pringle

Agree that it is frustrating, though a simple way around it would be to duplicate the weekly Casey match thread so that it appears in the footy message board and the Casey board simultaneously. Can this be done? I have seen threads moved around before from board to board. Can they be duplicated? That way there is still a board where people can discuss Casey issues without the threads getting lost down the pecking order too rapidly as they inevitably would in the footy message board. I think Casey deserves to have a place of its own on this site as our boys are developing at the club (and indeed it is our club as well).

I was very hurt about losing him. I know he had good reasons, but he was one of my favourite players in 2004 and looked set to become a top line footballer at the Demons. Then he became a gun at Adelaide and it hurt even more. But why would he want to leave Adelaide after making such a big deal about needing to go home? Doesn't sound too accurate to me. Anyway, I'd have him back I guess. Still a very good player.

I have a feeling that even splashing around a truckload of money won't really help the new franchises attract top-end talent. What you'll probably find is that they get 1) mid-aged, mid-range players who think a bit more of themselves than their current clubs do and would get a good ego boost out of being offered more money at another club, 2) a few players who don't fit a team's future plans or 3) disgruntled players who need a 'change of scenery'. There's a few trades like that every year. Think the likes of McLean, burgoyne and McPhee last year or our own Joel MacDonal - not that I don't think Joel is valuable to our team, just that he was a bit disgruntled at Brisbane after his finals non-selection, was probably not in their long-term plans and is not the top-end player GC are trying to attract. They may get 1, possibly 2 really good players, but they're probably not going to get the already developed cream of the AFL nor the young guns in whom clubs have invested a lot of time and faith.

Some players have shocking kicking styles and therefore don't hit their targets. I don't think a Bartram or jones (both of whom have been accused of being poor kicks in the past) have too much wrong with their kicking actions. Certainly not like some of the real shockers such as the big man Earl Spalding, Daniels (ex red-head Swan/Saints) or perhaps Tippet currently. But what they have not had in the past is time, maturity and confidence. As we get better, I think it will start to look like a lot of players are improving their disposal. When confidence starts to build, a team feels it is capapble of anything. It is amazing the change that can bring about. I was at the Coburg vs Frankston game on Sunday. Half way through the 3rd qtr, Frankston, a team hardly expected to win a game all year, were soundly beating the Tigers by 8 goals. Players such as Cousins, Nahas, King, Polo, Mcguane, Roberts etc were ineffective and missing easy targets. But a few workman-like goals later the same previously inept players got a sniff and all of a sudden started to over-run a clearly inferior quality side. 10 mins into the final qtr the Tiges hit the front. They ended up losing by 4 points, but the turnaround in skills in the space of half a quarter when confidence started to build was astounding. And look at the Dogs on Sat night. They are considered a silky smooth team with great disposal by hand and foot. But the pressure the Lions exerted on them added to their recent drop in confidence (probably because their coach keeps slagging them off) caused a near record amount of turnovers. In our case, last year even our handballs couldn't hit the side of a very large barn. Now all of a sudden we are playing some decent free-flowing footy. Sure we're still making errors, but now we see that the boys have the confidence to attempt and hit the correct targets more regularly. Some of our previously scorned turnover kings we might just find are not as inept as we thought.

Not that dreamteam points are indicative of how a player played, but David Hille (who played on Nik Nat most of the game) got 114 points in a losing side. I watched the game and Naitanui did some VERY exciting things that no other player in the comp could do. But it would seem that overall he was unaccountable and/or unable to go with his opponent. Football is more than just doing the flashy. Every player has a role. If Essendon were a better side, this unaccountability could have cost the WCE. Not saying he isn't an excitement machine, or that he won't be a star of the comp, just commenting on a deficiency that he will have to rectify. However if he wins the nomination this week, it would not be undeserved. And as for the continual criticism of our selection of Watts in every article about Naita, I say the media/everyone should relax. FCS the boy was the #2 draft pick. Did everyone think that because he was #2 that he wouldn't turn out to be a great player? They will BOTH be fantastic footballers. Just like Scully and Trengove will BOTH be fantastic footballers (and Dustin Martin for that matter). After all, they were ALL top draft picks. And FWIW I still don't think you can say we made an error in selection for a number of years. For many reasons. One of which is that with Nik Nat I believe there would have been a 'go home' factor (just a vibe from his interviews), and another is that I think we need a reliable Reiwoldt (hopefully) type key forward more than a bloke who can do the extraordinary 10 times a game and then go missing for long periods. Jeff Farmer was an example of the latter. Could turn a game on its head in a 10 minute burst but remain unsighted for the rest of the game. Who would you rather in your team, Reiwoldt or Farmer (not the best comparison considerin it's a key fwd vs a small, but you get my drift). And of course, we are all yet to see Watts out on the field this year. The media should shut up and give the kid time.

