binman

At least in part because PJ has made a point of reaching out to fans and asked us to stick by the club.

Sue i for one don't think we are necessarily copping more spin than other clubs. But just because all do it doesn't lessen my frustration that we do it to the extent we do. Also like Daisy of course i accept that there will always be a level of spin. But there is a difference between spin and misinformation/lies. Take the Hogan scenario again. In the link i posted above the club categorically says 'Melbourne forward Jesse Hogan injured his lower back during Melbourne’s NAB Cup game against Geelong in Alice Springs last Friday' Now perhaps that is strictly true but there has subsequently been a suggestion (including Jesse himself in adoor stop interview) that it was pre-existing injury - which makes things a lot more serious. The above quote is designed to suggest that it is new problem caused from the Geelong game. The most positive 'spin' i could put on that is they are being disingenuous.

For a start i didn't know he did his hammy twice before XMAS and had previously not heard anything about a calf injury. Also becasue he appeared to be honest i could trust that barring setbacks there is a reasonable chance that he might back by about round 5. If he doesn't? Well i'll know there's been a set back and i'm not going to be angry that he duped me.

Yes. Barret suggested it was a stress fracture, implying it was pre existing problem, which seems to be true - though this is just a guess because apparently the sky would fall if the the truth was revealed. And i disagree about the club not worrying about what various media outlets are mis-reporting. They should be -its what managing communication and the message is all about.

Just watched it and it was terrific. Exhibit 1 in my argument for more transparency about injuries.

It's about trust. What did people think when they heard about Gawn being injured? I don't know about others but my first thought was that he has a bigger problem than the club is letting on and that 1-2 could easily mean 5-6. That's probably not the case but who would know? If the idea of not being transparent is not to upset fans and impact on membership, well the opposite effect occurs for me. It worries me when someone gets a hammy because i wonder if that's code for something more chronic or difficult to treat. The examples Scoop Junior are spot on, particularly the one about Hogan. I mean what really happened to him? Early reports were that he was injured in the Geelong NAB game, in a marking contest no less. Scans were going to reveal the damage. Then conflicting reports emerged about hot spots and stress fractures and symptomatic reactions - all of which suggested it was pre existing, potentially much more serious problem. Remember that a DL poster said in the training session prior to the Cats game he had some back issues and was getting quite a lot of treatment from the trainers and physio's. Still there is zero clarity about what his injury specifically is. How could any of that been good for the club? This a player who dees fans have been desperate to see play for 17 months and no one has a clue about what is happening. Perhaps the club don't either. Well say that! They lost control of the story when Damien Barret broke it on the footy show. Tell me what would have been wrong with being transparent from the get go and saying he had problems with his back and they were not sure how long it would take to fix. Yes that would have caused angst but again so does not being open as the next time a player cops an injury (eg with Gawn) fans will just assume the worse because that has been the experience thus far.

This is where i sit also. Of course there is spin about injuries - as i have said it is the culture of football. What i am saying is that this culture is not as acceptable as it was. People in this day and age expect to have access to accurate information. I don't want to know the specific about an injury - who cares - i want to know when they are likely to be back playing. Full stop. I get the argument about not deflating fans and the potential impact on membership but surely those who posit that argument could see that there might also be a negative impact on membership if people get jacked off wit the club or begin not to trust it. And clubs of all stripes try and cash in on this and by providing video content, tweets, emails etc. Why? - because that is now part of the culture. In a way the clubs are offering up a promise of enhanced connection . But if you feed too much crap to people this promise is broken they will become disenchanted in a way that wasn't the case 20 years ago when people were not constantly connected to the web. Also 20 years ago you jsut got the injury report/list in the paper not weekly video of the high performance manager essential dancing on a pin.If people get too disenchanted they will stop buying memberships. Simple. The other thing that is new is the constant sharing of rumor and innuendo that social media (such as DL) both enables and fuels. Also new is the 1000 and 1 stupid footy gossip reporters such as Parrot who thrive on weeding out the correct information and slyly drip feeding it out. look at the Hogan example. His predication of six weeks out is starting to look conservative. Modern communication means controlling all of that noise by giving accurate information first. Failure to do so mean a club loses its power of communication in a way they simply was not the case 20 years ago when all they had to do was feed the papers and channel 7. This isn't Turkey - we can't ban Twitter. But if none of that is possible just don't say a player will be back round X when there is no realistic chance of that happening.

