Roger Mellie

Did anyone notice the Melbourne Trainer with the colossal mullet? It was a work of art!

In: Van Demon and Salem Still want to see Newton Outs: Lumumba - need his dash against the dogs, but pointless if he keeps handing them the footy. Michie - too slow for the dogs If VDB isn't ready then Newton

Watching the game, I assume the ones with the flu were: Garland, Dunn, Watts, Jones, Vince and Prince for starters. I suspect Lumumba has had the flu for about 15 weeks

You forgot the 'runs all day long' part which they both have. As I said, for the right price e.g.. Jordie MacKenzie - that way they won't feel the loss in red hair.

Just lobbing in my 2 cents worth: Gorringe

I wouldn't be surprised if Roos tried to turn him into a big bodied mid given his preoccupation with them. Or more likely fwd/mid. I'm happy to trade for the right price (i.e.. next to nothing)

It's been mentioned that clubs may only take two picks in the draft, plus rookies. To me it means, for the MFC, there won't be the list turnover of recent years. More like, a couple of draft picks and as many trades as possible, FA and DFA pick-ups. So we might only turnover 6 or so players, then offer some of the fringe players/depth an extra year. So, Add to the list Trade first pick (to lets say Bris or GWS for Aish or Treloar - dreamin') Take 2nd round pick (Pounce on Weidemann who has slipped to our second rounder) Trade for Howe (Tomlinson from GWS for example, although I think Howe will refuse to go to GWS) Trade for another player possibly (Dawes for a Brisbane/GCS player, unlikely) Pick up a Free agent/Delisted free agent (Dangerfield of course) Rookie Upgrade(s) (Van Demon and Harmes) Also father/son Lovett rookie? 6 or 7 Players Taken from the List Delist 4 players (e.g.. McKenzie, Bail....) Delist or upgrade rookies (likely upgrade Van Demon, maybe Harmes) Relegate one or two Primary List to the Rookie list (e.g. Hunt, Jones) - Cancels out above) Trade out 1 or 2 (Dawes to Vegas would be nice) Lose a FA? (Garland, hope not) Cross retire? 6 or 7 Not quite the 11 or 12 players from recent years I think we'll try and generate more trades/swaps, particularly if future picks are now on the agenda.

I like your ins and outs. My only reservation is do we need Fitzy in to give Gawn more of a breather and counter their talls down back? I'm undecided, but I'd like to see more of Newton and Salem's a given, even if he's the sub. I still want to see more of Michie but he didn't help his cause on Saturday. Fitzy on Brown would make sense. They're both a little um ungainly and would be up against each other as relief ruck.

I'm still wondering what's up with Tim Smith. He's been out for a while and hope he's back soon

Yes! Then there's this from the Herald Sun: This followed Richmond and Western Bulldogs wearing their indigenous jerseys, while some players such as Collingwood’s Jeff Garlett wore armbands of the Aboriginal flag.

Agree. He's never going to be enduro-man with no real back-up. We need a forward-ruck to give him a decent spell. Hopefully the other big Max will be the ticket

Vince Gawn Watts Viney Jetta Cross Stiff: Hogan, Jones, Garland, Dunn

The other Hawk players treat him like a rookie

I was about to slot O'Meara in-between GA and Prestia but Jack 7 is spot on.

Jake Lovett - Best for the Stingrays Either that or J Flower is the grandson of a gun. I'd probably go with the first.

The booing is cringeworthy. The AFL have asked it to stop as have the coaches, the players and the AFLPA. That should be enough for someone with half a clue. It's like those knobs who used to whistle at the tennis when the ball hit the line, year after year after year- cringeworthy.

Lol - his son was playing, that's why

Viney Gawn Cross Jones Howe Watts Grimes

I thought Ingo was better but yeah

It's not a matter of trying, it's kinda sort of that there's 3 player types at Melbourne: 1) Desperate to win player who's mindset never changes (Viney etc) 2) The majority, who play safe footy, which is not possible given the skill set we currently enjoy. At the first sign of trouble in a game, they look backwards, they lose confidence and direction, either forget the game plan or have no faith in it, second guess, then fumble etc etc. Eg,half the team. 3)The players caught in between. They started with desperation and through sheer loss repetition, are caught in transition between between Group 1) and 2). Most first and second year players

Agreed, he hasn't lost the players by any stretch. Just don't think he's provided an answer that they believe in yet.

