mo64

I agree, but it's easier said than done. Can you imagine an up and coming sportsperson who's part of systemic performance enhancing regime (think East German female sprinters or Bulgarian weightlifters or Essendon FC). They're not interested in the individual athlete, just the end result. If you don't want to be part of it, we'll find someone who will. The instigators are the real criminals in all this, but the players need to be suspended because they've received the benefits. For a player to say they've done nothing wrong is fanciful, but they have a case to apportion blame for their mistakes.

You missed the point. Just as I wouldn't expect a 12 year gymnast to question their coach or trainer, I wouldn't expect a 2nd year AFL player to question the methods of a football dept. They may raise concerns with their senior teammates, and you'd expect them to raise the concerns with the FD. As I said, that shouldn't lessen the penalty.

Easier said than done when you are in a team environment and still trying to find your way. I have no issue with Heppell or any other young player copping their full whack from WADA, but it's easy to see how a young player would just tow the line.

In fairness to Heppell, he was a 19yo kid in his 2nd year of football, so was hardly in a position to question authority. Hal Hunter had the same view at the time that everything was kosher. The real fault lies with the senior players or leadership group. They did raise questions, but chose to accept the BS spun by those overseeing the program rather than seeking external assurances via the AFLPA.

Don't consider any of them as being in our top 8 players. There's a difference between handy and significant.

Might be the biggest crowd and media coverage that Casey get's all season.

They'll also have some significant ins: Mumford, Shiel, Griffin, Coniglio, Scully, Davis, WHE, and the player I'm really worried about Stevie J. Unfortunately for us, we don't have any significant ins.

There are a couple of things that I'd like to see Hogan get out of his game. One is throwing his hands up when a teammate doesn't kick the ball to him. The other is whinging to the umpires when he doesn't get a free. In the Saints game, he started whinging about a free when the ball was still in play and in his vicinity.

I actually think they're different types. Jones to me is purely an outside player, whereas Stretch is good in close, but is used outside because of his lack of physical maturity. For round 1, it may come down to Jones or Harmes on the wing, and I think they'll go with Harmes.

Who's writing him off? The "sheep" are just saying that it's highly improbable that he'll play round 1 based on his NAB Cup performance. And the "sheep" were factually refuting Redleg's claim that he must be a lock for round 1 because he didn't play for Casey yesterday.

You left out their most important midfielders in Mumford and Ward. Mumford was the difference in our 1st meeting last year. Unless Gawn can break even, the height of their midfield becomes a moot point. And aside from Kelly, I wouldn't say that the rest are not strong bodied.

You're comparing a B&F player from another club in Vince to fringe players in Bugg and Kennedy. Vince had exposed form, whilst Bugg and Kennedy were battling to get a game with sides that didn't make the eight. They may make our list better because they're replacing substandard players, and that doesn't guarantee additional wins. I'm bullish about Brayshaw, Oliver and Petracca going forward, but as Terry Wallace pointed out, we need to give them time. I'm not as confident with Trengove having any impact this year. The youngest list argument doesn't carry any weight for mine. The strength of your list is all about how many A and B graders you currently have, not about the potential of your list due to age. With free agency, teams can leapfrog others with 1 or 2 key acquisitions. And I'm not sure why everyone is using St.Kilda as a comparison. It's their senior players that towelled us up last year, and they're still playing. Long term we should surpass them, but this year their senior players are still a concern to us. I thought that Wallace's analysis was spot on. With our draw, 8 wins is a pass mark.

Not sure how a roundtable discussion about Melbourne has anything to do with Hardwick/Richmond. There's no doubt that many on here have us being the "victim" when it comes to media analysis and commentary. The facts are: - We won 7 games last year and had a shocking 2nd half to the year. - We haven't recruited anyone of significance. Our biggest name recruit Melksham is on the sidelines. - Only draftee likely to make an impact is Oliver. You can talk about Petracca and Trengove as being like new recruits, but after coming of serious injuries, our expectations of them need to be tempered. - You can talk about natural imrovement from a young list, but every other club outside the eight is saying the same thing. - We have a tough draw. The wins we had last year against the Pies, Cats and Dogs will be harder to achieve. Any analyst in their right mind should have us winning no more than 10 games. We could have a breakout year like the Dogs, but it's highly improbable.

