spiritof76

Ed Burston was no boom recruit but like Scully, he was a different kind of cat. In fact, very much a different kind of cat to Tom Scully. If the legend is accurate, unlike Scully, he was no teetotaller but then again I base this on hearsay.

Burston was also a bit of a reluctant recruit and, unlike Scully, he played for the love of the game when he was Scully's age because in those days he played for one of the University teams in the ammos. He was probably around 22 years of age when he was finally persuaded to join the Demons in 1966.

Burston didn't do much of a preseason. He spent the summer before his debut season in Hawaii and flew in for the last practice match to play an intraclub game on the MCG. He was a ruckman and caused a bit of a sensation with his tanned good looks. The Demons were light on for ruckmen and Ed's form in that praccy match was enough to get a game in round 1 when we were thrashed by eventual premiers St. Kilda. I remember he kicked a goal that day (in a total of four). He was in and out of the side mainly with injuries but he was a source of frustration for coach Norm Smith.

I fondly remember the day he kicked six goals v Hawthorn. He was played in the forward pocket while regular full back Bob "Tassie" Johnson was being tried in the ruck. We won by 92 points - a surprise margin since we finished second last. The Hawks were the bottom side. The thing was that Burston played only two more games. The reason?

I can't say but the story was that Smith wasn't too happy with his attitude. Perhaps if he was the consummate professional non drinker hard trainer like Scully, he might have made it in the sport.

Still, I'll never forget the excitement he brought to the club that year and, in his one big six goal game, he promised a great deal. Perhaps, if he was playing today Sheedy might have offered him double or triple what he was worth too.

Your showing your age there WJ :-)

I remember a sprightly Colin Graham running down the right flank kicking a goal at the city end on a day in 76'. We were up and the centreline of Alves ,Wells and Flower was a promise of things to come. Sadly it never did.

Over-rated boom recruits? Can't go past Tilbrook, Carmen, Templeton surely.

We have set ourselves up this way. We knew years ago that our leadership was hopeless.

What we need is to stay the course. Keep pumping games into our young kids. Bring them through as a group.

Once they start reaching the 80-100 game mark we will be a super force.

We have drafted future leaders. We just need to be patient until they emerge.

I'm willing to stick it out.

We have culled our list deep and harshly to set ourselves up for the future, burning good club stewards along the way.

I really don't want to screw it up by bringing in some over the hill players or even trading for a Goddard who will be leaving retiring at our peak and burning cash and draft picks in return at the same time.

Do we really want to be like Richmond? Bringing in average to decent player like Miller, Houli and Grigg?

Yep, we are in for a couple more years of mediocrity. But after that we will be a genuine premership contender for a long period. We haven't been one of those for 50 years.

Stay the course.

Oh I will - but seen it before, that was what the Barassi era was all about- cop it sweet, lots of journeymen to stiffen the youngsters and then see it come to (almost)fruition albeit it took 8-9 years instead of 5.

I am just basing it on his reputation as a 'professional' in the way he goes about his preparation and his brief media appearances to date. I should have emphasised that I said his potential leadership capabilities, as you are correct in stating that this has yet to be proven on the field beyond a few impressive cameo efforts in 2010 - notably the last quarter against the dogs.

As for the real reason why he left the China Trip, that is besides the point. I was just trying to make sense of what might have influenced his decision beyond the money, which obviously played a huge role, because it seemed like Melbourne had tried to recruit a group of young players who they thought would form a strong bond together.

The vic metro bond was a major part of their thinking

Why? I doubt it. What evidence have you seen?

Ah, Trengove on the other hand has shown leadership ability in spades as you say, on-field where we've all seen it, and by his loyalty and commitment to MFC as examples to all around him (except those with $$$ in their eyes, it seems).

Trenners has shown remarkable loyalty

I have seen this point brought up a few times....his family are one eyed Richmond? So what? Judd's are one eyed Melbourne. Is he playing for us?

not anymore

Spot on. There is every chance he will become the best player in the competition at some stage in his career. There is also every chance that Tom will miss out on playing in premierships with Melbourne and that's the only thing that matters from here on in.

that will only happen if the players get their head out of their arse and have a coach that can demand respect and pull the leadership group into line - at the moment we resemble the basket case over at the punt road penitentiary.

This is the biggest issue to obtaining a 13th flag. Player power forced Bailey out and have performed shite ever since.

F.A. coming in could mean sweet F.A. for us unless we sort this shite out now.

And this is why 20 year olds shouldn't be given such ridiculous amounts of money, because they are too dumb and weak to make their own calls.

If his parents pressured him to take the money then his parents clearly are more concerned about their welfare than his own. Great parents!

I can only tell you what I know - it does not hurt for it to come out now. It was a family decision not a Tom Scully one.

His injury history had a lot to do with it.- None of us would look that $ in the eye and walk away from it- as I said won't stop me giving it to him in spades.

