Lost Highway

He's come a long way and could go further; sometimes even seems strangely well-coordinated in disposing of the ball. But if Gawn's knee holds out he'll probably overtake Spencer in all aspectsof usefulness by the end of next season. Nevertheless, Spencer must be retained for now as Jamar is fossilising and not likely to play more han about 8 matches, and Jolly if he's brought back is almost over the hill. And there's Gawn's knee... I wouldn't want to see Clark or Fitz in the ruck except as pinch-hitters or deep forward throw-in rucks.

Very well said. It's hard to think of a really tall player with equal foot speed. For someone of his height he appears to have quite a low centre of gravity, perhaps the corollary of a long neck? . He can pinch-hit in the ruck, too, if injury strikes the other three. Probably a bit more than pinch-hit.

You're posting about depth, but have made no mention at all of the other Jones - I'd put him in for round 1 ahead of Trengove or even McKenzie; the former hasn't played a game yet and the latter has very little to offer. And why name Kent in a pocket, when he clearly can run and has a great long left-foot kick?

Should be 4: Ruckman who can ruck, is not a forward, is not unco, has good knees, at least 200cm and not more than 24yo. Will be needed, make no mistake.

You left out the other Jones and Sylvia. But this midfield is still two sparkling young draftee mid-fielders short. Some of those listed don't have the sparkle. Mind you, they're better than Maric for a start.

I've stuck to the position that the 'tanking' by MFC was no exception to the pattern established over a decade at least. In terms of 'justice' the isolation of the MFC, the apparent discrimination against it, is the very crux of the matter. Regardless of whatever McLean said, or Bailey, or anyone else (and numerous people are supposed to have said more than they should during all those many years, about several clubs), the AFL should have acted to resolve this as a 'generic' problem, terminating or changing sufficiently the system it created which led to this, and acknowledging its own part in it. No club, not MFC or Carlton or anyone else, should have been investigated in bringing the 'tanking' era to a close. Radio discussions like the one linked, reveal nothing more than terribly inferior commentators or 'journalists' kicking a dog while it's down (something that few Australians will acknowledge is at least of equal power to the myth of the underdog); they are inherently biased, and 'personalities' like these, especially in tandem, are incapable of rising above their prejudices to look at the proverbial 'big picture' instead of the localised gossip. The truly terrible thing is that the AFL for some reason - A. Anderson, perhaps, falling under the influence of someone who shouldn't have that much influence? - went for a ride with this idiotic approach, possibly this very radio program, and lost sight of the big picture in which the AFL itself is the main subject. Why on earth was this thread started?

Here's the article, and I wouldn't say it's definite yet, not from what Sanderson says. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/sanderson-confident-bailey-will-be-cleared-of-tanking-20130214-2ef7s.html

You're agreeing with something which is almost the opposite of what you say in the second sentence. The original argument of Grapeviney's was that there is no, and there has never been any, obligation to publish a reply to an opinion piece, but you're implying that obligations mean nothing to The Age anyway. The real question was, SHOULD The Age have published DM's rebuttal? It's a question of whether CW's article contained factual content, and whether The Age is a 'newspaper of record'. I agree with what you say about the paper, but I don't think you should be agreeing with Grapeviney.

You're absolutely right. When accusations or predictions are made about an individual or an organisation, based on or including purported factual content, it is the normal course in a newspaper with any integrity to publish the rebuttal by the accused party. When DM said CW was 'entitled to her opinion' he was in fact disputing what she implied to be facts; he was not recognising simply that this was a mere opinion piece. He put forward factual statements - setting the record straight - to refute her words, and these should have been published. All this goes to the heart of the issue re CW: she confabulates; fact and fiction are blended in her vicious mind.

