Dees2014

This is the silliest post I have seen on Demonland (and that IS saying something). Everyone in our society (fortunately) is subject to the rule of law whether you like it or not - unless you are a bikie, the mafia (in all its forms) or the Carlton crew (even then it catches up to you eventually.). Whether you give a fig about it is irrelevant -.it is there and will be adhered to. Likewise with Essendon, the AFL, Hird and his posse of cronies who surround him and feed off him. They can posture all they like, tap into "the court of public opinion", get tame journalists like Robinson and Whateley as much as they like to peddle sympathetic stories about them,, but the law will get them in the end. What we think about that makes no difference, unless we choose to change it via the ballot box, and I don't sense a movement for that at all, however much Essendon might wish it.

The problem with the players getting off is that that means Essendon gets off. The only thing that can really hurt Essendon is relating to success on the field. Everything else is just money which they have a lot of. Rubbing out a dozen players hurts them seriously, fining them $10m is merely a question of mobilization of heir supporter base, and the tapping intron their considerable corporate and political networks.

I have been very much of that view all along, but i see worrying siGns. For instance, I think the federal court judge is in there to inspect the evidence and then wind up the investigation "because of lack of evidence". WADA can then appeal but at the end of the day it relies on evidence gathered by its local affiliate, in this case ASADA. IF ASADA is nobbled, and starved of funds, then it will not have the resources to finish the investigation, and the "not enough evidence" finding will be technically correct. That I believe is the game being played here. It is dirty pool, but it is not the first time that has happened in Canberra.

Are you guys really saying you believe that drone Barrett before the club? really.....

This of course goes against the core principle of british justice ie that appropriate resources will be allocated to ensure the rule of law is upheld. If it were otherwise, all the likes of Essendon need do to avoid being prosecuted is to threaten to take any prosecution to the appeals court and then the government withdraws funding to avoid a further court process. Under this principle, any crook could avoid prosecution. But it is not about the prosecution of the Rule of Law of course. It is about the government looking after their Liberal Party mates who are closely associated with Essendon, and the Essendon Board, especially Paul Little, who is a major donor to the Liberal Party, or used to be when he was associated with Toll. I have said on this thread many times that the only way Essendon will escape the rule of law is for them to get the federal government to make a special rule for them. Unfortunately I am becoming increasingly convinced this is exactly what is going to happen as the Abbott government appears to be so highly susceptible to vested interests of all kinds, and seems bent on nobbling ASADA.

Oh i heard all this stuff before Ad';s retirement announcement. I think the Essendon situation has hastened his exit but that is all. AD in my view still is trying to sort through all this in the best interests of the Game. It is Hird (egged-on by his lawyer wife) who has made this outcome so much worse than it need be, not least for Hird himself. She may be a good lawyer, but she has no idea of how to play the political game, and no idea about how to get the best outcome for her husband. By her actions, she has condemned him to obscurity. He will never work again in the AFL industry.

My professional network, dating back to university, and the network i have built up in the business world where i have had extensive interaction with federal and state governments, strangely enough many seem to be interested in AFL.

Yes, well said. This fairly much is in line with the information I am getting from legal sources and the federal bureaucracy. There is no love lost between the AFL and Essendon although the AFL is very afraid of the legal nightmare which is about to unfold when the infraction notices are issued and the players sue Essendon and the AFL. THE AFL are incredibly dirty on Essendon and particular Hird's SWOT team in the way they have behaved. They think a lot of this was avoidable had Evans still been in charge and his advisors still been in place. ASADA/WADA are determined to punish Essendon to the maximum because of their uncooperative attitude and the litigious route that Hird has taken. It is a matter of when, not if, and it will be incredibly messy, and very very expensive.

