binman

If we are going to fairly assess where the team is at we should take into account how we perform gains the best teams, teams that are motivated by finals. In the last month we have been competitive against the top 2 teams on the ladder atm - the Pies and Crows - and also the Suns who are 6th with a bullet. And in May we pushed the Lions who are currently third. In all those games out transition footy has been really good. In almost all of those games we likely win if not for inaccuracy. No reason to think we won't be competitive again the Dogs this week.

My personal view is that every single AFL game is meaningful, regardless of opponent or whether finals are no longer a possibility. Agree West Coast were very poor but thought their effort level was pretty good actually. But that doesn't mean the game is not meaningful. Just a few examples of why that's the not the case for Saturday's game include (but are not limited to): Such games are the perfect opportunity to practice implementing game plan and specific strategies, particularly important for teams like us who are moving from one method to completely different method On that front we saw some really positive signs in terms of how we transitioned the ball from the defensive half, for example we scored 3 goals from a kick out which is huge return Fritter continued his resurgence - good for him, good for us Fritter and Petty clunking their marks up forwards reinforced how much better we are when we take advantage of our inside 50 kicks (we are actually transitioning the ball really well this season and getting it inside 50 is not problem - just haven't finished off our work) Regardless of opponent nearly 60% of inside 50s to score ratio is impressive We got a good look at Culley and what he can bring to the table Maxy surely locked in his AA selection - and he continued his simply incredible contested marking this season Bowey had another blinder and surely, he must be in the AA frame now Clarry played his best game after quarters time in terms of real impact - his hands were terrific, and his endeavor remains first class which bodes well for next season We got a good look at Windsor in the middle; he played his best game for the season and i think it's clear he will play as mid going forward We kicked 10 goals in a quarter We won but nearly 15 goals and Koz was quiet And perhaps of most importance, we looked untied, cohesive, played with great energy and the players seemed to enjoy themselves - all terrific signs given last week's fourth quarter nightmare

Gawn?

I really enjoyed the game live. Was always going, but glad I did. Even watched the replay On the replay there was footage of koz being given some pills of some description, and the commentators notedhr might be a bit off. Despite his quiet game, how's this for a stat to show just how important he is for us - from his 26 disposals (which is not a bad haul) he had a game high 10 score involvements. Nearly half of his disposals contributed to a score on a day he didn't kick a goal and only kicked a point - that's seriously impressive. Koz's pace in the middle is so important. And for the same reason I really liked Windsor in the middle. And for similar reasons I really like Tracc playing predominantly forward - he creates a matchup challenge, is awesome one on one and him playing forward allows faster plsyers like Windsor t8 take his spot in the middle. I've been bullish on Culley, and was super pleased he played so well. Is a rich slow but like Langford thinks quick and had high footy iq. He's also tough, is a neat kick and has good hands. If he can get super, super quick he can cement a spot in the bbest22 as a wing or high half forward. Speaking of high half forward chin's running was berserk yesterday. I loved his attitude and intent.

When was the last time we kicked 10 goals in a quarter? I thoroughly enjoyed going to the footy yesterday. Loved it. Shout to the 16k dees fans who were there with me. Great energy.

I'm not necessarily saying it's an issue, I was just summarising caro's points. BUT I can see why an argument could me made that at the least it might create challenges. The runner sends messages from the coach, and by definition is connected to the coach and has to have a close working relationship with them. Let's say for the sake of argument Windsor was reallly upset with Goody last week for electing to sub him, which wouldn't be that surprising as he was very stiff to be subbed (when I wanted to work out who was subbed I put my binos on him.and he looked filthy). Windsor is so upset he wants to speak to the welfare officer. Does he really want to speak to the fella who gave him the message, is in constant dialogue with goody and has a close relationship with him? And does he want to criticise goody to conca? Maybe, but maybe he doesn't want to be fully honest with conca for fear it will get back to goody.

