SF33

Not at all. All good. I just think that it's important with our club, when there's such an ongoing issue with generating and maintaining public interest, to recognise that generally the type of supporters who would frequent this forum are probably not the type of supporters that we need to convince to show up on a regular basis to home games and to buy a membership. It doesn't take much for the more casual (or simply more time poor) fans to put attending a game in the too hard basket. My understanding is that the numbers show that in general, Friday night games aren't popular with our supporters in terms of attendance either and it makes sense that a good way to build our support would be to get younger supporters along (Saturday and Sunday games, mainly afternoons). Now, I'm not sure how much sway our club has in terms of dictating what it wants when the fixture is being developed (and whether our demands are ever more sophisticated than "two home games against Victory") and in fairness, it seems like City's hands are tied with respect to these public transport issues, but I hope that the club actually thinks about this sort of stuff and how we can build our attendances over time, because it's the sort of stuff that will easily turn casual supporters and potential supporters off.

With all due respect, that's enough to be the difference between going and not going for me. A year ago, no worries, I would have got in and finished work early and just driven in at about 5:30, but with a nine month old who isn't the greatest sleeper and a toddler running around as well, the Mrs and me are running on about 4-5 hours of sleep per night and if I'm out until 11pm (if it's still the same timetable as last year, for a Hurstbridge train, you either need to leave as the final whistle is blown to make it to Jolimont in time, or wait another 20 minutes for the next train), it increases the burden on her, as well as sacrificing my one eight hour 'sleep-in' for the week (I seriously look forward to that these days). I'm sure people would look on that as being soft for a home opener and I'm actually optimistic about the season ahead, but it is what it is. I won't be going purely because of the public transport disruptions, combined with going straight from work and I wouldn't be the only one.

I wonder what impact the closure of the Hurstbridge train line from 8:30pm tonight will have to the crowd for our first home game in umpteen years. Presumably a huge number of members/supporters who would ordinarily cruise over from the CBD after work and then train home from Jolimont after will give it a miss, especially if they have Foxtel (me included). I'm not sure about what came first, but I think it's very disappointing that, considering the proximity of our HQ to some of the outer Hurstbridge line stations, either the works weren't pushed back by a couple of hours to allow supporters to get home without a 40-something minute bus ride at 10pm between Clifton Hill and Macleod (then back on a train for the outer reaches of the line), or that the fixture didn't take this into account and give us a Saturday game instead. I know people will travel further and get home later than I would if I went tonight, but the simple fact is I wouldn't have missed this game if I could get the regular train home, or if it was pretty much any time on Saturday/Sunday instead, so I could drive there and back. In fairness, I don't know if this was out of the club's (or the league's) hands, but it's pretty disappointing that the first round 1 home game in my six years will have such clear accessibility issues for the Hurstbridge line, which is presumably considered a bit of a club heartland.

Pretty funny that even having McDonald's as a kit sponsor doesn't give us cause to add more red.

Since Bruno is already a marquee, I think the concept of a marquee player has been watered down, to some extent. I guess the obvious comparison is Mierzejewski, as a Pole, but he hasn't played in Poland for years. At the end of the day, at his age, if he's a significant improvement on what Brattan dished up (in presumably the role that we're going to want Budzinski to play), I'm sold.

I'm not writing the season off, but that was alarming. Firstly the performance, and secondly Mauk's comments after the game, diplomatically saying that the team needed to find a gameplan that worked and would actually win us games against A-League opposition. Yes, we're missing key players and yes we have visa spots to fill, but I don't know if that's a good sign for this season, since Round 1 is a couple of weeks away. I guess at least my expectations will be low, unlike last year.

In retrospect, I guess the only thing more predictable than Redmayne keeping a clean sheet without doing anything (OK he's made a save now), would have been Redmayne keeping a clean sheet while saving a penalty or two.

Incredible, isn't it? Compared to others, I know sweet FA about tactics and the technical side of the game, but the only things I wanted from the next coach were someone whom I'd never heard of and someone who wasn't picked based on his popularity with casual supporters (i.e. Kewell or Kisnorbo). Fact is, Graham Arnold is the only coach that I would be confident about being able to come into any A-League situation and turn it around (and who might actually want to), based on his track record. Anyone else, local or foreign, your guess is as good as mine. Hope Joyce hardens this side up and gives the starting spots to players who are all-in. How many times did we score first last year, only to draw, or lose? If we had been able to fix that, we would have been a top two side last year.

