Rhino Richards

Replace what?? They were players the club did not rate and werent pushing for a role. They need to regenerate their list and seek out future players. If you have made the final assessment on a player or players why give them another contract. And you have answered the Skipper question. The wholesale nature of the changes are definitely expected given the Hawks have underperformed and the bottom 9 or so on their list and its the time lists are culled.

After the glamour recruiting of Buddy, Roughy and Lewis in 2004, 2005 and 2006 have been ordinary years. 2005 Pick 6 Dowler - Gone 14 Birchall - Good choice 18 Bailey - Gone. Bad Knees 22 Muston - Gone 38 Tuck - Gone 2006 Pick 6 Thorp - Gone 24 Renouf - maybe 33 Morton - maybe 40 Kennedy - F/S - Gone I think 56 Moss - Gone

Really. Hardly any surprises there. All underperformers and they are all out of contract.

Haha! I knew you would bite! Gotcha!!

Rash generalisation. Its not a trait limited to indigenous players. Jack Watts is a point in question. For every Tom Scully there is an indigenous player with similar fitness traits.

My Council gives you 4 waste collections a year. I trust the Hawks abide by the rules and properly ties up all that garbage and places in small piles outside on the front nature strip. Muston. Honestly calling your son Beau...... Maybe so. Great name though.

Great topic. Scully Frawley Jurrah Trengove Watts Grimes Morton Garland Gysberts McKenzie Blease Tapscott Bennell Petterd Spencer Fitzpatrick Strauss Gawn Wonaeamirri Bail Maric Jetta McNamara Ummed and ahhed over the top 5

A prize for you Maurie. You are the mart one. Hang on my esses have gone again!!

Or when against Collingwood he kicked a typically cheeky and freaky Jako goal and then pulled the front of his jumper over his face and spread his arms and wnet "flying" around the Collingwood backline. I can remember Mick McGuane get really pi$$ed off with the antics. Lovely stuff. Ah Jako...at his best...mercurial and one of the best individual performers I have seen in the red and blue. At his worst...he was lamentable. And you never know what you were going to get on the day.

Needs to get fit, stay fit, get selected and... get his hands on the ball more. There alot of excitement about Wonna which I think is ahead of what he has produced to date. Many speak fondly of the Jurrah/Wonna/Bennell and some attribute the X factor to them. Well I have seen the X factor in Jurrah but Wonna has not shown enough for that accolade. Hope he knuckles down and performs next year.

After the sarcatic meter is introduced by the Admin, can we look at a spellcheck function or alternatively sack the Education Minister?

At six months til the start of the season they are in the mix. No one knows what will happen to the other sides in the break up to 2011.

Gone. If my understand is right, he is either to be elevated or he is gone and he cant be re rookie. Gone. (And I dont mean No 37 either.)

Warnock is not in the team. I am concerned about using a player to backfill for a player that cant make the team. You are confusing him with Frawley and Garland. Warnock has always been seen as an honest defender at most. No flare but effective. Too true. Atm unless Newton u turns and becomes a great player from a further rookie contract then he is finished.

Good point. Malthouse has done well to extract the best from the list he had. Their recruiting 2001 to 2004 had been poor indeed. The first set of players compliment their key core of talented players that you have listed below. All the key players you mentioned there have at least six years or 100 games under their belt. The Pies best is in their prime. MFC's best is young with 1 to 5 years experience and less than 50 games. Our time will come Good point.

Yes. Last tour they had one first class warm up game with a hit and giggle against the PM X1. They brought their strike bowler on one legs(Flintoff) and brought one player out with chronic depression (Trescowthick). They could not have been as bad as last tour.

He debuted for Tasmania as a 17yo in the mid 1990's. Given the Ashes pressure, I doubt whether they will force either Ponting or the quicks to do this. Our fast bowlers have a heavy programme year in year out and I dont see the value of an extra four days of toil.

Now recovered to 6/118 but poor indeed. For the Brisbane Test, my thoughts: 1. Whether you pick a spinner, depends on the weather. Unless its been damp and seaming, I think you play a spinner 2. I am not convinced at this point Smith is a more than a part time spinner and by default Hauritz gets the spinner's spot in a more friendly climate but I am not comfortable. Footnote: If you are not going to play to Smith then you are going to play North to back in the spin area. I cant see Smith alone on the 4th innings trying to bowl the Poms. 3. Johnson stays as first change but is burning tickets after his last couple of Tests. Could easily turn us to victory. 4. One of North or Hussey to...North for mine and put Khalwaja in. 5. Haddin (if fit) for Paine but he must produce. Big Test on Clarke. If he is a future Test captain then he needs to fire. Ponting will be out of the role within 12 months. Good articles in The Age by Roebuck and co on Saturday. Food for thought for some.

