Lost Highway

I didn't find much food for thought in the article, and some of the comments here are hard to understand and even harder to stomach. The ANZAC Day match is an AFL beat up from start to finish. It's a cash cow for the AFL, two of its biggest clubs, TV stations and merchandisers. Like everything in the AFL - the so called 'draw', the setting of times and grounds for matches, the draft, the creation of new and unwanted teams, the moving or closing of historic clubs, the constant playing with rules, the inconsistency of the Tribunal etc. etc. - it's a contrivance, designed to maximise something or other for the AFL and its business cronies without paying any heed to justice or fairness. The 'tradition' of the match is an artifice created recently, riding on the back of the ANZAC tradition. It is not 'squabbling' to question quite legitimately and fairly whether these two giant football clubs should continue to receive so much publicity and cash from one match, even when one or both are at or near the bottom of the ladder. Consider it in the light of the forced staging of matches between lowly clubs (often, one of them is from interstate) at 4.40pm on a Sunday evening at Docklands in the middle of winter. Don't see Collingwood at one of those. No, ANZAC Day is being exploited by the AFL and the MSM to make this match a contrived 'blockbuster' spectacle, complete with all the language and imagery of bravery and sacrifice. Take ANZAC out of the match and it's just a cash cow, another fixed part of the 'fixture', and it's time the cow was shared around or its profits shared around.

That's what I call always looking on the bright side. That 7 goal margin was pure flattery. I don't think we made them look second rate in Q2 either, although we did play with directness and urgency to rattle them a bit. But let's face it, the result could and should have been 100 points or more. The capitulation in Q3 was as bad as any I've seen in decades. An optimist would say that's only one quarter out of 16. A pessimist would say that it shows our worst is as bad as a side can conceivably play football. We should never be that bad at this stage. I'm not that worried about the other matches, where form has been patchy but better than some of the fancied sides like St.K and WB and at least the equal of some of the other mid to lower order teams. The main worry for me is the slow starts. A 5 goal to 1 margin against us in the west in Q1, and it's goodnight nurse. A rusty, tentative Frawley has to improve, of course, and Petterd, Green and Davey have to play forward. Sylvia and Bail to mid-field. Not necessarily all at once, but in rotation if needed. Tapscott and Gysberts to play out the season, they are as good as Trengove.

You could be right. You're assuming he will get the game on Thursday. But why shouldn't he? It's pretty clear his being chosen as sub had nothing to do with the possible need to replace a certain kind of player, or someone under an injury cloud, or to give the team a lift at a certain point in the game, but was a tactic being used in his education. Therefore, since he came on at an arbitrary point chosen by the coach, in order to show what he could do, and since he did pretty well in that one quarter, it would seem completely illogical to drop him from the side this week. It would also seem illogical to make him sub again if he were deemed to have made the most of his chance. There's a small element in the WC game of there being a point to make in relation to his and Natanui's drafting order. Bailey's motive may be that this could prickle him into an impressive performance.

Chip is the new Glen Jakovich, combined with Scarlett. He is easily amongst the 6 best defenders, in fact as good as anybody at the moment. Garland is shaping up very well too, now that he's settled back in. And that bloke Bruce that everyone was lambasting a while back - can't kick, can't handball - there's nobody better at stitching up a smaller defender. I do have to laugh, however, whenever the 'All Australian' team is discussed. I just can't help it. It's the team that doesn't play anybody. And ALL the players are Australian, right! Amazing. It's got the same sort of cachet, if you like, as the 'Hall of Fame', another excruciating idea taken directly from the USA. Ah, those meaningful debates about whether Ablett Snr, Carey and such-like deserve to be in the 'Hall of Fame'!

Absolutely agree with that. In any case, I don't think Bate is in our best 22 at all. Warnock will be in it and out of it, but is reliable. Morton will end up being another Dunn, played all over the place and in and out as a result. Mind you, Dunn bulked up before the 2009 season. The players you've listed are all certain starters for games next year; Junior, Green and Bruce are all pretty long in the tooth. The 'best 22' at the end of next season will look very different from this one, even if those veterans are still in it, and on current form Green and Bruce will be. Not sure about Junior.

