Rhino Richards

The common thread is that all three at the time of the departure from GFC were not rated best 22 and were expendable. As others have said lets have a look at him with no promises. No problem.

I hope the Mac has been shut down....

Excellent piece and the best of them from Flanagan in my opinion. It is a good point made about Sean Charles. And I think you are spot on Ravi about journalistic quality.

The point was they use 4 of the 5 picks poorly. The culprits for that debacle like many of the recruits are gone. I am not so pessimistic about Richmond. I think with a bit of luck they could improve to seriously challenge 9th spot in the next 5 years.

The opposition supporters should envy who you have chosen particularly after they get torched by their performances in the following years. As Richmond showed in 2004 when they had 5 picks in the top 20 (including No1) and selected Deledio, questionably Tambling at 4 then poorly with the next 3 picks. Its nice to have the 4 draft cards in your hands. But play them poorly and....

Very similar. Quick, flaky disposal and decision making skills with questionable defensive capability. The other issue with Buckley is any linger groin problems (The fact that he has been pictured in a NM training guernsey) does not mitigate that issue.

As Basil Fawlty once said "Manuel..you are a waste of space".

Now Megan Gale thinks their sexy....WOW http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/...o-1225797093598 They really are an impressive club arent they.

I can guarantee I have no interest whatsoever in your rank ignorance. As another poster aptly said "Run along"

Darren Jolly...Cameron Wood

If it was a free hit, we would get him in the PSD. Alberton booked out!

One flag in 51 years with all that money, facilities, the draw and the legion of supporters. Hardly worth writing about. Better off googling 10 years of rancid Pies articles in the Hun.

Excellent Hannibal. Good form indeed. Exactly right. It was the shallow mind that expect Watts in his VCE year and first season to be doing great things.

Well written but it will miss the ultimate target. Too much common sense.

They already have Cousins, Polak and a cast of other problems. They could still draft him. They have enough picks to fill.

Why should it? Even if the Club weren't interested, the ploy of saying we would be prepared to use 11 or 18 on Ball may force interested parties to act in advance of where they would have normally bid to get Ball thereby effectively moving MFC up the draft order for either pick 18 or both pick 11 and 18. Some of the crisis hissyfits around here are self serving.

Then why would you ask the question..."Would we have still taken Morton had we won the Kruezer Cup?" If you are not going to consider what the recruiters say and my source was from a special supporters talk given by the CC not a press blurb I would like to correct what I said earlier. At the 2007 draft , MFC had rated the early picks as follows...Cotchin, Masten, Morton then Kruezer. How can Cotchin have been and is a "gun" if he had limited impact in first year and riddled with injury in his second year? One hand you say he is a gun ..on the other he has shown qualities of a gun. He is not a gun.. yet but a very good promising footballer when fit. He was very good in his first year and came 3rd in the Rising Star award with an interrupted pre season and playing his first game in round 8 of that year. Prior to that game Richmond had won 2.5 games out of 7. From that time on they won 9 out of 15. He has had enough positive influence on them for a first year player. And your issuing caution about expecting too much in ther first year? Only the melodramatic expect Scully and Trengove to set the world on fire in their first year. If they are each as good Cotchin in their first year, I will be rapt. As I said they are better than what we have currently and should feature in MFC's midfield in their first year.

Yes. My understanding is that wee would have gone for Morton had we won the Kruezer Cup. If we did take Kruezer we would not have necessarily taken Nik Nat. Trent Cotchin has been injured for alot of 2009 but in 2008 he was gun. He is still going to be central to the Tigers midfield and will be a very good player. Nothing cautionary there. Scully and Trengove should be better than what we currently have in the midfield and if fit and as good as their profiles I cant see why they would not be in the starting 22 round 1 in 2010.

Agree. The problem is not solved and there is an opportuinity for a player if they are good enough. FWIW, I think Hauritz had a very good Ashes and should have been selected for the final test. He has been serviceable without being a bowler to run through sides. If there is a better option then that option might not be too bad.

The impact of the rule on the game has its implications. We were not told anything. The rule merely sets down the conditions of play. As a consequence your criticism of Ponting for that incident is unreasonable.

Agreed. Dont get him started. Too late.... And you are a clever one too! In your little world, other posters are either player lovers or haters. What wonderful insight.

Worse still that many thought Meesen, Buckley and Valenti should be kept.

Agree. Why the Saints let it get to the stage of a player walking for nothing is hardly a victory. They got nothing for him. Its poor handling. I would be ropable on MFC if a similar scenario played out with us and McLean went for nothing. Its seems one Club can move for its advantage. Another cant manage the situation at all. Its a poor list management outcome.

MFC must have won tattslotto getting pick 11 for McLean. The Saints certainly have not been winners out of this whole fiasco.

Re -read the last paragraph of my previous post. I understand the penalties mount with each contravention. Both suspensions and fines. Its not a whip around the pub to cough a few cents. And its not just about the NZ test. If my understanding is correct the penalty escalations cover a 12 month period. Your last sentence shows the clouds might be clearing. Well done. I dont mind the rule because its means the paying public get to see 90 overs of cricket and value for their ticket. Some of the over rates of the Windies made a mockery of a full day's value.