Great day for the MFC

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I only read the first 12 chapters DD but I thought Bob has your measure easily. I'll still give you A for effort!

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I only read the first 12 chapters DD but I thought Bob has your measure easily. I'll still give you A for effort!

Cheers Rhino...

Yeah, I must admit from about chapter 3 I discovered we were going round in circles... I kind of lost interest after that. The complete absence of sleep last night didn't help either...

I reckon one day I'll look back at this time and wonder why i spent so much ime on 'land... Whichever one of us is proven right, who cares? Neither of us will remember this far back...

Oh well, it's all good fun, and you learn a few things on the way. Things like, don't respond to a 10,000 word post with an even longer post. My professor's PHD thesis had less in it than some of my posts...

[Stigga 25]

DD and Axis,

Both of you arguments have merit and could be argued for an indefinite period of time.

I fervently believe however that a football club HAS to draft the best player available. At the end of the day GREAT players win you premierships. Geelong's midfield was GREAT and they one the flag. Hawthorn's forward line was GREAT and so did they.

Hawthorn selected Buddy and Roughead because they believed they were the best available at the time. The fact that they were KPP's turned out to be a fortunate one for Hawthorn. They get the best player available which also fills a need.

So Melbourne select Trengrove at 17 over Blease and perhaps Strauss. Did Melbourne select the best player? Maybe not. It would be remiss of the MFC Recruting Department to select Trengrove on the basis that he perhaps fills a need.

We selected Jack Watts who is an 196cm KPP becasue he was the best available. We are also fortunate, like Hawthorn that he may also fill a need.

Next year we may select John Butcher, an exciting talent. If we were to select him at No. 1 then we would do so becasue he is deemed to be the best available. We will also be fortunate, like Hawthorn that he may also fill a need.

I for one am glad that we have have been told by the recruiting department that we will pick the best available talent. it is up to the recruiters, our coaches and development staff to connect the dots.

[45HG 1,539]

Stigga, I heard the Hawks recruited Roughead and Franklin because they were the best KPPs in that draft (and possibly for several years)

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Yeah, Dunstall came on the radio around the time he was filling in as CEO and fessed up that that was why they did it. I'm not sure, strictly speaking, that they recruited for "type" (they needed KP players) as much as they recruited for a "monopoly" (they knew they'd have the only good ones)...

Could have turned out to be untrue... hell, it still could, but so far it seems to have been fairly well right on.

[Stigga 25]

Stigga, I heard the Hawks recruited Roughead and Franklin because they were the best KPPs in that draft (and possibly for several years)

I don't doubt that at all. I'm not saying for a second that they disregarded the fact that were deemd to be the best KPP's. If you asked them did they pick the best available talent at the time they would no doubt say yes.

[45HG 1,539]

They'd probably say that now, but you can't admit they picked the best KPP available and also claimed they took the best available.

I don't think they saw these two as the two best players available at the time, but the two that would best fit where they wanted to go

[jabberwocky 2,301]

It seems to me to be really clear from the players we overlooked and the ones we took that we had a stringent strategy in place.

1. Overlook injured players or players that had been seriously injured.

2. Overlook players that had question marks over thier skill level.

3. Overlook players that had less than good to excellent pace.

The picks that we took reflect this strategy clearly. We took what we deemed to be the best picks without any of these three weaknesses.

I believe we did this because we already have these three weaknesses entwined within our list and are making an attempt to strengthen our list in the areas of skill, pace and fitness.

[Stigga 25]

They'd probably say that now, but you can't admit they picked the best KPP available and also claimed they took the best available.

I don't think they saw these two as the two best players available at the time, but the two that would best fit where they wanted to go

Who after Franklin at pick 5 do you think they would have rated as a better talent at the time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_AFL_Draft

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Cheers Rhino...

Yeah, I must admit from about chapter 3 I discovered we were going round in circles... I kind of lost interest after that. The complete absence of sleep last night didn't help either...

I reckon one day I'll look back at this time and wonder why i spent so much ime on 'land... Whichever one of us is proven right, who cares? Neither of us will remember this far back...

Oh well, it's all good fun, and you learn a few things on the way. Things like, don't respond to a 10,000 word post with an even longer post. My professor's PHD thesis had less in it than some of my posts...

LOL Agree.

[mo64 5,278]

They'd probably say that now, but you can't admit they picked the best KPP available and also claimed they took the best available.

