P-man

I took two positives from the Port game: 1. You can now mount an argument that our depth is better than theirs. For two teams at similar stages of their development, that is nothing to be sneezed at. 2. The new crop coming through have an ability to stick to their structures when the chips are down and are able to fight out games when a late challenge is mounted. Regardless of the opposition, this is not something we've been able to say of Melbourne teams past. As a form guide for Round 1, I didn't take much from it, if anything. Will be two completely different sides with different mentalities running out.

I've noticed Neeld has talked Sylvia up a bit in the pre-season, and he doesn't make a habit of doing that with players.

"That's crazy good!! Break out the hundreds and thousands!! It's party time!!!" Dwayne gets my vote for biggest [censored]. One horse race really.

Let's not dress that game up different to what it was. To my recollection they had 13 of their best 22 missing. Yes we had more, but I'd say that's still a long way off their best. The Renmark game was our kids just managing to beat their kids. Nothing more. As for questions about who their guns are, with the exception of Schulz and arguably Wingard, they are ALL in the midfield: Boak, Ebert, Hartlett, Cornes. Four players who would walk into just about any team. Their engine room is significantly better than ours and is the number 1 reason we will struggle on Sunday unless several players play to their potential.

I really don't understand the hatred towards Dermott. I've met him and he's just a likeable character (admittedly on the turps but I'm sure I'd have liked him if I was sober..) His comments are often considered and insightful. He's someone worth listening to, which you can't say for a significant portion of those in the media. As for his spoon prediction...yeah? And?

Their elite midfield has been smashed. The only way they're coming back in the last is if Richmond do a Richmond.

That beard is epic. Should've earned Simpson the captaincy. Only a metrosexual numpty like Darcy would poo poo such fine facial hair.

I think we can add Carlton to the list of clubs we have half a sniff against. Looking cod ordinary.

I have very little doubt we will explode out of the blocks. It is the inevitable second and/or third quarter disappearance act that has me concerned. I want to see a consistent four quarter performance. I'll take the loss if I can just see that.

Unbelievable if true. What the hell is going on in his head?

No idea why it's Pedo and Gillies over Sellar and Terlich but have to trust their judgement. Pre-season performances told a different story. 7 debutants. Gonna be a big challenge to get the win.

Whether you label them as explanations or excuses, both age and experience have been used, often in tandem. Let's not pretend otherwise.

It honestly feels like we've been "young and inexperienced" for going on 7 years now. We are the Peter [censored] Pan of the competition. I have to admit I really tire of the age excuse being trotted out, and to do so before a ball has been bounced just annoys me. Last year we had the fourth youngest list. Fifth youngest list? Adelaide. They went okay. Effort counts for a hell of alot in this game, that's part of what makes it so great. Things can turn around completely in the space of one season. It happens year after year. I really want to believe it can be us in 2013, but I've touched that stove too many times now. I'll need to see it.

Exactly this. We barely got a mention on 360 yesterday other than the return of Clark. Maclure said it reeked of desperation to be rushing back players from injury for Round 1, and that we were essentially a shambles on and off the field (which would outrage any other fan considering the season hasn't even started and he probably doesn't have a clue what is happening off field, but as a Melbourne fan I'm numb to such remarks). And that was that. The rest of the discussion was about Port, how impressive they had been in pre-season and the development of their midfield. We are completely irrelevant in the eyes of the media, there's little doubt about that. But there is also a sense of not knowing what to expect with a new look team this year, and I like that. At the end of the show, Gerard had Melbourne as the team with "most at stake". He believed it was must win, but that he didn't think we would. I'm somewhat in the same boat. I've tipped Port also.

This is a genuine question. What is interesting about it? There are alot of bunnies in that team, not enough collective quality to mourn over I wouldn't have thought. All clubs have players move on in varying circumstances.

Forget his smugness. He gets my vote for his awful, awful, awful commentary.

Some decent players, some not. Not to be rude, but what's the point being made?

Cue jokes from opposition fans asking whether Watts is playing in both games..

Just for a bit of contrast, here's a direct quote from Bulldogs President Peter Gordon at their season launch: "We've come off a tough year, and we'll face more challenges this year and in the future. We have the polarised issues of an ageing, and yet a very young list, and a shortage in between. In some games we might struggle to score freely. We've made some mistakes along the way, and we're gonna make some more. When we lose games, even if we lose sometimes by a substantial margin, and we sometimes will, I want our people, especially our coach and our captain, to look the press and the cameras in the eye for that game and say, 'we weren't good enough today, we're fighting on'.." So for all the talk of reality buses and tempering expectations, be thankful no-one is resigned to losing games by significant margins.

Mr and Mrs Gawn.

How about, "who would you like to call a scoundrel"?

Ah past P Man. You poor deluded bastard.

Jonno Brown? A guy who got hit by a car and the car came off second best. Away you go champion. Best of luck.

I thought Vlad's argument that a cap on FD spending would stifle innovation is not without merit, but is not sufficient reasoning on its own. Without some sort of cap on spending, it's difficult not to see the gap widening, or at best, remaining as it is.

However, what people are struggling to accept is this idea that tanking, or in the context of AFL rules, not coaching on merits, is purely restricted to game day. The ruling seems to hinge on this concept, in spite of the fact that Bailey was found guilty of purposely failing to prepare the team adequately to win certain matches, as a result of "pressure" felt from Connolly. It's not a ruling that's easily digested, but I don't want to open up this can of worms. We've copped our whack for something countless other clubs have done under a flawed system inviting such decisions, and we move on.