Straight Sets Simon

Yes, but if we keep EnergyWatch it would be almost impossible to attract future sponsors as like it or not, the club and future sponsors would be associated with the rants made by Polis.

Then contact EnergyWatch about it and tell them how you feel, don't blame the club.

It's almost as if the media have been waiting for Jim Stynes to pass away before they let rip and uncover anything that remotely looks like dirt.

It will be interesting to see what Melbourne Victory and the Melbourne Rebels do in relation to this. Maybe it was a planned stunt all along? Again, EnergyWatch have spent a lot of money on these deals and it could be his way of getting out.

There was always something slimy about EnergyWatch, the amount of money spent on advertising and team sponsorships just didn't add up. But what annoys me is that if Melbourne do cut them loose, they get exactly what they want - a whole lot of publicity without the price tag of paying the club. Clearly all publicity for them is good publicity.

Morton is the one that kills me, I can live with Watts and I can understand Scully/Trengove (although not interviewing Martin was a disgrace) but the fact that Morton has been on the list so long yet cannot develop as a player or physically is what is so frustrating.

I don't use Twitter, but I had a quick look. Nice work!

I just saw the interview then, a couple of notes: When asked by Gerard Healy for a rough synopsis of the game plan (for the Melbourne supporters) he avoided it. Some what unsurprisingly but at least a rough idea as suggested by Healy would have been nice. It was also put to him that Melbourne didn't have any game changers (stars if you will) and I got the impression although he said there were a "handful of players" that the coaches needed to develop into stars, overall I don't think he rates the list all that highly in that regard. Possibly he feels some high draft picks have been wasted? I don't know, pure speculation on my behalf. Overall, the questions were good, the responses were as you expect, just a little more confidence for the supporters would be good.

I was just making an observation is all.

I find it interesting that Neeld's four premierships in a row at Ocean Grove are so highly rated, yet Mark Williams' three in a row in the VFL (much higher standard of football) were never rated.

I rate Garland, but he doesn't have a football brain. I have said this for a few years. I wouldn't say "dumb", just not a football brain.

Whateley is the best ball-by-ball caller and has one of the best football brains.

What I find strange is that the long kicking down the line element of their game is the new bit. If anything, kicking down the line to a contest is unfamiliar to how the team played under Bailey who was more corridor focused.

I just want to add, I am not saying that Neeld isn't taking into consideration the strength and weaknesses of the list, I just hope there is some flexibility and his style is open to change to get the best out of the team.

Yes, but if that style of game doesn't play to the strengths and weaknesses of the team it is useless. For example, there is no point trying to have the team play a Hawthorn style of short, fast and skillful kicks if that style of play doesn't suit your list. Yes, you can train them (good skills should always be there), delist, trade or recruit players who fit that style, but again it takes years to do so. There will always be changes to the list, but at some point a coach needs to say this is the list for year 201X, like it or not, now my job is to get the best out of this list right now. Like what Crawford said, Clarkson was always tweaking the game plan, it was an evolution based on the players he had at his disposal. There are always non-negotiable factors (tackling, skills, pressure and alike) but there is not one game plan that will win a flag above all others. By the way, run and carry was introduced in 2007, it was trying to replicate the style of play that saw West Coast win a flag. The difference was West Coast's greatest strength was their fast and hard running midfield which suited that style of play.

This rumour might be a load of hot air, but as mentioned in another thread I just love the attitude of Magner who appreciates being an AFL footballer. He wasn't just a talented youngster taken early in the draft, he has worked tirelessly (on and off the field) to get to where he is.

It's like a swear word, the more it is repeated the less impact it has.

Anyone else fed up with the word "elite"?

I wrote in a thread earlier today about how I like Neeld's tough and uncompromising way, however that maybe there wasn't any flexibility in the game plan which might be needed. This has also been mentioned over at Demonology. I just switched on the Sunday Footy Show and Shane Crawford and Matthew Lloyd were talking about this. Basically, they were saying it looked at times that Melbourne players had no variety (too focused on going down the boundary), they were too predictable and even looked like they were too worried about where to stand (structures) and didn't play their natural game enough. Essentially, this gets back to an old argument I have had with many on here whereby I believe that game plans should to a large degree be dictated by the type of list a team has (based on strengths and weaknesses). The reason being that it takes years to delist, trade and draft the right players a coach wants to fit a certain game plan. By then, senior players are too old and for the most part a team will never have 100% of their list fit and available. By all means a team can tinker with the list to get a certain type of player (Mitch Clark), but the idea of getting a whole list together to fit a certain game plan is almost impossible with the restriction of player movements in the AFL. Therefore, back in the days when I was arguing against "run and carry" (which by the way was proven to be rubbish for Melbourne) my point was that there is no one best way to play football and the best teams do tinker with lists, but essentially develop plans to get the best out of the players right now. At that time, "run and carry" did not suit Melbourne at all. For example, Hawthorn and Collingwood are quite even but they play a very different style, each of which plays to the strengths of their list. Factors such as pressure on the ball carrier, contested football, gut running and tackling are always important for any plan, so I don't see these as tactics as such. Shane Crawford today said even before the 2008 Hawthorn flag, Clarkson was always tweaking the plan to get the best out of a list at the time each year. Again, whilst I like the ruthless nature of Neeld, I just hope he doesn't do a Bailey and waste a number of years trying to find the perfect mix of players to fit perfectly with his ideal style of play. In theory, all game plans are great, but the fact is at no time will they ever be executed perfectly, so this must be taken into consideration.

Things are only getting worse.

I like the tough approach taken by Neeld, I like the long kicking, however is he too adamant that players play exactly to the game plan? For example, if there is a free player in the middle of the ground, players should be able to kick it to him. The corridor is and always will be the most efficient way to move the ball from one end to the other, so if the opportunity is there, why not take it? As we saw yesterday, Melbourne became so predictable, even if the the game plan was 100% perfect, the predictable nature of it means that opposition can quickly read what will happen next.

Hearing Magner speak, he fully appreciates his opportunity to play AFL after so many years of being overlooked. He got to where he is the hard way and sees playing football in the AFL as a privilege, not a right. I think many senior players need to realise this, and follow the example set by Magner.

Richmond can have Delidio (good, but not great) but Martin and Cotchin are welcome any time at Melbourne.

I just hate the way that holding the ball is paid at the drop of a hat. Not enough reward for the player getting the ball. I also don't think most umpires fully understand the rule, especially with regards to a player attempting to dispose of the ball. For all the peanuts/commentators out there, there is no such rule as "dropping the ball".

The midfield does lack a lot of pace, that is where Bail is so important (plus he's tough). It will be interesting to see if Morton plays much this year.