The Third Eye

Demetriou should call an investigation.

Tim Mohr from Casey Scorpions was one. They kept him and put him on their senior list. Similarly, Giles and Clifton, I think.

Very poor coaching effort by Ross Lyon tonight. Thankfully, Garry Lyon had the insight not to follow him up after being told by his management that he was still hoping to finalise a deal with the Saints.

This is rubbish!

Beamer going. Green gone. Two of the club's most experienced and Mark Neeld keeps talking about how inexperienced our team is?

Controversy sucks people in and this one has certainly created a stir. No doubt it was set up. The promo for Episode 24 read like this: .However, when they were discussing Melbourne, it was Roos who used the words, "the worst thing you could say about Melbourne is that they're an irrelevant team". Clearly, the entire discussion was a set up and I agree with WJ. Brock was set up and led right into the middle of the controversy by Sheahan to be the patsy and I'm sure he's wishing he would have shut his trap by now.

A team that has 14 players on the injured list, that's young and that's coming to terms with a new style of play. A team that's supposedly irrelevant. A team that supposedly developed a bad culture by allegedly tanking. So what example do Gerard Healy and Paul Roos come up with to demonstrate the point they were apparently making? A 203 centimetre Melbourne ruckman running down one of North's small men. I thought he was fantastic. Whatever people might think of Jake Spencer this was the antithesis of what these blokes set out to do on their show i.e. kick one of the AFL's clubs while they're down. Pathetic.

Cook played a solid game around half forward.He's developing nicely at this level and I would expect him to get a run later in the year. Given another pre season to build up an extra 5kg and he could become a permanent fixture in the MFC forward line in the years to come.

And where does the ability to dispose of the ball with skill and make good decisions when moving the ball fit into your scenario?

And that is exactly the point that's being made. Neeld has virtually not had at his dissposal the three players who were last year's forward line playmakers and the team's goalkickers who have this year been able to provide minimal (about 5%) input into the team's scoring capacity compared with last year. Try the same exercise with any other team in the competition and the result would not look pretty.

Looking forward to seeing Cameron Bruce and Kyle Cheney going around at Box Hill.

The whole business becomes a joke when these teams like Hawthorn and Carlton rest their players against the more lowly sides. Surely, if there's ever an upset result in one of these games, the club resting players is going to be accused of draft tampering?

Shambles on and off the field.

I believe Jack Grimes only played the first half. Wondering if anyone knows whether that was planned or if he had any problems.

Probably, business as usual.

As distinct from all of the other public relations nightmares experienced by them in their brief existence to date. I can't see the matter proceeding beyond a MRP ruling that the level of force applied in each case was not considered sufficient to justify a sanction.

There's a jokes please thread for posts like that one!

WJ. Time for the next installment of Charcoal and Orange?

Could it be that he's filling a casual vacancy on the board?

I think Redleg had his sarcasm metre on high power. I understand new doctors have been appointed.

Oh that force! My apologies for missing it. And I suppose Jimmy told everyone that Garry was what forced him and the board to decide not to retain Bailey and that otherwise they were oblivious to any problems with the coach and they would never have even thought about it. Not even after the insipid and disgraceful exhibition we put on at Skilled.

Garry forced Jimmy to get out of his sick bed and take action to sack Bailey? Exactly what was the nature of the force? Was it at gunpoint?

The above post doesn't make sense. Proposition 1: Gary & Jimmy along with others realised Bailey could not take us forward. Proposition 2: That's a big part of the concern I've got with Garry - doesn't want to commit to real ongoing involvement but wants to stick his oar in when it suits him. What does 1 have to do with 2? In any event the concern should not be with Garry but with the Board for allowing him to stick his oar in when it suits him if they don't want him to. Otherwise, everything he's done has been by invitation of the board and he made it known for the outset he wasn't in for the long haul.

Sir Les - now there's a true Aussie battler if there ever was one. I wonder if he ever win his battle with alcohol?