I don't think they saw these two as the two best players available at the time, but the two that would best fit where they wanted to go

This was confirmed in Emma Quayle's book "The Draft". They drafted for needs, not necessarily the best available.

And this year we've done the same. Apart from Watts, and maybe pick 19 where we were after Lewis Johnston, we drafted for player type, rather than best available.

[H_T 2,941]

Stigga, I heard the Hawks recruited Roughead and Franklin because they were the best KPPs in that draft (and possibly for several years)

So did I 45h.

They'd probably say that now, but you can't admit they picked the best KPP available and also claimed they took the best available.

I don't think they saw these two as the two best players available at the time, but the two that would best fit where they wanted to go

I believe they did pick the best available KPP in that draft, and they can probably lay claim to that already in terms of the best KPP - but certainly not the best overall.

I think you are right that they probably didn't see these two as the best available, however definitely the best fit for the direction they wanted to go. Guys like D.Brereton and J.Dunstall have admitted as such since that draft.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

This was confirmed in Emma Quayle's book "The Draft". They drafted for needs, not necessarily the best available.

And this year we've done the same. Apart from Watts, and maybe pick 19 where we were after Lewis Johnston, we drafted for player type, rather than best available.

Weren't we after LJ with pick 17? Then Blease or Strauss at 19?

[mo64 5,278]

Weren't we after LJ with pick 17? Then Blease or Strauss at 19?

You could be right Dappa.

[H_T 2,941]

Weren't we after LJ with pick 17? Then Blease or Strauss at 19?

Correct. Which is also proof we are on the lookout for another key forward option.

[Axis of Bob 10,465]

Well I’m not going to do the quoting everything post, because it will just bored everyone to tears.

Firstly, tell me where I believe that the Bulldogs have the perfect model? I don’t want the Bulldogs’ model. Besides we don’t have a team that would fit in with the Bulldogs’ model, as we have stronger bodies as a result of the Daniher years.

I'll name you five fast or good sized (not super fast or super tall) super skilled players... Yze, Johnstone, Bruce, Green, Sylvia, even Powell had kicking issues but was effective... Anything else you need?

Yes, I do need something. I would like the answer to my question. Name 5 fast and super skilled players we’ve had in the last 10 years.

I’ll divide into categories:

Not fast and not good kicks- Bruce, Powell

Good kick, but not fast: Green, Johnstone

Borderline for both (but I’ll pay it): Sylvia

Only 4 more to go.

Sorry, had to get that out because it was really grating on me.

having a great CHF is unquestionably an ironclad rule of the AFL

Notice that I rarely use the term CHF. KP forward is now a more apt term. If you commit to playing a CHF and FF you become predictable.

CHF isn't dead, it's out of vogue. Like I said, there's a difference between saying CHF and KP forward

So is it “unquestionably an ironclad rule”, or is it a “out of vogue”? The last team with a great CHF to win a premiership was Sydney. Since then 3 teams have won a flag with out classical CHF. It is clearly not an “unquestionably ironclad rule”. It only seems like that because it used to be far more important and now people are relating current day football back to a period when it was far easier to analyse. Where there were more kicks to contests and the midfielders and ball moved more slowly.

The game has changed, is changing and will change. You just have to try to be ahead of the trend.

Furthermore, don’t continually use every instance where I back a player as me having a hard on about someone. Just because a player plays for a bad team doesn’t mean that they are a bad player. By the same token, there are some very poor players that play for good teams, but get carried by their success.

Brad Miller is a good player at what he does, and took several giant strides this year from promising player to genuine AFL key forward. To think that he would not have been able to get a game at the Bulldogs this year is just self serving.

I can quote simple stats. Hawks = 1 flag

Actually, this is the only statistic you have given me for your argument. And it isn’t even being used to support a point. If your point is that you must do what Hawthorn is doing to be successful, then I very much disagree.

Interestingly, if you want to see which way the game is heading, look at the teams that did well against Hawthorn this year. The main one I think of is Richmond. They have a quick rebounding defence and a lot of outside runners and their one big monster forward (Richo) playing on the wing. They are generally a bit of a rubbish side too. But they beat Hawthorn once and ran them really close another time, despite not being as good a side.

How did they do this? They would maintain possession of the ball whilst Hawthorn were zoning by switching it from side to side. This required good skills to keep the ball. This would force the zone to shift sides constantly. If they got over quickly enough then Richmond would just keep possession and switch it back over the other side. But when the zone didn’t move quickly enough Richmond would run like buggery down the opposite wing and completely bypass the zone, to get the ball into their forward line.