The idea that Caroline is sinking the boots in 8j that article is off the mark. To be honest, if anything she went easy. I mean she left a couple of easy wacks on the table. Darren Shand was supposedly hired to lead cultural improvement and drive leadersip yet caro didn't make the obvious point that the efficacy of that work is at the very least in question. And she mentions Pert and the home base, but gave him and the club a complete pass on the fact he was supposedly staying at the club to drive that project and 6 months lager we appear no closer to it being landed.

Particularly given the importance of implementing the recommendations of the 2024 review.

What it didn't say or ask was what is Gary Pert doing?

The breakdown in on field leadership in the last seconds was symbolic of our club wide lleadership problems. We are a rabble off field. We appoint a CEO in April who can't start until September. Our comms director is covering 2 non related roles, including AFLW. Our runner is also our welfare officer creating a potential conflict of interest (my example - telling a young bloke he is being subbed). The acting CEO went for the job and didn't get it. Not ideal given he is an acting role for 5 months, particularly given our poor onfield performance. Despite green pushing back on the idea he is an interim president, it is widely assumed he is keeping the seat warm for Smith, who is tipped to assume the seat. In September. Its been left to Goody and Maxy to carry the can all season, just as it was post match on Sunday.

Typically strong and balanced article from one of the few footy journalists I respect

Communication element: Video content for: Website Social media Emails to members Other? Opportunity for improvement Successful clubs in elite sporting competitions such as the EPL, NFL, NBA, Serie A etc produce a huge variety of video content for its fans and prospective fans. Content ranges from short videos for platforms such as X, Instagram and Tik Tok, longer form videos for platforms such as websites and you tube, feature length videos and even multiple episode series in the style of Drive to Survive. AFL clubs do not have the same resources but engaging video content is equally important for AFL clubs and is a key part of the value proposition for members and as a tool to attract new members. There are many examples of this key aspect of the club's communication being criticised by Dees supporters on Demonland, such as this thread from Feb 2024 started by @Dannyz. The OP starts with this sentence: 'I think it's time to place on record how poor our media output has been since the departure of Ben Gibson.' Since Ben Gibson's departure from the MFC in December 2022 the video content produced by, and for, the MFC has been, with some very notable exceptions (eg Koz going back home), largely underwhelming. And there has been way, way too little of it. It has been nearly three years since Ben Gibson's left and in tge intervening period the demand for video content across multiple platforms has exploded. The MFC is miles behind other AFL clubs in this space and addressing this opportunity for improvement is both a total no brainer and the lowest, of low hanging fruit given good quality video content can be produced extremely cheaply in 2025. Suggested actions Prioritise the creation of engaging video content that can be delivered across multiple platforms Ensure that content is diverse in: style, tone (ie funny, satirical, educational), type (human interest, sport science, tactics, match previews, analysis etc) length, topic, audience (ie kids, fans of other clubs, fans of the dees who are not members, new members, older members. diverse communities etc etc) Idea: Of course the production of such content has a cost. Personally i would prioritise resourcing it and employing someone to do deliver it (perhaps we do?). However if that's not possible, and even if it is, MFC could explore developing a mutually beneficial partnership with Monash University. Monash's Caulfield Campus - which is only a good Harvey Langford drop punt from our proposed new training base at Caulfield racecourse - offers a Bachelor of Multimedia and Digital Arts degree, which focuses on digital arts and multimedia design practices. And Monash Uni's Monash Media Lab, is also located at Caulfield. The Monash Media lab is 'a state-of-the-art facility for journalism, digital media production, and multimedia storytelling' that has 'purpose-built television and radio studios available for commercial use, incorporating quality recording equipment to give your production professional polish.'

And a couple more hours on how poor the MFC's comms!