Shirley, you can't be serious

Yes, well that article from yesterday morning does not say anywhere that he won't be playing.

Yep, fair call. Would you accept one of our second most consistent player?

Is Charter, like Charlie, a euphemism for coke? Woewodin wins Charlie whilst on Charlie?

What is new is that there is a devoted weekly segment on Deetv as part of the clubs efforts to provide content. Sure the culture of footy has 'long been of rubbery injury reporting but this institutionalizes it and i say is more akin to misinformation. Also the difference from the past is such content makes an implied promise of providing reliable information to members. Increasingly there is an expectation - not just in football, but other sports eg racing - in this time of increased information flow and access to multiple media platforms that stakeholders are kept well informed. This was not the case even 10 years ago. This information flow is important if clubs don't want to lose the faith of their key stakeholder - the fans and particular the members. Twenty years ago footy fans might have accepted that their club fed them bull dust but that is changing and the risk is fans who become disenchanted or even annoyed by this culture of rubbish may decide not buy a membership. Instead hey might but one with Melbourne Heart. Look at membership numbers now. Twenty years ago a club could survive with 20, 000 members. Not now. Look at American sport. The have long recognized the importance of providing accurate information - and for that matter meaningful media access to players and coaches - to fans and the risks associated with not doing so .

BB i could not agree more. Misson is starting to really annoy me. What is the point of the weekly Dee TV injury update with him and Burgo? It is usually just rubbish and in fact i would argue more often that not it is misinformation. Your examples perfectly illustrate this. Of course injuries sometimes don't respond but once you see a pattern its hard not assume the truth is not being told. Watch the last one. It is a terrific study in someone not comfortable with what he is saying. Watch Missons body language, note how he flushes and listen to his tone when discussing Dawes, Hogan and Garland. He looks like he is, if not lying, then concealing the truth. As fans we deserve better and to be honest i don't understand the logic for not being transparent. It's not as if other clubs are going to be fooled. If Misson can't or wont be frank then don't have the segment. Saty i appreciate your posts and much of your feedback from your preparedness to ask insiders what is going on. However, whilst it has been said before your sensitivity to the club being criticised is curious and not a little irritating, chap.

I would have to say that i'm not always simpatico with Osiliks views but Dunn deserves a spot on our banner. In my humble opinion he is in our top 8 players and is arguably our most consistent player and perhaps our most underrated player. He misses few games through injury, hits targets by hand and foot, is good in the air and rarely gets beaten one on one. Seriously how many other players on our list could tick all those boxes.

as caro would say - I blame my source!

Just heard a strong rumour third to be sacked but can reapply

I'm with you on that. He's as flat as the nullabor

For the love of god Mandee please do not go there. Delete thread now I see from your number of posts that you are relatively new - assuming you are not an old poster with a new name. As such i can only warn that such a thread is an invitation for the most mind numbing, soul sapping pap you will see for many a year. You have been warned.

Which goes to show old school style never goes out fashion. I reckon it looks great.

An excellent summation of the plan. As you say soccer is the tactical template. And really good points about the need to have our best kickers hitting our forward targets. Those targets (short or tall) need to know how, where and when to lead and as you say they seemed a little confused about this against the Saints, which meant that often the ball carriers just bombed it ineffectively and it got turned over (often by the loose saints back man). Contrary to some who have said we should have gone forward more often i think that in fact in those circumstances the ball carrier should have resorted to chipping it around until a genuine option become available in the forward half. Roos talked about lowering their eyes as did Howe, meaning not bombing away and instead spotting up leading targets. But as Akum points out often no one was leading properly so they should have just held on to the ball - even if it frustrated the fans - until someone did.