You noticed it also. True.

Firstly Richmond came last and got pick 1 (priority) and then 4 and 20,36. They traded a player who wanted a fresh move in Ottens and got picks 12 and 16. It was not a case of hey this a good draft lets load up. They finished last and traded a disgtuntled player for market. No club knows for sure how a draft of 17-18 yos will turn out. MFC had no idea 2003 would pan out like it did and definitely thought they struck gold with picks 3 and 5. BTW, the Hawks loaded up with pick 7. 2004 was a great draft down to about pick 10 but has been shown to have fallen away past then. But I guess most clubs picked that. But they dont know if they will be and cant plan when they go to the well But it was not a comment on the strength of the draft overall. It just meant that there weren't many talls selected early. I would have thought the performance of many of the top 15 to 20 this year would prove your example poor. Tealeaves or tarot cards? There role is to identify talent within drafts. The fact is they dont know how a draft will pan out and the fact is you dont know what their job really is.

Banfield made the WCE team of century so I am not sure after 265 games what he should have done. White made AA in 2004 was an outstanding player in the early part of this decade. The change in rules nullified one of his assets. Deledio was pushing for AA selection and has played for six years in a team that been crud. He's quality. I am not sure who they would have taken as No 1 in his year as he was head and shoulders above his year of 2004.

The list of all No 1s is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Draft#Pre-season_draft I would say the first six No 1's were a case of lack of expertise in recruiting. The last 5 years of No 1 is in the early stages but I think they will all be worthy No 1s A number 1 pick in my opinion has to be at least a 10 year, 200 game player with higher accolades through his career. The ones who qualify as worthy or who I believe will get there. 1992 - Drew Banfield 1994 - Jeff White 2000 - Nick Riewoldt 2001 - Luke Hodge 2002 - Brendan Goddard 2003 - Adam Cooney 2004 - Brett Deledio 1995 - 1999 - Picks never lived up to the expectations. In some cases the player was a big disappointment.

2001 was a disaster year. Molan, Armstrong and Rogers were all disappointments You're right about the hard work. However 2004 should have been a lesson to all about recruiting for type. And Wallet loved small fast outside running players. He cashed in big time and paid the price. He recruited Thompson in 2000 which was a good selection but we could not keep him. We did not have a 2nd round pick due to draft penalties. His 1999 vintage was good. But you are right about the recruits that CAC sourced. 15 other Clubs got it wrong too. Picking drafts in advance is not a skill any AFL club has and its almost impossible to pick.

Marvellous. But at these info sessions, they are not giving any secrets away. Much of this is the confirmation of the bleedin obvious. Ok so you love the touchy feely texts and emails that actually say little. The ACB selectors have no such need to do that. If your gripe about "transparency" is about that then the slagging off at Test selectors/selection is at the far galaxy of the absurd. And no one disagrees about Australia firing up this summer and that it is not playing well. Your delusional if you believe that your view here is different to what everyone else can see. If Aust do perform badly or lose the Ashes at home, I'm sure you'll come out with some self stroking post that says " I've been saying this all slong". Fact you havent. You have said little of substance on the matter and have been pinged for it.

MFC like any professional sporting team do not reveal their selection and list planning strategies. MFC haven't done it , wont do it and shouldn't do it. If you have ever heard Bailey speak, he says nothing new in the press conferences. It got nothing to do with old Board vs new Board. Once again you try and divert the subject to avoid being shown up. BTW, I am from Earth, which galaxy are you from? Best not watch what you dont understand. Bullsh!t. It will be a ratings bonanza for them after the fluff and rubbish last summer. Its got nothing to do with transparency by the selectors. Its all about the win-loss on the field. Its going to be difficult no matter who the selectors choose for Australia. I thought I'd better explain anyhow on Benaud. Dont know where you get it..a library.. Explains alot about the opaqueness of selection. Its not as cut and dry as you try to pretend it is.