Gary Lyon

[Bluelegs]

he got hit by a few pies today in Rundle Mall

 

[LouisCK]

Not even close to the same amount of time. FD/coaching/admin may have changed, but your club as a whole has been rebuilding since when, 2007? You've still been turning over young players and high draft picks in that period of time.

Crazy to suggest we've been rebuilding the same amount of time.

The list has been rebuilding longer than yours, yes. But the people accountable for making the rebuild work have been at our club about the same amount of time. I mean sure, you can blame the Bailey years for a lot of problems, but considering nearly everyone involved throughout that time is gone, what's the point of including that coaching group as a point of reference for our current problems?

Neeld can't be saddles with a 5 year rebuild. Only the time he's been there. Yet from the media pressure it looks more like he's being held accountable for all of our problems over a period of time where he was winning a flag at Collingwood as an assistant.

 

[Markfs]

Lyon has said countless times he is not interested. Now I dislike him as much as anybody, but if he doesnt want to take on a role at Melbourne FOR WHATEVER REASON then thats his entitlement.

I cannot believe how much shit has been thrown at a guy who is not remotely involved with Melbournes current dilemma. I can only imagine how much shit he would cop if he did take a role on.

Excuse me but he was appointed by Melbourne to find a coach for the club. Isn't that a role? I would respect him if he kept his distance from the club. However, he has taken on "part-time" jobs such as being the coach-headhunter and these dalliances with his old club completely undermine him as a self-appointed sports journalist. When he is speaking about Melbourne, I have no idea if he is speaking as a journalist or as a spokesperson for the club.

 

[Markfs]

The list has been rebuilding longer than yours, yes. But the people accountable for making the rebuild work have been at our club about the same amount of time. I mean sure, you can blame the Bailey years for a lot of problems, but considering nearly everyone involved throughout that time is gone, what's the point of including that coaching group as a point of reference for our current problems?

Neeld can't be saddles with a 5 year rebuild. Only the time he's been there. Yet from the media pressure it looks more like he's being held accountable for all of our problems over a period of time where he was winning a flag at Collingwood as an assistant.

Well the main culprits have been given the flick..... the ex-CEO and the part-time ABC broadcaster. The truth is, they should have hitched their future on the success of the coach. In fact, everyone in major positions at the club should say that they will resign if Neeld gets the flick....that includes the President. It's the only way to convince the players that everyone at the club supports Neeld. Of course, they are too busy covering their behinds to put themselves in such a position

 

[CowboyFromHell]

The overarching point is Garry is clearly happy to take potshots at other clubs "who would want their son drafted to Port" and "Western Bulldogs and Melbourne are in a similar situation" to make his club seem better than it is. He's a moo of the highest order. The only difference between him and your typical delusional bigfooty ****wits is he has a tv and radio show.

Even though he has, on more than enough occasions, blasted Melbourne for it's performance. There is no way he can make us look better than what we are.

You're like the six year old kid in the yard running up to the teacher to dob in all and sundry because you didn't like what they had to say. You're a sad, vindictive poster MoC.

 

[LouisCK]

Tend to agree Markfs. At least with Eddie or Brayshaw its an official ongoing position and its more clear about where they're coming from (and how little you can trust them when talking about their clubs, which isn't a big deal imo).

With Garry I feel like when things are going well he's taking credit for it and acting like part of the club, and when they're not he distances himself and puts his journo hat on.

I appreciate that he obviously wants good things for the club, but its too conflicted to keep happening. We need to stop going to him in these situations for anything except unofficial and unpaid advice.

 

[ManOfClay]

Even though he has, on more than enough occasions, blasted Melbourne for it's performance. There is no way he can make us look better than what we are.

You're like the six year old kid in the yard running up to the teacher to dob in all and sundry because you didn't like what they had to say. You're a sad, vindictive poster MoC.

Sorry Garry.

He hardly ever blasts Melbourne. Sulks whenever Sam Newman has anything bad to say about the Dees. Heaps shit on other clubs like Port, us and iirc Collingwood?

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Sorry Garry.

He hardly ever blasts Melbourne. Sulks whenever Sam Newman has anything bad to say about the Dees. Heaps shit on other clubs like Port, us and iirc Collingwood?

I think you'll find he can be one of the first to blast Melbourne, and has sunk the boots in numerous times this year alone. And with good reason.

But he is also entitled to do the same with other clubs. He's in the media, it's his job. You guys haven't exactly set the world alight this season so I don't see why you're upset that he has "heaped shit" on the Dogs (which he didn't really do). You guys haven't been flash.

