PaulRB

The AFL have done us no favours in recent times (see Tanking) and the AFL can go and get ... The Clubs statement: In response to the 7.30 Report on ABC television the Melbourne Football Club makes the following statement: • Immediately following the announcement of the investigation into Essendon Football Club, the Melbourne Football Club launched an internal review into its own supplements program • The review found no evidence that the supplements program at the Club contravened any ASADA or WADA guidelines and no evidence that any player at the Melbourne Football Club had been administered a banned substance at any time • As previously stated, Stephen Dank did apply for a position at the Melbourne Football Club in 2012 but was not successful. He was known to the Club via this process and to the Club Doctor, Dr Dan Bates • The 7.30 Report referred to injections. These injections were prescribed by Dr Bates and comprised vitamin B, C and Glutathione (an anti oxidant) injections to some players. These injections were administered by a registered nurse at a medical clinic recommended by Dank. The Club has received confirmation from the medical clinic that the injections administered were as prescribed • The program also made reference to a cream which is not prohibited under ASADA and WADA guidelines • The 7.30 Report program made reference to Thymomodulin, Cerebrolysin, Naltrexone, Tribulus and Oxytocin. None of these substances were prescribed by Dr Bates for players at the Melbourne Football Club • As soon as the investigation was launched into the Essendon Football Club, the Melbourne Football Club instructed all staff including Dr Bates to sever all ties with Stephen Dank which occurred • The Club’s protocol and governance in relation to all treatment of players is that only the Club Doctor can prescribe and approve treatment to players. This system meant that at no time was Dank able to directly treat players • Dank and Dr Bates communicated via email, phone and text, regarding supplements (prior to the investigation). Our processes require Dr Bates to consider the appropriateness of any treatment and make a determination as to its suitability at all times, to ensure that the welfare of our players is always maintained • Every supplement included in the Club’s supplement regime is approved by the Club Doctor and is in accordance with all ASADA and WADA guidelines • The Club will continue to co-operate with the AFL and its ongoing investigation

Col Sylvia and Lynden Dunn elope to NZ for a quick ceremony...

When you say "we", are you saying that Dr Bates specifically said he had no connection with Dank. If so he told a porky given the text messages.

So the issue is that the club doctor was taking advice from Dank about the use of LEGAL supplements and the ongoing program the CLUB DR was running with the players? What's to report, Dr use specialists all the time, Dank was/is a specialist in the field of cutting edge supplement use, so the club Dr sought his advice. Is there an AFL rule stating that club Drs must report all conversations with various specialists as they work to improve the recovery and performance of their team, to AFL HQ? Ridiculous and only a club on their knees would castigate it's President for this kind of dribble.

If the "suplements" are not banned, whats the problem? Players taking vitamins, and extracts etc... has been going on forever and most people take some level of these things (i.e Multivitamins, cod liver oil, etc...). If it has not crossed a legal line then we are looking at yet another media beat up where they blur the line between legal and non-legal by calling them all "performance enhancing supplements" and obscuring the distinction between those approved and those not approved... And when they realise that the player are not taking illegal substances they turn their focus onto wheather the substance has been swallowed or injected, as if this makes a difference. Total beat up and another sign of an out of controll media generating a storm in a tea cup to justify the reams of shite they pump out...

The nub of the argument for me is that Neeld hasn't been given sufficient time, as yet, to demonstrate his ability to turn the team around. Another game won't change that significantly, but by seasons end I'd expect to know and shift my support if required.

GWS have 8 players coming in with 5 outs (3 forced) thus far... Ps apologies for taking about the footy game this weekend.

