Pates

I feel that that was about right, 3 weeks is what I would give it and the MRP with all it's bells and whistles downgraded it to 2 weeks. After all the controversy of last week I wonder whether there are people still in the dark about all this. I reckon just about all the penalties this week fit and the justification works, the election to bump was clear for Jones and it's got him in trouble.

From the report on the MFC website, very encouraging to hear that. One of Roos' mantra's (which I'm sure pretty much everyone can see) is what you do without the ball is just as important as what you do with the ball. Toumpas was struggling to impact contests and put pressure on the ball carrier, glad to hear he's working on that.

I'm pretty sure Michie's only had the one game with Casey after his jaw fracture so I'd imagine the club will want to give him consecutive weeks there before he's in contention. He was dropped when it happened so he's by no means a walk up start, still I'm sure he'll be knocking on the door in no time. Just on McKenzie, I feel he's a better player than what he's doing at the moment. He had a difficult pre-season and so is still trying to find match fitness while working on the areas the coaching staff want him to. As has been mentioned here the issue he's fighting is that there are quite a few players at the club that are similar to him, so he'll need to put outstanding Casey performances together to push the one's that have his spot out. I feel Cross is being a bit of a mentor to him, so that can only help his cause.

The idea of Byrnes is that he's a side filler. His job is to do enough to force the younger players at Casey to put in games that demand a call up, Riley and Clisby have been consistent for a few weeks now and Blease put in a good game. Surely it's about time one of them take his spot. There won't be many changes, Roos has shown that's how he operates. Anyone calling for Bail to be dropped obviously has a short memory as he was one of our best last week. In: Riley Out: Byrnes And please can we give Salem a full game!

It will be very interesting to see what he fetches at the end of the year. It's hard to know whether his foray forward will help or hinder his price tag given that he is a natural defender (and in some ways still plays like one). If he chooses to stay it should be on our terms, I hope we don't cave to what he wants.

Can't work that one out, I would say he was serviceable without being a standout. Would've had Tyson and Cross ahead, even throw Viney in as well. I will say this, he did some important pressure acts during the match, that's something I'd very rarely say about him! After sleeping on it I'm still pretty annoyed that we lost this. Much like the Saints game and to a lesser extent the Gold Coast game we really had our opportunities to make an impact on the match. First half was when we dominated the play but failed to capitalise, and in the final quarter we had golden opportunities to push ahead. I reckon this loss will burn for the players, and so it should. We let this slip.

I reckon the young players seem to be developing without the Melbourne expectation syndrome. Rather than being expected to develop because they're pick X they expect to fill a role in the team. I would really love to see Salem get a full run next week. He's kicked a goal in every game he's played from 3 and a bit quarters, be clearly knows how to find the ball the only question is whether he can run the game out.

Tyson will create his own name, he's looking like one of those player that just rises to the top.

Agreed, he was totally unsighted tonight and when we needed senior players to stand up he was one that was missing. He would've been subbed if Terlich hadn't been knocked out. We were on top for the first half and that was where we lost it, we didn't put it on the board when we had the play. In the last quarter we had plenty of chances to get ourselves in front but failed with good chances. Matt Jones at the end choked, plain and simple. If you are an AFL footballer you have to nail at least one of those. I don't think there'll be wholesale changes, Byrnes and Terlich out, Riley and Georgio in.

I'm furious we lost this, that free against Dunn really hurt us but we had every chance to win and screwed ourselves. M Jones, learn to bloody kick on the run or give it off to someone who can. After being so hard to kick goals against last week we let so many soft goals through and that was the difference. Every goal for us seemed to be really hard to come by. We really needed to win this to build on our confidence and again we've let a very winnable game slip.

That was the most important tackle Watts has laid. Frustrating first half, we've had the better of most area but some very soft goals and poor errors have given the dogs the lead. We're playing the game on our terms but just not getting reward for it. We are in a very good position given it looks like the dogs are down a rotation and I think out forwards can stretch their defence but there's plenty of work to be done.

Ban him.

A good but frustrating quarter, we had the better of the play but didn't make the most of it. We need to start hitting some targets inside 50 and stop letting through such soft goals.

https://twitter.com/melbournefc/status/465042830637817856 Field of Woman looks amazing, well done to all involved.

