deanox

when drafted tmac was highly rated, but bottom age. i imagine we will give him at least another year to come on, but axis i agree with you about the conjecture over his position. if he wants to make it he will need to elarn to be versatile ie switch forward, which they did experiment with this year. i didnt get to see how he went at afl level when he got the go, but from his vfl form, im not sure if he warranted a game, maybe earlier in the year when he was playing well.

Rhinos list is a pretty good summary methinks. not saying there aren't a few others whose opinions i rate, but i wouldn't be rubbishing what those posters had to say, and the only reason for that is they've done it right for a lot of years around here...

ok so we have mckenzie and cheney as two who were available and who didnt play. have we got any other suggestions? i find it amazing how the people who slagged the club when this first came up have not been willing to put up anything...especially considering i completely i agree with you if it is true. pity it appears to be a bit of bravo... i think a implication that the entire squad, or at the all the boys who had played a game or two with sandy, and the coaching staff weren't out to support casey is worse. can anyone confirm their appearance/non appearance?

if he admits he "was trying to push on a pressure point behind the ear with his thumb" should the tribunal not charge him with misconduct (eye gouging or unnessecary unreasonable contact to the face) (which is a specific offence in the 2009 tribunal dbooklet), citing contact to the head, intentional and low impact as the level of offense? 6 activation points, 325 demerit points or 3 weeks provided no prior tribunal record. a) this shows that judd should go because there is a specific offence relating to what he did (unreasonable and unnessecary contact to the face) B) this shows the tribunal system is a farce, that someone can technically get 3 weeks just for touching someone regardless of impact etc

haha seriously though, why the hell would anyone suggestion a 'geelong connection'? its not exactly like trying to fly perth to see family and friends, its 60 minutes by car, and i bet a pile of the geelong players live in melbourne anyway...

unfortunately we dont agree to disagree, what you've said is incorrect. when recruiters say "we will eb taking the best available" they are indicating that they will not be drafting on position etc" when the recruiters say "we drafted lots of mids with leg speed because thats an area our list is lacking" then they are drafting for their clubs needs. use the molan example. he was not the best available (which is an unqualified statment). he was the "best available toughnut backman" which is what the coaching staff felt we needed. watts was "the best available" according to the recruiters and thus they drafted him, not afl ready rich, quality defenders like hurley or x factor player like natanui...

sad end to the year for casey. id still like to hear any responses from gladiator or any other aggrieved casey supporters to my previous comment... hopefully next year the dees can have a great run with injury allowing the alliance to flower. i really thought the sides gelled and looked good together this year, and this issue has only come up in the past 2 weeks. remembering that the mfc had over 20 players on the injury list i dont think that this situation would be a regular occurrence.

gladiator, and anyone else associated with casey, i understand 100% how you would feel aggrieved. in fact, i would be dissapointed if we told young players they couldnt play finals simply in case they get injured. however, it really does not appear to be the case. only a handful qualified, and of the qualifiers most of them are injured and either havent been playing for the mfc either, or are having surgery to get them fit and ready so they can play with their employer next year. can anyone who is aggrieved please tell me which players they believe should be playing this week who aren't? maybe we can sort out specifics.

disagree. that would be 'we picked the player that best met our needs'. best available would mean 'the person in the draft who will be the best player regardless of position, development or club needs.'

yeah i was away for that, but caught half of it in paris (not sure if i should be ashamed of that haha). at least davey has had a good year, but my biggest concern is that the award may reward the front runners who star in the big win, but go quiet in the loss. if a player average 25 touches every week, and another player averages 15 but gets 30 and 3 goals in each of 5 wins to make him in the top 2-3 on the ground who deserves the award? a big win can be worth 4 times more than an average loss...i suppose it could be argued that the player who performed well all year didnt have enough impact on the game, so i suppose at the end of the day each award is different and is deserved in its own way. and equally it could be argued either way depending on whether you see a player as an important cog who performed all year, a player with no impact, or a player who lifts when the game is there to be won...

i think this list in this thread does not include reserve matches, so a couple of others may have qualified also...

i think the list is mroe interesting when you look at it like this: (ive removed the reitrees because its offical) Name Games Age Date of Birth McDonald, James 235 33yr 3mth Bruce, Cameron 203 29yr 11mth Green, Brad 198 28yr 5mth Miller, Brad 127 26yr 2mth Jamar, Mark 73 25yr 11mth Davey, Aaron 119 25yr 10mth Moloney, Brent 90 25yr 7mth Warnock, Matthew 38 25yr 5mth Johnson, Paul 61 25yr 2mth Rivers, Jared 90 24yr 10mth Bell, Daniel 66 24yr 4mth Sylvia, Colin 87 24yr Meesen, John 6 23yr 2mth Hughes, Danny ® 0 22yr 10mth McLean, Brock 94 22yr 9mth Martin, Stefan 27 22yr 9mth Valenti, Shane ® 15 22yr 7mth Buckley, Simon 21 22yr 4mth Newton, Michael 21 22yr 4mth Dunn, Lynden 52 22yr 3mth Bate, Matthew 68 22yr 3mth Jones, Nathan 70 21yr 7mth Bartram, Clint 59 21yr 6mth Garland, Colin 20 21yr 4mth Bail, Rohan 1 21yr 2mth Petterd, Ricky 29 21yr 1mth Frawley, James 40 20yr 11mth Jurrah, Liam 9 20yr 11mth Wonaeamirri, Austin 18 20yr 10mth Grimes, Jack 12 20yr 3mth Zomer, Trent ® 0 20yr 2mth Cheney, Kyle 12 20yr Spencer, Jake ® 6 19yr 10mth Morton, Cale 40 19yr 7mth Jetta, Neville 15 19yr 6mth Healey, Rhys ® 0 19yr 4mth Maric, Addam 11 19yr 4mth McNamara, Tom 3 19yr 4mth Bennell, Jamie 16 19yr 2mth Strauss, James 0 19yr 2mth McKenzie, Jordie ® 3 19yr 2mth Blease, Sam 0 18yr 6mth Watts, Jack 3 18yr 5mth only 3 players above 26, 2 months. so other than those 3, all will be under 27 at the start of next year. if we keep recruiting well in 4 years from now we will have an even spread of players ages rather than holes at certain points in the list. 22 of the 43 names above (before we consider draftees etc) are younger than 22 years of age, thats pretty young for footy. and perhaps most important is some of the players that have been written off as 'delistings' by some people, mcnamara only just 19, cheney just 20, i think these guys deserve a chance, they have only had a couple of years on the list. when you realise how young our list is you cant really expect us to dominate for 3_4 years, and the advantage of that is that because we dont rely on players aged 26 and above (even the 25 year olds Jamar, Davey, Moloney, Warnock and Johnson are not exactly our 'key' players apart from davey) meaning that in 4 years when we should have a pretty good spread of players and be in our 'window' the window will keep on going for 2-3 years at least... i really think we should look forward to the next decade, even if we are not as successful as we want to be in the next 2 years...

