been 'cellar-dwellers'. As H_T has said, whatever context you want to place the increases in, if Melbourne's fans were 'down hill skiers' there wouldn't have been any increase in the past few years. Talk about net revenues, the financial gap between us and the richest Clubs or the reason we had to take on debt might all be extremely interesting, but they are not a defence of the claim that Melbourne fans are 'downhill skiers'.

I know I'm late to the party but, as bb has intimated, this is a poor trading strategy. Decisions should be made based on the likelihood of future returns - not what you bought the stock for. You've got to forget about what you 'paid'. (Furthermore, I don't think it applies here; all players are equal once they're on the list). The types of players you have a shortage or surplus of come into it, but I think you trade when you think you can improve your list. As bb has intimated, most players are 'trade-able' - it's just a matter of price.

Why? Grimes, Rivers, Frawley and Garland have all played together.

The prior opportunity/incorrect disposal rule is a bit of a shambles these days IMO.

It's also now tough to judge the team, and DB, because we're an already weak team missing 1/3 of their best team (and a bunch of the more important players, too).

If we thought the ruck situation was bad against North I fear for the Essendon game.

- Garland (injured) + Rivers - Bail (injured) + McKenzie - Dunn (suspended) + MacDonald It seems like Evans is going to get a run, and it might be time to drop Wona. I'm not sure more than four changes is going to help our cause.

McKenzie has played footy the past two weeks.