MikeyJ

Take a look at the nature of those injuries. If there had been an increased rate of hamstring and quadricep strains, then you might be on to something. However, recent long-term injuries that have cruelled players include: Foot (Garland, Meesen) Jaw (Green) Knee (Wonaeamirri) Back (Grimes) Groin (Buckley, Moloney, Petterd, Rivers- and the latter three have actually improved their fitness this year) Achilles (Robertson) Leg (Blease) The only one that you might be able to point the finger at is Wheatley's quad strain - but you're talking about a player who's been beset by soft-tissue injuries throughout his career. If you can show how BB's training has contributed to Robbo's achilles, Green's broken jaw, Petterd's punctured lung, Garland and Meesen's foot fractures, a quartet of long-term groin problems (three of which have IMPROVED) and Aussie's knee, good on you. I bet you can't.

Dan, the player you've described there is a dead ringer for Sydney's Dan Hannebery. He's played six or seven senior games as a Year 12 student for a club that trains and prepares 1000km from where he lives. If Jack Viney is anything like Dan Hannebery, I reckon our football department couldn't spit his name out fast enough.

I'm in - The Beetle Brigade.

Haha, great minds think alike!

Especially considering they don't have it. Sydney's first pick in the draft is pick 6.

A Google search revealed that Jack Viney was the youngest member of this year's SA under-16 state side that competed at the national carnival. He was up to 15 months younger than some of his teammates and at least five months younger than anyone else. If nothing else, it's an indication that Todd's son is a precocious talent. SA U16 team list

Another name to throw into the mix is Daniel Talia from the Calder Cannons. 195cm, good skills, CHB who is mobile enough to play midfield. Could still be around at pick 18.

I suspect Bailey is trying to engineer something like this: Tall, versatile and mobile defenders that can use the ball by hand or foot (Warnock, Garland, Martin) to release running half-backs. The half-backs (Bennell, Strauss, Green, Grimes) will then combine with the mids to move the ball at pace through the corridor (or as close as possible to it), predominantly with handball, until they reach a point about 70m out. Then it's up to the mids (Sylvia, McLean, Davey, Jones, Scully, Bruce, Moloney, Morton) to choose the right option to hit a forward (Jurrah, Watts, Bate or Aussie). Should the field open up, some mids will have a licence to shoot themselves (Sylvia, Davey, Jones, Bruce, Morton). It sounds simple but in reality, we look to be adopting the Swans' movement out of defence, the Cats' slick movement through the middle of the ground and the Hawks' preference for using tall forwards. Needless to say, this has to be coupled with an appetite for the contest that matches the likes of the Swans and the Saints. This game plan has been evident several times this season - most notably in the first quarter against Collingwood earlier in the year and the first half in our win against Richmond. Those who complain that there is no game plan haven't been looking for it. Finally, I'd give Bailey a one-year extension now. It allows him to coach without pressure next year and the heat will be brought to bear in 2011, when he should have a side capable of contending for a finals berth. As it should be.

Sure, the second half of your post made its point, but don't get all whingey when you get exactly the reaction that the first half of your post - and the topic headline - was fishing for. I'm not going to be barracking for the Dees at all this weekend, because I don't want us to win. Simple. And you're either a troll, or not very clever. I haven't worked out which it is, yet.

The former head of the AIS-AFL program, Alan McConnell, is the only full-time GWS employee at this stage. He's running the talent ID program. But yes, I agree that the GWS program is a long way behind where the GC program was at the same stage. If GWS was to follow GC's path, there would be a GWS team playing in the TAC Cup in 2010, before playing in the VFL or Canberra league in 2011. Given that the licence hasn't even been granted for the GWS team, this appears a long shot. However, Demetriou says the AFL is still committed to a 2012 start for GWS, and that the Commission will consider granting a licence by the end of the year. If McConnell is beavering away and identifying talent, it's not out of the question that GWS could field a team in an underage comp in 2010. They're cutting it fine, though. Few, if any, are suggesting there is going to be a sudden and mass conversion of neutrals to the GWS team. Yes, tickets will be given away. Yes, the franchise will run at a loss for the best part of a decade. But that's why the AFL has set aside more than $100 million to support the team over the next six years. As an aside, I suggest that the main jumper sponsorship of the GWS team will be one of the most lucrative in the competition. Boutique market, national exposure, huge media interest, large catchment.

The Swans average slightly more than 34,000 to each of their 10 games played in Sydney this year. How is that "no interest" in AFL? As for your query as to why "pro GWS people" think the western Sydney team will work, take a look at the Swans' early history. Now, add $110 million in AFL funding, significant draft and salary cap concessions, and the AFL's current business acumen to the mix. I agree that the latent support for an AFL team in greater western Sydney is negligible, but I also think the team will achieve the AFL's aims - that is, it will be a boutique team that gives the code a presence in one of Australia's major growth belts. And sideshowbob hit the nail on the head with the Senate report. It was a simply device employed by the Tasmanian senators to aid a futile push to give Tasmania an AFL team. It wasn't even wholly supported by the Tasmanian government.

What Rhino said is correct. I'll just add that a key part of any trade deal is that ALL parties must agree - both clubs and the player(s) involved. Two clubs cannot agree to a deal and force a player to move clubs against his wishes. See the aborted Brad Sewell-Ryan Ferguson trade from a few years back, where Ferg refused to move. Who knows - it may well have been the case that Geelong agreed to trade Prismall for pick 19, but Prismall refused to move.

