rumpole

According to the Herald Sun, Collingwood has been dealt a significantly easier draw than any other club in the competition and that this is because the "luck has fallen Collingwood's way" http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E19742,00.html If you believe anything to do with Collingwood's easy draw is luck then you have to believe in Santa Claus too (sorry kiddies). Even Andrew Demetriou admits that the draw is structured to suit the AFL's commercial and business interests i.e. making money and drawing big crowds. This means the Pies travel less to interstate venues and never to Skilled Stadium where they are at greater risk of losing. I etimate this is worth up to 8 premiership points over a season i.e. a significant bonus in an even season like 2007. It's not a level playing field so why do the papers always insist that Collingwood are lucky?

I agree. The Riley honeymoon is over and while perhaps it might be unfair to pick at him in the circumstances, I don't think his coaching aspirations beyond round 22 were given a boost last night.

As much as I admire and love Stan I think the coach has to come from well outside the club and be given virtually carte blanche to put his own stamp on the club's football department and playing list. That starts with the bootstudder, the property steward (groan) and goes all the way up through the ranks including fitness staff. The less familiarity with the personnel at the club the better as far as I'm concerned. We have been an unsuccessful club for far too long and we need someone to instil the ways of winning back into the ranks.

That's because the Zebras seem to play most of their games on Sundays.

I wouldn't be too sure about that proposition. I do however, ask the question whether Carlton would have suspended Fevola if it was the week before the NAB Cup Grand Final?

One door closes and another one opens ...

Has anyone else noticed during the Daniher crisis tht the club sems to be reverting back to the bad old days when everything happening at the club was accurately predicted and reported in the media before it happened?

Not reported in the injured players list. If he was rested for all of the last quarter and part of the third, he wouldn't be that stretched playing off a 5 day break.

He won't be sacked. It's not the Board's style and nor should it be. However, I don't believe we'll hear people advocating that we should reappoint him at a time when our record stands at an abysmal 2/9 as has happened over the past fortnight. Imagine if you will, reappointing him for another three years. We would almost certainly be having this discussion again at some time in 2010. No thanks!

If anyone's annoyed about being misled by this thread then they would be equally annoyed about the information supporters are fed by the club. I had to get up early today for work and I opened this email received overnight:- MELBOURNEfc News Update Neitz to miss Tigers clash MELBOURNE skipper David Neitz will miss Friday night's clash against Richmond at the MCG, after he had surgery to repair a fractured finger, which occurred against Collingwood in round 11. They call that an "update"? Are the selectors and the club media people communicating with each other?

It astonishes me the amount of denial and apathy that exists on this subject. Certainly, some aspects of the survey are lighhearted but it would be folly to dismiss or take lightly a survey which indicates such a drastic loss of supporters.

I was watching the Essendon v West Coast game last night and was thinking after the teams slugged it out how the Bombers have had a good run in tight matches in recent weeks. They've won three close ones against Richmond, Sydney and West Coast and there but for fortune could easily have lost every one. On the other hand, Melbourne lost to Port Adelaide, Bulldogs and Kangaroos by a goal or less. Here's my "what if scenario" if you could reverse those close games. This would be the current ladder: West Coast 9 wins 2 defeats 0 draws 126.7% 36 pts Geelong 7 3 0 155.0 28 Hawthorn 7 3 0 115.3 28 Collingwood 7 3 0 106.8 28 Sydney 6 4 0 114.6 24 Adelaide 6 4 0 108.5 24 Port Adelaide 5 5 0 99.9 20 Kangaroos 5 5 0 98.2 20 ----------------------------- Western Bulldogs 4 5 1 95.7 18 Brisbane 4 5 1 95.0 18 Essendon 4 7 0 104.9 16 Fremantle 4 6 0 97.0 16 St. Kilda 4 6 0 86.3 16 Melbourne 3 6 1 75.7 14 Carlton 3 7 0 82.0 12 Richmond 1 8 1 72.1 6 We'd only be one and a half games out of the eight instead of five. I think it's arguable that given just an average run with injuries instead of our horror run and we might have picked up those extra games. Thinking back on them, we might have picked up the points with a few umpiring decisions going our way as well. The flip side is that this situation would make Melbourne's chances of getting a priority pick in this year's drat almost a mathematical impossibility.