The Murdoch Press are reflecting the majority view in the conservative ruling cabal (ie those around Abbott) in the Federal Liberal party. You only have to see how many governing bodies in all sorts of areas set up for fairness and good governance have been dismantled in the last six months. They have their sights on the same for ASADA starting with the planned resignation in May of its CEO, and the appointment (by the Federal Government - not ASADA) of the Federal Court judge. This to me has all the hallmarks of the well established Liberal Party connections of members of the Essendon Board, starting with Paul Little, asserting their self interest. Given that the Abbott Government seems to be THE most influenced by vested interests of any federal government, Labor or Liberal, in living memory, it is not surprising Essendon (and perhaps the AFL given how much they have to lose) are trying this tack.Fortunately, if the process is rushed and then dropped "through lack of evidence", which is where I think they are trying to take it, WADA will step in through appeals to the Court of Arbitration in Sport. Fortunately, there are still a few institutions (a decreasing number sadly) that are beyond the influence of Abbott and his crew. In the end, I still believe justice will be done, but it will still be a long and bloody fight. In the end, infraction notices will be issued to 12 plus Essendon and ex Essendon players, writs will be issued by those players against Essendon and the AFL, and it will drag on for years, possibly breaking Essendon, and making the AFL and the game very much the poorer for it. That is not a reason why it should not be done. On the contrary. IMHO Essendon and Cronulla have to be treated the same as any other athlete/athletes who break the WADA codes. Otherwise the system becomes a farce. If there is damage on the way, so be it.

I must have been watching different games over the last couple of weeks. How anybody could seriously suggest leaving out Watts in round one I can't imagine. He is already in our half dozen most important players, now he has a defined role and knows he has full confidence of the coach and his team-mates. He is critical to the implementation of our gameplan. And he will get better every game as he gets used to the new environment. He is a potential A-grader just waiting to burst out into a stellar year, and this is the year it will happen. I will re- run this post in September just after our first final in seven years where one J Watts was BOG.

I think there are two points about Byrnes. First for me, he performs far too many clangers in crucial situations e.g. chipping over the mark from the half forward line to Hogan alone in the square but kicked into the man on the mark at a crucial part of the game when we had a run on. That is unforgivable for an experienced player. Two, I compare him to JKH all the time. JKH is far more exciting, has much greater speed, and covers more territory, takes the game on far more, is a better shot for goal and is 19. Byrnes is 29. Enough said I think.

Yes you add Grimes, Bleese, Watts, Trengove, Toumpas, - Matt Jones is a long way back IMO, but no doubt there will be injuries, so he will be experienced back up, nothing more.

Pray tell, who is he going to replace in the backline, I have Frawley, Grimes, McD, Georgiou, Terlich, Dunn, Garland well before him. Unless one gets injured, he might get a chance, but even then I would be more inclined to go for someone like Clisby or Matt Jones as a small back replacement.I think (hope) his opportunities will be very limited this year. For me, he is one we should move on, and trade if we can get anything for him, and I say that reluctantly as there have been far too many of our top twenty pick who we have not been developed properly who in my view if they had been handled by the current regime would have turned into serviceable footballers and would still be on our list. He is one, but I rather suspect others have moved past him, and we are better off to get value for him if there is any and trade for someone we need.

I know this is true, but imagine the difference it will make when we have all of Dawes, Fitz, Hogan, Howe, JKH and eventually Clark in the same side. At the moment we know we have to hold up the ball movement to make sure our forwards are in position so we don't turn it over as we move forward, so often we choose to go backwards. I think it will emerge when we get our full forward line that rather than chipping it around ALL the time, we will mix it up more as we go forward. There will be more emphasis on fast ball movement into the forward line which by necessity will mean sometimes long bombing it, but also understanding that we have the marking power down there to enable us to monster some, what Paul Roos describes as, "free" goals. It will also make a huge difference to the key stats of "inside 50" and "marks inside 50", both of which were well down last night, but our ball possession was way above Geelong. We seen to have no trouble getting the ball (a testament to our new mid-field), but our options are limited at the moment as to what we do with it until we get our full team. A good test will be against Hawthorn next week where we should see a further development in how we play. Hopefully it will not be as windy as it sometimes is at Casey, which like in the Alice, will not be good for the gameplan. What will emerge is a refined gameplan to suit the cattle on the park. At the moment it is essentially defensive because that is the ability we have on the field. In its mature form it will be much more multi dimensional and so much more powerful. Hawthorn should be a good test. A further refinement which might be worth a try in these practice games is to have one of the monster forwards ( Hogan, Dawes, preferably Clark later on) not chase the ball up the field which is the want of the modern game, but have him parked in or near the goal square permanently in anticipation than more often than not he will get the ball. If this happen, it will make double teaming more difficult. This only works though if you are confident we can maintain and get ball possession so the long bomb can be used. You only need this to work three or four times a match and it could be the difference between wining and losing. Hogan in particular is first class at monstering the opposition. Many of his goals at Casey were as a result of strong pack marks near goal. I would hate to think what he would do in an almost permanent one one one.