Who is 'lost' here? Did I say anything about bouncing balls? Did the AFL? Read again. No, I won't tell you. Instead, read this again... '7. Scoring system: If a ball hits the posts inside the goal-scoring area and goes through, it remains a goal. If a ball hits the posts inside the point-scoring area and goes through, it remains a point.... ... Under the proposal, a score would be registered as a goal or a point provided the ball crossed the whole of the scoring line, whether it touched a post or not. If the ball hit a post and did not cross the scoring line, it would be registered as a point (for hitting the goal post) and out of bounds (for hitting the behind post).' ... and you should find the answer to your question. The way people are bleating about this - 'Leave the game alone.... it makes our game different... and so on' - is downright silly. All kinds of idiotic rule changes are introduced, year after year, and the umpiring as a consequence becomes more and more capricious, trivial and vexatious, but finally the AFL comes up with something entirely sensible and look what you get from the 'fans', an appeal to irrational tradition. Some may be bemoaning the possible loss of that exquisitely satisfying moment when the opponent's kick - from an ill-deserved free, no doubt - grazes the inside of the post and only registers a point. If the rule were changed, the grazed kick that goes through for a goal would also come to be exquisitely satisfying or exasperating, depending on whose side you are on. The rule should have been changed decades ago.

They SHARE the right physique for a good footy player. Bate has bulked up too much, Morton not enough. But they average out to be just about right. If Bate hadn't put on so much bulk he might have a touch more pace, a bit more lift off the ground, and a smaller turning circle. It's not just 'form' with him. As for Morton, I didn't think he deserved to get the drop after playing on Goodes, whose performance was boosted by the last 15 minutes of the match, and who was a bit over-rated on the day. Morton did some very constructive things and actually beat Goodes a few times. I don't blame him for being [censored] off, as he wasn't the weakest player on the day. However, his physique needs building up, and surely Bater is the one to show him how, before he goes north or whatever. Honestly, he won't really be missed in that forward line, which is being built on pace and marking overhead.

I cringe at that 'Nothing more to see here.....move on' type stuff; instant dismissal. Nearly as bad as 'going forward' which is tacked on to nearly everything these days. But back to the substance of what you and some others are saying: I think the new team WOULD be interested in a player like this - he's big, hard, a trier, and a good team man. A team with a lot of young and untried players will need a few like him, and players better than Miller will not be easy to acquire. There'd be no doubting Melbourne's willingness to part with him in this case. I don't think Miller should play for us again, but I've also said that if he could kick properly he'd be a 2-goals-per-game player. Trouble is, he can't kick more than 40 metres, and with any accuracy it's about 30. He's not very talented, but he gets the ball often enough to do some damage, if he just knew how. In a sense, he IS a 'proven' player; you know what you're getting, and it's not all bad. Just not good for Melbourne at this stage. I can see him being a useful utility and leader at a new club that might be scratching around for big men. I'd say he'd be thinking of his 10 goal haul more as bait for the GC than a stepping stone back into our seniors. What has me wondering, though, is the possibility our club would give him a 'farewell' match. He has been a stalwart, in a way, after all. But I doubt that he'd be picked while there's a remote chance of getting into the 8. Maybe the first match we play in which all chance has already gone, if such should eventuate.

Hard to know what you're on about here, making everything sound more complicated than it is. The proposal simply states that if the ball hits the post and continues on through the space between the two goal posts, it will be a goal. The current rule might be a much-treasured eccentricity of our game - though I seriously doubt that - but it is just plain illogical and - pardon the weak pun - pointless. The presumption is, I think, that if it bounces back into play it will still be a point as it is now. But to be consistent, they will have to propose that if it hits the behind post and continues on through the space between the goal post and the behind post it will be a point rather than out of bounds. The proposal will make the goal ump's job easier. It'll be the first sensible rule change for a long, long time. Now, if they would only get rid of the insane 50 metre penalty...

Statistically insignificant; it's only happened a handful of times. It's not as if we have never won when one of them hasn't been playing, or both for that matter. The real differences in the forward line are that it's much more open, and has the presence in it more often of a fellow with great leap, vice-like hands, supreme kicking skill and true grit: Green. The other factor, I hate to say, is that Bate is not there. The forward line looks better without him - he's too bulked-up, too big a turning circle, too one-paced. My guess is that LJ and Wona are still at the flaky level, their form a bit fickle, prone to injury. Yes, they look great, and I love them, when both firing, but there are other important players to come back or yet to make their debuts: Peterd and Tapscott for instance. They could press LJ and Wona for a place and prove adept replacements in the case of injury or loss of form.