To do this is requires fast, skilled runners.

The point is that we shouldn’t be trying to copy Hawthorn just because they have “1 flag”, but we should be trying to play a game style that will defeat Hawthorn. There’s a distinction that hopefully people can see. I also take solace from our very good performance, despite being undermanned, against Hawthorn mid season. I think it’s a big tick for Bailey’s plan.

I'm saying recruit the forwards that can outscore the opposition's forwards.

But you don’t do that. Forwards are supposed to beat their defender, and viceversa. You are supposed to build a ‘team’ that outscores the opposition team. Sydney did that by shutting down the opposition. You can’t look at the side like it’s on BigFooty and you are comparing Team X forwardline to Team Y forwardline.

Actually, if we were as good in defence as you say, why did we finish 16th?

You don’t draft for the present. I believe, from the players we have available and at the stage of development that they are at, that we have one of the more promising groups of young key defenders in the competition. This one the main points where we differ. You believe that because we were 16th that all players we have on our list are incapable of being involved in a premiership team. I think that we have some promising players who require some development but have already shown enough in their short careers that they are likely to form a strong AFL defence in the future.

I don’t glow in praise for all players, as I started the “Trade Yze” thread in 2003. I didn’t rate Miller until this year. Against a lot of opinion on this board I don’t rate either McNamara or Cheney. I don’t rate Jones. I think Rivers has many limitations defensively that others ignore. There are others, but they come immediately to mind.

But we’re talking about whether or not we draft another KPP (after Watts) instead of a midfielder. I say that the key defensive posts are the least of our worries, whilst you say how they are not part of a ‘great’ spine. These things take time, and we have obviously evaluated our stock of talls and decided that it looks promising. I agree.

As for Buddy, he is an exceptional player. That’s why you’re not being realistic with your expectations for our young key position players. However, it is also no coincidence that both Garland and Hudghton are very similar types of player: key defenders that spoil well and have super speed.

Actually, that's not just me, that's actually the opinion (this steaming pile of horse turd) of a lot of people, you'll find...

And bang, we have it right here. What other people’s opinions are means nothing. Who cares what others think? Finding solace that you have the same opinion as other people is a reflection on you and not your opinion. If you’ve got the same opinion as a lot of people, many not overly intelligent and so will just follow the leader, and it’s wrong then all you have is a lot of people who are wrong

As far as recruiting DeBoer or Gaetner, I wouldn’t recruit either and I doubt Bailey will either. Why? Because their skills are too poor. That won’t improve, especially to the level required of midfielder (DeBoer). I would recruit a player with speed that could kick, and work on the other deficiencies in their game because they already have the non-negotiable assets.

Unlike you, I'm able to see that we both have opinions, can both offer "proof" as you call it that we're right

You have not offered proof. You have only said that Hawthorn won a flag and then offered opinion around that. If you cannot back up the claims you make then do not pass it off as ‘fact’ or ‘proof’. All I want you to do is back up your opinion, otherwise you will just be yelling at a brick wall.

I don’t post as often as I once did. Mainly because I’m getting better at ignoring people whose baseless opinions annoy me. I’ll listen to any opinion, even ones that I don’t agree with. Their opinions may change my opinion. But their opinions must be based in fact and logic.

Who knows, you may end up convincing me that we should have drafted another key position player. Alas it seems highly unlikely. But until you offer me something that isn’t just empty words, you’ll have no hope whatsoever.

And only 2 references to me being in love with a player and only 4 references to me masturbating over our players. Classy.

[montasaurus 0]

Guys,

GET A LIFE!..........

TIME WILL TELL

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Correct. Which is also proof we are on the lookout for another key forward option.

Interesting that...

Well I’m not going to do the quoting everything post, because it will just bored everyone to tears.

Too late.

Firstly, tell me where I believe that the Bulldogs have the perfect model?

Apologies. You have a point there.

Yes, I do need something. I would like the answer to my question. Name 5 fast and super skilled players we’ve had in the last 10 years.

Alright pedantic. My point was that we have for a long time been a skilled side, but not a hard side. Simple enough for you?

So is it “unquestionably an ironclad rule”, or is it a “out of vogue”?

