http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-to-regain-james-frawley-for-clash-against-hawthorn/story-e6frf9jf-1226031250944

From article Bailey says:

“All indicators are that he'll more likely play,’’ Bailey said this morning.

“That last session being on the Friday, will be the final test. He's hit all the markers that our medical (staff) want him to.

"Our fitness have and certainly our kicking etc so if he gets through unscathed tomorrow…. we'll put him through his paces tomorrow. There's no point taking someone in with any questions marks over him.’’

I suppose Chip is too good to bring back through the reserves but i have some concerns about his lack of match conditioning coming straight up against Buddy.

I suppose Chip is too good to bring back through the reserves but i have some concerns about his lack of match conditioning coming straight up against Buddy.

We have to cover two or three dangerous forwards - I would rather have Garland on Roughhead and a non-match fit Frawley on Buddy, than Rivers or MacDonald on either of them.

Edited March 31, 201114 yr by hardtack

I suppose Chip is too good to bring back through the reserves but i have some concerns about his lack of match conditioning coming straight up against Buddy.

Understand the concern. However, I gather Chip would have been moving heaven and earth to do as much cross training, preparation & fitness repetition to make sure he is as close to the mark as possible on his return without a match.

edit: I'll add that it remains to be seen whether he will go straight to Buddy. Garland might be the man having done a good job in the second half on Goodes.

Edited March 31, 201114 yr by High Tower

I suppose Chip is too good to bring back through the reserves but i have some concerns about his lack of match conditioning coming straight up against Buddy.

Chip, during a half time interview last weekend on Fox, stated that Garland will most likely get the job on Franklin. Noting Garland's fine form on Goodes, I agree Col should start on Buddy.

Frawley, Garland, Tapscott and Grimes down back, hmmmmm.

We have to cover two or three dangerous forwards - I would rather have Garland on Roughhead and a non-match fit Frawley on Buddy, than Rivers or MacDonald on either of them.

Actually now that you've put it like that I absolutely agree.

Frawley, Garland, Tapscott and Grimes down back, hmmmmm.

Looks good doesn't it ?

B: Garland Frawley Bartram

HB: Grimes Rivers Tapscott

And MacDonald there for a chop out off the bench/sub. Or vice versa with Tap Tap Tappy.

they call him 'Jimma' not 'Chip'

can't wait to have him back, he is one of the few we have that you can be confident he hardly ever messes it up

they call him 'Jimma' not 'Chip'

can't wait to have him back, he is one of the few we have that you can be confident he hardly ever messes it up

Yeah, well I'm calling him 'Chip' today and I'm referring to Tapscott as 'Mr.T'.

I'll call you stakka.

Here's my backline:

B: 'Scribe' 'Chip' 'Barts'

HB: 'Good Times Grimes' 'Riv' 'Mr.T'

'Riv'

I'll call your "Riv" and see you a "Joan"

I'll call your "Riv" and see you a "Joan"

I'll raise you a Phoenix.

I'll raise you a Phoenix.

You must be on "that" drug

You must be on "that" drug

The return of James Frawley is enough for me hardtack.

they call him 'Jimma' not 'Chip'

can't wait to have him back, he is one of the few we have that you can be confident he hardly ever messes it up

Not really important, bu who is "they"?

Cos a lot of his teammates call him Chip & I'm mates with a lot of his schoolfriends that do too.

Not really important, bu who is "they"?

Cos a lot of his teammates call him Chip & I'm mates with a lot of his schoolfriends that do too.

gee let's all have a cry about it

who do you think they is, his teammates that I have heard calling for the ball, that's who

gee let's all have a cry about it

who do you think they is, his teammates that I have heard calling for the ball, that's who

You're the one making the most noise about it...

Edited March 31, 201114 yr by rpfc

Not really important, bu who is "they"?

Cos a lot of his teammates call him Chip & I'm mates with a lot of his schoolfriends that do too.

Richo called him Chip during the half time interview last week.

Edited March 31, 201114 yr by Louie

I call him Chip, and generally I set the tone for these things.

You're the one making the most noise about it...

sorry, despite the fact you are obviously baiting me while adding zero substance, i am not allowed to respond and defend myself

sorry, despite the fact you are obviously baiting me while adding zero substance, i am not allowed to respond and defend myself

Incorrect. You are allowed to defend yourself - as well as respond. It's the manner in which you do it that counts. Same applies for everyone.

His Twitter add is chipa_8 and with a quick look you can see many of his teammeates refer to him by that moniker in their tweets.

To paraphrase Mark Williams ... "Curry & Beer ... you were wrong!"

If I had to address him in person I'd call him "sir" for two reasons, respect and fear (mainly respect).

But here I will call him Chip as well.

I dont think they will start him on buddy, Garland will be given that job as a vote of well earned confidence in him and to give chip a softer landing back into the game.

All I hope for is a solid injury free return.

The big Plus in having Chip on the field is that his decision making sets the tone for the defence.

Expect Rivers to step up this weekend he will feel more settled.

I really hope Tappy is placed right next to Chip, I can see them working well in tandem.

I suppose Chip is too good to bring back through the reserves but i have some concerns about his lack of match conditioning coming straight up against Buddy.

I think that his injury being arm/ chest related, he has no doubt still been doing a lot of work in other areas. I think thart if his injury is right then he will be good to go, 100%.

and who really cares what we call him, just as long as he is alright to play, I might call him Jesus from now on.

" Tapscott as 'Mr.T'." - i'm stealing this one too. I like it

Edited March 31, 201114 yr by The Great One 99

The way I'd set up:

Frawley - Roughead

Garland - Franklin

Rivers - Hale

MacDonald dropped.

sorry, despite the fact you are obviously baiting me while adding zero substance, i am not allowed to respond and defend myself

You're allowed to defend yourself, whether you can or not is a separate question...

At this point I am taking the p!ss, but you need to simmer down, C&B.

Seriously...