MH.

I watched Trengove in the under 18's and he was top shelf. I watched Trengove in his first two years and really liked what I saw. He showed all the makings of a player that would become one of the better midfielders in the competition. I watched Trengove last year and he tried to play differently. He tried to bring a defensive side to his game. He lost initiative and started hunting the man and not the ball. I believe he'll start getting the right balance back this year. Trengove wasn't considered slow when he was first drafted, but either way he's a smart footballer and it won't impede his value and contribution. We don't need him running down flanks breaking the lines. We need his ability to provide grunt in the middle and his nous, which he most definitely has. Finally, this from Joel Selwood about himself: "I'm not a pretty footballer. I'm slow, I don't kick it as well as the good kicks. I'm what you could say is an olden-day footballer in many ways." Some are too concerned with Trengove's speed and have lost sight of the 17 year old that starred for Sturt in a preliminary final. We're so rapt up in the here and now that we don't even recall the class he showed in his first two years. If Trengove is good enough he's most definitely quick enough. I believe he'll be top shelf. I always have.

What cheap shots?

If Mitch Clark is right to play it's probably the best injury list I've ever seen at Melbourne, yet supporters are unhappy? There's a tonne of grief at the moment, but the injury list isn't one of them.

I can completely understand why some posters don't think that Neeld is the problem, but I can't say that I agree. Unfortunately, a host of players didn't "buy in" to his plans and visions in his first year. This is clear, because it was stated by players at the best and fairest during their speeches and it was a regular theme when players were interviewed. I was hoping with the list turnover that the recalcitrant element had been weeded out, but it's clear to me that the players just don't play for this guy and nor do they understand his direction. Half of them were scared when they first met him, which I enjoyed at the time, but it's got him nowhere. From afar it looks like "Professor" Neeld has over coached this group. He's filtered out any creative bones in their body. They second guess what they're meant to be doing. They appear to have zero enjoyment with their football. They don't understand what is required of them. I'm not a Bailey fan, because the team played with zero defence and ran only one way, but I acknowledge that they played with flair and I acknowledge that they played for their coach. 186 was a combination of many things, but it wasn't due to the relationship between player and coach. It was the ramifications of a fractured club. A seemingly still fractured club. One only has to look at the Dogs, Port, Adelaide and others to know that this coach is not getting the same buy in or effort from his players. So while I understand that many have a natural inclination to support the coach I put it to you that you're simply not taking note of the overwhelming evidence before you. It's the coach, I'm afraid.

Port were playing away from home with 10 players that had played less than 25 games, including 3 debutantes. They were full of babies. We have no leadership in the middle of the ground. No-one to set the tone and stand up. No-one to lead the way. They had Hartlett, Ebert and Cornes and their young players followed their lead. Melbourne players wait for one of their teammates to set an example. No-one is putting their hand in the air.

A team's on-field performance is predicated by the coach and the leadership group. It's certainly an indictment on the team that the player who showed the most leadership out on the field was an 18 year old playing his first game. Extraordinary really.

You won't sack a coach after round 1, but if the team is insipid against GWS in round 4 he's gone. Under the same circumstances the ruthless clubs of the AFL just wouldn't tolerate it. There comes a time when you've got to cut your losses. He has a few games to turn things around.

I disagree. There was noting wrong with those two clearance kicks. The problem was his Melbourne teammates playing metres behind their opponents.

Many posters don't seem to be mentioning this guy. He's truly hopeless and not worthy of a spot in the team. How he was selected ahead of Terlich, or Jetta, who both have a crack, is one of life's great mysteries. The dropped chest mark, followed up by the double fisted spoil when he could have marked just 60 seconds later, was a special. The terrible kicks not withstanding. EDIT: I've since seen many posts saying the same thing.

You mean you missed the 70's ?