still here, dresden germany at the moment. just been in poland for the past week or so, heading to czech tomorrow. its amazing over here, so different to melbourne. i forgot to put my tips on for the first two weeks so gave up. not one week did i personally do the tips! so whoever got lower than me must have put tips on and got worse than the away teams or whatever is on offer for putting them on haha

good post vanlo. i would be very dissapointed if we were holding young kids back from the chance to play finals footy, but given the year we have had it wouldnt surprise me that we dont have many available. can anyone confirm that list? and id be interested to hear what some of the casey people have to say...

i wonder how different the results would have been without the ranking system? its an interesting system; does it reward players that contribute well when the team is winning or reward the players that win the matches? I'd say its the former, you are more likely to get lots of points for staring in a win, than for being consistent and doing your job all year around...

agree completley. if it is genuinely accidental, it should be a free for 'too high'. the charging rule was good, just not applied evenly. if the force was excessive, ie jumped in, went in with an elbow then you get rubber out. if the player has head fully over the ball and you michael long him, you get rubbed out. but contact in a bump that is accidental... btw having now seen franklins bump i would say the reason the bump was high is that cousins went to handball, baulked, and changed direction. if cousins had of handballed like he indicated he was going t, the tackle would have been ineffective, but the bump would have been to the side and legal, arms tucked in, and either knocked the ball lose, or at the least, taken cousins out of the play, which is legal. cousins changed direction and the bump was high. franklin had even lowered his body position by bending at the knees in an attempt to contact his shoulder.

i forgot to put my tips in the first two weeks then headed over seas, so didnt put them on any week. yet somehow, two tipsters faired worse than me??

rivers is the only one who has shown himself over a number of seasons. but he is injury prone. i would consider it, only because i dont think there is enough room for all 4 in a starting 22 atm. if they think martin and garland are flexible enough to play in other positions or on different sized players then yes, but neither have done it long term yet...

credit where credits due, that thread is legendary and there is a reason its famous. it is one of the best troll threads on footy boards i have ever seen. regarding the amount of crap he writes, it is true, he does repeat alot of the same crap but the same people get sucked in everytime and make threads out of them. if people dont respond the joke wears thin and he is forced to come up with new lines. if you dont like him dont bite, we all know he trolls and looks for answers so anyone who gets sucked in is either a newbie or deserves to be put through it. if you dont like it dont read it i say.

one of the reasons we haven't been ultimately successfull over the past decade. if wrecker had stayed on the park we would have been that little bit closer. a fantastic footballer whose body just didnt keep up with his head. congrats on 150 games. always a leader, always a performer, will be missed.

i am to young to remember this but old enough not to like hawthorn. personally i would love it to be either over them or essendon (2000 was maybe the worst day of my football supporting life). but i tell you what, i wouldn't be upset if it was against collingwood, simply because they think they own the afl. its funny how we have teams we want it to be over, when i bet all of us would trade a hell of a lot just to get one, regardless of who we beat (west sydney id be happy).

top effort from the boys, and casey i agree, i cant decide which is a worse way to lose, 140 points or 1 point... my gut tells me 1 point at the death is much worse. but it is good to hear that other results mean this result will not affect the scorps final standing. go scorps in the finals. deanox from krakow.

i havent seen it so it is hard to comment on it directly, however: he was apparently guitly of making contact with cousins head (which from the reports i have heard knocked him out and prevented him taking further part in the game). My biggest gripe with the rule is that previously, a bump that was not fair and legal, was a free kick. now ANY bump which breaks any rules is apparently reportable and you can be suspended. You can punch/strike players, you can push to the face you can do all sorts of other things but if you bump its either legal or reportable. why can the umpires not say 'bump was high, free kick'. and that be the end of it? if the player is knocked out, if the bump is malicious, if there is an elbow etc then maybe the report is required, but if its simply a sloppily executed bump why cant we have a free kick and move on?

i agree with both sides of the coin here. and really, once the afl clubs season is over the players should be 'released' with the rest of their pay (for the last month or so) forwarded to them, allowing them to keep playing finals without the risk to the club.

good call rouge. its not like he has to front up next week, and its not like it matters if we win the game. even if he only plays short bursts we should get him to the 150. edit: although rouge, is there any chance wheelan would be interested in sitting out a week getting him fit to contest the vfl finals with casey?