From the top: Frawley - what more can a player do? I said in another thread he's the new Glen Jakovich, and I'll say it again here. Dunny - Dunn has stunned me with his development. That goal after the siren was a cracker, and he KNEW he'd kick it. I didn't. Davey - smooth as silk, cut through Richmond like they were warm butter. Green - all class, vice-like hands, and a great snap. Jurrah - could and should have had 7 Bail - pace, balance, can deliver.

People canning Watts are blind. He played a blinder himself in the last quarter when we had to pull out all the stops (so did Scully), but even before that despite not too many disposals he'd had an important hand in several goals. He's getting there. I agree that he's a bit tentative when he has the ball forward of centre, but surely that's just confidence and learning.

If Frawley isn't in a top 50 list, no matter who the author of it, then the author is a f-wit of the first order, or just a total pillock. That man obliterated the media's darling of the moment today, and has perhaps not been beaten this year. Beaten Brown twice, everyone else too. He is the new Glen Jakovich. The irony will be, of course, that J. Riewoldt will probably get a guernsey in the top 50 and it'll be James Who? Green is a must in any top 50. The others mentioned are borderline; Jamar should be in the side that doesn't play anybody, the absurd all-Australian, but not sure if he's a top 50. I'll put Bruce's name forward as a defender of extreme excellence. Got a bagging for disposal at various times but is another one who is peerless at shutting down a dangerous opponent.

Gave up reading the many posts in this thread - it's the silliest ever. I can't believe anyone is taking it seriously. I thought the object of each game was simply to win it. If the stars align and 8th spot falls our way, so be it, it's a fate we can't avoid. Well, not without tanking. Anyway, the fact is, the actual chances of our slipping into 8th spot are infinitesimal. We haven't even beaten Richmond yet.

You haven't mentioned the shots on goal by the likes of Simon Eishold, who was only a couple of metres out on a very acute angle, and Tony Campell, who ran in with no pressure on him and missed a sitter. I can still see that one float through for a point - I was sitting right behind the goals. ONE of those would have sealed the game. Furthermore, I don't think the conclusion that Buckenara would have got it anyway is a valid one. Place the kicker 15 metres further out in the same extreme circumstances, and he may not kick with the same confidence. I say that the whole of life on earth would have been slightly different had the umpire not seen Jimmy run across the mark. Frankly, though, I just can't see why the rule should be applied at all once the siren has gone. Would someone be penalised for pulling the jumper of a player in the goalsquare while waiting for the last kick after the siren? Or would the umpire reverse a decision because the player taking the kick elbowed an opponent? I mean, where does it all end? And when does the game truly end? It's one of the many silly irrelevant-to-the-game rules that bedevils footy. Like a fifty for having a minor disagreement with an umpire who's made a shocking decision, which let's face it happens every five minutes. It just beats me that a team (other than Melbourne, of course) can score a goal this way. For practically nothing.

Agreed. And another thing - these blokes are pretty hard at the ball and have shown this year that they can clear it when Jamar gets it down. This is one of the biggest improvements in Melbourne's game. You don't need sprinter's speed to force the ball out to the running Davey, Scully, Sylvia or Trengove. I'd back them against Richmond's ball clearers, if they're on their game.

They have very stiff what? Seriously, no, they're not. And no, I'm not. Surprised, that is. Oh wait... yes, in a sense I am surprised that others have gone past them, but pleasantly so. OK, maybe Warnock is 'stiff' any week, but that's the result of having a pretty decent defence. The rest of the defence has an edge in pace over him, but his turn will come when there's an injury, or loss of form by Rivers or maybe Garland. Bate? No, he's not stiff. And that word best describes his movements around the ball. He is one-paced and has a huge turning circle; the forward line looks better without him. I wonder seriously about his place in the team, especially with the improvement in Dunn. Dunny is now ahead of him, well and truly. Never thought it would happen, but it did. I suppose that in a sense Bate is unlucky in that others have supplanted him who are pacier and more dangerous. Bater has put on a lot of muscle in the last year or two, but lost a bit in leg speed, if you ask me.