Bleases turnovers that resulted in goals is a bit of a concern, wasn't he lauded for his speed and disposal before we got him? Still good to see that he got more of the ball.

He'll be named and shamed, agree that you could almost ping him for staging but jeez that is poor. Honestly that's Suarez like with the lack of contact.

Sounds like a real scrap of a win. Glad to hear Michie put in a good performance after his injury, he looked like he was up for it at training.

With those guys it'd all be about what we'd give up, I reckon we would be likely paying overs for people that aren't proven. I was comfortable with us paying overs for Dawes as he had shown he could play. Vickery is yet to do that and while Butcher has shown ability he is extremely injury prone. I would rather us go after and pay overs for someone that has shown he can play.

Thompson would be an amazing get, to go from Roos to Bomba would be incredible but I'm not sure that it's realistic/practical. As many have said they have very different styles of playing and Roos is building a team based on that style, to then jump to the Bomba style could set us backwards while we adjust. Then again you could say that Roos is setting us up defensively, while Bomba could take us forward offensively. Lingy is a media man for me, until he 100% commits doing an apprenticeship be it under Roosy or somewhere else he isn't going to be considered in my books. FWIW I don't think he would enter into be a senior coach without those preparations, especially after seeing how Voss has gone and even to a certain extent Buckley. Bucks was taken on too soon IMO, and his early years have shown that. Kirk seems like a good candidate. He's doing his time as an assistant, he was an intelligent football when playing, highly respected in the AFL community, and he has history with Roos' game style and teaching methods. It would stand to reason that he would continue the Roos mantra after he has left coaching. I'm hoping Roos will stay for the 3rd year minimum, I think he will given where we are at and that we still do not have the succession plan in place. The only way that would change is if we had someone internally already earmarked. Of course the dream is that he gets so ingrained with the club and it's direction that he can't help but stay for 5+ years!

Just entering the Casey debate, I understand that they are a bit financially struck at the moment. If it got dire for them I reckon Melbourne should look at merging with them, becoming the Casey Demons. Keep as much of the Casey history as possible and still have ties to the community but give us more control over the on-field style, methods, and squad. The added bonus of that is that there wouldn't be as much start up costs and we might even be able to share the costs with the council as I would think they'd want to maintain a local VFL club at that precinct.

Reduced capacity to the parking at the G for tonight. Gate 3 or 5 are the only ones open, from memory gate 5 is the one off Flinders st near Jolimont station but I'm not certain about that. http://www.mcg.org.au/News/News/2014/May/Yarra%20Park%20works.aspx

Has Riley been spotted as well? A thought came that if it was wet than having another runner rather than a tall could be a better choice if Frawley doesn't get up. We can move Garland/Howe to the forward line as another target and plus a reckon those conditions would suit someone like Pigdog!

I feel that this is the biggest issue with the tribunal, it's a matter of proving of one's innocence rather than guilt. The simple idea in our society is a person is innocent until proven guilty, but the moment that an incident is referred to the tribunal it's the other way around. Gleeson's job was made fairly redundant, especially given that the suggestions he put forth were almost in jest. In some ways I agree that Schimma, Henwood, and Dunne have been sold out as I believe they have been given a directive to find people guilty when a clash and injury occurres that may be a bump. I honestly believe they went into the case feeling they needed to be convinced his innocence rather than guilt. Barrett is actually correct, people power won out in this case, and so it bloody well should've. Because the entire world recognised that the system was going to hang Jack out to dry and destroy the very fabric of the game, now the AFL needs to review how the interpretation to the rule takes place and adjust accordingly. Players shouldn't be held responsible for incidents and injuries that are out of their control.

It really was a fantastic piece of play from Jack and it's a real shame that it was highlighted in a negative way because of the MRP/tribunal and all the controversy that followed. It's sad that a young player has been put out of the game for 6 weeks because of the incident but I'm sure he would understand that it is part of the game that collisions are going to occur, I really wish him all the best with his recovery as he seems like a very talented player who's had a poor run of luck with injuries.

His simplistic view that Lynch was injured therefore Viney must go is actually against what the rule is. If it was a collision that was out of his control and he was forced to protect himself then it's not going against the rule. It's in fact working exactly as it should. If he deliberately bumps it's a different story.