Melbourne should win this game through dominance in the forward-line if they can go close to breaking even in the midfield. The Power's back-line was monstered by Sellar in the NAB game and while both clubs were under-manned that day the Power's defence will be no different this time around. Jackson Trengove is the most experienced of their back 6 with just 61 games. Players like Pittard (14), Stevenson (10), Jonas (13), O'Shea (22) and Heath (2), all named in their named back 6, have a combined total of 61 games. Sellar was too good for Trengove with 5 goals, so how do they handle Clark, Sellar and Pedersen today? The rain is their friend. If Melbourne bring their tackling game and get enough inside forward 50 entries they have enough firepower up front to win this game.

Scully's advantage at junior level was his freak running. He'd get to double the contests of his peers. And in those days his lack of size wasn't an issue, as even the bigger and taller kids were skinny. These days his size is an issue, because he gets monstered "inside" and just about every other midfielder is as fit. Combined with his ordinary disposal skills and a once junior gun now equals Mr. Vanilla.

Maybe it's coincidence that Viney and Toumpas are making their debut on Easter Sunday, but maybe it's not (dramatic music). Well the day is finally here. How many years have some of you been waiting for young Jack to play this game ?

I reckon they were mindful of the already high number of debutantes, as well as Nicholson's stellar preseason from a fitness perspective; so they've gone for what you might call the incumbent. In other words, Terlich has to beat the door down, or Nicholson has to cough up his position. Trengove also needs to beat the door down at Casey. If he can't dominate at that level then he's not ready.

I agree. In the corresponding game last year there are only 10 of the 22 saddling up again. Of the 12 missing I'd only welcome back Rivers and Trengove. More-so, of the 10 lining up again not one should be worse, i.e. past it, but many, including Blease, Howe, Grimes, Watts, Frawley ... should be improving. That's not to suggest that every new player is an instant gain. Some will be and some will be of a similar standard. Structurally we'll be better even without the presence of Dawes.

New: they missed out on Matt Jones and Hombsh isn't playing for them. A similar shake up for both sides, which goes against the argument of not picking us due to such significant changes by the experts on Fox Footy's League Teams. Their midfield is more advanced and at this stage arguably more talented, however not so much that it can't be neutralised. If Melbourne breaks even in the midfield, or goes even close to breaking even then I expect a win, as we're stronger in other areas of the ground and have a healthy home ground advantage. I'll be exceedingly disappointed with a loss.

Probably not. I think the game is close betting wise, but the media certainly seem to be favouring Port. I put it down to the midfields. They like Jones, but they see no budding superstar in our midfield. You look at Richmond and they have Cotchin, Deledio and Martin. One is a border-line superstar (will be soon if not already) and the other two are match winners. Port have Boak, Ebert, Hartlett, Wingard and everyone's flavour of the month Ollie Wines. They see an emerging midfield, but they don't with Melbourne. Not for a while yet, anyway.

I'm not sure why anyone would be basing their season expectations from a lightweight SEN interview. If you want Neeld's view of the coming season you're far better off watching his 11 minute speech at the commencement dinner. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2013-03-25/mark-neeld-speech-commencement-dinner

I'd put that down to Clark and Trengove coming off a game, while Dawes and McDonald need time on the park - especially if they're to prove their fitness.

Trengove: good first quarter then hardly sighted. Clark: moved well, but timing out and hands rusty. Better for the run. Clisby: pace and moves nicely. Needs more bulk. Didn't spoil effectively when behind in a couple of one-on-ones. A number of possessions. Fitzpatrick: pretty ineffective with the usual costly turnovers from sprayed kicks. One contributed directly in a goal. Taggert: did some nice things. Kent: was pretty quiet. Tried hard, but things didn't really go his way. Blease: pretty good. Used his pace and looked ready for round 1. McKenzie: got quite a lot of it. Good game. Viney: really good. Turned it over poorly once, but got a heap of it and had some stellar wins out of the centre in the third quarter. Easily Casey's best. You wouldn't promote either Trengove, or Clark on their output, but the club was more interested in them getting through unscathed. Casey were murdered out of the centre today. Left at 3/4 time.