Rob Mac......

I agree with Chook & Richo on channel 7; Who cares how they look as long as they play.

6. Jones Howe Frawley Clark Viney 1. Davey

You're right Macca, I've been back in Melbourne 2-3 months and see it. However I'm unconfident we have enough people at MFC in positions of authority with enough footy nous to know who to hire and what to do. As much as I feel for them, I think Schwab and Neeld should go and probably more, but who to get?!

So it seems we actually agree about much about the club. I never claimed I was the only one believing the points I made, though I've had them all along.

I made 5 serious comments and 2 minor ones of which trading Jamar and keeping Martin as 1st ruck was one. And I do think we'd have done 20-30 ponts better today with him rucking.

Because 1. our coach has no idea of game plan or people skills. 2. We have a nice but unintelligent CEO [which affects little things every day & it adds up] 3. It seems we have and have had so little serious footy nous at any level of the club, leading to: 4. Poor decisions re drafting, hiring coaches & everyone 5. People not realising that AFL is a very serious full time career now. [i was slaughtered by D'land posters when I suggested Martin needed to spend much time thinking about his footy, learning to play CHF & ruck, and less time with the girlfriend and the Law studies etc., ] I suggested we trade Jamar while he was worth something & keep Martin as 1st ruck this year. Have a nice day everyone :-)

The replay was fine on my Macbook pro Bing.

Loved 5aa complimenting our kicking! After losing every stat except clearances & tackles, it's pleasing we must have done something right to win.

Yes exactly rpfc! The vulnerability I meant was, if Russian goes down for weeks or the season, who becomes 1st ruck? Spencers training reviews sound promising though, have you seen him lately?

The OP's link leads to "out of bounds"? Sooooo hope Gawn or Spencer really step up soon. Russian carrying us alone all year leaves us vulnerable with Martin gone. Pederson @ 193cm 95k is Dunn/Frawley size, surely too small for much rucking isn't he (yet he's always mentioned as a 2nd ruck)? Interesting days coming.

Which doesn't make it one millionth of a percent better! Risking innocent peoples lives is wrong, please stop defending the indefensible.

Hi Hardtack. Sure hope you're right! Maybe it's a Freudian slip when you characterised it as firstly their personal side and secondly, "legal issues to be dealt with by the courts". I haven't sensed Jurrahs' concern or responsibility for other people hurt or potentially hurt by his actions (here, MFC & maybe more) and this should mean more to a person than just "legal issues" (which I've generally noticed evil people brush off as kinda "legal technicalities"). I have. Though personally I didn't say his culture had nothing to do with it, I said it shouldn't be used as an excuse. I'm also a bit sorry for him even though he appears irresponsible and uncaring toward anyone not extremely close to him.

I just read in the Hun and Advertiser: " Jurrah's grandmother said that the drink-driving matter was an issue for Jurrah and his family to sort out among themselves. "It's between Liam and his family ... no one else's business," she said. "We're sorting it out as a family. He's OK." " If Jurrah's family member(s) really think his risking innocent lives [driving 5 times over alcohol limit (not the machete)] is no-ones business but theirs, that's very selfish, dangerous thinking! .and someones "culture" shouldn't be used as an excuse for that.

I hope and suspect you're wrong Frankie because, while I don't know what rules govern AFL procedures of this type, if it were taking place in a court of law, then rules of discovery would mandate complete disclosure of all evidence in advance. ie. No evidence could be witheld till later as you suggested above.

Hahah, I hear you Macca! ..and agree. But taking the higher road, we should consider the AFL (somewhat) innocent until they've made unfair sanctions against us (if they ever do). In the mean time they're supposed to be acting in a fair, impartial way. Yes Sue, you and many others.After Brocky boys genius interview and ensuing media storm, AA in Vlad's absence, decided an investigation was needed for integrity reasons. I understand Dee's being defensive, but perhaps the AFL aren't trying to destroy us, just trying to keep the competition, especially it's image and endorsers, running smoothly. The only people gaining from this whole circus are the media and lawyers.

Sue and Macca: Here's a 5th possibility in addition to your 4 above: The AFL is supposed to be conducting a fair, impartial "investigation" re. tanking, they're not supposed to be trying their hardest to convict us. So in the spirit of fair balance, and full disclosure they decided to include their investigators full results, warts and all. Hopefully the AFL unilaterally decided to do this, if not the MFC/Fink reminded/persuaded them to.

Yes, absolutely Hoopla. Then definitions of "coach" would be argued. Surely a coach must instruct players whereas someone instructing coaches is in management, hence called Football Manager not Coaches Coach. ..but lawyers could charge a ton arguing it all. I'll predict the team and club will be in the clear because no player was instructed to lose and 19 (A5) wasn't violated, but management got too close possibly/probably encouraging tanking, so at worst someone in management may have to go. Unlike Carlton, our team was so shite they didn't need to tank to lose. Hopefully it's sorted without litigation or too many enemies made at AFL.

If it goes to court it will be in "Civil", not "Criminal" court. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof required in criminal cases only. Civil cases are decided upon the "preponderance of evidence," meaning if it appears more than 50% likely we did what we're accused of, then we lose, otherwise we win. Creating "reasonable doubt" is not enough to save us there, we must appear "more likely" not to have done it than to have done it. ......hence definitions of "tanking" (whatever that exactly means) etc. should become relevant.

Thanks. I'm convinced by you & Chippy. He won it from the back line; a rare thing to happen.

You & me both mate

You're not telling us you were already really old back in 1961 are you old dee !! ;-)

Nice one Chippy! In 1961 I was too one-eyed for the Dees to know where he played :-)

Thanks for the info PaulRB, Bluey, durango, OD & all. I remember the lack of delivery to Watts that Comedia mentioned & agree 100% with C&Beer. If Watts comes close to a Brownlow from half back I'm prepared to jump round the room jubilantly singing I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy, but will be happy with a solid season + some real standout games.

Good get durango. Famous half backs are usually playing somewhere else when they actually poll votes. John James seems most likely, but after reading the links from your post I'm not 100% sure, without someone remembering or something written. They said James kicked 8 goals 43 behinds as a forward in 1953 his debut year, and was thereafter banished to defense; but he kicked 31 career goals back when defenders very rarely scored, so may have played forward a bit at some later time. ?

I sure hope so. What an achievement! Way over and above what should be expected from any #1 draft pick!