Yes, as well as the young gun recruits (Tyson, Salem, Viney, Toumpas, Hogan, JKH), we seem to have been able to get mature age players who can actually play (Cross, Vince, Georgiou). Contrast that with our efforts in the last couple of years who have mostly been has-beens (Pederson, Byrnes). The Roos brand can clearly attract quality, but hats off to the recruiting staff who clearly seem to know what they are doing for a change. No one, least of all the commentators and other clubs, predicted Georgiou, probably because of his unconventional style, but he looks to be a beauty.

You make a good point. I think we all should be greatly encouraged by last night. It is early days in the exhibition of our gameplan, and yet while under pressure the structures did not appear to break down even if our skills were down in such adverse weather conditions. As the commentators pointed out many of the Geelong goals came from turnovers, situations where we had possession of the ball and gave it up through lack of skill. This can be corrected, especially as we move out of defence, and the return of players such as Frawley and Garland will help this enormously. I might add that our new recruit Alex Georgiou did not cough it up once that I saw- he is a very skilled defender and should be in our opening round side no matter who is available. The offenders were actually mostly onballers - Trengove, Matt Jones, sometimes Grimes, Cross (although i will have to look at the replay again to confirm this more definitely). I have no doubt that the coaching staff will weed out the repeat offenders in this. They need to. Another point I would make is we had more crucial players out than they did, players who would play crucial roles in correcting the mistakes of last night. I speak of Dawes, Clark and JKH up forward, Gawn in the ruck, Garland and Frawley in defence, Our major weaknesses were coughing it up in defence, having a static forward half (with the honourable exceptions of Hogan and Howe), and getting smashed in centre clearances, where Gawn and Viney will make a big difference. All are correctable, and all will be partially solved by the return of crucial players. The absolute positives for mine were: - the gameplan when executed properly makes us very competitive, - the team stuck to their guns very well and there was no sign that we were at any stage becoming uncompetitive. - Hogan was very good. I was one who said he shouldn't play because he looked unfit at the practice match last week. I was wrong. His game was outstanding, and he WILL be a gun. - Howe gets better with each game. His defence has improved immensely under Roos and when he plays as the third or fourth tall in attack he will be an absolute handful to opposition sides. - Jack Watts has found his place on the wing. He now is showing the huge potential we all knew he has. Top five in the Brownlow for mine. A very encouraging, albeit also frustrating night.

Interesting, back and centre lines fairly much as you would expect them to be for round one. It is the forwards, interchange and rucks who will change ie Gawn for Spencer. I think it is good we seem very settled on two thirds of the field and this has been so for over a month now. I suspect for us, Georgiou will be the find of the season. He is not a potential star like Viney, Vince, Salem, Watts, toumpas, Tyson or hogan, but immensely dependable in the mould of a Wheatley, Johnson, Whelan, even a Don Williams. He somehow provides a glue for that backline when at times in the immediate past could be a bit flakey. A great get by our recruiters.

Although I like your sentiment, we are getting dangerously small. It is asking a lot of Fitz to play CHF (a high energy and energy sapping running position at the best of times, let alone in 35 degree heat), and second ruck. Further, Gawn, although in my view the best option, has had a limited pre season and will certainly not ruck all day. I would think he will be on the ball only half the time. Pederson is an option of course, but may be it would be better to have Hogan at CHF and fitz and max change at full forward which is not as demanding physically and they are both highly suited to that position. I agree with you, Bail was admirable against the Tigers, and deserves to keep his spot. Maybe change Kent for Pederson to cover if anything happens to any of our talls. Apart from that, i think it is a pretty good side, and might, just might, give the Cats some grief.

I don't think this applies to a fit Gawn. He has shown in some games an admirable intensity around the ground, and in a good mark in general play (especially up forward) and is not a bad kick for someone so big. Personally if he can keep on the park I think he is by far our best option, and will only get better with experience.

