binman

I watched the game last night. Some random observations: Like others i loved the coverage and the high shot - commentary was surprisingly good Our tackling was the best i have seen ever seen it Whilst they had more possessions (which is a worry) lots of their possessions were rushed because of real and perceived pressure. Also we diid a good job of trapping Port in our forward line with them often forced to kick laterally across the ground several times. Players very focused on zoning and taking up space eg by furiously waving arms Some suggestions Davey on here was quiet - i though he was fantastic. !# goals form a small forward is a perfect return. Two of the goals were from close to the boundary and in really swirling conditions were super classy. His tackling and pressure was first class and directly resulted in at least 2 goals. Terrific. Kent has something. Being a left footer he has the ability to create a bit of space as he did with the goal he set up for Sellar Hogan did not have quite the same impact as the first 2 games but geez he is going to be a gun. He is big and has good hands but the best thing is that he is a pure footballer - knows where to go, reads the play well and uses his body super well (and not just his strength - sometimes he just knows when give a little bump to create some space in front of him). Will bring fan to Casey games Lots of bring strong bodies meant we did wel in the clearances but more pleasingly we broke heaps of tackles and at least 4 goals were possible because we are able to break free of tackles and congestion - this was aways a huge problem in previous years (ie just getting monstered)

I hope you're right. Do you know if he played forward yesterday?

I'll move on - by the by what position did Tappy play yesterday?

Fair enough. And of course moderators have the right to an opinion. I just felt other posters were being unnecessarily harsh towards the big o and you provided support for this. The post i was referring to was: ''Slightly twisted, but just about on the money." which i read as you supporting another posters view that Osilisk was bagging Tappy. Pretty mild i guess so perhaps my criticism of you was unfair. Apologies. My point about Osilik being treated harshly remains though.

No you're right. A better team would have beaten us with that disposal differential and it was a huge issue for us last year. As was inside 50 differential which we also lost against Port The high tackle count, contested possessions and center clearance stats (19-7 despite getting smashed in the ruck) give a good indication of where Neeld (and Misson for that matter ) is currently focusing his attention and perhaps is an indication we are heading in the right direction in terms of Neeld desire for us to be the hardest team to play against. When you consider our mid field was Couch, Magner and Sylvia you're looking at some pretty strong boys. Great to hear an opposition coach say were more fierce at the ball. I was interested in Jimmy72's comment about us getting 5-6 goals via long kicks that cleared their defensive line (one of Sellar's goal being a great example - see links on MFC). I wonder if that is a pointer to a game style that is less possession orientated?

Fair point. But i think Swans won the granny last year with fewer possessions but more tackles.

Tackle count well in our favour. Many believe this is the key stat

He didn't label Tappy a failure. He asked is there a risk he will become one. And to be honest there is. If he doesn't make it it will be yet another player BP selected who has not been able to cement a spot on a pretty average list.

You've got to be joking. Jeez there are some pedants about. BP has come in for a huge amount of criticism on this board for picking players who have not made it. If Tappy doesn't make it he can be added to that list. Therefore a reasonable thread titlke in my book. In any case he clarifies his position and it would appear was not overly cristical of Tappy and for me the tile is more a dig at BP, and as i said Osilik is not alone in bagging him. So what if the thread title suggested Osilik might think Tappy is heading that way (- though it did include a question mark)? Most thread topics imply a position.

What's the go with the criticism of Osilik over his OP and subsequent posts? Poor form - and i notice H_T whilst you haven't sunk the boots in per se you certainly seems to be supporting those posters having a shot at him - strange behaviour from a moderator. Wondering where Tappy is at is totally reasonable and is a good question. Like many others i believe this is a make or break year for him. To be fair he has really struggled with injury and IIRC all his injuries have impacted his mobility and ability to get his endurance up and he is yet to have a proper pre season (has this years also been interrupted?). I agree with the posters who favour him playing up forward in a role similar Chapman. He gets found out a bit down back and is too one paced but as a high half forward could be a damaging player as he could snag goals from outside 50 and also be able to hit the other forwards lace out. Really he should also be able to spend some time in the middle, again like Chapman does. I thought i read in a training report that he has been training with the forwards? Can a regular training watcher confirm that? If so Neeld may be thinking the same things in terms of his best spot. In a team with so few quality kicks he has a real advantage with his lazer boot. Like others i love his physicality. I really hope he makes it.

