P-man

Thanks for the report. While Hogan is running around ragdolling people I'll say that God doesn't totally hate us. He just really does not like us very much. Edit: [censored]

They sort of are synonyms though. Disciple, professionalism and accountability are all pretty much the same thing. We're basically talking about being tough and being successful. The point remains that successful clubs are deemed to "stand for" something, generally by being tough, hardworking, having elite standards etc, cause those are what make a successful team. Unsuccessful teams are deemed NOT to "stand for" something, because they lack the aforementioned attributes. It's all a [censored], really. If you implement the non-negotiable standards that make teams successful, you win games, hey presto, you suddenly "stand for" something. The off field associations like St Kilda's antics I wouldn't say are what the club "stands for". Every club has its cliched associations. They are pretty much irrelevant to being successful.

Sorry but this is crazy logic. The need for him to get some competitive gametime under his belt is far greater than the need to wrap him in cotton wool. He could just as easily go down in the first quarter of Rd 1. Holding him back is literally pointless.

Hawthorn I would describe as vastly superior, because they have the consistency. Port are still prone to bad trots of form as seen in their mid season slump. The match next season will be very interesting. Mentality seems to play a bigger part with our boys than it does others. We beat Essendon because we know we can beat them. We can't beat North because we haven't beaten them since Adam was a boy. Two teams that are very similar in quality. We will see how this works to our benefit, if at all. But if we can take it up to Port, I think there are others we definitely need to be knocking off in 2015.

T Mac's injury not withstanding, both sides were putrid. The slightly less putrid side won. I'm expecting to get all 8 points this season, which will be handy in getting to 14th which is the pass mark for me.

Are they though? That's partly what I'm driving at. Looking at these matches in isolation, "wildly superior" would appear an overstatement. Keeping in mind there are two matches to draw upon. Of course the ladder doesn't lie and they are a very well drilled outfit. And yes they may just need to "work us out". But if we can give a side like Port a run for their money, twice, that has to mean something. Maybe we're not that far away from a Port-like jump ourselves.

The most intriguing matches of season 2014 for me were those against Port Adelaide. Here is a team that came within three points of making a Grand Final, and that was against the eventual and convincing premiers. A team that completely destroyed a hapless Richmond in the final series after the Tigers were on a roll of nine consecutive wins. A team that in 2014 was ranked first for inside 50s. Second for points scored. Second for clearances. The list goes on. They are a club that will be expecting to have a genuine tilt at a flag in 2015. And yet in our two fixtures last season, whilst being on the wrong side of the scoreboard when the final siren went, we were more than competitive. The final margin of twenty points in the first match was, on the whole, not a fair reflection of the closeness of match with the four point differential at the last change being the more accurate indicator. The three point difference in the second match tells its own story. These were arguably the best performances for the year taking into account the quality of the opponent. In truth, for large portions and perhaps a majority of each match, Melbourne made Port look second rate. That is a remarkable thing to consider within the context of the season. The theories as to why this happened are varied: Timing: In the first match, Melbourne had come off the back of an uplifting win against Richmond and were producing a competitive brand of football. In the second match, Port were caught in the middle of a form slump, coming off the back of three consecutive losses. The argument being that we caught them at exactly the right time to provide a competitive match Game plan: Melbourne's defensive and contested style was able to choke their opponent and restrict their running game that had become something of a trademark and a key to their successes Match ups: Some teams basically match up well against others. The most notable in this instance was Nev Jetta all but totally nullifying the dangerous Chad Wingard in both games, whilst Port seemingly had no-one to shut down Jones and Tyson, at least to the extent of other sides Age: It can be easy to forget that Port are still a young side themselves. When an opposing team gets a roll on they don't have the wealth of age and experience that sides like Sydney and Hawthorn possess to stem the bleeding Port underestimated their opponent: Port may have gone into the match ready to give their all but were thrown off by a competitive Melbourne side and struggled to adjust to the contest Port flicked the switch when they needed to: There is an argument that Port basically knew they would get the points by coasting through the first three quarters and switching on in the last. My personal view is that this excuse is not only arrogant, it's a little too convenient. It would also seem at odds with Port's "never give up" playing philosophy that has been so admired by neutral observers. Conversely I can understand some holding this belief when looking at the way in which the matches played out. So which one is it, or is there another theory behind Melbourne's performances in these matches? I've channelled my inner RR and added a poll with multiple response.More importantly: What can be learned from these performances in terms of future matchups against Port and the season ahead? For the more astute footy brains amongst us, what did you spot in these matches that differed from others in terms of running, positioning, skills, intensity etc. Can these performances be cast off as just a good day at the office or did they provide insight into what a future Melbourne side is capable of producing?

