Pates

Give me a break, this is extremely similar to how Neeld approached his first few sessions with our guys. Pathetic thread.

He will not be stripped of the captaincy so you can forget about that one and perhaps there will be a time where he gets a run at Casey but from what I've read he was very far away from our worst player today. As rpfc said, don't expect much from him this year. Last year he had something hampering him (blind Freddy could see that) and he's had pre-season issues hold back his fitness and confidence. At best we will see him get into form second half of the year. I would not against him going to a VC next year with Grimes as solo captain. He is so young and I do wonder whether the captaincy is hurting his game.

You are correct with that, he had had multiple 30+ possie games but we didn't play him and they kept asking why. It was certainly a mistake to use him as a promo tool but certainly we were damned either way by the media. I agree though with Jimmy. Pressure and expectation needs to be lifted off him to allow him to grow and mature. He's played in very successful sides all his life, playing in 3 games for a combined losing margine of 300+ points would be a massive shock. We shouldn't play him until he puts in a couple of good games at VFL.

Well Beamers joined the very non-exclusive club of former players who play well against us. Adam Maric is actually the only one I can think of in recent times that has played against us poorly! Hell even $culldog, who doesn't seem to do much through the year, played well last time! Anyway, I do wish him the best but I wish he hadn't played so well against us!

Bulls---, there's a reason why people say anyone else would've picked then in that position. It's because it's true. Not because Emma Quale and Co. do a phantom draft and say this is where she expects them to be picked, because we have people going around the country to U18 teams checking them out and then picking them on what THEY have seen. Do you really honestly believe that we pick players because that's who other teams and football commentators think we should pick?We have a lot of grunt players with average disposal, Toumpas has been rated as one of the best kicks in the draft. He is also athletic and has been playing SANFL so can cope against heavier bodies. Does Wines look like a good player? Yes. Would he be the difference right now? No. Can Toumpas become a good player? Hell yes. But we as supporters need to stop looking at these kids as messiahs and just back the F off if they are struggling. Honestly who'd want to be picked by Melbourne with impatient supportes like us?

Did Dawes play? The only info I've seen is about Toumpas (which is ridiculous the amount of talk there is).

Hopefully he'll look at it and think well I survived so I'll keep doing it. I've always thought that he's been so afraid of contact ever since that first possession v collingwood where he got crunched. If he keeps taking hits and getting up then that's a step in the right direction.

On McKenzie, who do people suggest we put in as a tagged instead? We don't have a damaging midfielder we can put on someone to make him accountable. Don't forget everyone was lauding some of the efforts he did on players last year. Sounds to me like he's struggling for fitness. As for TMac, he has always butchered the ball but last year he was good at spoiling players on the lead and intercepting spoils. He was an ok mark last year but not 100% confident. He's still very young and raw so I wouldn't be chucking him on the trash pile just yet, put perhaps a stint at Casey would help his confidence.

I find this thread so funny. I'm in the USA at the moment so I missed the game, but you have to understand that I have been going to sleep expecting the worst and find something even worse than that when I wake up. People are saying Neeld was happy with a 28 point loss. BS he is taking positives to build on with the playing group, any massiah coach we got in that's had this start to the year would say just about the exact same thing. Of course they bloody well play to win, but sometimes it's good just to say, "well at least.......".

This article makes me even more angry at the AFL and specifically Demetriou, what a pathetically armature response from him when the 7:30 report story came out. He put petrol on this firestorm of controversy for us, when if he'd bothered to look at and state the facts it would actually have shown that we did in fact inform the AFL of the relationship. We then did a meticulous internal review and it was the club doctor who lied to us (I guess they'll fine us another $500k for employee acting without approval and lying). The 7:30 report also made references (while naming players) to 5 substances that we did not use and the one that we did was not banned. This article also answers my earlier question of whether Trenners could find himself in trouble for using this cream, the answer is no. So to review: - we informed the AFL of the relationship as soon as we knew and terminated it immediately - we (and certain players) have been associated with substances that we did not use - as far as anyone can see, the doctor and Dank (who clearly leaked the info the ABC) were the only ones with any knowledge of this cream and it was not illegal at the time of use so there can be no retrospective action on Trenners. Bates did not inform the club during its review and he has stood down - Demetriou instead of taking a breath and contacting Melbourne before going on the radio post 7:30 spoke extremely heavy handed about us and chose not to reveal that we had in fact told the AFL about communications with Dank. Now who's the liar Andy?