Round four Melbourne team B: Jack Watts, James Frawley, Dean Terlich HB: Neville Jetta, Tom McDonald, Colin Garland C: Jack Trengove, Jack Grimes, Jack Viney HF: Aaron Davey, Mitch Clark, Jeremy Howe F: Luke Tapscott, Max Gawn, Shannon Byrnes FOLL: Mark Jamar, Colin Sylvia, Nathan Jones I/C (from): Jimmy Toumpas, Cam Pedersen, James Sellar, Michael Evans, Jake Spencer, Rohan Bail, Matt Jones IN: Jake Spencer, Jack Watts, Max Gawn OUT: - Reckon the OUTs will be Spencer, Toumpas, Pedersen/Sellar and it's a much better team than last week.

As Donald once siad "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." Having a coach that recognises when he is clueless is not necessarily a hanging offence. It indicates honestly and humility in the face of a situation he is yet to master... and a likelihood that he'l see the answer eventually.

Surely we just need to win 5 games to improve on last year.

You do know that a season runs for 22 games stuie? So judging Neeld's second season, 3 games in is mighty premature. You know spatistically speaking..

I'll let you research the losing margin, probably best to wait till seasons end as a dataset of 3 is too small to be statistically valid. Malthouse at Collingwood took them backwards before rising, The Dentist at WC had his team win a spoon before rising into the top four, there are many paths a club can take to success. The point is that 18 month is too short an amount of time to significantly change a club with as many well entrenched issues as Melbourne had when Neeld took over. I note with interest you don't engage with the detail of my post on the issues Neeld is addressing, preferring a grab bag of biased stats...

Miopia - Myopia is the medical term for nearsightedness. People with miopia see objects more clearly when they are close to the eye, while distant objects appear blurred or fuzzy. Reading and close-up work may be clear, but distance vision is blurry.

Stuie, you should do more research before you type Bommer Thomson coached geelong from 2000 -2010 2000 - finished 5th 2001 - 12th 2002 - 9th 2003 - 12th 2004 - 4th 2005 - 6th etc... Point is the most successful club of recent times had THREE years worse than their first before they rose to the premiership space. The Geelong FC stuck fat, yet the nervous nannies at the MFC would have us blinking after 3 games in the second season...

It is disappointing that MFC supporters will draw on any bow to make someone a scapegoat for their frustration with the teams performance. Melbournes woes on the footy field have pre-dated Neeld's arrival by about 4 decades. The recent low point began 6 years ago, however rather than looking at these long term and medium terms issues and how Neeld has set about righting them the "scapegoat supporters" can only see the shortest of short term. This miopia is one of the medium term issues that has lead us into this hole in the first place, and certainly won't lead up out. The problems left for Neeld to fix...(Prior to Neeld - what Neeld has done - result so far) The team was not elite in it's fitness and physical preparation - Neeld brought in Misson and Craig to address this - hard to gauge result, but anecdotally good. The team lacked a forward structure - Neeld recruited Clark, Dawe, and Hogan - anyone who isn't looking forward to our forward set up in 2014 needs their head read. The team lacked leaders especially successful and experienced ones - Neeld recruited Clark and Dawes, turned over the leadership group making the best young leaders at the club captains (who would want Moloney captain? really!) - Grimes and Trengove have been OK under very trying times, turn of the wheel and they will flourish. The teams midfield was weak and one dimensional - Neeld recruited Viney, Toumpass, Barry, Jones (M), etc... - needs time and more experienced player in there. The team had a weak or indulgent culture - Neeld axed and traded players after a year who he thought were not bought in, soft or physically underdeveloped and surplus to our needs - of the players who left who would have been playing in our next premiership? and how many would have contributed to the culture change required to scale that mountain. He recruited several players with premiership experience (Dawes and Byrnes) and all new recruits are recognised for their professional approach to training. etc... That, three matches into his second season in charge, the miopic scapegoat supporters are calling for his head only highlights how little they understand the issues the MFC faces in building a premiership team and club.

Neeld must be supported for the three years of his contract. If the board form the belief that they got is appointment wrong 18 months ago, the first thing they should do (prior to sacking Neeld) is to resign their positions on the board. They bought into the plan Neeld presented, his approach, and him as a person. If, after 25 games, they are convinced they got it wrong, then the indictment is on them more then on Neeld and they should go, let a new Board decide on Neeld, and make changes if they deem it necessary.