Those apologists for CW, grounding their comments on 'just doing her job... selling papers... getting a reaction... ' arguments, are wrong; there's much more to her pieces, as has been pointed out often enough. There's real malice, a malice combined with wishful thinking, an intrusion of very personal emotions, in her diatribes against the MFC, which goes far beyond what the apologists are now saying in this thread. CW's 'journalism' is extremely shoddy, and making the argument that this is the age of 'social media', 'sound bytes' and instant gratification in no way explains or excuses the plummeting standards of CW or The Age - its online version is 'disgusting', to quote one of CW's own epithets for the alleged actions of the MFC, and the paper edition is little better. One only has to read again her various articles to sense the intense and malicious nature of her feelings about the MFC and certain individuals within it; CS is the case in point. Here, there is obviously a very personal vendetta being pursued, regardless of CS's ability, performance or ethics. It's likely this goes back to a rivalry or falling-out between CW's father and CS's, in the history of the Richmond FC. If CW were a decent or proper journalist, she would have researched as well as possible the evidence of so called 'tanking' for picks over the last 13 years, and analysed the degree to which this can be attributed to, and even sanctioned by, the AFL itself. Let's call it the 'big picture'. That there's a clear dearth of such investigative and analytical journalism in Melbourne speaks volumes for the very low quality of the people writing or speaking about 'sport' in our mass media; like those who are supposed to write seriously about politics, they content themselves with rumours, gossip, tweets, the bleeding obvious, polls, personalities, tedious repetition: group-think in other words. Note how Pierik's articles kept repeating ad nauseum 'facts' which had indeed been inferred from CW's wishful thinking. We perhaps can't expect any better of a woman who has so much at stake personally in this affair. I don't think for one moment that she is capable of the smallest degree of detachment and irony which would mark the work of someone simply stirring up a storm.

I dispute that. I'd say he's got Rioli more than covered for speed. If you watched the GF carefully, you'd see Jetta sprinting down the southern wing (can't remember the quarter, but it was towards the Punt Rd end - either first or third) with the ball for a good distance, pursued by Rioli. Rioli made no ground at all, despite Jetta's bouncing the ball, and gave up the chase. He looked embarrassed as he turned back towards the centre of the ground.

Agree about The Age, but not the ABC - it follows sheep-like wherever The (tory) Australian goes, adopting slavishly the 'Abbott says' framing of most political news; it also has a very 'tabloid' ordering of its stories. Its web site is only marginally better than the Age's, which is a national disgrace. The only decent mainstream news site in this country is SBS, but don't expect wads of AFL 'news', which is mainly gossip and speculation after all. As for Watts, if he doesn't 'make it' this year, he'll go to another club where he'll inevitably find another arm and leg, and become the next Goddard.

The ironic point has been missed. It's the AFL which tampers with the draft. As it has done with 'the draw'. Which is now a 'fixture', with the emphasis on the first syllable. The 'draft' is something which the AFL has orgainsed to manipulate for the attainment of its own ends. It doesn't like it when other entities try to achieve their own ends.

Yes, this article is the usual disgrace; thick-headed, loose in language, and typically malicious. Pierik says about CC and CS, that they have to 'prove why they should not be charged'. But they don't have to 'prove' anything at all; it is well nigh impossible to 'prove' one's innocence, which is why innocence is presumed and the onus of proof is on the prosecution in our legal system. Surely the MFC needs only provide reasonable explanations or refutations in order to persuade whoever sits in judgment. This loose language reminds me of the ignorant use of 'forfeiting' by both Pierik and Wilson. Later he writes: 'Connolly has argued he is the victim of a conspiracy theory despite an overwhelming number of witness statements detailing the now infamous ''vault meeting'' after a win over Port Adelaide where he allegedly made it clear the Demons were harming their hopes of securing a coveted extra pick.' First, Pierik gives us the implied opinion ('despite') that Connolly has no right or justification in his argument because there is 'overwhelming' (another opinion) evidence against him. Next, he applies a veneer of historicity in the pejorative words 'now infamous', when it is he (among others) who has both created a sense of 'infamy' and reported his own creation. Finally, he retreats behind the word 'allegedly' and fails, as usual, to provide the analysis which could lead any reasonable person to imagine quite easily a scenario in which CS said (allegedly, of course) with jocularity and irony, something along the lines of, 'You realise you're harming our chances of the priority pick!'