Yeah, it's an AFL thing. I never really noticed it at the games, but I thought Bouzanis would be an interesting test case for that sort of treatment, as it would be difficult to know whether they were genuinely booing him. Whenever I saw that Bouzanis had been given the starting spot ahead of Sorensen, I thought it was a mistake. But I still wanted him to do well, whenever he was in goals for us (as I do for every City player, whether I think they're any good or not). Anyone who didn't doesn't deserve to be called a supporter of this club.

While it's not quite accurate to say that we let Wilkinson go, as was suggested a few posts above yours, I think your point is very valid. It's become a pattern: players look awful for us, we're glad to see the back of them, another club takes a punt with them, we all wonder 'How is this bloke still in the league?' and then his change of colours results in him becoming a rock solid player. For that reason, I'd be very wary of making rash decisions with a number of our players, especially those who are still a good age and/or have showed they are capable players in the league elsewhere. Maybe Malik can settle as a regular contributor off the bench: he didn't have a sensational year, but he's still probably in our best 15 or so players and his versatility means he could be a great asset as a regular substitute. Maybe Franjic will have a renaissance. Maybe Brattan and Kamau get the kick up the arse they seem to so desperately need at their exit interviews and come back next season as different players. Maybe Tongyik becomes that solid starting centre back we've been looking for to patner with Jakobsen and we can get some cheap depth, instead of using a visa spot there. I think in order of priority, we find our next coach, then sort out the visas: Sorensen and Colazo (a marquee) out (and Fernando, unless we get an injury replacement, so same thing really). Imagine what we can do with those spots? Then fill out the squad with a solid veteran backup goalkeeper, a few recognisable names for depth and everything else will be fine. Personally, I'm pretty sure that if we nail the coach and the visa signings, our Australian incumbents in the squad will suddenly look a hell of a lot better.

He's not perfect, granted. But he's pretty clearly a quality Australian player in this competition who is at a great age to hang around for another four years or so and that's a valuable asset to have. We need passionate players who opposition supporters hate. He needs to cut back on the tantrums. But as I think I've said before, his behaviour is one of those things that only seems to be a problem when the team is losing. Look at Kenny Lowe and Graham Arnold and how they conduct themselves on the bench, even if they're comfortably leading a game. The commentators love it, they point to it as evidence of the club not accepting anything but excellence. When you're winning, Kilkenny-esque behaviour looks great. When you're losing, it looks terrible. I should have added Franjic and Bouzanis (and arguably Malik) to the group of Australians as well. Tongyik, Arzani, Genreau and other youth players are too young to be added to the group. I think there's something wrong if you're playing regular A-League football as a teenager and you don't have loftier ambitions. But once you get to the age of someone like Fitzgerald, Brattan, Caceres, or even Kamau and you're still not an out and out star of the competition (or even a regular starter), I think it's time to give yourself an honest appraisal and consider whether you should perhaps adjust your ambitions to becoming an outstanding A-League player. As important as hitting on our visas next year, I think we need to have a serious conversation with our regular Australian first team members and ask them where they see themselves in 3-5 years time. We need at least a few that see themselves sticking at City and being part of building something here.

It's interesting and until City actually has success, I think we've seen that we're still going to struggle to attract the best players, or the right kind of players in a professional league of this standard. The facilities and the CFG network will attract promising local players, but are we setting ourselves up to recruit players would look at us as a 1/2 year stopover before heading to a bigger league. People have spoken about the fact that we seem to play as individuals rather than a cohesive unit and I think that's part of the problem. You really need to nail your visa signings each year and I think we were pretty unlucky there (apart from the handling of Sorensen) with some impossible to predict injuries, but I think that just as important is nailing your mainstay Australians who will provide you with that nucleus for a number of years. Looking at our current squad, that would include Kamau, Brattan, Kilkenny, Fitzgerald and Caceres. But most of those players are either on loan, or would have aspirations of moving to a bigger club/league to further their careers. Mooy was never going to be here for too long and we wasted his two years at the club. I'm not going to slam Kilkenny for his temperament this year. It's a bit hard to criticise him for openly criticising his teammates, while at the same time demanding that we get a much tougher manager who will deliver some necessary home truths (I could do without the referee abuse though, especially in a post-match interview when we've played like crap). Let's see how he goes with a more functional team.

Yep, I think I'll be doing the same. There would want to be some big announcements over the next month, or I will let the cut-off come and go.

How many players have come to this club with an impeccable international reputation and leave with it fully intact? Thank you Thomas Sorensen. I will have fond memories of your time here and the way the club treated you was disgusting.