On SEN tonight, The OX brought the Travis Johnstone trade up whilst they were talking about Darren Jolly's poor performances so far for Collingwood. They were talking about what other options Collingwood had in the ruck and came up with Cameron Wood (who they did not really rate)... Schwarz's words were something like "Collingwood got Cameron Wood, Brisbane got Travis Johnstone and Melbourne got Jack Grimes... who do you think won out of that trade?" I looked up an old article to check the particulars of that trade and found this: Melbourne fans' anger over Travis Johnstone trade Intersting to look back. I'm very happy with the outcome now, even though I'm happy to admit I was one of these unhappy Melbourne supporters. The article also mentions the Meesen trade. Someone made a note that karma may have caught up with us on that one. I don't really think the punt of pick 37 on a possible ruckman was really too big a loss for us. Certainly a smaller price than Collingwood has paid for their two underperforming Ruckmen (pick 14 for Wood and 14 and 46 for jolly).

I don't think many here on the forum actually want North to move North. I think almost all of us empathize with their current situation. I think we all hope they can turn their fortunes around like we seem to be doing at the moment. I wasn't one who bought a membership when they were originally in strife, but if I had the finances I would have. Having said that, I'm not so sure that other members chipping in like that on a one-off basis is good for them in the long-term. But if it could help them survive until better times came then I think many here would do the same (and some probably did).

There are many people on this site who will no doubt be worried about how the team will cope with the expectation that we will win this week. Many have pointed out that we could easily believe the hype and not "come to play". And that a loss would be disastrous. All very possible, but... I actually think that there is less chance of that occurring now rather than later in the team's development. At the moment the boys have only just started to get a taste of what it's like to win a game of football. They are probably still intoxicated with the feeling. They are probably still hungry for more. It is when we start to win on a more regular basis that I will worry about the hunger not being there.

That was a Richmond forum posting that that team, not the Richmond FC. So no subterfuge yet. We'll have to wait and see when the real team is announced. I'm sure he'll be in the lineup though and they will give him every chance to play. But even if they did try some "subterfuge" by naming Newman in the side with no intention of playing him, I doubt it would worry Bailey too much. He's not exactly Chris Judd or Gary Ablett and he has very little support around him to make match-ups too difficult to plan.

Bulldogs 32,777 after a strong season last year and then early premiership favortism. A substantial rise already from their final tally last year of 28,215 and presumably more to come. Just shows what success can do for a club. We need that success sooner rather than later. But on to the Kangas, they could be in dire straits. Up s&%$ creek without a paddle. They don't look like they can have any sort of success with their list in the next two years and I don't know if they can sustain the club for much longer than that until success comes. Very worrying for their supporters. But when it comes to the crunch, if they do end up in massive trouble and fighting for their existence, I have the feeling that the AFL might either step in or possibly offer another relocation deal to Tasmania. This is only a suggestion now, but maybe not a bad idea (without knowing everything about the financial requirements of setting up an AFL team). I think possibly creating a Nth Melbourne/Tasmania team and splitting games between Victoria and Tasmania for a while might be a good transition into introducing an AFL team into Tasmania. I feel that the AFL will have pity on North and want to keep some sort of the North Melbourne FC identity. At the same time, they don't feel that the population and business opportunities in Tasmania are sufficient to sustain an AFL franchise. But Tasmania clearly deserves an AFL team more than West Sydney does or even the Gold Coast. So maybe a Nth Melbourne/Tasmania team would suit their needs for a period of time (until a full transfer to Tasmania becomes more commercially viable). Whilst this does create the dilemma perhaps of Tasminians not feeling it is THEIR club, I think the HAwthorn experiment/success in Tasmania has shown that the people there are hungry for footy at the top level and will support a footy team if they feel it will give them a strong committment over a period of time.

