Lucifers Hero

DJ, I'll be happy with any sort of win. Good/ugly, big/small. Nonetheless, it will be good to avoid a heart stopper like last week so a big margin with 10 min to go will help.

GCS have won 3 games by +3pts, +5pts and 2pts. They have lost their last 3 games by -73pts, -49pts and -23pts. Hardly an in-form side. Granted, our scoreboard performances have not been much better. But at last our coaches have tightened our game plan behind the ball and the mids and forwards are working better defensively. The team clicked last week and I reckon it will be better this week. We will win!

Maybe. I'm not happy about Viney being in or more correctly making the call himself. My point was given that Viney was selected, ANB was the most likely out. That the club wants to settle the side and not mess with the midfield or back 6/7, the other options were Stretch or Lockhart both of whom imv give us more than ANB. ANB just doesn't have enough strings to his bow and is limited in the positions he can play. Not meaning to put him down just the way I see the merits of the forward half players.

That is the crux of the issue. He has had one good game this year. If we are honest ANB has always been a 'bottom six' role player; a' journeyman'. He needs to fix his weaknesses and have more strings to his bow than tackles, 1% and pressure acts so no matter how well he performs in those areas he is at risk of being the first out from the forward half. More so now that other forwards are improving their defensive and one-on-one work. Given that Viney is in I can't see who else to take out as the club wants to settle the side (great idea at last) and it is easier to take out a defensive forward than unsettle a back 6/7.

you win dc? My original point was we won't be moving the club to Casey as (several hundred) admin staff (who live in all parts of Melbourne and often rely on public transport) would be more affected than players. Still think that, even if it takes players an hour several times a week to get there. Casey is not an option for a whole of club venue.

the starting point was their abode not the mcg. Anyway, the original point to which the travel time relates was it is the admin staff that would have travel difficulties to Casey more than the players who tend to live east and south of the cbd and travel outside peak time against the flow of peak traffic.

I have no idea od. For me this is one of the most depressing threads on this board as every Vic club is getting tens of millions for their existing grounds and we are homeless. I usually don't read this thread but was lured back by the orange 'Hot!' flag - thought something good may have happened for us. Alas not, just another club getting more millions.

1/2 is based on players generally travelling outside peak hour and travel in the opposite direction to peak travellers.

iirc our admin staff are located at the MCG? Can't imagine prising them out of there. Casey is a problem for staff who come from all corners of Melbourne and would have to go there every day. Moreso for those that rely on public transport or are part-time which would include some of the medico and fitness staff who may have practices elsewhere. As for the players, the impression I have, most live inner east, east or south. A drive down the freeway will get them to Casey in half an hour and that would be only a few days a week. I doubt the club will move football staff from AAMI further from the admin staff at the MCG. As the decision makers are senior admin and the Board I see zilch chance of Casey being our base for the whole club.

Does anyone know what Weideman's 'soreness' (after last week's Casey game) is? Didn't see him on the injury report.

Agreed, rest him this week. Especially as we play WCE at Optus Oval after GCS, on a 6 day break. Apparently, WCE have stopped training there because of the surface and potential for injury. The surface will not help Viney's ankle, TMac's toe, Garlett's hamstring soreness or any player that has had leg/foot issues recently. To me the season is done re finals so lets not put players at risk of aggravating any 'niggles'. Rest Viney this week and manage others as best we can in the next few weeks. Last week showed we can win if we field 22 fit players.

A problem with Jack's game time being managed in many games this year is that other players stay out longer than they should. Last week we played the game out to the last second and won it because we were fit enough and strong enough to see it out. I wonder if the key players in the last 30 seconds could have done it if they had played an extra 5 minutes each to compensate for Jack being on the bench (had he played) for 25-35% of the game? A rhetorical question I know. If he plays this week I hope he is on the park for about 80% game time otherwise it just hurts the rest of the team. He just can't be selfish. We have won many games without him. Team first, co-captain!

The table below was posted on bigfooty by 'Djcjdees'. I like the table as it shows how the no of weeks has changed for the last month. Some times have improved and some have worsened, in particular Joel Smith (subject of another thread) and Jetta (who also should not have played out the game after being injured early in the game). Also, that KK is continually listed as TBC and AVB has now been TBC for a few weeks is worrying. Player April 9 April 16 April 29 May 1 May 7 Hannan 6-8 (was 6-12 March 20) 6 4-6 3-4 2-3 JKH 10-12 8-10 8 3-4 3 Lever 6-8 (was 6-12 March 20) 6 4-6 3-4 3-4 KK - - TBC TBC TBC May 2-3 2-4 TBC 3-4 3-4 Joel Smith TBC (was 5 March 20) 4-6 4-5 6-8 6-8 AVB 4-6 4-6 4-5 TBC TBC Viney - - - 2 Test* Maynard - - - 3-4 3 Preuss - - - (left off weirdly but was 2) 1 Test Nev - - 8-10 10-12 10-12

Thanks. I heard some of them say you can't drink while in rehab. Mahoney on the other hand said we didn't have strict rules, we trust players so there is some inconsistency there. But did anyone say the club told "an employee that he can't have a legal and responsible outlet to his clearly stressful life" which is the basis of Barrett's claim that mfc 'stance on May is 'control gone mad'. I just didn't see anything wrong with how the club has responded to the original story.