Preamble Dee in a kilt created a thread called From anger to action: A call for constructive feedback to leadership that asked the question could the Demonland community constructively identify opportunities for improvements the Melbourne Football Club (MFC) could actively and meaningfully consider. I think it is fair to say that many members of the Demonland community, myself included, are skeptical the MFC would take on board any such feedback, or least not in a meaningful way. To be honest that skepticism says something in of itself. Organisations that are serious about continuous quality improvement ensure they have effective consultations processes with their key stakeholders so decisions, planning, new processes, changes etc are directly informed by those stakeholders. Key to good consultation is having multiple consultative strategies and forums. MFC has periodic member surveys, take (very few) questions at the AGM and no doubt receive a considerable amount of 'direct' feedback in the form of phones call and emails - particularly after losses like the one last weekend. This thread is an effort to provide the MFC another strategy to get constructive feedback from it's most important stakeholder - supporters. It is worth noting in this context that Demonland is likely to be one of the biggest, perhaps even biggest, football cub form dedicated to a single club. More than a million posts have been made about all things MFC since its inception. I'm not sure how many regular posters there are, surely in the many hundreds. But what i do know is that there are many, many more dees fans who read Demonland but don't post. Right now there 266 online users on Demonland which is a lot given how we are travelling and the fact its 1:30 on a Friday arvo. I suggested we start with one issue and see if we can come up with some opportunities for improvementsand then go from there. And my suggestion is we start with constructive ideas to improve MFC's communication and related sub elements. I'm really thinking aloud here, so to speak, but i think we need an agreed purpose ( clarity on what it is and what it isn't), structure and process. So, in the spirit looking for consensus my suggestions for those elements are: Purpose Constructive ideas to improve MFC's communication Opportunity for improvement Communication from the MFC includes, but is not limited to, the following elements: Fan engagement Member engagement Communication with members Website Social media strategy Injury reporting Press interviews Player interviews Content Crisis management Other? There is a significant body of evidence on Demonland indicating Dees fans think communication from the MFC acorrs ll tese areas could, and should be improved. Sustained success is not possible without a robust membership which is why increasing the number of members is a key strategic goal of the club. Improving the MFC's communication would support achieving that strategic goal. Process guidelines My proposal: Interested posters choose one or more of the above elements of the club's communication strategy and provides constructive ideas to improve any or all aspect of that element Such posts begin with a simple statement of the identified opportunity for improvement or improvements (note: not a long rant or rationale) And then provide a constructive idea or ideas on how that opportunity for improvement could be addressed To get a sense of whether there is consensus, and also to provide some numerical data (eg 25 MFC fans support this idea) other posters indicate support, or otherwise with a thumbs up or thumbs down (noting in this context a thumbs down is not to being critical) Posters engage with such posts as per normal and if the original poster wants to they can edit the initial post to reflect any changes they think are warranted BUT we try to avoid any back and forth - the purpose is not to debate each point but to land on constructive ideas to improve that element of MFC's communication The focus is on constructive ideas and being solution, not problem, focused We self moderate and don't ask or need the site moderators to play a role (unless of course they want to) We close the thread in 2 or 3 weeks Before doing so we use an AI chat bot to succinctly summarize the entire thread and also short summaries of each element club's communication strategy Posters indicate approval of these summaries with thumbs up and we have focus on getting as many posters doing so as possible to increase the likelihood the MFC take the ideas seriously, or at he very least be less likely to dismiss them out of hand We could also possibly do a poll for each of the elements and/or identified opportunities for improvements Ultimately we would would generate a list of opportunities for improvements the club could consider when developing their next communication strategy (which i assume they do on an annual basis - if they don't there's a low hanging fruit opportunity for improvement right there!) If the model works, and posters thinks it is of value to continue we could review what worked and what didn't and repeat for another topic/area (eg Securing MFC's permanent member home, governance etc) Thoughts?

Board meetings would go way too long with the way i bang on!