Dylan is going ok in the Coburg 2nds. Not much really expected of him this year. He's still very slight and not at all ready for even VFL seniors yet. Not a bad player and a really nice guy, but I am 100% sure we got the better Grimes. But I look forward to seeing his progress. A long term prospect for the Tiges at the moment. I expect Nahas and King to come in this week. Whilst they didn't exactly set the world on fire last weekend for Coburg, they were both solid, have AFL experience and are well ahead of guys like Taylor, White, Dea and Astbury. The team posted on the Richmond forum is VERY raw. We would eat that team alive. They do have some quality kids in that list, but they really are kids. So delete two of Taylor, White, Dea and Astbury and add Nahas and King. And I would also say that Polak is a roughie to make it back for an AFL game (he was taken off the rookie list before round 1). Also not gunning it at Coburg, but could be used to fill the void as a key defender. Whatever happens, Hardwick is going to have to be very creative this week to fill up the 22 spots, because he wouldn't have been banking on having to call up such raw youngsters at this stage of the year. Edit: Add Adam Thomson to that list of possible ins.

I just think of Hawthorn's Max Bailey... That helps me put this one into perspective. I'm not at all suggesting that Hawthorn's medicos brought him back too soon, but rather that our medicos feel they have to be extra cautious with a giant young unit post ACL reconstruction. Also, not that it is a hard and fast rule, but there is a higher proportion of tall gangly types who have general laxity of their ligaments (all over the body, not just in the ACL). Max may be one of those people. The best thing you can do with these "lax" athletes is to allow them time to strengthen the musculature around each joint so as to provide greater overall stability. And even if he is not one of those "lax" athletes, the added strength work around the knee will reduce the likelihood of re-injury. Another such example would be with LJ's shoulder. There will come a time in his rehab when the repair of the labrum (cartilage rim) of his shoulder joint is strong. His comeback date will therefore hinge on when the medical staff believe that the supporting musculature is sufficient to withstand the rigors of AFL football. Considering LJ is quite slight and appears to be a gumby type with loose ligaments (just judging by the way he can contort himself on the field and kick balls at angles few others can - eg over his head), we might see a similar conservative approach to his return.

One of the few Ralphy. It is interesting that most here are quite happy to have him gain touch in the seniors but are intolerant of a rusty Bate. But you better be careful posting such a crazy opinion on here. Inner might not find that sort of thinking acceptable from anyone other than Dean Bailey and his most senior fitness adviser.

That scares me. He may have to slow down to turtle pace if he keeps doing his hammies

Top 6 now or predicted? If I had to pick my best 6 so far this year, it would be: Jamar, Davey, Grimes, Green, Frawley and (raffle Beamer, Warnock or McDonald (James)). But going forward, I would think it is still VERY tough to choose. Do we base it on games played already? Because if so you would probably not have a Scully or Watts in there, even though we know they are likely to turn out as great players. I think Trengove has already shown he has the talent. Jurrah is a freak but does he have the application and body to make it big? There have been tiny glimpses from Scully (but tiny) and still not much from Watts (though I was at that Coburg vs Casey debut last year when he kicked 3 goals... and that turn onto the left boot to kick that ripper goal - albeit a floater - was special!!! Anyway, I think there is still a loooong way to go, but interested to hear a few people's selections.

Inner, only your selective quoting of my post backs up your call. I have highlighted what you quoted as my "emphatic" declaration. It is very clear in the rest of said post (and my subsequent posts) that I gave an opinion. I clearly state it as my opinion numerous times (including just after the excerpt you partially quoted for your own purposes in your post). I made no claim that it is fact. My only error was perhaps to put a couple too many exclamation marks. Regardless mate, I just want to play nice on this site and I can't see how your original condescending post does anything other than boost your ego. I would think that a logical reply to my opinion would be to actually make a case that Col WAS ready for an AFL game based on the performance you saw at the game on the weekend.