Barrett writes: "In the club's eyes, May drinking at a Richmond bar was a bad look given his poor start to life as a Demon after eight years with Gold Coast". I found where Mahoney said the first part but not the second part. 'Poetic' licence by Barrett? "I didn’t view it that way. In my eyes, the Demons' stance on May is control gone mad". The bad look in my eyes was a football club telling an employee that he can't have a legal and responsible outlet to his clearly stressful life I can't find anywhere where the club said that to May or any other player. Is that 2+2+x=55! According to Mahoney: “Our overall approach is we treat our players like adults and the only question we ask them if they’re doing everything possible to maximise their abilities and be the best versions of themselves...“We don’t set a lot of rules because we think bad clubs and bad organisations set a lot of rules, so we just go about asking those questions and trusting our players.” What did the club do/say that was controlling? As Goodwin said: the issue 'had been blown out of proportion'. imv that applies to Barrett's angle that mfc's stance is 'control gone mad'. Good click bait but not a lot of substance.

Goodwin: Jack Viney hasn’t been ruled out yet. He will have an important training session today + he will make a call on his fitness - he knows his body well. — Melbourne FC (@melbournefc) May 7, 2019 Jack has a poor record of judging when fit to play. By his own admission he returned early from his foot injury in 2017 and has had long periods on the sidelines and/or managed game time since. His game time was managed in games early in the season. Ditto vs Hawks - he played about 2 of the first 3 qtrs (prior to the shoulder injury). This suggests something other than the shoulder injury is causing the managed game times. Have someone else make the decision!

The gloss of the rnd 7 win has been overshadowed by negative stories about May and fitness staff (Shaun Smith story). The club will want some good news out there rather pronto so wouldn't be surprised to see it announced ASAP maybe even tomorrow.

Re Sydney 'bottoming out'. On OTC last night Roos said he was aware there were 2 outstanding players in the draft. It made me think Sydney is positioning to get them: one with a very early pic and the other with an upgrade of a low 20's pic. It may be a race to the bottom between them and Carlton. Didn't WCE and Colllingwood do something similar at one stage?

Post #106 indicates someone giving Morris info is an mfc issue. Post #107 shows what Morris didn't say as well as what he did say that imv makes his reporting slanted to reflect poorly on May.

If you are referring to my posts, the issues I have are: that someone from the club is giving him info. his reporting was slanted to reflect poorly on May, leaving no room for possible extenuating circumstances and he was quite smug in the process. I have never met him so don't like or dislike him. But I certainly do not like how he goes about his work.

He was dropped because May came in. Has done a terrific job since coming back in. Deserves to stay when other defenders return.

Morris writing this really annoys me: "When contacted, Melbourne could not rule out either a player-led or club enforced punishment for the former Gold Coast captain". More likely: TM: Will May be sanctioned? MFC: No comment Suddenly he has an angle about possible club sanctions! And, if as noted in an earlier post, people in the media know that May is going thru a torrid personal time and not acknowledging that in the article is really low. He has dredged up all his recent past with us, made a big story out of it without regard for May's welfare. And, I wish someone would wipe the smug look he had on OTC while reporting this off his face. All in all, he gives 'gutter journalism' a new low.

Even if the pic was sent to Morris by a non-mfc person, he still has a person inside mfc who has told him about the apology meeting in advance and even before many/most players knew what the meeting was about. Whoever it is inside mfc that continues to feed this creep info so he can smear our name from pillar to post, needs to be brought in and read the riot act. We don't need people inside our club contributing to sensationalist reporting.

High praise from Hibberd: On Hore: "...He drops back in space, helps the other defenders in the air and he is a great teammate. I love playing with Marty.” On Lockhart: "You just know what you’re going to get with Jay. He is as hard as nails and probably one of the toughest players I’ve come across in footy,” Hore and Lockhart would love hearing that from an experienced and succesful teammate. Only last week some on here were lamenting all the VFL standard players in our side. Hore and Lockhart may just prove the doubters wrong (along with Fritsch, Hannan, AVB)

I don't think it is correct as Goodwin wasn't on the inside mfc podcast after round 1 last year. As I recall it Morris was solidly 'pushed' he didn't 'quit'. Either way he put his work brownie points before the privileged access position at a football club. Poor form to abuse a privilege like that. Deserved what he got.