Ivor

So here we are coming up to another game against Hawthorn. I think I hate being beaten by Hawthorn even more than I do by Collingwood. In the last couple of years we have been on the receiving end of some drubbings. Did not the unfortunate Dean Bailey coach his first game for Melbourne against Hawthorn with unpleasant results? I can remember Barry Vagg, who wore number 32 as I recall, potting the winning goal with the last kick of the day in 1968. I seem to remember Barry Bourke getting four weeks for smacking my sports teacher, the late Peter Crimmins, although I can't remember if it was in the same game. Most of all, I remember THAT game in 1987. We were sitting in the northern, (I think it's northern, but like many, I used to get disoriented at Arctic Park), end at Waverley almost directly behind the goal square. From the opening moments it was clear that Hawthorn had based their strategy around eliminating Robbie Flower. Robbie started from the goal square. At the opening bounce he led wide towards the half forward flank to receive the kick from the inevitable tap-out from Strawberry O'Dwyer. He was met in a vicious sandwich comprising Gary Ayres running in one direction, and Robert Dipierdomenico in the other. (I later heard that they had practiced during the week with a side of beef although that may be apocryphal.) Robbie had his shoulder reconstructed in the opening minute of the game. He played thereafter with one useable arm. Even though we played with half a Robbie Flower, there was no doubt that we were the better side. In a critical move in the third quarter, coach Northey sent Rod Grinter to full forward where he kicked three goals. Even though Hawthorn lifted in the last quarter and challenged, we should have won if not for the errors of three senior players in the last 15 minutes. Although I know their names I will not repeat them here. Two marked within meters of the goal line only to fluff extremely gettable goals, one chose to blaze away rather than handball over the top to Robbie, who although he had but one arm, was still the best player on the ground. When in a widely celebrated moment, Jim ran across the mark, after the siren sounded, I did not blame him then and I do not blame him now. It is a measure of our ability to mythologize, that the failure of those three senior players to nail a grand final appearance has been forgotten, yet Jim has been universally held responsible for that failure. And so, we come up against Hawthorn again. And the prospects aren't too flash. And I imagine what revenge might look like...

That friendly wind was the one in the prelim against Carlton the following year - everything was going right until Strawbs backhanded that bloke and got rubbed out for the granny

I was in that crowd. And I was at the next three as well. Amazing days. The empty feeling after the prelim...

I was a 10-y-o in 19651 - THAT was painful. I even rejoiced (a bit) when Stan Alves won a flag with NM in ?1977 - that was bitter. Over the years I've seen a number of players who started in Melbourne colours2 win flags with other teams - they were a pin [censored]. Youse guys are getting exercised about a boy who: was drafted under doubtful circumstances, (ahead of a young man who, in retrospect, plainly merited the honour) accepted a bucket load of money to play for an outfit that will probably make the early years of the Brisbane look successful and in doing so greatly harmed his own reputation, (but acting out of motives that are regarded as laudable in bankers) as a result of the second point put himself under enormous pressure to perform at what might prove to be an impossible level of excellence contributed little to our meager success over the last two years we are probably better off without. Enough already!!! 1 Anybody who doesn't know what happened in 1965 - ask a moderator 2 Admittedly, deserting THOSE colours between 1974-1986 might have been considered mitigating circumstances

I think it's a really clear message to the whole team that reputations mean nothing. For the three older blokes who have been dropped from the leadership group - apart from the fact that they can all still lead by example on and off the field - my hope is that they can concentrate on their own form without the additional burden of responsibility for the whole playing group. I suspect that Flash, for all his stated ambitions, found that a heavy load last year. As for Moloney, well it's a test of character, but one I'm sure he'll pass. (I suspect that but for the fiasco last year he would still be in the LG, but I also suspect that for Neeld, this would have created a major question mark that can only be erased - if at all - on the playing field and not at training. Don't forget where Neeld came from). If you consider the new group, not one of them has put a foot wrong off the field (at least as far as I've noticed in the press) and you certainly can't argue with the on-field commitment. It's been clear since the outset that Neeld intended to put his own mark on this team and this leadership group can be seen as more "neelding". I think we all might have worries about JG's tendency to injury, and possibly MJ's as well, but for me, one of the characteristics of a leader is that other members of the team perform better in their presence and while I don't know much about Clark, I've seen all of the others have that effect on the field.

true champion

Neita joined as a forward in '93, played one season in the backline in '94 (and did pretty well) and then reverted forward into the hole created by David Schwartz sub-optimal knees.

I'm not sure if the comparison really stacks up. Neita only really played one season in defence that being 1994 (1 goal). He impressed that season playing on Carey. However, in the same year Jakovich played 13 games for 51 goals, Gazza played 24 games for 79 goals and Schwarz played 25 games for 60 goals - an embarrasse des riches. In other respects I don't think that they are comparable - although I don't doubt that Chip would be flattered at the comparison. For mine, success at the pointy end of the season starts in the backline with a dominating (both in skill and strength) FB or CHB. Think - Silvagni, Langford, Jakovich (G) or Scarlett - and perhaps, one day, Frawley.

It's very hard to take positives out of the 2011 debacle. Performance certainly didn't come up to my expectations - especially the habit of surrendering meekly to any opponent above us on the ladder. Giving Junior MacDonald a DCM at the end of 2010 might have made sense from some sort of list building imperative, but the loss of spirit, leadership and moral strength were a disaster...

"Yeah it's a **** of a day"

"yeah it's a **** of a day"

The idea of using Davey behind centre as a running set-up player might have been OK if there had been a plan B for when he was tagged out. I've always wanted to see him playing forward because that's where I see him doing most damage to an opposition. I rate him as a better player than Maric, and while Aussie has/had explosive pace and and tackling, those attributes aren't really any use of they're not on the park. Aaron Davey is a 150 game player and with the right preparation and coaching, (and luck with injuries), could easily regain the form that won him a Bluey...

Had T$ informed the Dees that he'd decided to accept an offer from GWS when it appears that he had accepted an offer. And further, had he informed them that he was happy to play in the Casey 2nds, or work as a runner for the remainder of the 2011 season so as not to deprive another player of a chance to progress. I think most of us would have felt that he was an honest young man who had made an entirely understandable decision to make the most of his opportunities and wished him bon chance at the end of the season. As it is, he might find as the years go on, that a good name is worth more than diamonds. I hope for his sake that he never finds himself in a witness box facing x-examination form a hostile SC....

Ask him how important is personal integrity when considering contracting a player

It's not about the "Western Sydney public" - who, I suspect, are about as interested in proper football as the Taliban are in Jean-Paul Sartre. It's about a TV demographic which can be parlayed into a marketing footprint, which can be turned into $$$...