John Crow Batty

I agree with this but Melbourne's record overall interstate has been sub par since WC came into the comp and even in their good years. Of course we've been beaten by powerhouses in that time. If anyone can post the full list of stats of interstate games it would be great.

Good idea, then we can rehire them with a new attitude.

Amusing pontificating from many since our club is guilty of serial tanking for the past two seasons. Sure Freo's tactics were a disgrace and high risk but we'll see if they have worked after next week and what happens in the finals.

As an aside to this. It was sad to to see how this inspiring effort had zero impact on the team. After Jurrah kicked the goal from the mark to put us within 11 points Port killed us for the rest of the game. Shows how switched off we were.

They are just apologists words. Too many poor games against sides we should have beaten or at least been competative against( wc, carlton, north in Melb, freo, adelaide and port interstate). Never gave ourselves a chance against this mediocre to average lot. This has gone on for decades.

In a previous thread about rating Melbourne's performance this year I rated their year lower than everyone else with a "C". I did this because I still believe they haven't changed the winning{losing} culture of the past 40+ years. That is not being able to play to a minimum required standard every week. The club can rise to occasion and play great footy like against Collingwood but don't come out to play against clubs we should have a realistic chance of beating. This goes for interstate games too. Why does this team need the extra incentive every week to play for 4 premiership points? I am getting a little underwhelmed by motivators like, "lets do it for Jimmy", "Collingwood", 'lets spoil the Dons 10th Anniversay party" etc. Why isn't winning 4 premiership points every week the prime motivator? If this attitude does not change I don't see Melbourne as a future premier. They will have a few good years in the finals at best and then fade away like they did in the Northey/Daniher years.

Both marks were stupendous. Hard to separate them. Both would get 10/10 for style points. The difference I see IMO is that Goddard more or less rose effortlessly to grab the ball in more of a classic effort. Whilst Jurrah leapt up like a tiger with incredible forward motion from seemingly out of position. An amazing leap. And he kicked the goal too. Usually players who take these monster marks near goal usually fluff them. I would give it Jurrah narrowly but then again I'm biased.

I 'd rather be harsh now instead of throwing undeserved love bombs everywhere at this stage. We haven't done anything yet. Not mediocre anymore, we've just improved to AVERAGE. I'd be happy to concede a 100 pts defeat to Collingwood every time in the regular season to trade for a 16/6 winning season. I'm tired of this team saving their best for the Queens Birthday round. I'd like to see the same commitment against the rest of the comp.

Thanks for your opinions. My biggest concern is how do the Demons develop a winning culture? They don't seem to approach all opposition with the same ruthlessness. They still seem to pump themselves up to play Collingwood and on those performances they look potentially awesome. I would not call a "C" a fail but an adequate pass and indication that they now amongst the mix with unlimited potential for improvement. But I don't quite believe the club has shaken off the playing culture of the past 4 decades yet. Who did we beat this year. Richmond twice. Also a struggling side on the improve. Brisbane twice. Rapidly turning into a rabble. Adelaide. Out of form and a lot of injures. Port Adelaide. A team on the skids. Essendon. Another team on the skids. Sydney. Our best win but they looked a little distracted and did not come to play.

Realistically thats where they are at at the moment. An average side no different to half a dozen or so. Improving from poor to average is no big deal considering all the talent they have drafted. Nothing changes until they start to deliver. This lot has the potential to be the best and I desperately hope to see them improve to that level. But is the winners attitude there yet? They have played well against some fancied teams but lacked respect against some less fancied sides. It has been a regular pattern this year of fine games being followed up with poor attitude and associated losses. Melbourne were noted in the 80/90's of being up themselves, susceptable to over confidence and paid the price everytime. Their best ever chance at that time was in 1990 when they were flag favorites and blew it big time with one of the most pathetic performances I've ever seen against WC at AFL Park which eventually allowed "the filth" to grab the flag.