The assertion that anyone here claimed to know better than those who spend every day with the players is laughable. We're all sitting here debating selection issues based on what we saw out on the field on the weekend and our own perceptions. You are very quick to jump on people's opinions Inner and ridicule them without any counter argument. Maybe just allow us to debate and throw around ideas and you in turn can post your own rebuttals. We as supporters are allowed to have opinions about selection issues. Do you declare unequivocally that team selection is NEVER wrong or never to be criticized because we couldn't possibly know as much as the selectors do? I'm sure selectors often regret decisions with the benefit of hindsight. Is it not conceivable that those at the club felt Garland was ready, for example, and then maybe had a re-think after his performance in the game? Have you ever seen a player come back too early and re-injure himself? Did the club who risked the player 'know better' at that stage? All decisions such as these are based on educated guesses. The club may be more educated than us in their decision making process, but I don't see how that makes debating the issue here "laughable".

Agree. The talent is still there. But a year out of the game is a year out of the game. And the kid is still only just that in football terms... a kid. Let's say it was Jonathan Brown, for example, who had a year out of the game. HE can come back straight into the senior line-up. eE has banked plenty of runs over a long and distinguished career. He has a wealth of experience and the undoubted quality to contribute significantly and reliably from game 1 back. Col Garland is about 21 years old, had 1 good breakout season and then sustained a long-term injury that has curtailed his development. Even just looking at his physical shape, he is yet to achieve the body of a fully mature AFL footballer. So when you say that he only had a foot injury and didn't have his talent surgically removed, you are quite correct. And the club would absolutely be itching to have him back in the team and playing the type of football he did in 2008. But unfortunately he is not yet a Jonathan Brown or a Nathan Buckley or a James Hird. He is Colin Garland... a very promising footballer who has yet to reach the level of A-grader that we hope he will become. Who is not a seasoned ten year veteran with the experience and smarts to waltz straight back into the toughest comp in the land with minimal prep. Therefore my opinion that bringing him back up to speed in the VFL for a week or 2 more would have been in our best interests. But hey, it's all opinion

Yeah that's what I was trying to say. Maybe I just worded it poorly. Understand your sentiments re Garland's importance going forward, but from my point of view, if his game was pretty good on the weekend, then Bruce and Bate had blinders. I will agree that on a couple of occasions he did show that he can deliver the ball nicely and make decent decisions coming out of defence. But as a defender he was generally a touch off the pace in terms of positioning, contesting with his opponent and judgement in the air. I still want him in the team long-term, but I feel that one more week at least at Casey would have been beneficial. Having said that, I am trusting that Bailey knows what he's doing and believes that the run in the AFL will be more beneficial than a VFL hit-out. I seem to be contradicting myself there, but all I'm trying to say is that the coach is the coach for a reason and has the right to select whoever he thinks will most benefit the club either immediately or over the coming weeks. He may actually be thinking 2 weeks ahead to the Brisbane game, for example, and reckoning that a fit and firing Garland against the forward prowess of Brown, Fev, Brennan et al. will be of greater worth than a Cheney or McNamara.

Well there you go then. From the horses mouth. A it is. Rehab period should be around the 4 month plus mark. So my guess would be a return to VFL football around mid-season. All in all not the worst time in your career to sustain such an injury. Satyricon, just wondering if he mentioned how this labral tear occurred? Was it a degenerative tear (which could be due to FAI and therefore he may have actually had both operations I mentioned in one go), or was there a specific accident/incident? Also, VERY much looking forward to the return of Cale Morton. 4 weeks doesn't seem so long anymore!!! And as for Jetta, good to see he is close. I think he could add a bit to our team at some stage this year once he is up and running. Considering injuries occur throughout the course of a season, it is fantastic to know that the ones who have missed the start of the season are on the mend and just about ALL of them could potentially end up in our best 22 by the end of the year (except maybe Tapscott and Gawn, who are still young and have not yet completed a full AFL pre-season).