Ta, Then why don't we have 2 (or even 3) clash strips? As i said everyone seems to love the new training jumper so why not that one? It is blue with the red MFC insignia. To avoid a clash with say Carlton you could have a second clash strip with red and a blue MFC insignia. Eveyone happy and the club getting some more money from merch. Simples.

I don't really mind the white jumper but how stupid was it to have a clash jumper that clashed? Why wouldn't common sense prevail and we wear our standard jumper which doesn't clash with the saints. Or have two clash jumpers? Id on't mind the red idea but what about our current training jumper which looks great and would have been perfect against the saints. Correct me if i'm wrong but don't EPL teams have more than 1 clash strip?

I reckon you are being a bit harsh TBH. In the example you gave he set Terlich up for a goal. He created the goal that Byrnes got. I reckon he was involved in other goal scoring chains. If we had of kicked straight he would have created 4-5 more goals such was his capacity to find a player in space and in attacking positions. As an outside mid his role is to create goals not kick them (though of course if he can get forward and snag a couple then all the better). I'm guessing score assist will be one his main KPI's. Also he did in fact take them on at one point and break a tackle. It was terrific to see.

He's got another year after this one on his current contract!

Some thoughts now that i've calmed down a bit: It was truly woeful match and a very poor performance by the dees - what a waste of $25 After the first couple of goals we looked hesitant and nervous, in contrast to the tigers game where we looked much freerer Often we seemed to forget our possession game and went forward when there wasn't a good options, rather than holding it and chipping it around - Jones was the worst culprit at this. This played into their hand with the loose back man they employed Jones played with heart but made some terrible errors in the first half and should have kicked the goal he missed - we desperately need a captains goal Howe was awful and his miss in the third was crucial Roos made a big blue leaving McDonald on - i couldn't believe it. At one point he was remonstrating with a trainer and was clearly distressed I also thought Roos made a blue withe his forward structure. I wondered why he didn't try to isolate Howe deep in the square and just authorize him to fly for speccys. Also even though it would have robbed Peter to pay Paul i would have loved to seen him try Dunn up forward in the last quarter. We needed goals and Dunn is an excellent contested mark and kick and has played most of his football up forward. Yes that would have exposed us up back but as i say we weren't going to win without taking some risks. it also would have brought JKH into the game If Gawn was fit enough to play at Casey he was fit enough to play for the dees. Should have selected him Dunn is a gun - have never understood the bagging he has often received on DL over the years Frawley made two critical errors in particular his missed handball receive at CHF. Yes it was hot but it was straight to him and they practice taking hot handballs all the time. The goal they got gave them the momentum and we never got it back. His helicopter kick to Byres tat got cut off by Reiwoldt was nearly as bad The Toump played well (not great) and did the job asked of him by Roos. Showed courage on a number of occasions and is a smart, natural footballer What did we have to do to get a holding the ball decision? I could not believe they didn't ping Gwilt - cost us a goal (it was 20 metres out) and any chance of winning The other critical umpiring error was the in the back against the Toump on the HFF. He used his body beautifully to get his player under the ball and would have run free into a vacant 50 yet was pinged. Terrible decision. I thought they softened the rule this year to allow more body contact in the marking contest. Perhaps it only applies to Cloke? Watts was as classy as i've seen a Melbourne player for a long time. But yes needs to attack the player with the ball more often. Perhaps he avoids physical contact but i reckon a big factor is his basket ball background. My son took up BB after years of playing footy and really struggled not to go at the player with the ball. His coaches have constantly tried to get him to hold back and corral more. Watts first instinct seems to be to do the same thing. It's hard to retrain that sort of instinctual reaction. Compare that to Viney who's instinct is to always go at the player. It must be said that sometimes corralling works and creates a turnover but there was a couple of occasions where Watts should have gone hard an low and instead allowed another player to do so I'm no Byrnes fan but i reckon some of the criticism of his game is a bit rough. He played his role acceptably. If he is selected again next week we can assume Roos agrees. If not well the opposite is true. Our inaccuracy was appalling - perfect conditions and it 100% correct that poor kicking is poor football Did i say it was a woeful match and poor performance by us? Will i be there again next week? Yes