 

[ManOfClay]

He said we are in a similar spot to Melbourne. That's about as low as you can get.

 

[LouisCK]

He said we are in a similar spot to Melbourne. That's about as low as you can get.

As far as win/loss goes since both our coaches took over, he's about right.

Difference is, we're getting done by 100 a game. So I agree that he hasn't quite grasped how bad the situation is at the Demons.

 

[The Prosecutor]

As far as win/loss goes since both our coaches took over, he's about right.

Difference is, we're getting done by 100 a game. So I agree that he hasn't quite grasped how bad the situation is at the Demons.

Difference is that you're getting double up games against the franchise teams where as the Bulldogs haven't.

Neeld has one solitary win v non-expansion teams. McCartney has four.

Neeld has had four wins from four games against expansion clubs. McCartney has had two from two.

Excluding expansion games, here is how the two teams stack up.

Melbourne

W: 1
L: 21
F: 1426
A: 2653
%: 53.76

Western Bulldogs

W: 4
L: 20
F: 1667
A: 2585
%: 64.49

That's excluding the fact that the Bulldogs have been playing in preliminary finals while Melbourne have remained at such a poor level of performance, a slide was expected from the Dogs, Melbourne was eventually expected to rise and it only keeps getting worse.

 

[ManOfClay]

Difference is that you're getting double up games against the franchise teams where as the Bulldogs haven't.

Neeld has one solitary win v non-expansion teams. McCartney has four.

Neeld has had four wins from four games against expansion clubs. McCartney has had two from two.

Excluding expansion games, here is how the two teams stack up.

Melbourne

W: 1
L: 21
F: 1426
A: 2653
%: 53.76

Western Bulldogs

W: 4
L: 20
F: 1667
A: 2585
%: 64.49

That's excluding the fact that the Bulldogs have been playing in preliminary finals while Melbourne have remained at such a poor level of performance, a slide was expected from the Dogs, Melbourne was eventually expected to rise and it only keeps getting worse.

Summed up beautifully. Hope Garry is reading.

 

[Bluelegs]

Difference is that you're getting double up games against the franchise teams where as the Bulldogs haven't.

Neeld has one solitary win v non-expansion teams. McCartney has four.

Neeld has had four wins from four games against expansion clubs. McCartney has had two from two.

Excluding expansion games, here is how the two teams stack up.

Melbourne

W: 1
L: 21
F: 1426
A: 2653
%: 53.76

Western Bulldogs

W: 4
L: 20
F: 1667
A: 2585
%: 64.49

That's excluding the fact that the Bulldogs have been playing in preliminary finals while Melbourne have remained at such a poor level of performance, a slide was expected from the Dogs, Melbourne was eventually expected to rise and it only keeps getting worse.

So we lose our wins against expansion clubs (ask Richmond, Carlton, Port, St.Kilda, and Brisbane if those games count) but with those wins we also lose four games we've played, so the example is even less relevant.

 

[daniel_4tw]

So we lose our wins against expansion clubs (ask Richmond, Carlton, Port, St.Kilda, and Brisbane if those games count) but with those wins we also lose four games we've played, so the example is even less relevant.

That would be true if Melbourne actually had a chance of beating the alternate opponent. So go on, name one club Melbourne would have beaten had they got to play them instead of an expansion side.

Ergo, Melbourne missing few games isn't going to effect their win column.

 

[Bluelegs]

That would be true if Melbourne actually had a chance of beating the alternate opponent. So go on, name one club Melbourne would have beaten had they got to play them instead of an expansion side.

Ergo, Melbourne missing few games isn't going to effect their win column.

It's impossible to say what games we would have won without actually playing those games, though we did start to play better at the latter parts of last year whereas the bulldogs played worse so if we faced them at that time last year we would've been a good chance.

 

[mysainters]

'As a Melbourne fan'

Yawn.

Does this guy still not get it, he is a retired former champion of the footy club, deal with it Gary.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

So we lose our wins against expansion clubs (ask Richmond, Carlton, Port, St.Kilda, and Brisbane if those games count) but with those wins we also lose four games we've played, so the example is even less relevant.

The example is what it is - the respective records of the Dees and Bulldogs against all non-expansion sides. The exclusion of the expansion sides is pertinent, since they have such drastically different lists to the rest of the competition, and have such poor win-loss records. The question is "How do Footscray and Melbourne stack up when playing a typical AFL list?" and The Prosecutor has given the answer.

 

[LouisCK]

Yeah, so there's very little difference between the two even looking at the data provided by TP.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Yeah, so there's very little difference between the two even looking at the data provided by TP.