The whole question of whether or not the MFC 'tanked' is almost completely irrelevant to what is happening in the public arena, which is simply a blatant case of victimisation. The AFL is bringing vague 'disrepute' clauses into play, when the present witch-hunt and media coverage is clearly bringing the MFC into disrepute. Some supporters argue that MFC is to blame for its own predicament and seem to infer from the present situation that we would deserve any 'punishment' meted out. They're foolish to think like this, and are doing the club a disservice. The whole issue IS that of singling out one club, after years of numerous clubs inevitably playing out a scenario implied, tacitly approved - even DEMANDED - by the creation of the Priority Pick. The AFL created the moral vacuum, and only they should close it in an honest and confessional fashion. Were this investigation to go to a court, the counsel for the Defence would surely call Mr Demetriou - he who denied, when and if the occasion demanded, that 'tanking' was occurring - as its first witness. There can only be a just end to the era of 'tanking' when the AFL fesses up to its own mistakes and misjudgments. There can be no other satisfactory conclusion to the matter. Further, it should be demanded that the AFL run a football competition that is not deliberately biased by fiddling with the fixture, the draft, the salary cap, kow-towing to TV stations and so on. Individual clubs should do their own soul-searching about ethics - what they are and if they should apply to succeeding in Football; the AFL cannot sit in judgment.

Too many chiefs... 'Leadership' is a most over-used and over-rated phenomenon, a buzz word really, and 'leadership group' is, to me, almost an oxymoron. It is in the nature of things for a natural leader to emerge, such that the ensuing arrangement seems like the 'natural order'. I prefer to think of these players as professional exemplars, with the emphasis on integrity and ethics. Instead, we'll have so many on the field that they will be leading each other silly.

That is the absolute crux of the matter; everything else is irrelevant. And yet this remains virtually unsaid in the mainstream media, almost as if it were a strange kind of taboo to those who are kicking us while we are down. Since it's entirely retrospective it MUST, by logic, be applied wherever there has been rumour, innuendo, suspicion. On the basis of the kind of rubbish being put forward to convict the MFC in the media courtroom, a mere losing streak of 12 games - the last 12 of the season - in itself, ipso facto if you prefer, should be sufficient to bring on such an investigation. After all, the MFC witch-hunt is the result of nebulous developments which began with innocuous enough rumours and jokes, exactly like those which everyone, EVERYONE, was making - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - about Carlton's performance in 2007. I say we did pull our punches in 09, but we cannot be made a scapegoat, 'inept' or not.