Jesus... You're going to start picking apart my CHF/KP posts to find which ones contradict the others in some small way, just so as to justify how you think a running game overrules the need to recruit height? Is that what you're basing your point on?

I'm not going to bother looking through the streams of posts for your inconsistencies... I highlighted them already, and since you have no intention of responding to where I have shown you proof of your own hypocrisy, I'll not even dignify this with any more response.

The game has changed, is changing and will change. You just have to try to be ahead of the trend.

Going by that definition the game has changed every five minutes in the past 20 years. Every player or group of players who come along and dominate are immediately lauded as "redefining" the game of footy. Until a year later the next champion group comes through and does it again. And all through this time, as far as I am concerned, KP players are still the ones kicking all the big scores. I'm not going to waste your or my time quoting the last 20 years of top 10 goalkickers... among which only a handful of players considered non-KP have gone close to a coleman. How much simpler can I make it than that? And don't act like everything changes in footy. There are rules that have stayed the same. Tall blokes don't get any smaller, you can't train a crap kick to be a good kick, and you can't fix umpires... there's a few hum dingers for you.

Furthermore, don’t continually use every instance where I back a player as me having a hard on about someone. Just because a player plays for a bad team doesn’t mean that they are a bad player. By the same token, there are some very poor players that play for good teams, but get carried by their success.

Brad Miller is a good player at what he does, and took several giant strides this year from promising player to genuine AFL key forward. To think that he would not have been able to get a game at the Bulldogs this year is just self serving.

Don't give me that. You went on to say he had an "excellent" year. "Giant Strides" Please.... He turned things around... He COULD take giant strides this year, sure. With a decent midfield he probably will given the facts he's in his prime and has a great work ethic. But I saw nothing this year to convince me he's wiped away the last 3 years of frustration. Do yourself a favour and stop trying to TELL everyone what you THINK they don't know. I know my footy, and I'm not as positive on Brad as you are. What's more NOTHING you've written is anything new, so I don't know why you're writing with a tone that suggests you think it is.

Actually, this is the only statistic you have given me for your argument.

Rubbish. I've quoted as much statistical rhetoric as you... and I'm trying to cut down. There's a reason for that. Stats would have added 50% to the post length. I thought I was talking to someone who takes the stats as read. My mistake.

If your point is that you must do what Hawthorn is doing to be successful, then I very much disagree.

It is not my point, and I would disagree too. Doing exactly what the Hawks is doing is precisely what I've ALREADY described as the ND model. What I want to do is bring in 2 KP players that can monster attacks. It just so happens that I can use the Hawks as an example of this method paying dividends.

Interestingly, if you want to see which way the game is heading, look at the teams that did well against Hawthorn this year. The main one I think of is Richmond. They have a quick rebounding defence and a lot of outside runners and their one big monster forward (Richo) playing on the wing. They are generally a bit of a rubbish side too. But they beat Hawthorn once and ran them really close another time, despite not being as good a side.

How did they do this? They would maintain possession of the ball whilst Hawthorn were zoning by switching it from side to side. This required good skills to keep the ball. This would force the zone to shift sides constantly. If they got over quickly enough then Richmond would just keep possession and switch it back over the other side. But when the zone didn’t move quickly enough Richmond would run like buggery down the opposite wing and completely bypass the zone, to get the ball into their forward line.

See? Now that's good stuff. No stats there, huh? That sounds a lot how I've constructed my arguement all this time. Not with numbers...

Now my point has ALWAYS been that this pace-reliant kind of footy is something that has worked over the years to take down goliath opponents who weren't on, on the day. And I will concede that it's working more and more these days as the possession game, and the reaction to flooding becomes apparent, along with increased overall skill by foot. I would say, however, that as effective as it is, I've not seen evidence that it would lead to a flag, or a run of flags. In fact I don't reckon that the best and paciest side going around will win one with their current team and structure. Now. If the dogs lose their old blokes and bring in some good tall timber, and they win a flag... then yes... it'll look like you were onto something. However, I'm not sure SUSTAINED success will occur with what you've been condoning here, which is why I just can't get behind it. And if we suddenly see an influx of ex-basketballers who bring contested marking back to the fore, then long kicking could return and be the premiership winning model again. It's like any proper tennis expert will tell you... Baseliners are ruling the courts, but all it will take is another great young serve-volleyer to come back and suddenly it'll all turn on it's head again.