Correct, I also ask myself whether he's trapped in the footy of a decade ago. No, he's not entirely, but I'm not sold his on his ability to run with the times. Exhibit A - what the fark was Michie doing as sub. He is good in wet weather but ffs, he's an accumulator - he works his way into games and will never be an impact player. Now he'll be omitted again when he might've made a bit of a difference. He also might not have but what is the point? Riley would've been a better option if the aim is to make an impact.

I have a power of work to do, but seeking a suitable distraction (procrastination) I thought I'd have a closer look at the allocation of games. I thought I'd look specifically at allocation of games to high drawing clubs between 2010 and 2015 (being Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, Hawthorn and Geelong). Geelong is a bit iffy, as from 2010 to 2013 they drew big crowds. It has since fallen away. I didn't look at time slots at all, which is another can of worms and heavily favours the above listed clubs. I looked at all Victorian based clubs as the relevant criteria (except Geelong - they are slightly different and I don't really give a toss about them). I have tried to be unbiased but I'll let you be the judge. The figures below represent the club followed by the number of big crowd-drawing games allocated from 2010 to 2015. So for example: North Melbourne: 2010-2, 2011- 3, 2012 - 3, 2013 - 5, 2014 - 4, 2015 - 4 North was therefore given 2 games against the bigger Victorian clubs in 2010, 3 in 2011, 3 in 2012, 5 in 2013, 4 in 2014 and 4 in 2015 I then looked at ladder position to see if any increase or decrease in games allocated, was reflected by improvement in ladder position or otherwise. Other clubs: Bulldogs - 2010 - 4, 2011 - 4, 2012 - 4, 2013 - 3, 2014 - 3, 2015 - 2 St Kilda - 2010 - 6, 2011 - 5, 2012 - 4, 2013 - 3, 2014 - 3, 2015 - 5 Hawks - 2010 - 3, 2011 - 2, 2012 - 2, 2013 - 2, 2013 - 3, 2014 - 2, 2015 - 4 Melb - 2010 - 4, 2011 - 4, 2012 - 3, 2013 - 2, 2014 - 2, 2015 - 1 Carlton, Richmond, Essendon and Collingwood receive 4 or 5 games against high drawing clubs, regardless of ladder position every year. One anomaly was Richmond in 2010, where they only received 2 big games. Observations: Hawthorn was a big surprise to be lumped in with us peasant clubs. In fact, after Melbourne, they receive the worst allocation of big games. I suspect this is somehow tied in with their Tassie arrangement as they make an absolute killing out of that junket. Having said that, it should not technically penalise their allocation of 'big' games, but it has until the 2015 fixture (4 big games). Also, looking at crowd numbers, the Hawks draw big numbers versus Swans and one or two other clubs. I wouldn't be surprised if they've kicked up a stink with the AFL and are finally getting the games they deserve given their ladder position. Enough about the Hawks but the 'big games' allocated are not reflective of their ladder position. Melbourne - it's official, we are royally shafted and I assume it's ladder position related. 2013-2015 is particularly offensive. I think it would be safe to say that, as we try to dig our way out of the hole we're in, the AFL has taken away our spade. St Kilda - aside from 2015 (where they were given a whopping 5 home games against the big clubs after finishing last on the ladder), their allocation is loosely based on ladder position. Doesn't Gillon go for the Saints? (Trying not to be biased) Bulldogs - Did pretty well from 2010-12 where they were given 4 big games each year, although 2010 and 2011 is linked to ladder position (3rd and 4th). It's down hill from there though, and like us, from 2013, they've been shafted. My interpretation is that, at least for the Bullies and us, something changed from 2013 and we seem to be out of the big game equation. It will be interesting to see if Footscray will be rewarded for their Top 8 finish (or thereabouts) this year. I assume the change (from 2013) is related to the equalisation fund or, that we have no say in the matter (rogered by AFL). I'm surprised the bummers weren't penalised for their actions by the fixture in any way. The final observation is this - The bigger clubs will always be allocated their 4 or 5 games and, as much as we, or any other club improves, there are a limited number of big games available to us - given they won't be taken away from Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon. So, don't expect improved ladder position to automatically translate to a better allocation of financially rewarding games. I'm nerded out now

Clearly you missed the Melb v Brisbane game. Yes, a win's a win but it wasn't pretty by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree. To me it looks like they're trying to curb his instincts a little and he's caught between what he wants to do versus what he's required to do. The only way he'll get the balance is with more game time and it won't be through lack of trying. Whether that's in the seniors or Casey is the question. I think he has a bit to offer.