I'm flat our today but will create the thread, with relevant guidelines, goal, purpose, process, what it is, and perhaps most importantly what isnt (a place to unload) tomorrow. Kudos for driving a process that is solution focused. And respect fr putting yourself out there in a vulnerable space - ie one where it's easy to have pot shots at you for thinking outside the box.

Interesting read. Almost reads as if the board drafted it for Gleeson. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/1m-payout-won-t-stop-demons-making-tough-call-on-goodwin-if-necessary-20250729-p5min1.html

I think a stripped down version is feasible, one that doesn't involve moderation per se (just a commitment for posters contributing to a thread to focus on constructive criticism and positive ideas not raging at the club). The reason I say that is consensus would be all but impossible given the disperate views and the risk would be it wouldn't actually be representative. And the moderation would simply be too time consuming amd complex I'm thinking something less focused on creating a platform so to speak, more on a space to contribute ideas on specific topics/areas that the club could tap into. In that sense there is an opportunity for the club to get free of charge the sort of direct feedback and input from consumers big organisations spend huge sums on in the form of focus groups, research, surveys etc etc. Would the MFC be interested in such feedback (and I don't mean the sort they have been copping)? They would be absolutely crazy not to. If done well the info they would get back woyld be miles better than the joke member surveys they do every year that likely cost a 150k or more. Business doesn't seek input from consumers for [censored] and giggles. The drive for such processes is usually profit, to sell more products, the bottom line. No different for AFL clubs that increasingly rely on membership sales to survive, let alone thrive. It would be plain stupid to ignore FREE well considered feedback, input and ideas from passionate supporters of the club, the majority of whom are paid up members - in business speak the key stakeholders. The trick might be to have some communication with the club to let them know the feedback exists and what its intended purpose is. I suggest we start with one topic area, see if we can self moderate, see if we do in fact come up with some agreed good ideas and consensus and go from there. Because it's a hobby horse of mine, is an area where there is actually pretty good consensus already (ie that it's poor) and is not that loaded, I reckon we could start with a thread on how the club could improve communication (all aspects - ie engagement, social media, crisis management, injury reporting, website, content etc etc) When I'm at a computer tommorow I'll happy to start a thread to get the ball rolling if there is support for it.

'They play well I buy in'. The corrally is they play poorly you don't buy in. Sounds more like the classic fair weather theatre going fan than supporter to me.

Thanks wheelo. Strange pattern- almost 200 in the first (200 being considered elite, 180 AFL average) only 158 in the second- massive drop off Come out after half time firing -209 in the third would be one of our highest rated quarters all season i reckon. Back down to 162 in the last

What makes you think he isn't?

Have you got the pressure ratings for the Saints game @WheeloRatings ?

Yep. A mantra of burgess, one I heard the players repeat so often it was clear they believed it, was they were the fittest, strongest teames, could not be outworked and even if they thought they had hit the wall they could find something extra. I have a related theory. Key to burgess' philosophy, particularly that psych aspect of it, was his teams train harder than they play and train thru niggles. Griffith worked under Burgess and I believe has a very similar philosophy. I wonder if there's a shelf life to that approach. Senior players would have had that hard core approach drilled into them for the last six years. That's a long time to be under the kosch. Perhaps a new approach is needed.

With all due respect I think you've still misunderstood my point.

Absolutely, i didn't mean to imply otherwise (though i was actually referring to the High-Performance team not coaches, though they of course have a role in the fitness space too). I'm 100% not suggesting players are deliberately cutting corners or being uncooperative. What i am suggesting is that perhaps the entire playing list is not 100% dialled in that space and some might be thinking they are giving their all but in reality are not. That was certainly the feedback from some players when Burgess first arrived - they thought Misson had them dialled up but soon realised they still had levels they could get to. I'm to elite fitness to what the MFC is to good governance, but from what I've gleaned over the years the gap between optimal, super elite fitness and elite fitness can be very small and it's in those margins that all the difference is made. That's true for a single elite athlete so one assumes that multiplied across 44 athletes the effect can be significant.