As for the recruiting forwards to beat a defence... I made myself clear. And I think you're wrong. You made yourself clear, and you think I'm wrong. I want the best forward in the game... and failing that I want one of the best 6.

But you don’t do that. Forwards are supposed to beat their defender, and viceversa. You are supposed to build a ‘team’ that outscores the opposition team. Sydney did that by shutting down the opposition. You can’t look at the side like it’s on BigFooty and you are comparing Team X forwardline to Team Y forwardline.

I'll try it one more time. When you compare the existing list of a team, on match day, to another team... then yes I agree. But I can't understand how you can possibly plan ahead when recruiting thinking you can cope with EVERY defence, with all their strengths and weaknesses with one 17 year old kid. That defies logic. I reckon it's simple. You HAVE to recruit the best, or one of the top 6 (Pavlich, Brown, Riewoldt, Hall, Franklin Fevola). In that sense, at the recruiting table, when you compare one forward, to another forward, you are taking the best of the two. Not the best forward compared to an existing defence. Besides. By the time the forward comes on, going by what you've said, the game will have changed again anyway.

I believe, from the players we have available and at the stage of development that they are at, that we have one of the more promising groups of young key defenders in the competition. This one the main points where we differ.

No. Look, this may be my lack of expression on a keyboard, but I've never said that, or even hinted at it. I've said repeatedly that they could be good, and that I hope they're given every opportunity, but that if they fail in the long run that we don't cling to them hoping for them to turn it around. No-one would be happier than me to see all four get AA gurseys... but history has shown it's just unlikely.

You believe that because we were 16th that all players we have on our list are incapable of being involved in a premiership team.

Garbage. You're assuming that. I made no such statement. In fact I said the opposite. We have young kids that I'm thrilled with and we're on the way to having the list we'll come to know as the demons for 10 years. What I'm asking for is solid form from them, for 22 rounds, which we've not seen from anyone but Rivers and Garland.

I think that we have some promising players who require some development but have already shown enough in their short careers that they are likely to form a strong AFL defence in the future.

They are likely to form AN AFL defence... but a strong one? I can only say possibly at this stage. We've had a bunch of guys rotate through there in the past, and have blooded players, even had a guy or two turn out ok (Ingerson). Actually I think Broady might have really made our defence look different too. I've said it over and over again, and you've obviously glossed over it, I rate Garland immensely (but am not sure he'll play his whole career in defence), I've seen more of Martin at VFL level than at AFL level and my doubts stem from there... His year was a sensational way to start, but I've seen too many players fall by the wayside to be convinced at such an early stage. Rivers we all know about. Frawley I have huge concerns over, and as quick and hardworking as Warnock is I honestly believe that he only has the scope to go so far. ALL THAT SAID I'm pleased they're there and I'm thrilled that we dinally have a young group of KP defenders that are maturing together, instead of doing the ND thing where you recruit someone else's garbage and hide them in the backline. That much, I agree, is worth celebrating.

I didn’t rate Miller until this year.

I was an erstwhile supporter of his for all the last 3 years. Before this year I had lost patience. He still has to earn it. Simple really... and yet another difference of opinion. Nothing more

But we’re talking about whether or not we draft another KPP (after Watts) instead of a midfielder. I say that the key defensive posts are the least of our worries, whilst you say how they are not part of a ‘great’ spine. These things take time, and we have obviously evaluated our stock of talls and decided that it looks promising. I agree.

Mm hm. Once again though, Blease and Strauss were both smart pickups given our position at 17 and 19. Like I said, I didn't want the club to do anything else... I was just disappointed we didn't get what I wanted leading up to the draft. And this debate is more talking about next years draft anyway... maybe the following one too.

As for Buddy, he is an exceptional player. That’s why you’re not being realistic with your expectations for our young key position players.

Seriously? Not being realistic? Ok... well realistically we don't have the money or the culture to support a winning team. Realistically we're headed for the same mediocrity we've seen for the last 10 years. I think a dose of unrealistic expectations, and a bit of pressure to perform might do this club some good. Hopefully DB sees it this way as well. I wouldn't want to see Watts become anything less than everything he can be just because he didn't have high expectations. In fact, I would hope he feels he can have precisely the effect on the game Buddy has had. Is it not clear to you that that is EXACTLY what we need? And once again... like I said... I won't CRUCIFY the kid for not being that. I'll be satisfied if he's the Pavlich or Riewoldt of 2012-2022.

