Slartibartfast

McDonald and Davis are not unknown to me. The comment was based on holding high hopes for McDonald and Davis.

I'm an unabashed Watts fan and think he will be something special. At training today I was standing about 30 metres from where he played much of the game simulation stuff. Sure hands, exceptional disposal and good decision making but the thing that really struck me was his agility. He was untouchable in the drills and just worked his way through congestion so easily. There is no doubt if things fall right this year he will spend time on the wing/midfield.

I remember the discussion, it was a good debate. I'm not sure anyone is sold on Sellar being able to do the job but I'd think he does that role or none, wouldn't you? There is no doubt that Sellar, Davis and McDonald all create significant competition for Rivs spot. I hold high hopes for Tom and Troy as well. Fancy, after all these years having an embarrassment of riches down back.

Pity you didn't.

Ahh, the individual is greater than the team!!

I'd think it was nothing more than a load issue for Grimes, Davey, Bartram and Strauss. Not all players do all sessions - their workloads are monitored and individually tailored to best suit their situations.

Yes, but if a club wants to sack a contracted coach they have to pay him out. If a coach wants to leave (Wellman) there seems no compensation to the club. It's a one way deal that works for the individual and not the club.

Rehab Group: Tappy, Jordie, Spencer, Davey, Bartram, Williams, Viney, Evans, Grimes, Strauss. Jurrah and Sylvia did some drills with the main group but did not do the simulated match practice. Standouts: Watts, Howe, Jones, Clark, Gysberts Random Information: The AFL strictly control when clubs can start having Intra club practice matches and that is much of the reason why "situational" drills are played. Training was very much along the lines of previous reports. Warm up, three or four drills, two close in handball/blocking drills, one ball movement around the ground and then some "match simulation" stuff that involved a moderate level of physical contact. Session wasn't overly long, starting shortly after 9.45 and finishing by about 11.30.

Rivers is 192/92 and Chris Tarrant is 193/94. That's almost identical. Ideally a bloke like Sellar would take the gorilla and Rivers the next leaving Garland and Frawley as more attacking talls. Rivers reads the play so well and uses his body so well I think he can do a Tarrant type role. Pace maybe an issue.

Watts/Howe

Woohoo. One of my pet hates is "break out game". Watts was good last year and will be better this year. In three years he'll be elite because there isn't anything he can't do.

Yes agreed, but he did finish second in the B&F so I reckon he either polled well in that game or was pretty good for the season!! I just happened to watch that game last night and was reminded of how good he was. But I only re-watch the wins so perhaps I'm getting a slanted view. I just love his reliability and courage so that's what I tend to see but I think the writing off of him is very harsh.

So? Many teams will play their second ruck forward. I thought some would bring up Cloke. Wow. Rivers beaten by the strongest contested mark in the comp so he's no good. I don't agree. Time will tell. He'll be even better when the ball isn't coming in 75 times a game at a rate of knots.

Have a look at him pants Ryder and Hill in last years Essendon game. Like all defenders he has his bad days and is beaten by really good players. But he's been playing on bigger players his whole career and doing very well. I don't agree with you.

I'm astounded at the negativity about Riv. He's very competitive, able to play on players much bigger than he is and is a very good reader of the play. Have people forgotten how well he did in last years best and fairest? Automatic selection in my book and will play when fit.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/128643/default.aspx

OK, so I worked out how to do it....

..

No, I think when you get home it will be a great learning experience. (I just move the Voldemort thread and that took me ages.......)

I think Old55, as the moderator in charge of the Locker Room, should merge this thread into the Max Gawn thread. Go for it Old and congrats on your appointment.

Be careful. Your constant support of Neeld, McLardy and all things MFC etc will brand you an apologist!! I call it as I see it, always have. And I'll not join the pack but usually only debate something when I'm in the minority. FWIW, McLardy said he became aware of "trouble" wihen Green gave his On The Couch interview. McLardy should never have approached Green, he should have approached senior management - Schwab, Connolly, Green, Harrington, Bailey. There were lots of mistakes around W186 and I think lessons will have been learned. But as stakeholders we need to be aware of the mistakes and be vigilant in ensuring they don't happen again. One strike doesn't mean you're out, it means one strike. Many seemed to have missed that strike and that was the point I wanted to initially make.

Ben H the sort of questions you ask are the stuff of 1000+ word replies and I don't type that well but I'll say this in relation to corporate governance. The issue starts with the role of the Board. Now I'm not going to write chapter and verse on this but a central premise of Corporate Governance is that the Board represent the stakeholders (MFC Members) in ensuring the management of the club work towards objectives established by the Board and agreed to by management. So the MFC Board might say "a flag is our goal, go and get one" whereas the Sydney Football Club Board might have said "we need to ensure we play finals each year". What then happens is the CEO and management work towards the objectives established by the Board (and there will obviously be more than one). The Board judge/measures/evaluates managements results against the objectives and make appropriate changes as they see fit. In short the Board establish the objectives and management work to achieve them. What is absolutely critical is the Board remain independent and separation is maintained. Once the Board get involved in day to day operations and decisions they lose their independence and are not in a position to judge management performance because they end up judging their own decisions and performance. Independence is lost and so is separation. McLardy interviewing Green is a well publicised example of a breakdown in separation. But it goes much further and can influence areas such as list management, player contract negotiation, election of captain and leadership groups (I'm not suggesting this happened, just offering an example of where it could) and so on. The reality is that if the club is "going nicely" it probably doesn't matter but Boards are not really there for when things are going nicely. They are there for when things are going poorly, where they can evaluate management and make decisions based on separation and independence. If these things are lost then an entity is exposed I accept that it's common that separation is lost in many clubs and it's probably lost in many companies as well. But that doesn't mean it's right or "best". If a Board has been involved in day to day operations which fail do you think it's going to sack itself? Do you think it can make fair judgement on management? Do you think it can properly protect the interest of shareholders (members)? That's how I see it and if you understand that stance most of my opinions in this area are (hopefully) fairly predictable/consistant. Many have suggested that Stanga's assertain of a request not to ask questions about W186 is wrong and I accept that. What nobody has denied is that Howcroft suggest we should look forward rather than back. IMO any direction to an audience at an AGM to influence a Q&A session is unwarranted. Perhaps we'll talk more about this at some stage where it will be easier to understand each others point of view.

Very hard to learn from history if you don't know what it is. I want the Board to look forward as well but I want them to be accountable for their past and not hide from the difficult questions. Redleg that question wasn't asked because the audience was asked not to ask it. Anyway I've said my piece and look forward to the future.

That seems to be at odd with Stanga who said " Also they specifically requested no questions on last seasons goings on." and "They definitely clearly requested that no quesitons be asked about the behind the scenes events of the last 12 months as they felt we had movied on from it". Even your description of wanting to look "forward" rather than "back" is a totally inappropriate direction from a Board given their questionable performance at times over the last 12 months.

I didn't go because I knew the questions wouldn't be answered and to be honest I wouldn't have asked them because I wouldn't want to see the club put in a bad light. But that doesn't excuse the Board from asking people not to ask those questions. No, we can't just ignore it because it's central to making a decision about the people who run our club. They did very badly last night and I hope they do better in future.