I think there is a significant difference between the two, especially when context is taken into account.

Melbourne's situation is much more dire and pathetic than that of the Bulldogs, due to the fact that this has been the standard for the best part of 6-7 years, actually, the standard was at least normally above what we've seen in the past 13 months.

The Bulldogs were always expected to reach this slide, much like St Kilda are also about to as well. The difference is while the Bulldogs are down at the moment, the future is still visible. Melbourne on the other hand, have displayed no such cause for optimism.

Melbourne deserve to be chastised as they currently are, if the Bulldogs drop any further, then they may well sink to Melbourne's level as well.

 

[ManOfClay]

Yeah, so there's very little difference between the two even looking at the data provided by TP.

I'd say four times the wins, and a much larger percentage is a bit of a difference. We've scored 200 more points than you and conceded 100 less.

 

[ManOfClay]

Yeah, so there's very little difference between the two even looking at the data provided by TP.

I'd say four times the wins, and a much larger percentage is a bit of a difference. We've scored 200 more points than you and conceded 100 less.

 

[Scotland]

The Bulldogs were always expected to reach this slide, much like St Kilda are also about to as well. The difference is while the Bulldogs are down at the moment, the future is still visible. Melbourne on the other hand, have displayed no such cause for optimism.

What about the 12 goal quarter against GWS??? The 12 goal quarter against GWS!

The real difference between Melbourne and the Dogs is that people expect Melbourne to have improved by now. They went to the draft 3 years in a row - before GC & GWS came in. Not only did they get three goes at uncompromised drafts, they did so when the Dogs were still playing prelims. The expectation (obviously not the reality) is that the Dees should have a core of top young players who are a few years ahead of the development curve as their red, blue & white counterparts.

6 bottom 6 finishes in a row, and currently sitting 2nd last only because they have played GWS. If the Dogs are in this sort of poop in 3 years time expect all manner of shit to be flung in their direction.

 

[LouisCK]

I think there is a significant difference between the two, especially when context is taken into account.

Melbourne's situation is much more dire and pathetic than that of the Bulldogs, due to the fact that this has been the standard for the best part of 6-7 years, actually, the standard was at least normally above what we've seen in the past 13 months.

The Bulldogs were always expected to reach this slide, much like St Kilda are also about to as well. The difference is while the Bulldogs are down at the moment, the future is still visible. Melbourne on the other hand, have displayed no such cause for optimism.

Melbourne deserve to be chastised as they currently are, if the Bulldogs drop any further, then they may well sink to Melbourne's level as well.

Yeah I agree with all that, the Dees are definitely in a worse spot than the Dogs, and for longer. But the gap between the two teams on-field isn't big enough to warrant the HUGE gap in media scrutiny the Demons face compared to the dogs.

 

[Scotland]

Yeah I agree with all that, the Dees are definitely in a worse spot than the Dogs, and for longer. But the gap between the two teams on-field isn't big enough to warrant the HUGE gap in media scrutiny the Demons face compared to the dogs.

The gap between the two teams on-field is not the reason for the huge gap in media scrutiny.

 

[PatrickBateman]

I think there is a significant difference between the two, especially when context is taken into account.

Melbourne's situation is much more dire and pathetic than that of the Bulldogs, due to the fact that this has been the standard for the best part of 6-7 years, actually, the standard was at least normally above what we've seen in the past 13 months.

The Bulldogs were always expected to reach this slide, much like St Kilda are also about to as well. The difference is while the Bulldogs are down at the moment, the future is still visible. Melbourne on the other hand, have displayed no such cause for optimism.

Melbourne deserve to be chastised as they currently are, if the Bulldogs drop any further, then they may well sink to Melbourne's level as well.

The Dogs have had a record that's only eclipsed by Hawthorn, StKilda and Collingwood as far as Melbourne clubs goes in the last 8-10 years. Carlton and Essendon are a mile off and have really achieved squat in recent times.

Dogs - 3 Preliminary finals & 1 Semi since 2006. You could argue they're due for a genuine rebuild. How could anyone compare the rabble that is Melbourne to this club? They didn't have priority picks or I dare say as many high draft picks as any of the aforementioned Melbourne teams, yet have been a consistent performer for a good period.

The Melbourne Football Club is a genuine joke. I don't think the current coach or players are the ones directly to blame either. Gary Lyon and his mates are simply incompetent and have run the club squarely into the dirt, Stynes included. The culture at that club is such that it requires a full clean out to cure before anything significant will change. Refer to Port Adelaide. Gary Lyon and his mates are arse covering jokes. Football players trying to do a job that's well and far beyond their abilities.