However, it is also no coincidence that both Garland and Hudghton are very similar types of player: key defenders that spoil well and have super speed.

Oh dear. I don't rate Maxy. I hope you're not being prophetic, but that's a debate for another day.

And bang, we have it right here. What other people’s opinions are means nothing. Who cares what others think? Finding solace that you have the same opinion as other people is a reflection on you and not your opinion. If you’ve got the same opinion as a lot of people, many not overly intelligent and so will just follow the leader, and it’s wrong then all you have is a lot of people who are wrong

Oh dear. How you can't see you're just picking and choosing statements to support a conclusion you've already made up is what gets me. I'm using the opinions of dedicated, lifetime AFL people like David Parkin and you're telling me I'm following the leader, and that Parkin, by sharing an opinion with the masses is somehow, like them, unintelligent? I'm all for questioning the assumed wisdom in ALL walks of life... But I've done that... and in all my analysis, year after year, I can't buy that there's any substitute for a good, reliable, game-breaking big-man in attack.

As far as recruiting DeBoer or Gaetner, I wouldn’t recruit either and I doubt Bailey will either. Why? Because their skills are too poor. That won’t improve, especially to the level required of midfielder (DeBoer). I would recruit a player with speed that could kick, and work on the other deficiencies in their game because they already have the non-negotiable assets.

That much I can agree on. I'm neither here nor there on those kids, and I defer to the recruiters knowledge which is clearly greater than yours or mine. But once again you've glossed over the fact that that's PRECISELY what we did with Stef Martin. recruited a guy who can't kick, and tried to find a home for him.

You have not offered proof.

Mate, neither have you.

You have only said that Hawthorn won a flag and then offered opinion around that. If you cannot back up the claims you make then do not pass it off as ‘fact’ or ‘proof’. All I want you to do is back up your opinion, otherwise you will just be yelling at a brick wall.

I've explained all this already... perfectly logically and without getting bogged down in statistical analysis that you've shown a propensity to reading to suit your arguement. I say the Dogs are only third because they haven't got a tall... you say they are top 4 because they have their game-plan... You say WC won a flag with no KP forwards... I can say they won it with the best midfield in (my) living memory (better than Brisbane's IMO) and only just snuck in, when they should have won two by a long way, and would have had they had a decent tall option.

I tried o explain how quoting stats only puts us in more of a holding pattern. I'm giving up here.

I don’t post as often as I once did. Mainly because I’m getting better at ignoring people whose baseless opinions annoy me. I’ll listen to any opinion, even ones that I don’t agree with. Their opinions may change my opinion. But their opinions must be based in fact and logic.

If you can't find my facts and logic in the above posts then you're blind. It's there mate... you're just shutting your ears and yelling loudly.

Who knows, you may end up convincing me that we should have drafted another key position player. Alas it seems highly unlikely. But until you offer me something that isn’t just empty words, you’ll have no hope whatsoever.

I wasn't trying to change your mind mate. Have a closer look.

And in case it's escaped your notice... so far you've offered nothing but empty words too. I've offered examples of KP players, good defences, the effect a decent pair of targets makes on straightening a team up, historical analysis (which you dismiss as "old news") and contemporary footy analysis (which you dismiss as "following the leader"). You have done the same thing... and BOTH of us have offered words... and lots of them... but still just words.

As far as I can tell it's a simple case of... if I don't agree with you... no matter WHAT I say, factual or otherwise, you disagree so it MUST be wrong.

And only 2 references to me being in love with a player and only 4 references to me masturbating over our players. Classy.

Hey. There's nothing wrong with that... Tell me you didn't go a big rubbery one when Jacky boy donned the red and blue?

I've said it over and over, and I'll say it one more time. I think the more the game changes the more certain things stay the same. I believe that a long-term Big boy, or a number of them would be a tonic for our off field situation as well as on field. The big goal-scorers win the big matches and, looking at the Hawks, they bring the crowds rolling in... which is something we need. Not a Port Adelaide one-off. A long sequence of GFs and premierships. You believe I'm wrong. I look forward to seeing who is right... Not claiming without a time machine, that one of us is wrong.

Jacky boy. My eye is one you...

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Guys,

GET A LIFE!..........

TIME WILL TELL

You don't like it don't read it. This is what the forum is for, mate...

However, in the interests of clearing up the clutter, what do you say we do the PM thing from here Bob, if we feel the need?