Comparisons with the Storm and Victory are a bit wayward. Victory are one of two Melbourne teams in their league and Storm are the sole representative in theirs, with both being relatively successful in recent years. The AFL environment is very different for a club called "Melbourne". As for what the club "stands for", it's basically a question that gets dragged out when trying to berate a club that has been down as long as ours has. As soon as we start winning games, it will stop getting asked.

Thanks be to Roos.

There's no way that can be true, surely. Please no more stupidity. We've had enough to last ten lifetimes. If PJ wants to stay the only right response is asking how long he wants.

Great to hear, thanks. It will be massive if If Viv can push his case for a regular spot this season.

Hi, I'm here for the cookies #freecookies

Nice one cohort. Your overall standouts are interesting, two in particular. Viv always seems to be the pedestrian who goes unnoticed. What made him a standout today? I'm interested in Kent's ability to take the next step this season. Same question as above. Did he consistently hit his targets?

There will be a stampede for tickets. *WHACK* "Oh that one hurt! BIG TIME!!"

Some of the comments at the Daily Tele of late are just too good. Little by little, the Abbott pom pom wavers have dwindled. A small number are still valiantly trying to defend him, opting for the "leave Tony alone!" approach. The irony of such comments on a Murdoch owned publication isn't lost. All the claims of "what a relief to have an adult government" seem to have fallen silent, however.

I'd echo the thoughts re Howard. Had his faults but an effective leader and a brilliant politician (that may or may compliment ). Indeed all of Howard, Keating and Hawke make the current mob look pathetic. Abbott tried to adopt Howard's sticking to his guns and turned it into sheer pig headed arrogance. This is a great summation of what has led to Abbott's downfall: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/06/tony-abbott-is-in-trouble-because-he-never-let-the-junkyard-dog-go

Me neither. The dirth of leadership at the federal level is at MFC circa 2012 levels... I like Turbull, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. His policy ambition also isn't as dramatically different from Abbott's as some might want to believe.

I thought Abbott was a sitting duck but now I'm not so sure. If he can weather the storm this week (as appears likely), he may be sticking around a while longer yet. I think if we hadn't had the knifey spooney with the Labor leadership, he'd be gone. They are balking due to the perception of history repeating. It's pretty much the last item yet to be ticked off on the hypocrisy list, and they will want to keep something for the next election they can point to as evidence of stability. Labor's internal disarray has essentially got Abbott into office, and is now keeping him there.

Fair enough, but even if the method is disputed, he doesn't dispute the overall findings. As stated in that very article: "Successive literature reviews, including the ones by the IPCC, have time and again established that there has been substantial climate change over the last one and a half centuries and that humans caused a large share of that climate change." So there can be argument on the semantics. It's widespread agreement.

lol..wow. Now I really have heard it all.

In my completely unmedical opinion, I can't help but feel that he pushed too hard last time in trying to force through his medical for the Tiges. The reports I was reading were that his times were impressive, right up until the point his foot caved in again. I acknowledge that may be off the mark, it's just a gut feel. I don't think all hope is lost just yet, and I'm sure lessons have been learned along the way on the best means to manage his recovery. I've got everything crossed for the kid. Will be one of the great footballing stories imo if he can come back. Hopefully it is in our colours.

I'm absolutely fine with PJ's comments. He has set high but achievable aims. Exactly what he and the club should be doing.

Did PJ say we wouldn't make finals this year, or that the aim is to make a final by 2016? There's a big difference. If it's the latter, he's not necessarily placing any limitations on 2015. Thanks to those providing reports for us interstaters.

Geeze you're reaching a bit DC. I think it's safely assumed that it's 97% of climate scientists. No-one is asking neurochemists whether they think climate change is happening.