Doesn't 4-6 weeks indicate a strike under the illicit drug policy? Joking btw

Very intersting Wreck, thanks. Given your knowledge can you advise if Blease, with that injury, will still be able to maintain his base fitness (by doing non weight bearing training such as bikes and swimming)?

I assume that he will still be able to do non weight bearing exercise with a high sprained ankle (whatever that is). Lots of bikes and swimming should help him maintain his fitness base i would have thought. Can a fitness expert confirm or shoot down that theory.

Which one did you go to?

I went to the family day on Sunday and there was a fella with t shirt that screamed: DANGER: I'M AWESOME. YOU ARE NOT. As he passed by I said to my son in a hushed reverential tone - 'there goes the great Ben-Hur of Demonland fame'

To be honest i hope they don't investigate other clubs for tanking. We should just accept we were unlucky and move on. Who wants/needs any more tanking palaver saturating the footy news. It's not going to help us if another clubs gets slugged I think most people know we were just one of several clubs who were not always trying to maximise the chances of winning in order to gain a benefit at a subsequent draft. Perhaps that's a positive, we're done and dusted on the issue - other clubs might be worried their turn might come. As another poster noted perhaps it even might help foster an us against the world vibe amongst the playing group. On other clubs - there was quite a few comments by CW and on DL suggesting our management practices meant we had some very disgruntled ex employees and that this was a factor. This may well be the case. However there often seemed to be an implication that this was a peculiarly Melbourne thing. Well i would suggest there may be more than one disgruntled ex Essendon employee and players for that matter (also some pretty angry current players). Also IIRC a whole raft of Carlton employees were given the bullet when MM rode into town and were none too happy about it. There was talk of legal action, in large part due to issues such as unfair dismissal and how it was carried out (ruthlessly and without much, if any, warning) Perhaps Carlton are better at ensuring angry ex employees don't go looking for revenge. For their sake i hope that's the case or else they might find someone leaking inside info to some muckraking journalist. St kilda seem to have their fair share of angry ex employees over the years - Grant Thomas, Stan Alves and Malcolm Blight immediately spring to mind. In fact when its all said and done all clubs probably have their share of disgruntled ex employees so perhaps poor man management is the industry standard.

For all those worried about this business forever tarnishing us as tankers have a a squiz at today's papers. Nary a mention of anything to do with tanking save a couple of articles that are critical of the AFL in regard to having the incentive in place. The back of the Hun screams about tiered ticket prices. The Bombers will be back in the news soon and the NAB cup will fill space. The journos are combing social media for the next juicy beat up. In a weeks time most people won't even remember the dees were investigated little lone brand us tankers. Yesterday news, today's virtual chip wrapppers. Not one person will care about Melbourne.

I doubt it - but they're obviously having some fun and i assume the deliberately antagonistic style is all a part of the new age (and i don't mean Aquarius) - a once proud paper reduced to trolling.

It is now, it's been changed.

Amazing really - all the footy gossip hacks, led by CW, trumpeted that the board, CS, CC and DB were going to be hit with 3 separate charges. It was stated as fact by several of them. What happens? Only CC and DB charged and not with one of the 3 mooted charges. Indeed an entirely new charge that not one journo had even got close to suggesting would be laid. Hopeless, just hopeless. Of course the Robbos, Ralphys and CWs will say that they were just going on the info provided by their 'sources' and that it was all a 'movable feast'. What rot. This is the problem with gossip journalist, its all based on whispers form people with their own agendas an when the info tuns out to be completely untrue the journos don't take any responsibilty, they just blame their sources. Hopeless, just hopeless.