Blow it up and start again. Comprehensive review of all positions and wholesale changes are a must. It's an awkward position, as we're often criticised (with some justification) for making too many personnel changes each year, but I think it's necessary. Work out if Fornaroli and Cahill are going to be playing together again and if so, come up with a strategy that can utilise both of their strengths. Once again, we missed with the majority of our visas, with the truly baffling one being Sorensen. Jakobsen, Fernando, Colazo, Fornaroli. Bruno was pretty mediocre, by his lofty standards, Colazo was also underwhelming, as a marquee, had his moments, but clearly well below what we should be expecting from a marquee player with our supposedly amazing scouting network. Jakobsen and Fernando were good, albeit through injury-plagued seasons (how funny does the idea of resting Jakobsen for two months to get him cherry ripe for the finals seem now?). And Sorensen...well, WTF can you say? You play him or you ship him out and get another visa player. I thought Josh Rose actually got a lot better as the season went on, he was far from out biggest problem by the end, but he's probably up for retirement. Muscat couldn't even make the squad by the end of the season, so presumably he's done. I'd like to recruit an experienced A-League keeper, so Bouzanis knows he's not just going to walk in to the #1 role next season. Brattan and Kamau started like a house on fire, but ended up being two of our biggest frustrations, particularly when they apparently have bigger fish to fry than the A-League. 'Get comfortable in Australia' would be my advice to them on the strength of this year. Fitzgerald was outstanding, God knows why he was relegated to being a bit-part player. Caceres was solid at times, although I can't remember him dominating too many games from start to finish as our attacking midfielder. Cahill was good overall. Perhaps a bit of a square peg in a round hole, but he certainly contributed. I think we would have been a worse team without him. His was a unique situation and if we hadn't have paid for him, we wouldn't have been able to spend that money anywhere else. Just a shame that our performances didn't allow us to capitalise on the exposure that his arrival initially brought to the club. The kids were good and many of them deserve more opportunities next season to show what they can do. Gameiro and Kuzi are presumably gone, Fernando would be a big chance to go too, I guess (it's a shame, but hard to justify keeping him, if he won't be available until about February).

I sincerely doubt that the people who stayed home to watch the game would be complaining about the attendance figures, because that would be pretty stupid. Personally, as a Geelong supporter, I'm kicking myself over making the choice to miss one of Selwood's greatest ever games, in favour of that (and paying $60-odd for the privilege). There's something to be said for the 'don't turn up, you're only encouraging them that they're putting out a good product' philosophy. I mean, how quickly would Munn be getting the arse if we were playing in front of 4,000 every week? I will say though, after potting them following the last home game, I think Melburnians deserve a heap of credit. They continued to make themselves heard, even when there was little that the team was doing to justify any support, they tried one (very ambitious, in my opinion) 'If you love City, stand up' chant late in the game and quickly shelved it when it was clear that the rest of the stadium wasn't in the mood and the trip down memory lane with past player chants was perfectly done: summed up the dire state of the game and the boredom that had permeated. The boos were very audible too (not sure if they were picked up on TV) and hopefully they gave the coaches, players and administration a fair kick that this sort of rubbish is not acceptable and won't continue to be tolerated. Well done, guys and girls.

Yep, nail in the coffin. Might have made a difference if he'd had the courage to say something similar 8-10 weeks earlier. Instead, he treated us and pundits who pointed out the obvious issues in the team with ridicule and contempt. http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2017/04/22/city-shake-perth-final He said that a few days out from last night's debacle and then he has the gall to say that the coaching staff was well aware of the problems, but couldn't change courses mid-stream. He's treating us like idiots. He can get the fuck out of my club and I hope he never comes back.

I realise that, but how long does a team in that position go all out for a result like that, before just conceding that it's not going to happen? Do they automatically ditch the attempt and put the cue in the rack if we score first, for example? Basically, if the four goal loss is out of play and assuming Wanderers and Brisbane win, I think it probably ends up being City v Perth at AAMI, if there's a result either way. And if it's a draw, the likely scenario is Perth away to Brisbane in the first week of finals.

How can we be full strength, when a visa player is out with a ruptured ACL? So much depends on Brisbane's game before us (i.e. if we go in with the knowledge that a draw will be 'enough' to sew up third, a potential recipe for disaster with this team) and Perth's attitude as well. With my limited tactical nous and ignoring the Brisbane result for a moment, I'd expect Perth to go all out from the start, seeing if they can put four goals on us. That could be very dangerous, given our shaky defensive record, but it could also give us a cheap early one on the counter, the type of rope a dope goals that teams always get against us. Assuming that open style doesn't really do much one way or another in the first half hour, Perth will probably have a preconceived idea of where they'd prefer to play in the first week of finals as the away team (at Brisbane or AAMI) and work towards that result.