Agree, I liked the five inclusions for the WC game for their work ethic (at least in the first half). I'd like to see Gawn in, as it would aid Jamar and the midfield and allow us to have a tall forward option if Clark is needed down back (which he shouldn't be VS GWS)...

As fascinating as it is discussing Dermot's views of some Storm players view's of our players bathing habits as an indicator of progress is (sarcasm alert). I though it would be more interesting to discuss the two examples from the WC game that Craig presented of the style of footy Melbourne is trying to develop. See The Craig Report - Round 3 Having been at the game, he identified the two patches of play that got me most excited (except Davey missed the set shot on goal) as indicative of pressure, composure and the ability to deliver the ball through defensive structures. These passages of play made me start to believe we could be competitive again soon. Thoughts?

Best players On weekend Richmond - Martin (66 games/70 goals), Deledio (175/122), Cotchin (89/55), Houli (73,19), Maric (101,37), Morris (24,1), McGuane (96, 26), = Average for Tigers best is 89 games and 47 goals per player, 7 players in best. Melbourne - N Jones (138/69), M Jones (3/0), Grimes (56/5), Sylvia (141/122)= Average for Demons best is 84 games and 49 goals per player, 4 players in best. That is, the best for Tigers averaged 5 more games than our best, and 2 goals on average less. They had 5 player under 100 game in their 7 best, we had 2 under 100 games including our captian and a player with 3 games experience. Similar profile between Tigers and Demons so perhaps the additional piece that they have had the same coach for 3-4 years whereas ours for 1 years means they have been able to implement and consolidate a game style that suits and hence make progress.

Intersecting bell curves can both humiliate (point 1) and flatter (point 2). ;-)

I think Neeld knows exactly where we were at and where we are at, it's us fans that are not prepared to listen. Compare the Demons with the Hawks. Captains Hodge (205 games, 144 goals, Norm smith medal (2008), All-Australian (2005, 2008), Premiership (2008), top 3 in club best and fairest (2005 - 2008) Grimes + Trengove (56+61=117 games (combined), 5 + 31=36 goals (combined), both NAB AFL Rising Star nominee,... That is Hodge has played 88 more games than Grime and Trenners COMBINED, and kicked 108 more gaols than both of them, etc... And as Mark Neeld recently said Grimes and Trenners are the "best leaders we have at the club at the moment". Best players On weekend Hawthorn - Hodge (205 games/144 goals), Franklin (164/531), Shiels (67/19), Birchall (155,19), Stratton (55,1), Gibson (127,2), Roughead (162, 300), Burgoyne (224,209) = Average for Hawks best is 144 games and 153 goals per player, 8 players in best. Melbourne - N Jones (138/69), M Jones (3/0), Grimes (56/5), Sylvia (141/122)= Average for Demons best is 84 games and 49 goals per player, 4 players in best. That is, the best for Hawthorn averaged 60 more games than our best, and 104 goals on average more. They had 1 player under 100 game in their 8 best, we had 2 under 100 games including our captian and a player with 3 games experience. Summary Neeld has coached these men for 25 AFL games with a woefully underdeveloped list relative to the teams he is charged with performing against. take Average player age or Average player games or top 50 players awards, etc... and on all these metrics we were behind the average in the AFL PRIOR to Mark's arrival. To assume a miracle surge is to fundamentally ignore the realities of the competition we are in.

Bring in Dawes and Gawn, slow the player turnover and build cohesion and confidence and we'll find another gear.

People moan about how crap we've been at developing our highly ranked kids, but I notice Tom Scully and others at GWS (a club designed to develop it's kids) are also struggling. Maybe getting young players fit and firing in a competition dominated by mature 24+ year olds is difficult and getting harder. Our problem is not that we are worse at developing kids than other clubs, our problem is we are too reliant on these kids to take us forward rather than our established 24+ year olds...

We have won as many games as the Blues and the Roos.