Yes, true 'nuff

Amazing! Analysis in a newspaper when reporting about footy! What next - balance? An excellent article and i just wish there was more of it (analysis that is). CW comes in for her fair share of criticism (most of which being justified!) but i have to say "robbo' is just as bad in terms of being a gossip monger. Wouldn't know analysis if it bit him on the nose. Case in point his woeful article in today's Hun

An excellent analogy doc. However one point that is worth considering that in your analogy in order for more senior management to address the the managers comments they would have to be made aware of them. Which means that one of the staff present (or the manager themself ) would need to have reported the comments. Whilst the bank is ultimately responsible for its employees and how they are selected, trained, supervised, performance managed etc etc it would be difficult to criticize them for not responding to comments made in a one off meeting if no one came forward to raise it as an issue. By all accounts there were at least 17 people at the now infamous meeting and it would appear that not one thought the comments concerning enough to bring to the attention of senior management - or did have concerns but yet still elected not to advise anyone. Bit hard then for the CEO or board to counsel CC about his performance in the meeting

Jeez Louise. Unlocked article here: http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/afl/victorian-commission-for-gambling-and-liquor-regulation-announces-own-probe-into-melbourne/story-e6frg1xu-1226581447543

It's great that its done before the season starts. 800 pages of evidence and by all account an incredibly exhaustive investigation (over half of the 2009 MFC staff!) and the only thing they had was CC's comment in one meeting? I simply don't understand how CW and several DL posters can then seriously maintain that yes other clubs did it but we did so much worse and that's why we got slugged. If, like CW you believe we tanked in 2009 and and did so amateurishly then surely they would have turned up more evidence than one meeting. But as CW notes it hinged on the one meeting and comments made by CC. Does anyone seriously think that if say Carlton was as forensically (and allegedly under threat of heavy sanctions for those interviewed if inconsistencies were discovered) investigated a similar meeting or comment would not be dredged to the surface? I'm with BBob on this one (at least partly). It wasn't the comments that CC made it was that there were people in that room that 4 years after the fact were prepared, for whatever motivation, to put a club who had employed them at serious peril and potentially ruin the career of at least CC but potentially others (not to mention potentially tarnishing the legacy of Jim). BBob may well have a point that perhaps poor management practices perhaps created an environment where there would be some seriously disgruntled ex employees. However i tend to believe that this sort of behaviour is more symptomatic of a club culture that has long been characterised by divisive, dirty internal politics and factionalism - a culture that is at the heart our sustained lack of success. A positive out of all of this is it seems great strides have been made to build a more united club and this drama may act as a further unifying force. Lets hope all with axes to grind or knives to plunge put their weapons down and get behind the club. The Don, the board and CS have handled this drama extremely well and their positions are now cemented. Of course lessons can be learnt from what occurred 4 years ago and i hope they are. To be fair steps have already been taken to address some of the issues that have raised issues (CC being moved out of the footy dept, CS role being more clearly in admin, a strong well resourced coaching team that is left to get on with its business with a reasonable degree of autonomy etc etc). However we must now stand united and this might the watershed moment. But a final comment. Whilst it is possible the four (?) Judases who were prepared to put our club at risk had legitimate reasons to be angry with the club it is still simply not on to drop us in it. 500k and two good men out of footy for a spell because four men couldn't find in them to say something like "look it is possible he was joking". You might argue that perhaps they felt strongly about the issue and were compelled to out CC but as Redleg (i think) pointed out they seemed not to have raised any concerns at the time so can't have been too morally outraged. What's the bet that one of these men was also one of CW's sources (or indeed continues to be). I assume the club knows who they are and i guess so do others in the footy world. I wonder if it at some point their preparedness to rat out a colleague (which is ok in my book, but only if they have done something really wrong and you are acting as whistle-blower) will one day hurt their chances of employment at a footy club that perhaps knows about their treachery.