@[LIBBA] I appreciate the constructive response and the work that you do. I guess, on reflection, the problem from my perspective was really just the overuse of the "stand up" chant. If that hadn't been used, I don't think that the attempt to get other areas to do some back and forth would have irritated me at all, but coming right off the back of it, it seemed like it was out of control. From an outsider's perspective, I read a fair bit about "cheezels" on here, but I can legitimately say that I've never noticed it when I've been at a game. From reading this thread, I get the impression that it's when the active area does the chant to the tune of Drop it Like it's Hot and people throw scarves and stuff in the air, cheezels are going up as well? I think the other thing to consider, which other posters have mainly brought up is that it should be the culture that people come along and stand up all game/every game. I think that's way easier said than done, when we're usually fluctuating between a quarter/third full stadium. I'm in my mid-30s and in my area, I reckon practically all the regulars are roughly my age, older than me, or young kids that have come with their parents (i.e. kids who are nowhere near old enough to get to a game by themselves). So doing things like that become a pretty ruthless business decision to me: will it get us more supporters? Will it alienate existing supporters? What will it do for our attendances? My guesses would be "perhaps", "perhaps" and "not much". So, it doesn't seem to be worth the risk. In terms of promotion, I'm not sure what Melburnians have tried in the past, but perhaps the official City Facebook page could provide a post, directing supporters to your page, to learn the chants, special tributes that have been organised etc.? Depends what relationship you have with them, I suppose. I don't actively seek out news about the active area, what you have planned and new chants, so I often don't really have a clue what's going on, which is of course, mainly my own problem. But, I'm sure that there's many like me, who if they were having a look at Facebook and saw that City was encouraging supporters to check out Melburnians page and follow it, that you'd get heaps of new followers.

The way I remember it, the "stand up" chant got a run at least twice when Adelaide was in a semi-threatening position (which, of course, was a rarity in the game) and at least once where the ball went over the crossbar. Now there's something to be said for trying to start an all-crowd chant during a lull in the game, but during a period where the opposition creates a shot on goal, is not the appropriate time, in my opinion. As jw1739 has mentioned, no-one outside of the active should have any obligation to stand up. And they certainly shouldn't be forced into standing during a boring period of the game, because it's the only way that they'll be able to see the action. There is plenty of room at the southern end of the ground for people that choose to stand for the entire game. If it was up to me, the "stand up" chant would only be brought out when the win had already been sealed. That's not to say that there aren't alternatives to get the other sections involved. The "ole ole (pointing and repeating in different sections)" thing is harmless enough. I think that's just a case of taking the feedback on board and not persisting with it when the other sections clearly have no interest in joining in...that's when it rapidly degenerates into simply looking like attention seeking, at least from the outside. I think the "We are Melbourne...we are City" chant at the right time could get the whole crowd involved. It's simple, everyone knows it and even if you were attending your first game, you'd pick it up in about 30 seconds and you could keep it up for 5-10 minutes, easily.

I don't think the active area had any interest in "connecting". They were trying to tell the people in the other sections of the park what to do and when they were roundly ignored, they threw the toys out of the cot and started booing. And I think I've explained pretty clearly what the issue is with constantly trying to get the entire crowd to stand up at seemingly random moments of the game: that unless everyone shares that same vision, it results in people having their view of the game blocked.

Ok, Perth wins by two goals, which is a pretty good result for us, I think (famous last words?). They will need to beat us by four goals to overtake us. So, unless I'm missing anything and leaving aside the possibility of us being smashed by 4+ against Perth: If we win We will stay in front of Brisbane and retain third place, unless they beat Wellington by two goals more than we beat Perth. If we draw We will stay in front of Brisbane and retain third place, unless they beat Wellington. If we lose Brisbane will go ahead of us, unless they also lose It also seems pretty straightforward, for our potential 5th/6th opponent: If Perth wins by 1-3 goals Perth finishes fifth and the first final is probably a return leg at AAMI If we draw against Perth Perth finishes fifth, unless Wanderers beat Adelaide (in Adelaide) If Perth loses against us Wanderers go ahead of them with a draw or win against Adelaide. So, funnily enough, if there's a winner and a loser either way at NIB Stadium, the result is probably a home final against Perth at AAMI. If we draw, it's not as clear who will finish where.

I'm officially barracking for Perth...the heart wants what it wants and a Perth win is better for us, if we want to finish third. Garcia, you star!.

Well, we're both on 45 goals right now, so criteria 4 won't be good for us, if Perth finishes with two wins.