We lose Rivers and Petterd to injury and we go with two players in Ward and Holland who are both pushing 30. Why not give Newton a go?

Perhaps it would be wise if you're going to attack someone for the statements he makes here, that you could provide some reasons why you think it's the most ridiculous statement. As far as I'm concerned the club has had a bad trot with injuries this year but the lack of vision of the entire football department in the preparation of the team for this year including coaching and match day tactics and strategies have been pretty much abysmal. The club needs to do something about this because we're four weeks into the season and we don't have much hope for the next five months the way we're going. A few examples - we look smaller than our opposition. Is this because we spent the pre season fining down so that we could be at peak fitness during the finals series we're not going to make? Why don't we have any big key position players coming through? Where are our ruck stocks to counter the ruckman of the 21st century? We have no ruckmen injured but Jamar gets a game week in week out and barely does a thing. PJ - can he run? Can he take a mark? Where are our improvers? Jumpring is right about the point kick ins too! Watch the replay tonight and consider the difference between the way the Dockers moved the ball out of defence compared to how we stumbled at it. The coaching has a lot to do with what we've seen so far this year - don't kid yourself Mick.

Which is exactly my point. If the provocation was the element that resulted in the leniency to Headland then in the interests of justice (if that is what the AFL indeed seeks in these matters) it was crucial to determine whether what was stated by Headland to be fact was actually true and correct. Selwood should have given evidence in the Headland case.

I'm not suggesting this because I'm bitter and twisted as a result of the Headland and Carr vedicts clearing both of them to play against Melbourne however I don't understand how it's possible that:- (a) Selwood is cleared of sledging, and then (B) Headland is cleared of two offences the MRP though worthy of 6 weeks suspension basically for the reason that he was sledged. Now, IMO if you're going to excuse Headland because he was stupid enough to be taken in by a perceived sledge (it couldn't have been a real one because Selwood went unpunished) then he has to go for the second assault because that was premeditated after the original non-existent provocation. Something stinks to high heaven at the AFL.

Remember you well young Fidge. You must have been about 15 years old when you first played for the MFC Under 19's and were considered by all and sundry as a player of the future. Showed promise in your first season of senior footy at the MFC but then faded out of the picture under John Northey. I remember your brother Ted snotting someone important at Waverley but not the details or the number of weeks he got if any. The Demons also won a night premiership in 1989 but I'm not sure whether Teddy was there by then. Anyhow great memories, I wish you well and please stick with us although, if I may say, I hope that schoolteacher from McKinnon High wasn't your English teacher. Cheers, Rumpole

I have a solution for your problems, Oracle. 1. Visit your shrink more often. 2. Stop watching second rate television programmes.

I don't believe I'm reading this.

I think the point is that the Noonans and McKennas of bygone days were ready to play elite level in the '60's because suburban and bush football was so much stronger when emerging players had to play against men at a young age. Newton's grounding was with the Murray Bushies playing against other Under 18's. Since then he had a back injury that interrupted most of 2005 and last year, he spent more time in the VFL reserves than in the seniors. On top of that, the standard down there is rather ordinary. I think the kid's good but he needs to toughen up mentally in order to play full time with the men. Should he do this, it will be a bonus for the club and he'll play a lot of quality AFL games because he has the skills and is a potentially exciting player.

He won't be much use if he can't raise a gallop through lack of match practice or his hammy plays up during the game. On the other hand, if those things happen, he'll perform in a similar fashion to half the team from Friday night v St. Kilda.

WJ is right. Take it from another member of the legal profession who has seen dozens of medical reports in his time on people charged with possessing and using illicit drugs. This is exactly the place to leave the message that people who want to experiment with these substances should be in a position to make an informed choice and not be under any misapprehensionss about the course they might be taking when they light up their first joint, pop their first pill, snort or sniff something up their noses or inject some rubbish into their veins. If it's all about informed choice then John Hay's message was, in part, misleading and dangerous.

I read somewhere that Junior was under a bit of a cloud with a calf problem.

Ben Cousins was excluded because of the doubt over his playing career. Had he been sprung one week later, Brock would've missed out on making the top 50.

It's probably a good precaution by the mods anyway because, in some circumstances, even the truth can be defammatory.