Webber

Less about quality, more about exposure. Nobody watches the losers, unless it's to give them a kicking, so Dom Tyson just gets ignored, before he even has a chance to be forgotten.

Which is entirely what Paul Roos and the recruiting staff are doing, recruiting players who are more likely to correlate with winning, and for what the club can afford. No?

This really IS moneyball. If he can create the right mix of reliable experience (Cross, Vince, Lumumba?, Gwilt?), with mid age and youngsters, then we will win more games. The shedding of experienced older players to make way for youth is a failed policy, we know it first hand, and smarter, more successful teams wouldn't do it. Look at the older players at Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney, and the age mix down to their youth. Otherwise, call it the Junior McDonald correction policy.

Agree.

Depends on the compensation, and on other measures used to rotate success through the competition.

Reading all the above, he could be a handy addition to our Liszt.

I'm not sure the length of service to a club before free agency kicks in is going to change anything, when the basic problem that free agency has created is the movement of good players from poor to successful clubs. Yes, I know there is compensation via the draft, but it is patently 'unequal' given the swap of 'known quality' for 'risk' (inherent to any 'draft'). Yes you can trade your draft pick for a 'known entity', but each exchange results in a potential dilution of quality. Then there is the loss of profile. If your good players go, the support they drew to your club weakens it when they leave. The AFL are not really serious about equalisation, they lack the courage to antagonise the big clubs with logical options, or damage the free to air TV ratings with shared Friday night scheduling. Equitable gate revenue sharing, equality in prime time tv scheduling, heavier weighting of the draft to the bottom clubs (e.g. top 12 picks to bottom 4 clubs every year) are just NOT places they are prepared to go. As an example, the very idea that the MFC SHOULDN'T get a priority pick this year is simply ludicrous, when you look at the embarrassment of benefits given to the Sydney Swans. (Salary cap, academy, 2 home grounds). In the context of these facts, equalisation as it is employed by the governors of the competition is just nonsense on steroids, and the continued future of the AFL as the dominant game in this country is a fantasy.

Seems like the AFL are addicted to our pain as well, if there's no priority pick coming. What are the criteria for a PP again?

Because he's unique and has standards that aren't from the 'cookie cutter' football-speak world? Too many smart experienced football people rate him as a person for me not to think he's quality, just different.

I reckon we don't Redleg. I'd be surprised if Paul Roos wasn't trying to avoid unpredictabilities and what ifs, for the sake of a robust, and reliable list with a consistency of output, as much as that can be attained. MC certainly isn't that, sadly for him and us. Or maybe it's just me....

Yep, Brett was slow like Sam Mitchell is slow. One of the best readers and users of the ball I've ever season. The people that matter have a very high opinion of Jake's future.

Have had the same thoughts, so it's a club. Mozart definitely edges Beethoven, btw.

Of course they are, that's the manager's job. To get more money, and he's either had to convince MC of this or not. We're all in no doubt as to the moral standards of the manager, it's just MC's, the AFL, and other clubs we're not sure about.

Just part of the risk. If offered a rookie spot, it gives MC another chance, a legitimate re-birth if you like, an act of faith on MFC's part. To reject it is, well......dare we say, greedy. But MC's manager clearly sees it another way, and through $$$- tinted glasses.

Maybe, but recent events (3 years), would suggest it would be a waste. It all comes down to 'what ifs'

If the AFL let him go without compensation to the MFC, there will be the kind of reaction in the media that blew up around the Jack Viney situation. There are still too many clear thinkers with a sense of fairness out there for the AFL to ignore. It may be the first defining moment of Gillon M's tenure, and how he wants to treat the very idea of a 'fair' competition.

Spot on, I reckon. Clearly his manager thinks he's worth much more than MFC have offered him, and unfortunately for principles such as loyalty, gratitude and fairness, that's his job. His entire reason for existing is to maximise the monetary earnings of his clients. The MFC will be fully aware and astute in weighing risk against expenditure. Clearly if money wins, and everything we know about the nature of the modern career footballer suggests it will, we will be screaming for compensation. Ethics take a back seat now, although they will be flown and flaunted, just like so called 'equalisation'.

Good reading all. I grew up with the post-64 dees, and until 1987 was pretty convinced the worm would never turn. I'm not convinced I see the worm turning now, but I hope like I did back then. The circumstances now are completely different however. National draft, salary cap, and interstate clubs are transformative to the idea of an 'even' competition. The AFL are however talking equalisation while doing sweet FA about it. A few issues. Firstly, the draft IS a lottery to some degree. Statistically this is so. Draft compensation for free agency is NOT equalisation, it is an ATTEMPT at equalisation, and it clearly favours the top clubs. Secondly, the draft running as a pick 1 to 18 ordered sequence to the 18 clubs is a feeble stab at equalisation. Give the first 12 picks to the bottom 4 teams every year ( last gets 1,5 and 9), and things would even out very quickly, then stabilise after a decade or so, where the top 4 rotate through the 18 clubs much more readily. The father/son rule can be very uneven. It shouldn't be, but it has proven to be. Until the AFL use the draft properly, the comp is going to struggle for balance.

Last 3 games against them were all losses by more than 90 points. Less than that is progress, no?

Evasive, works both sides of the body by hand or foot, solid mark, a true 'running' player. What we need, and frankly reminds me of his old man.

Interesting article in the Guardian this morning showing that the average age of coaches in the AFL is a lot younger than in other codes and even the VFL. It mentions Gary Ayres at Port Melb, Andy Collins at Willy, and the North Ballarat coach as being potentially in their prime to coach at AFL level. Should our succession plan involve a credentialed older coach such as this, rather than a recent player such as Kirk, Ling?

War deaths decimated them. That's why they folded at that time. WW1 that is.

No, it isn't Carlton. It's Parkville.

Try walking from GPO to Gosch's, as compared to Melb. Uni. Or tram, or bike, or whatever. It's closer to Melb Uni.

It's about 15 minutes walk, or 5 to 10 minute tram ride from the CBD. How much closer could it be? I also don't get how some think it's in Carlton's area. As if Gosch's isn't the very poor second cousin to Collingwood and Lexus, and Richmond at Punt Road. The Uni would be unequivocally Melbourne's, not in a 'precinct', just one of a bunch of other teams and codes. Also, it fits with the notion that MFC, being the oldest/inaugural club, sets up where one of the other 2 initial clubs (killed off by WW2, albeit still alive in the amateurs) began (Geelong being the other of the 3). If I was being crazily romantic about history, maybe ditching Casey and having the 'Melbourne Uni Demons' as our stand alone VFL side would be an idea! Too much?