Doesn't mean that they will play it, but players that are 100% fit would hacve the capacity to play 100% if erquired. Trengove wouldn't have been in that category.

They may have the capacity to play 100% game time, but they wouldn't be doing it at 100% output. That's why rotations are there and why we see so many of them now: so blokes don't get buggered. Not even the fittest of fit midfielders play even close to 100% game time anymore.

On Trengove, I believe he's in our best 22, and the only plausible reason for leaving him out for mine would be lack of fitness - but as he had only been out for two weeks (not three as you said), I didn't think that argument would apply to him. When he lined up for Casey I took this to mean that he was fit, but they chose not to play him, which I believed to be a mistake. Hannabal's post refutes my assumption that he was fit, so I was wrong there. Fine.

In answer to your question, had he been 100% fit last week I'd have left out Paul Johnson or Rohan Bail for Trengove.

I don't believe either of the "he's young" or "nobody else deserved to lose their place" arguments hold any water at all. He's fit: he plays.

He did ease my mind somewhat by explaining that Trengove had a saw hip flexor

The poor bugger, whats he doin on the tools anyway?

The poor bugger, whats he doin on the tools anyway?

Either someone has hacked into my computer, or I've just made my third brain fade in 8 years.

I suspect the former.

Either someone has hacked into my computer, or I've just made my third brain fade in 8 years.

I suspect the former.

i was going to ask if it was really you......

They may have the capacity to play 100% game time, but they wouldn't be doing it at 100% output. That's why rotations are there and why we see so many of them now: so blokes don't get buggered. Not even the fittest of fit midfielders play even close to 100% game time anymore.

On Trengove, I believe he's in our best 22, and the only plausible reason for leaving him out for mine would be lack of fitness - but as he had only been out for two weeks (not three as you said), I didn't think that argument would apply to him. When he lined up for Casey I took this to mean that he was fit, but they chose not to play him, which I believed to be a mistake. Hannabal's post refutes my assumption that he was fit, so I was wrong there. Fine.

In answer to your question, had he been 100% fit last week I'd have left out Paul Johnson or Rohan Bail for Trengove.

I don't believe either of the "he's young" or "nobody else deserved to lose their place" arguments hold any water at all. He's fit: he plays.

How many weeks had passed between his game on the weekend at Casey, and his last game for the MFC? Circle them both on a calendar and count how many weeks.

How many weeks had passed between his game on the weekend at Casey, and his last game for the MFC? Circle them both on a calendar and count how many weeks.

What ludicrous 'logic'. Do the same thing with Aaron Davey. Has he missed 1 week???

The poor bugger, whats he doin on the tools anyway?

It would be hard to kick with a lamb shank for a leg

... or I've just made my third brain fade in 8 years.

Yeah and the other 2 times you thought you made a mistake.

Channelling TGR?

Ah Nasher, you and I always seem to disagree.

Let's go back to before the Lions game. We made the change that had to happen (McDonald in, unlucky for Maric), who else would you have left out for Trengove?

What you really are struggling to come to terms with is the fact that Trengove is a first year player. Regardless of how mature his body is, he is still a kid, and he had not played football for 3 weeks. It is common knowledge that the pace of the AFL is far superior than the VFL, so why would you throw this kid in and battle his way through 4 quarters, as opposed to what they did and got him to play around 80% of confidence-building football.

With the amount of rotations in the AFL, and given Jack's role in that, it would have been lunacy playing him in the seniors. You can get away with playing that style of game at Casey (where players are expected to play less than 100%), but in the AFL, you need all of your players in a position that they can play 100% of the game at 100% effort. I think it would have been unfair to expect JT to do this. As it turned out, he played as good as we expected him to at Casey, and will be right to go this week. Also, we won without him, so it was a great decision by the Club - I think you need to suck it up and move on.

JT will be a star for Melbourne for a long, long time. Why push him in his first year? List and injury management is vital with the development of these kids, as well as the senior guys (ie James McDonald).

nicely put, saves me having to say it. plus the interstate travel would have been an issue.

nicely put, saves me having to say it. plus the interstate travel would have been an issue.

Maybe Nasher needs to do more interstate travel- and watch a few mor games live.

any link to the audio- i cant seem to find it- would love a listen to what bails had to say