Family is one-eyed Richmond - we are MFC the club that tanked to ensnare him.

LOL

I could put a case up as fluffy as the 31 jumper to retire every number. A touch of reality for some posters would be good.

Go on then - it is a cursed number- Carmen and Templeton did bugger all wearing it. Didn't Groom do his knee badly wearing it?

Apart from the two RB's, it has not really had a glorious history- wheatley was one of the longest servants wearing it.

A bit like #4 - O'sullivan and Lord who both wore it are probably the best of the bunch outside Smith (Watts excepted).

We place a tradition on the numbers because of the hankering for the halcyon days - like Hawthorn's No. 23 - all clubs have them but really you could argue 11, with Stynes, Wells and Mithen has had a better pedigree.

the issue is the club made a big fanfare about the #4 and #31 with the number #1 picks receiving them that has heightened their importance within the club's current link to tradition.

Retire it - if a number means little then this gesture cannot harm either way.

Big f'n deal - we have given away players in the past - Wells still wrenchs' my guts.

Scully went for the money- the club could bend over backwards and take it up the arse form the AFL it won't change much.

We are a club in decline- have been for decades. We are not one of the big 4 - the period between 1930's and 1960's we stood for something= but the last few generations that has eroded, I still remember the resurgence when Barassi returned and the northey period= people came out and supported- but by then we had robbed Peter to pay Paul and had abandoned the MCC-MFC alignment.

The PR over giving he would cannot be named the No. 31 makes this all the more to swallow but then RDB left end of 64' and started a trend we just have to move on- the way the club responds will tell if we are a weak club or not. the naming of a coach that is desired and can bring people to the games is the big deciding question.

You know the reason why everyone loves Gary Lyon, because he is the only person that provides our club with a voice! whether it be on the footy show, or on footy classified he always states his frustrations about the club.

But there are certain things that must be answered.

-Why are we asking for 'maximum compensation' ala Gary Ablett? A strong club should ask for MORE than Gary Ablett. Scully is worth more than Ablett on the trade table considering he is 7 years younger so we should be getting more than Ablett.

A strong club should at least pretend to demand it.

-Also, a strong club would have asked for a logical explanation as to why a judd-Visy deal couldn't have been done for Tom Scully. Adrian Anderson came out with 'Oh, we've tightened the rules since then' and we just roll over and accept. The fans ought to know why they have changed the rules, demand to see the rule changes and also put pressure on the Judd-Visy deal to cease. I've seen none of this.

These 2 points should and would be undertaken if we were a strong club. Fans deserve answers. Collingwood or Carlton were never going to let any of their players go let alone one of the best young talents in the game.

And for anyone says that he isn't, it's like you've been dumped by Jennifer Hawkins and you're trying to rationalise by saying that she wasn't that good, when in fact she was. Melbourne fans, Scully will be a champion

he made his mind up within the last two weeks. Family pressure to not take the money considering the obscene amount of money on offer - won't stop me giving him an earful- but he was never a MFC supporter.

Tom came home because his sister who he was staying with at their new pad in Malvern was struggling. He is a homebody and it took alot for the club to get him out of his comfort zone in the first place.

Unbeknown to us his family's pressure on him a year later not to look a gift horse in the mouth has led to this.

Take it or leave it - this is the truth.

First time poster- have no credentials what so ever in the eyes of the Demonland community nor am I seeking any.

Clearly the club share your appraisal; they have already conducted informal talks with another coach in the AFL - a week or so before the Carltank game - only issue is- Bailey is not aware of this - so since they have been less than honest with the current coach- bollocks if I should be in revealing this!

The upshot is the club are exploring options at present - Dean Bailey is a dead man walking and he does not even know it yet.

I'm not sold on Bailey's game plan-I also think he has been too cautious in his player selection and game day tactics but I do expect the man who took the fall for the club to obtain a wealth of picks to be given some dignity.

The only dignity he'll get is to be allowed to coach out the season.

The coach who has been spoken to is a current coach and this was sourced from a family member of that coach.

Why have I raised this? Because half the stuff on here is rhetorical malaise clutching at assumptions and straws and I'm in a "devil may care " attitude, so it may assist people on this forum by cutting down a hundred posts on the "are they/ should they"- debate. the fact is they are!

People should also realise we cannot attract star players anymore and the same applies for star coaches. The last homegrown star players were Flower and Lyon, the last star coach was Barassi and his presence brought a longline of journeymen and two potential star players in Templeton and Moore - without either- the other(s) are hard to convince.

This should make you understand that we have an uphill battle to bring a proven-star- coach to our club. The alternative to DB is not what I would have thought is a coup- rather a compromise.

BTW: Garry also let it slip by what he said on FC - taking us to be morons and not reading between the lines.

Welcome to Hell- for we are only in purgatory.