Ah yes, we all kowtow to the AFL here, with some pretty silly reasons for herd-like agreement with the fraudulent fixture fixers. We hardly get any games on a Saturday as it is. But you wait, it won't be long before the same thing applies to Sunday matches. The entire edifice of the so-called AFL 'draw' and the schedule of matches is a fraud, a contrivance, and this is just one more example of how this edifice is rigged for the benefit of TV stations and therefore 'popular' clubs like C'wood, Carlton and Essendon. It has nothing at all to do with the people who actually go to matches, does it. Saturday arvo matches will now be day/night games in the middle of winter, like those absurd and horrible Sunday twilight games of which we've had more than our fair share. We'll have games every day of the week, but will we be happier? Since this is clearly to boost ratings for the TV stations, we might also expect Melbourne to have even fewer Saturday games than the measly number this year. The fixed-ure will be even more 'fixed' in future than it is now, and already the AFL is unable and unwilling to create a justice-for-all season fixture in which each club has an equal chance of playing in finals and gaining good gate receipts. Melbourne will have to become a super-power in the AFL before it finds itself on TV on a Saturday - or a Sunday - more than a token once or twice a season.

Agreed! Totally.

On the strength of the team's performance, NO CHANGE. Scully doesn't need a 'rest' and there's little point at this stage of the season; he played well on Sunday. Watts doesn't need it either, and he made some vital contributions despite appearing to run around much of the time without gathering the ball that often. I think he should play out the season now, and gain a bit of hardness. Morton played pretty well on Goodes, when Goodes went out of the forward zone, and he did some good things including a goal. I can't see one other player not deserving another match after their performance. But you will find that there may well be small injury niggles that were not apparent after the game, and we won't know what they are until later in the week. The club will add on to an extended match list a couple of players who deserve a game or are fit to come back, and make a decision about their possibly replacing the sore or injured at the last possible moment, as they did last week with Moloney and Wona. There must be quite a doubt over the readiness of McDonald and Moloney, and let's face it there is no urgency about Junior returning.

This is absolutely correct. No good judge of the game (and by this I don't mean the Brownlow vote-awarding umpires) would see it any differently; it was junk time. Frawley was a markedly better player than Goodes. Now, if Goodes were really good today, he'd have kicked 5 by 3/4 time. The fact is that when Goodes was playing off the forward line as a running mid-fielder, Morton shared the points with him.

I was overseas for a couple of months, and have only seen the wins against Essendon and Sydney since returning. I agree that today's win was the best for a very long time, and the Dees looked fast and committed. But I take issue with two things mentioned here. First, Maric played quite well; it's absurd to pick him out as the weakest contributor. In fact in such a monumental win it's absurd to pick anyone out in this way. Every player did something special at some point or other, and Maric certainly did enough to make me think he'd be stiff to be dropped. Second, Goodes' performance is being overrated here. He kicked a couple of his 4 in the last 15 minutes, when they didn't count. So, he took a couple of marks over Morton; Morton also outplayed him on several occasions. The truth is that when Goodes went forward he was too strong, but when in the mid-field, Morton took half the points. Frawley's stats were easily the equal of Goodes', perhaps better, and he even kicked a goal. Sylvia also played a blinder, and Bartram the best I've seen from him, bar the couple of fluffed on-the-fulls. Another observation: I think Melbourne's forward line looks better without Bate. He's just too slow, too one-paced, and doesn't have the turning circle. Not tall enough for CHF either.

What a lot of comments about nothing. This is non-story, non-event, non-sense. It's bumf. Watts' delayed selection has created a vacuum in the football gossip world; something had to fill it.

Thanks poseidon. I can't believe some posters are actually taking this seriously. It doesn't even merit serious criticism. Anyway, surely the match has to be Aussies v. Turks, beach footy. We don't have an All-Australian team for nothing do we?

Anyone remember whom Melbourne gave up to Brisbane when it started up? A bloke called Fidge. Don't remember if it was Ted or John, but I think the latter. He was just an honest trier, like Miller. It'll be a perfect role for him if they want him, being an honest trier. Mind you, they may not; I think the drafting charity for the GC far exceeds that given to Brisbane when it started. OTOH, perhaps a tall, hard key position type won't be easy to come by. But if he plays for the Dees again there would have to be a mass hospitalisation of our other players.