La Dee-vina Comedia

Presumably TV cameras. Not because of the merit of the training itself but because new pictures allows a re-hash of the 'tanking' story. I'm tipping at least one of the news services will say 'Demons in crisis' and another will try some how try to blend 'tanking' with 'Watergate' to make the barely intelligible 'tanker-gate'. reason for edit: turning it into English

I hope Jeromy Webberly gets picked up by someone. Only because when Leigh Matthews says his name it makes him (Matthews) sound like Porky Pig. And I suspect St Kilda will argue, if they haven't already, that Gram had his contract terminated for ongoing problems rather than the single event which was referred to yesterday. That's the same line they used with Andrew Lovett. Which is my way of saying I suspect Gram may come with more baggage than is publicly known.

The allegation is that we tried to lose in 2009. Laughable, because we couldn't win even if we wanted to in 2009. And to go one step further, what is alleged that we did was, in fact, to try to win...just not in 2009. And I will argue that that is a legitimate tactic. To fix this problem, AFL rules should be amended so that clubs are obliged to explain their decisions. For example, that they are resting players rather than claiming they have "general soreness". That they intend to try players in alternative positions for the rest of the year. And that players are being sent off for surgery because the club has no chance of playing finals, etc. And the best rule change should be that a team which is picked on Thursday night must line up in the positions named on the ground with no players moved around for the first, say, three minutes. I appreciate it would be difficult to enforce but the sport is now inextricably linked, whether we like it or not, to betting.

We'd be truly incompetent if we can't stretch this out so that any penalty - should it be necessary to impose one - takes effect after this coming draft.

Attitude, fitness, better understanding of the game plan, experience, newly drafted talent...

That's what I want to see. The words "tanking" and "sanctioned" used in the same post. Both words have multiple meanings. I'll assume you meant "sanctioned" as in "punished" rather than the alternative meaning "approved of". But I'm sure the journos at the Herald Sun when faced with both "tanking" and "sanctioned" will have no idea where to go with the story.

But it can be used with different meanings. "Tanking" meaning to experiment with players and put others in for surgery is quite different to "tanking" meaning to deliberately lose so someone's bet is rewarded. I'm not suggesting the latter has occurred in our game but it has happened in other sports most famously with the Chicago White Sox when Arnold Rotstein bet on the outcome...and rewarded players for "tanking".

Thanks rfpc. I guess even if the club wants to retain all of those seven, negotiations could still fail on terms - such as length of contract offered. So it's still possible that there could be between zero and 7 more delistings. (Apologies for stating the obvious.)

He's either got a manager smart enough to tell him not to sound bitter in an effort to win a new contract with someone (even Melbourne as a rookie) or he's skipped through the five stages of grief to acceptance very quickly. Although I imagine it was obvious to him before last Friday that his contract was unlikely to be renewed, so I guess he's had time to come to terms with his future. But I did like the suggestion in the article that the club is helping him. I'd like to think, if it's true, that this behaviour will be talked about amongst players and make the club a more attractive proposition for the future. And that will help in future free agency and trade negotiations. I know I'd be more willing to join a club which respected its players, even if their productive time was over.

But has the cull finished (for this year, I mean)? Is there still a possibility of more before whatever the next cut off date is? Has every player who was out of contract been either re-contracted or delisted/traded/retired/free agency transferred?

There is a germ of a new and possibly damaging story in Caro's article. She refers to a meeting occurring at which something relevant to tanking might have been discussed. If that meeting existed and was not disclosed to the AFL during the previous investigation there is a secondary but important issue of the club failing to be honest with the AFL. As Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton both found out, it's not necessarily the initial action which can bring you undone - it's being caught out lying later on. Nevertheless, there are a few 'ifs' to be resolved first...did such a meeting happen? was it relevant to tanking? if it happened, did we not mention it, or worse, did we deny it took place?

Are you suggesting we've already been punished enough?

When did we last have such a large turnover of players in one year? Anyone know? In my view, I'm comfortable with the decisions made. I might differ around the edges (I might have retained Martin and Gysberts - but I'm not upset about them leaving, either). I thought Neeld was just using 2012 as a pre-season for 2013 with respect to improving fitness levels and learning to play a new game style. I didn't realise (although it's obvious in hindsight) that he was also using it as a filtering mechanism to refine his playing list.

I'm struggling not to say 'what on earth are you smoking?'. So instead I'll be more circumspect and say 'In what way?' And on the original topic of this thread, the key point about Barassi coming back to Melbourne was that it coincided with the club finally recognising that it needed to get professional (and I mean literally). if I remember correctly, the MFC split from the Melbourne Cricket Club because the MCC was stifling the football department by being too slow to make the key decisions a professional football club needs to make. Ironically, the two got back together recently. But at the time, the split was the right decision and allowed the football club to become more professional. I suspect more than anything the new-found professionalism instilled when Barassi joined lead to the club playing finals in 1987 for the first time in 23 years.

Oh. I thought it was a typo and you meant 48 years, not 8. And I agreed.

No. The only thing he needs to do is get the performance on the field. It's the only explanation necessary.

Is it generally accepted that any or all of Rodan, Dawes, Pedersen and Byrnes are "really good leaders" and/or "known hard trainers"? (I don't think there is any evidence that can support a claim that Viney, Barry or Hogan are, although they may well fit that description once they start - and I wouldn't expect them to be at their age.)

So, it's Ned's fault!

And it doesn't matter how they go at Brisbane and WCE. The better question is - how would they have gone at Melbourne in 2013 and beyond. Past performance is the best indicator we have. And certainly a much better indicator of where any player gets picked in the draft.

What role was that. I'm not sure I've ever known what his role was. And, by the way, I don't think any player, ever, who runs out onto an AFL field has a pea heart. Undoubtedly some are more fearless than others. But I think the starting point for all AFL players is a high level of pain tolerance and willingness to be hurt. I think that descriptor is unfair and unwarranted.

While some on here decry the loss of Morton, Gysberts and Martin I wonder whether they were actually the first choice of the footy department to be moved on? Perhaps what the FD really wanted was to move on players like Bate, Bennell or Cook for whom they couldn't even get a nibble. It's an unfortunate fact of trade week that the only players traded are those that have some value to the purchasing party. I'm not particularly fussed about any of the players we have lost and I remain circumspect about all the players we've traded in - but I'm absolutely sure we couldn't stand still and do nothing during this time. And at the risk of being completely diversionary, is Jurrah still technically on our list or has he been formally delisted?

I'm not sure how you get to that conclusion. But as much as I get enjoyment from watching us win I desire a far bigger prize. I want that elusive premiership and I'd be happy to forego wins in the short term if it was the way to get a premiership a little later. I'm sick of seeing us being described as "brave" and "performing above expectations" when we win enough games to play finals but have no realistic chance of winning a premiership. We have not had a team strong enough or skilled enough to challenge for a premiership since 1964. In both our Grand Final appearances since then we were never considered likely to win.

Really? If I could guarantee you that we would have a premiership in 2014 but you'd have to put up with zero wins in 2013 - a sort of reverse Mephistopheles - would you take it? The point being, that if a premiership is out of the question in 2013, there are other things to measure improvement by.

Let me guess...Blacktown, SCG and Manuka Oval?

As much as I admired his efforts, this is probably the right decision for all concerned. Geelong happy because Rivers replaces Scarlett; Rivers happy because he has a chance to play finals football; Melbourne happy because he's at the wrong end of his career for the latest rebuild plus a compensation pick. Well played everyone.