I agree the effectiveness of defenders is far greater than simply disposal eg spoiling and have others do the crumbling, but if we are to develop an elite defensive unit it is still important. For example, Strauss is said to have great kicking skills, and his style is great , but he so often misses targets and is beaten in one on one contests more often than not. Georgiou has an ungamely kicking style but seems to be rarely beaten one on one, or caught in general play. I know who I would prefer " in the trenches"

Ok you are on:1. Garland 2 Grimes 3 Frawley 4 McDonald 5. Dunn 6 Georgiou 7 Pederson 8 Terlich 9. Clisby I admit I have not seen enough of Georgiou to rate him, but the South Australians who have seem to say although his style is not pretty he rarely misses targets and seems to have plenty of space and time.

The only remedy for this is to re-establish our success in the 1990s and early 2000's. They wrote the same stuff when Neil Balm was sacked in 1998, but we made the finals in 1999 and the grand in 2000. No-one called us the dismal Dees then, except in as much as we were uncompetive against Sheedy's "greatest Essendon side" in the Grand. Success will shut this talk up right away. I must say the publicity we have got with the arrival of Roos and our good first up showing against Richmond has been almost universally positive. I get the impression much of the football community would like to see us do well. It is almost as though many opposition supporters from Melbourne clubs have us as their "second team", replacing the Swans as it might have been ten years ago. Even Barrett and Wilson have been very quiet about our first outing against the Tiges. I think Mcguie's attitude is more insidious. He makes very positive noises about what a wonderful Club Melbourne is, but opposes vociferously behind closed doors any move by the AFL on equalization and aid to us to re-establish ourselves from the AFL post the Neeld disaster. He in my view is far more dangerous. Fortunately we have an equally "tough nut" in Peter Jackson so I have no doubt we will survive and prosper again in the medium term.

Robbie,Fascinating and very insightful post. To take a civilized but ruthless approach to AFL footy is quite a step. I have posted recently in here how much it concerns me the criminal element which seems to be infiltrating AFL. I know a number of Woods supporters who firmly believe that you cannot win without having "thugs" behind you. They are quite comfortable with that it seems. The MFC, and Roos in particular, seem to prefer the skills and motivational approach. It will be interesting who prevails. Personally,and I know I show my life's values here, I believe intelligence and smart play will eventually win out. Roos I think agrees. It will be fascinating to see who is right.

Thanks Master. There is a lot in it for Casey in general to get closer to us. Most specifically for Casey Council who have bank rolled most of the development out there. I'm sure the MFC would pay a lot more attention to, and see value in Casey if they were more in sync with the MFC, particularly now we have an elite coach and are on the up. I thought it was very interesting looking at Casey players on Thursday. Obviously they would want to impress AFL SCOUTS, BUT MANY of them had picked up the basics of the gameplan and executed very well. We need this totally across our Organisation. If I was facilitating this I would go not to the Casey board, but to the Council, and maybe make concessions about usage of the ground in return for making it into an MFC facility. Increasingly AFL Melbourne based sides are committing to VFL reserves sides because they can control how players come from the reserves to the seniors. We should do the same As far as NT is concerned, I suspect it would be revenue positive for us. If we went to the NT government and said we wanted to create a world first ie an AFL affiliated team in the territory, I think they would be all over us like a rash, and it would probably attract federal government funding (in fact my contacts in Canberra think it would create huge publicity nationally ( if it was done in the Manchester City context)) and there would be considerable federal funding to get it done. It is worth examining at least. We need to think laterally in these thing, better than our opposition I believe.

Watching the inter club match on Thursday, and some of the Casey players (who by the way IMHO showed generally admirable commitment and seemed to have grasped our style of play well), it occurred to me that in the past there was very little link between the MFC gameplan and Casey's. I could say "how could you know because Neeld didn't have one?" which wasn't quite true - he had one, it was an inferior version of Collingwood five yeas ago! Nevertheless, it begs the question should our VFL affiliate be a junior version of ourselves in this respect. I strongly feel it should, as we need our players not only training for it but playing it always in a game day situation. I get the feeling ( I might be wrong, as I have no direct evidence) that the powers that be at Casey guard their independence quite fiercely and only get entangled with us when we don't provide all our players come finals time. If this is so, does it provide further reason for us to form our own VFL side, or fully take over Casey and have then play in the MFC strip and rename them "the Casey Demons". Further, given our connection to the NT, is there a case for us to have a subsidiary team in the NT league playing our gameplan. If it is good enough for Manchester City, why not us? After all, they are our major sponsor. Might even get us one of the powerful mining companies from up there on board as well. Thoughts?