This is just about the most ridiculous thing I've seen posted on this forum - actually, any forum - this year. Congratulations.

The target area for the GWS team is not necessarily western (Penrith, Parramatta) and south-western (Liverpool, Bankstown, Campbelltown) Sydney. The AFL has identified large population tracts in Sydney's north-west (Castle Hill, Pennant Hills) where AFL has a significant junior presence. This area is not your typical NRL bogan heartland. These are well-off, educated families who want their kids to play a game whose culture has some semblance of respect and dignity. Any support garnered from NRL strongholds in the west of Sydney will be a bonus. It's the NW suburbs that are the holy grail - and funnily, they're the areas in which Sydney's growth is booming. There's no denying that this entire exercise is a risk, but it's one worth taking. I repeat, there has never been a better time for the AFL to grow its brand by pushing into new, unfamiliar territory.

I live in Sydney, I've been out to all the venues and I've been eating, sleeping and breathing football for the past six months. I have no doubt that in 10 years, the Western Sydney team will be as viable as the Sydney Swans are currently. That might be damning GWS with faint praise, but there's no denying the Swans are a fixture in this city. You cite the Swans' early days in Sydney as evidence that GWS is doomed to failure - keep in mind that today's AFL competition is a far more professional, savvy outfit than the quasi-amateur league that made the first foray north. I and others have mentioned the truckloads of cash that will be thrown at both GC and GWS. Have no doubt that the AFL is going to prop up both these ventures until they succeed. The resulting increase in the TV rights deal will eventually more than make up for the huge outlay of cash now. Consider the AFL's spend on these two teams an investment. Sure, other sports have tried to venture into foreign territory without success, but none has done so with the acumen and financial muscle that the AFL currently enjoys. Every other football code in this country is in some degree of financial crisis. The AFL is swimming in cash. There has never been a better time to grow the AFL's brand.

To add a bit of balance... I headed out to Bruce Purser Reserve at Rouse Hill for the Swans-Dogs NAB Cup game played earlier this year. On that night, it was a cracking venue for pre-season football. Great weather, great surface, sellout crowd, reasonable game of footy. The surface mightn't have been much chop for a under-age footy final on the weekend but the AFL will ensure it's up to scratch for any elite-level games played there if and when the time comes. But really, the surface at Rouse Hill is of little consequence in the wider scheme of things. When the new GWS team enters the comp in 2012, they'll be playing their home games at either ANZ Stadium or Blacktown Olympic Park. My guess is ANZ, because there's no way that people will travel to BOP. It's miles from public transport and the parking is no good out there. I suspect the AFL wanted GWS to play at a redeveloped Showgrounds Oval at Sydney Olympic Park, but it doesn't appear that will happen. They'll just subsidise the poor crowds at GWS until they gain a critical mass of support after 10 years. Finally, this is going to happen whether we agree with it or not. The AFL has committed to spending $220 million on these two teams over six years. I repeat for emphasis - $220 million. And there's more where that came from. Have no doubt that 18 teams is the future of our competition, whether it makes financial sense or not.

My personal favourites: - Bailey has not changed the club's gameplan - Bailey has NO gameplan - Melbourne would kick more goals if we always had forwards in the forward line - Matthew Bate is lazy - Brock McLean is a poor kick - Craig Cameron was a poor recruiter Unlike others, I'll confirm that I wholeheartedly disagree with all these assertions. Good thread, and not a little irony contained within.

Lovely work. Now who's got no idea?

Sylvia got three weeks on an early guilty plea for belting Scott Selwood. Awesome.

I reckon Bailey told him at half time to back himself in front of goal Watts took that great one-handed mark in the second term and then looked to pass from 45m out, on a 30deg angle. The ensuing kick went to Robbo in the pocket and he dropped the mark. At the time, I wished he'd had the confidence in himself and in his teammates to go back and take a shot. After all, that's what he's going to be doing for the rest of his career. He may as well start learning now. I don't think it's any coincidence that he had a few attempts later in the game. I had no problem with him having a ping on the run in the last term. It's not as though his teammates would have done any better.

I hear you. I posted a reminder earlier in the thread but it appears some are either too dense or too careless to take note. Oh well, we've already got McClean and Bates in the side; why not add Trengrove as well?

Thanks for the tip mate. Time will tell if it's on the money, but it's always good to get this plausible sort of information.

While we're discussing the young fella from SA, let's remember that his name is Trengove, NOT Trengrove. There's only one 'r' - same as Jackson Trengove (no relation) who was drafted by Port Adelaide last year.

I thanked you for your information, as have many others. People who provide snippets of inside information are one of the main reasons these sites thrive. I hope you continue to post such info when you are able. And I understand very clearly why people refuse to reveal their sources. I'm all for them keeping confidences. I've never questioned a poster's sources when it is clear their information is on the money, or close to it. However, I criticised you for being an obnoxious prat. You're still being an obnoxious prat and I don't know why. Do yourself and everyone else a favour and drop it.

Would you like a gold star? A pat on the back? It doesn't take a genius to use their eyes and work out that Brock's been carrying an injury all season. He can't run at pace and he's struggled to kick more than 35m. I have no reason to doubt your claim that you have access to inside information - good get re: Moloney - and I thank you for sharing it. But a long-winded, self-indulgent "I told you so" rant such as the one above endears you to no one. Share information by all means if you want, but don't expect to become a hero for doing so. I'd actually rather not get the "inside scoop" if it means I'm subjected to the self-righteous twaddle you posted above.