I actually think they had no choice. When they decided Sylvia wouldn't play, I'm pretty sure they would have only had the one option, as Cheney had already played the night before and Garland was left as the one emergency who hadn't played (I think Spencer was the other emergency and he also played the night before). Not sure if that's the case, but I guess if he was that one emergency left out of the casey game in case of Sylvia not playing, then he would have been the one selected (ahead of Cheney) and expected to be up to AFL standard already (not just filling in the numbers or selected as an emergency just to whet his appetite for coming weeks).

Interesting. Seems as though typing B) gives you a smoking demon. It's meant to be scenario 'b' as in the letter, not scenario 'smoking demon' B)

My guess would be (without confirmation) that Luke Tapscott had surgery for one of two reasons: Either, a) He suffered an acute injury that required repair - most likely a tear in the labrum of the hip joint (a rim of fibrous cartilage type tissue that deepens the hip socket and provides added stability)... OR B) Surgery for FAI (femoro-acetabular impingement), which is a structural abnormality that causes problems in athletes (and active individuals) because of too much friction between the ball and socket of the hip joint (head of the femur and acetabulum for those anatomically versed). I won't bore you with the specifics of the structural abnormalities that are possible, but in essence, such a condition can not only cause pain during activity (especially the intense cross-body activity and rapid directional changes demanded of AFL football), but also, over time, lead to degenerative hip changes and early arthritis. It may very well be that Luke reported some hip (or groin or knee soreness) which was investgated and found to be attributable to this condition. Whilst he may have been able to continue to train and play on with some discomfort for years with this condition, it is a sensible course of action to delay Luke's induction into AFL football for a while so as to correct this abnormality and allow him to play pain-free and unrestricted for the rest of his career. In other words, this may have been a long-term decision by the medical staff to prolong Luke's career and prevent future problems. I think scenario B) is the more likely considering I never heard of any acute injury suffered by Luke and hip injuries such as the one mentioned above in scenario a) don't occur so commonly during pre-season training drills. Hope that sheds some light, even though I have no inside info and am only guessing (but based on a pretty sound knowledge of what hip operations could possibly have been on the cards in a young player such as Luke who has not appeared to have suffered any major training or match mishap). The recovery and rehab from the second operation (for FAI) is approximately around the 3 months plus mark for an AFL player with access to intensive rehab... A small investment in a long future hopefully. And it's not likely to be OP if he really did have a 'hip' operation.

It's interesting to note that many posters called for Bate to be dropped to the VFL because he was short of a gallop, but Garland gets a reprieve this week... Not directing this at you Rogue, as I don't recall which of the multitude of Bate bashers in recent weeks have posted that opinion. Just pointing out that no-one seems to have called for Garland to be dropped based on what was unequivocally a VERY rusty first up effort. He looked well behind the pace of the game and will need quite some time to reach an acceptable AFL standard let alone the lofty standards he set in 2008. So to relate this to the actual topic of this thread, there is no reason why T Mac or Rivers or Cheney could not come in to replace Garland, given he is nowhere near ready for AFL footy at this stage of his recovery (how many practice/Casey games has he actually played??? I think only one full game at Casey and one half game!!! In a whole 12 months!!! Not great preparation!!!) Not at all saying that I think these players are better than Col, just that their worth to the team may be more at this point in time. I understand the eagerness of the match committee to get him back in the side and hence his premature (in my opinion) selection on the weekend, but I think after Sunday's performance they may consider a re-think. Of course considering we're playing the Tigers, they may feel they can 'afford' to keep him in for another week... Which wouldn't bother me too much, as long as we win the game and he comes out better for the run. Though I would like to see players earn their spot a bit more. The runs aren't in the bank for Col anymore after a whole season ruined by injury. I think he should have been made to earn his stripes for a bit longer in the VFL prior to playing his first game.

I'm still waiting for their preview of our game. In fact, not only did they not preview it, their half arsed attempt was interrupted by some stupid story from akker and Garry/James etc never even gave a tip. Ridiculous. The show has nothing to do with football. and Shane Crawford should never be allowed on television. He is a stinker!!!!