At the time he told Trenner to use the cream it was not a banned cream to use, but correct me if I'm wrong but it was also not cleared. Does this leave him open to potential issues if he has been found to have applied it? If so that's kind of like moving the finish line at the end of a race. On the surface it appears that we are ok in terms of WADA/ASADA but I think the AFL is getting very sick of us and how we're running things (although the feeling is mutual when it comes to the tanking fiasco). I get the feeling that the AFL is breathing down our necks for every little thing we do. It turns out that we disclosed the nature of the relationship with Dank a long time ago, despite what has been reported. The only thing that wasn't disclosed was that the doctor asked JT to use a cream on his foot that only NOW has been banned.

Are there grounded accusations at the club for doing something outside the guidelines? Or is the major issue that our doctor and potentially the club lied to the AFL about a link to Dank? What I find annoying about our part in this is that AD said that decisions as to what to give to players should be left in the hands of the club doctor. Did we not do this? Wasn't it the doctor that signed off on everything going into the players? I also agree that it's a disgrace they named Melboirne players but felt obliged to blur out Bombers players. Regardless of the outcome it has dragged Trenners name through mud by perception.

I was thinking the exact same thing, what a springboard for an AFL career he has here.

Every time we were bad and Malthouse was commentating for Seven he'd say Howe is one player that he can see becoming a special player for us. The one that can do the impossible when needed to spark the team, but at the same time still be a solid contributor.

I'm stoked to hear Flash had an impact, I really hope he has a good year. What (very little) I've seen of him he seems to have gotten a bit of his Davey dance back. Give thing is backing this quarter up with a good 4 quarter effort v Lions. I can accept us losing but we must so everything to try not to be blown off the park. If we can achieve that it'll be something to build on. The important thing is its given a few of the younger players a taste of victory at AFL level. Even if Viney didn't have a good game (whether he was injured or not) he has had his first win.

Every person that's watched a minute of AFL knows that when Col Sylvia is on, he is a very difficult player to beat. Problem is you can count how many times he's on for a year on one hand. Consistency has always been, and always will be his issue.

In a time where records have been broken (in a bad way) for us, it's good to get one on our side. Well done on the win, some positive energy will be just what the doctor ordered.

Agreed, we had worse fitness but better desire under Bailey. Still managed to compete better.

We get the first two goals of the quarter then we win. They get one we're done, there doesn't seem to be any confidence. Can we forfeit the year?

I don't care about what happens in the future, I don't care if people say "it's just GWS", I just want something positive for a change. Just win this effing game!!!

Ok I just read the club statement, and feel free to call me a sheep or blindly accepting the clubs word but is a total storm in a teacup. The ONLY mistake we made, which was stupid, is not stating that we had an indirect involvement with Dank. Everything was administered by the doctor, everything was checked to make sure it fell under WADA and ASADA's guidelines. This is again an instance of gutter journalism hitting more lows in yet another sensationalist report. I like McLardy, I think he has done some good things for us, but why he didn't say in the initial statement at the time that we had an indirect association with Dank is beyond me. Surely he must know by now that it doesn't matter if try to keep a lid on it, the lid always comes off.

I gotta say the hostility towards Jamar is disgusting. He has been a very good ruckman for a number of seasons. The mistake is with the club signing him for 3 years. He has shown loyalty to us signing at times when he was being pursued by other clubs for bigger money. Despite the claim by the OP, he is not the worst player the reach 100 games, he is in fact very far from it. He is not playing well, that is bleeding obvious, IMO it's time he was dropped. He is a senior player not performing, he simply needs a run at Casey not just for him but for the symbolism of the fact that no position is safe.

Can someone please say what the score is?

Cutting Junior the way we did it was a mistake IMO appointing Sheedy wouldn't have achieved much. Would we be in better shape? Perhaps. Would he have gotten us to finals and a shot at the big one? I doubt it. But what happened with Junior was wrong, there are some players that get to choose when they finish up. He should've been one of them. Instead he played one season with GWS and really didn't get the send off he deserved.

I think anything that's "Melbourne" would be great, the Stynes name would obviously carry a lot of emotion to it.