deanox

Nash I sit being the goals, level 2, punt Road end every week so see the play opening up on a very different way than is shown on tv. What I will tell you is you are 100% correct. The number of times in his 6 years Watts has found himself 30+m clear of anyone forward of the ball, often hands in the air, sometimes jumping and waving, while folk scream "kick to Watts" only for the player to never look near him has been painful. I reckon maybe 40+ Watts shot on goal opportunities missed in that time easily. I've gotten on here or read media reports where he had be bagged for having no impact or playing outside and having a poor game and then think back to the day before and often there has been 2-5 instances where he has worked free and just been ignored. If people start seeing the big blonde guy and kicking to him we might start doing better at times.

Yes there is. City to Hoddle Street along Victoria parade...

With Frosts mobility and pace could he be trained to play as a tall mid who moves into the ruck when needed, the traditional ruck rover?

Neither Dawes nor Garland will ruck, if Frost goes back he can't take the ruck post without disrupting our defence. If Frost plays forward this week as named he will also do resting ruck.

I don't mind that. Only concern would be it leaves us exposed if jamar goes down.

It looks like it came down to "young, inexperienced, potential, good skills, but are a traditionally low possession group die to experience" (Toumpas, Salem, possibly Brayshaw) vs "senior, experienced, flawed disposal, run all day, but prone to silly errors". Hopefully Toumpas and Salem are ready to step up.

I like to think that Grimes will remain on the last for a few years as a good honest player with great leadership skills, who set a fantastic example for the young kids (a bit like cross) who is in and out of the team depending on form or injury. A professional, he is a step up from the traditional NQRs like Terlich and Jones, but might not be good enough to hold down a spot taken by Lamumba and some kids. The other option is we trade him to a tan that wants him to start as they lack a defensive half back flank although that seems unlikely. I don't think he'll be delisted.

I also think there is another team positive out of this side. Players like Grimes, Matt Jones etc. can go and play a few games at VFL level, find the pace themselves, work on a couple of things, enjoy the game again, and play above (dominant) that level before coming back when they force their way in or have to come up for injury. We haven't had that opportunity for a while, or at least players haven't taken it!

Interesting that with almost everyone fit that is who the selectors think are the best/in form 22. When fit/available, Dawes and Vince both come in. But who for? I'd say Frost for Dawes, and one of Toumpas/vanDemon/Brayshaw for Vince, depending on form. If Dawes does come in for Frost, who does the back up ruck role? If both play, with Hogan, I fear week be a touch too tall up forward, we have worked better with a shorter forward line. I feel we are a touch short in the forward line though given we don't have a true back up ruck. Frost will do it, and I suspect Howe will swing forward at times to add an extra dimension. Interesting.

B: Colin Garland, Lynden Dunn, Neville Jetta HB: Christian Salem, Tom McDonald, Jeremy Howe C: Heritier Lumumba, Daniel Cross, Ben Newton HF: Dean Kent, Jesse Hogan, Jimmy Toumpas F: Jeff Garlett, Sam Frost, Jack Watts FOLL: Mark Jamar, Nathan Jones, Dom Tyson I/C: Jack Viney, Angus Brayshaw, Jay Kennedy-Harris, Aaron vandenBerg EMG: Max Gawn, Jack Grimes, Matt Jones NEW: Angus Brayshaw, Sam Frost, Jeff Garlett, Jesse Hogan, Heritier Lumumba, Ben Newton, Aaron vandenBerg Grimes emergency and Howe gets a game but Vince doesn't. 7 MFC debutants. And 4 others that debuted under roos last year. Our side is changing significantly.

To me, this infers of an athlete signs to use thymosin (a banned substance) or doesn't mate whether they actually get thymosin or chickenpox vaccine.

I appreciate your response but i don't quite understand how it can be that way. Why can't you be guilty of "Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method" without knowing it is banned? It is your responsibility to know that everything you take isn't banned. The only reason I can see a not guilty verdict is because it can't be proved to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that the illegal substance was in fact what was taken. Nothing to do with whether the players knew or not.

Redleg have you read a copy or have some inside information? Because your recent set of statements appear to contradict what I understood from reports thus far.I had read that they were satisfied tb4 was ordered and compounded and provided to Dank. That they were satisfied that "good thymosin" or thymoddulin was never on premises. But they weren't satisfied whether the tb4 was used at Essendon by Dank or in his private clinic etc. Also my understanding is that there were receipts of Essendon paying for some of these drugs? (Not sure if tb4 specific) And also that 11 of the 34 admitted in the interviews to being injected with "thymosin but I don't know any more about it (I.e. tb4 or alpha etc.)". If these last statements are true, I don't know how we could come to a "not enough evidence argument". Can you provide other thoughts? Also, based on your statements you seem quite categorical that there was no evidence of most things. Do you have any thoughts as to how this got though mcdevitt and the supreme Court judge and why it took 7 (?) days to present? Finally, does this mean you believe there will be no appeal by ASADA or WADA?

This isn't true at all. They are responsible for everything that goes into their bodies, even if it was put there by someone else. The code gets blurry here because it talks about how the decision to rely on any medical or sport staff is a decision made by the athlete and they are responsible for what their doctor does (I.e. choose your own doctor). But obviously in afl you don't get to choose your own doctor. What you do get to do though is go and rub a Google search, or ask you manager to call asada and check, the nans of all the drugs on the waiver form to do your own due diligence. None of the players did this. They are responsible and they took no responsibility. I don't believe a positive test is needed. Ignorance is not a defence.

If we could snare him for our first round pick (pick 2-6) and a player not in our long term plans or a player like Toumpas and our second round pick I'd be happy to trade for him.

I don't believe the Tribunal could find that way WJ. It isn't logical. Either they were given illegal substances or weren't. A verdict that says "Dank is guilty because he ordered illegal substances but the players are not guilty because we can't be sure who was administered them" who be a farce. The players are surely guilty by association in that case, and while maybe not officially, the stain who follow them forever

If this was a real Court he would be in contempt with comments like that. Is there a equivalent rule in this case? Was there a punishment for breaking the "in camera" rule?

WJ it depends on whether it is a listed substance. Not exactly sure what that means though.

I think the problem is that the forwards would happily stay at home but the defenders push up on the ball for two reasons, one to win the ball (extra man etc) and two to cut off any quick kicks out of packs. Forwards duly follow to even the numbers. Any coaches out there want to confirm our differ?

Sue generally I agree with that but I think AFL players as a population have a high risk of drug taking behaviour due to a range of factors. It is possibly a legitimate duty of care issue.

In which case I don't think Brayshaw will play. You can't risk him as one of the 21 and intend to sub him off as an injury leaves you exposed. I suspect that even with his lack of match fitness, Howe who be better placed to run a full game out than Brayshaw.

I'm not sure, a number of the 29 man squads did absolutely nothing when ask they needed to do was show a glimmer to secure a spot. The place is theirs to lose as it is as much as his to win.

I think the real question is his tank. Can he run out a AFL game? If no, he might be considered as sub. Do we have multiple players who don't have the match fitness and will need minimal minutes? If so he may be left out for team balance until he can play his share of minutes.

I have always been against on field zones but I am wondering whether it is time to have 3 players from each team in each half at all times to break up the slog or potentially reducing number of players on field to 16 now that we effectively have 14 on ballers from each side instead of 6.

I reckon he'll start as sub but that is pending how Vince and Howe pull up. If both play AFL this week Brayshaw may get squeezed out.