Or it just goes to show that stats don't always tell the true picture of a players performance. Backmen will generally have a higher DE% than mids because quite often they are allowed to chip a 20m kick sideways without pressure. That also distorts average marks per game. If you can't see that Grimes isn't the same player that he was in 2009, you're watching the game with blinkers. Nobody on here dislikes Grimes, so it's not a personal thing when many point out that his game has regressed. Even the FD didn't think he was best 22 for round 1 last year. Were they exaggerating his poor play?

GC's injury list was horrific last year just as they were seen as a team that could contend for a finals spot. Players tend to be disgruntled when they're losing and the club isn't meeting expectations. The coach always cops it in the neck. If Roos was still coach in 2 years time, and we had a long term injury list of Brayshaw, Petracca, Viney and Oliver, how do you think people will judge Roos' tenure? Having said that, everything that McQueen stated sounds plausible.

I agree that Ox's comments were poorly considered, but I just don't think that current players should get caught up in media comments from past players. It can end up in a slanging match which serves no purpose. He should have just brushed off Ox's comments with "my gk % was 69% last year and I just had an off day, which I'll work on". No need to bring up Ox's record.

Agree. Nobody wins with comments like that.

Couldn't disagree more. My main knock on Oliver from his pre-draft highlights package was that in the same situation, he'd shrug off smaller/lighter opponent at TAC Cup level, before disposing of the ball. I thought he might get caught out at AFL level with bigger bodies and less time. His awareness of the situation (time, space and teammates) was incredibly impressive. He's the antithesis of Toumpas, who'd freeze in the same situation. Vince was equally impressive. Got the ball to Oliver, pointed out Jones as an option for Salem, and then ran on as an option for Jones. That's leadership.

Name them, because after watching the game twice, Garland probably did 3-4 things that I'd consider decent, but none of them led to goals. I also didn't mention the time when he kicked out on the full with no pressure and when he missed Grimes with that pass under no pressure, so I thought I was being generous. He along with O Mac and Wagner were poor, but I'm not going to stick the boots into developing kids. Garland isn't a smart footballer as some like to assert, and the high press will find him out.

If we've got the ball in our forward half and there's a turnover, there's more space for the opposition to work with. We actually out scored the Saints from turnovers predominantly because of Garlett and Watts. Saints used a high press, and Garlett and Watts were able to get out the back and score. But when I watched the replay, I only care about how our backmen went with the high press. Garland was guilty of mistakes with all three points above. Three led to goals and the other was a point. The obvious one was his kick across goal in the 1st. But also in the 1st, he was caught out of position by getting sucked into an area he shouldn't have been, resulting in 2 Saints players on their own. They missed the goal, but Garland was the chief culprit for poor zoning. And twice he had the opportunity to neutralise a on-on-one contest with his opponent and failed, which resulted in goals. Against top teams that move the ball well, we could get caught out unless our backline improves.

Agree with that.

Watched the replay twice, and the only time I noticed the umpiring was when Hogan stopped to remonstrate with one even though the ball was still in play. They've been consistent with the new holding the ball and deliberate out of bounds interpretations. The one exception was when Jack Steven placed the ball over the line like a rugby try, but wasn't pinged. The umpire could have easily been blindsided. I haven't noticed the umpires in all 3 NAB Cup games, which is a good thing.

It's one thing to be adaptable, but it's another to be playing at an AFL standard. Whatever role you see Grimes playing can be covered by players who are currently playing at a higher level. I like Grimes and would love to see him succeed, but for over 2 years he's been an average to poor AFL player, and what he showed in the NAB Cup was no exception.

You've got Grimes ahead of Harmes, Kennedy and M. Jones. Based on what?

If form is the criteria for selection, I fail to see how Lumumba walks into the team ahead of Harmes. I agree with your last comment. With Cameron's likely suspension, I'd move Frost down back to play on Lobb, and ruck against Lobb when Mummy is rested. Again if form is the criteria, Garland should be omitted, and doesn't have an obvious match up anyway.