The MFC did not place an absolute priority on winning games; they had one eye cocked on the Priority Pick from some point in the first half of the season. Like so many teams since 1999. Call it what you like, they did it. It's pointless to argue the finer points, except to demonstrate the absurdity of some of the 'finer points' (fumbling, Watts) being aired against the club. But the implied conclusion of this position, my position - that the MFC did 'tank' - taken by some, even if they won't say it, is that we should be punished and cop it - Individual responsibility rules, and we can't hide behind 'just following orders', or 'others were doing it'. This kind of thinking is wrong and could be fateful and fatal for the club. We are not talking Nuremberg principles here. If we were, the other 'criminals' would be assiduously and relentlessly tracked down and placed on trial - Eichmann was not brought to justice until 1961, but his case and others show that no one individual was made a scapegoat. Melbourne IS being made a scapegoat in a ridiculous trial by media and witch-hunt by the AFL. The real issue is not whether the MFC 'tanked' or whatever it may be called, nor is it bringing the game into disrepute. The AFL itself has done sufficient of that by creating an ethical/moral vacuum in which cynical actions are rewarded. Further, it has failed to oversee a fair and just competition, with its endless fiddling of the fixed-ure, its drafting and salary cap imbalances, its allowing TV stations to dictate where and when matches will be played and therefore which clubs will reap the largest financial benefits. The AFL is not an area of life in which concepts of individual responsibility and ethics are paramount, or even relevant. No, the real issue is that of the victimisation of the MFC, seemingly based on the malicious motives of a few individuals with an axe to grind, a prejudice to be satisfied, a personal vendetta, a vengeance to exact. Let there be a full inquiry into 'tanking' by all means, but it cannot begin and end with the MFC or any one other club. What is happening now is so astounding that one wonders how it all arose - was it really because of the words of a numbskull footballer on a couch in a TV studio, talking to other numbskulls who love the sound of their own voices? Who knows? But here it is, a full-blown public kicking of the victim while it is down in the gutter. Let those who moan about our 'tanking', and stand in judgment, lash the club, criticise its ethics, abandon it if they wish; it is their right to do so. But for heaven's sake stop harping on it and implying that the MFC should accept its punishment meted out by some externality of AFL combined with mainstream moronic media on the basis that the MFC is 'guilty' of something. This will play into the hands of the club's antagonists. Make no mistake, this is a very public and very large kicking we are getting, while we're down. It's an Australian blood sport. The irony is that Demetriou himself has averred that there was no 'tanking'. Of course, he had to say that in order to absolve himself and the AFL of their maladministration at the time. I don't believe him. But perhaps he will be called as the first (maybe only) witness for the Defence, if it should come - bizarrely - to that. That the wrongs of others should not justify one's own wrongs is something I agree with; but in this instance I challenge the notion that what was done was 'wrong'. Perhaps it was damaging to the club's ethos, culture, reputation, a huge internal error of judgment (and I agree with that) but this kind of judgment is mostly a hindsight one (for me, too) stemming from an apparent failure of the actions to improve on-field performance, and it is supporters and members who should be excoriating the administration rather than the AFL or the MSM. But it was not 'wrong' in the context of a skewed competition in which there was a tacit agreement that 'tanking' was an obvious thing to do, an obligation, almost. That is how silly the AFL football competition has become. How to stop the club's being 'punished' is another matter; I don't know which course of action is best but I have no objection ethically to any course which will stop this absurd juggernaut in its tracks. Let the legal team work that out and execute it with more finesse and skill than has been shown in the past by the MFC itself. I suspect the AFL will want to keep a lid on the pandora's box of worms and the matter will not find its way into a court. Nor should it.

I usually let it go too, but couldn't this time. Definition of mispell: Common misspelling of misspelling. Quite a touch of irony there, eh!

Was it flailed because it failed?

Fill-ins. But Hutch had a memorable win over Richmond the week after a dire performance against the Crows which caused Gutnick to sack Balme.

You left out big Carl. Carl Ditterich: white headband, flailing elbows

JT already has a certain 'presence' about him, on the field, within the club, and in the community. He comes forward when he has to, says what he thinks. I think the team needs a young man of integrity and spirit who can really play football. He's mature beyond his years, and it was the fact he'd played great football amongst 'men' in SA that made him so appealing as a draft pick. I don't think he's too young to be captain; most of the older players should look up to him with a strange mixture of respect and shame.

You are right, Monty.

In a few brief sentences you have made the most logical, thoughtful comment about this appointment. It's all very well bleating about MFC's failure to appoint an 'experienced' coach, but by a simple process of logic if none are available the next best thing is the apparently best credentialled assistant from a successful environment. If that is not Neeld I'll eat my club scarves. The 'experience' argument that leaves the whingers underwhelmed is full of dubious assumptions anyway. Decades of experience don't guarantee that a coach will be able to transfer his methods with success to another club with another culture. Sometimes success for a coach is, in a sense, made for him by the players, or the team and the coach have a symbiotic relationship that can not be reproduced elsewhere. We can't be sure Neeld will resurrect our club on the field; that's a given. We couldn't be sure MM would do it, and being an intelligent coach (if unpleasant personality) I have no doubt he would be the first to admit that. But the intelligent, experienced successful master-coach inside the unpleasant personality thinks Neeld has the goods, and there's no reason to think that MM's football brain is not as capable of making a sound judgment on this as anyone else in the land. The process whereby the panel came to their decision is therefore completely logical, and I am very content with the appointment. If a clean-out of the dullards in the assistant roles can be effected we are half way towards a big improvement next year.