Hi all, I would give the club a flat C for the season. They are now an average team. Granted there has been great improvemt but it has come from the lowest base. Seen this too often over the past 40 years. My reasons for this average marking. 1) The team has not yet learned what is the minimum performance standard required for every game. 2) The loss to WC was inexcusable and likely cost us a real crack at the finals. 3) Uncompetative performances over middle ranked teams like Carlton and North Melbourne. 4) Melbourne has only been able to take 6 points out of a possible 44 points from higher ranked teams. Correct me if I am wrong. 5) Inability to take chances in close games against premium opponents. 6) Melbourne has had a relatively soft draw this season. The way I see it, there seems to be too much satisfied fuzzy expectation that the improvement will continue and that a finals appearanace is a mere formality next season from many supporters. As yet I haven't seen the real desperate hunger that premiership winners have. For too long the club has been satisfied with making up the numbers in the finals and that is not good enough. They also have to develop the fear that there may be a bull ant lurking every time they feel like sitting down.

I agree, strike while the knifes is hot. Hodge has been out of form lately and Dunn's firing.

I have liked Lyndon Dunn and followed his progress but I did believe he was nearly washed up early this season. I always thought he had the potential to be one of the most complete footballers around and now it appears he may deliver. Green, Jurrah, Watts, Dunn and also Bate make for a very exciting forward line mix up for the future.

Lyndon Dunn is doing the same. Rapid improvement in the past few games. Also Rivers, Bartram and maybe Paul Johnson are rapidly improving.

I thought Watts was great in the last quarter. If he didn't fumble those ground balls he could have been close to one of our best. He does seem to have a problem attacking the loose ball but his other skills are great. As for Jamar, I suspect he may be carrying an injury. Dominated the tap outs but a little tentative in other situations.

I think given the importance of the game, Melbourne should field their best team possible. They are not playing for draft picks anymore but for a finals crack. If they lose they can rest half the side because it wont matter any more for the rest of the season.

On the other hand what about those two denied goals when Melbourne played the Bulldogs a couple of months ago. In both cases the central umpire overulled the goal umpire on what appeared to be two Melbourne goals. May have already cost us a finals spot. Those decisions were the most stupid goal face decisions I've ever seen. In this case goals were denied when there was no clear evidence to overule the goal umpires decision. That moron umpire was in no position to overule the GU. So if we get two goal umpires what happens if they disagree with each other? Who gets the final say? They'll create more clutter in the goal face and run the risk of running into each other and obstruct players. Even 3 field umpires can't stop consistent field umpiring errors in every game. I'd prefer a video review. And in particular during night games when most of these GU errors occur.

Well said, I would also add Jamar to that midfield list. Absolutely crunching at the ball up and in packs and I haven't seen him get involved in any ra ra or silliness. I don't think opposition players are keen to take him on.

I think Demetriou would be pleased. The Melbourne Club and name is crucial for the games standing and he would be relieved that it appears it may flourish again.

Not too sure about the emblem. I'd like to see the demon back but not the wimpy impersonators that have been on our logo for decades. Its been like Richmond calling themselves "the tigers" but having Garfield as a logo.

Thanks all, I agree a little agression and toughness is required but it should be directed at the ball and contest and within the rules as they stand. Sheedy's style of thuggery is now obsolete and no one would get away with it in the modern game. I also note that his tactics did not arrest Essendons decline after 2000. As for Melbourne their agression has been admirable when they have been "on" in games this year and all done mostly within the rules. Suspensions these days can cost a team plenty.

Mr Happel must have been a friend of Gardiner, McNamee and co. I do recall that these jokers who were running the club were still rating Melbourne as premiership contenders when they signed on Bailey. And for the unnamed ruckman, who is he? I don't even remember him. Must have had a zero impact at the club.

Good to see Lyndon Dunn in most lists. Has been playing consistent good footy for a while now and appears to be getting even better. Also for the first time is showing some confidence in his play. Was almost a lost cause a few months ago. That big pressure goal he kicked against Brisbane at the death was something he would have fluffed a few months back.

Have any Melbourne players been suspended so far this year? I can't think of any offhand. If there are any it is certainly very few. It appears Melbourne have done a good job in slipping under the tribunal radar this year. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Hi all, in the last game they met Jack Reiwoldt certainly beat James Frawley in the first half but in the second Riewoldt was ineffective and Frawley much improved. James looked a bit rattled after Jack kicked the first few goals on him. At the time Jack was not considered a gun player as he is now and perhaps James played accordingly. Will be interesting to see how James responds this time.