deanox

very good point barry. there is a major problem with having a pile of afl reserves teams in the comp, and that is the unevenness of the competition. i like the idea of having our own reserves side, and i think the 10 vic teams should have reserves sides and they can play amongst themselves...(maybe add sydney in because their comp is a joke). the vfl has the right to stand alone in its own competition. the other option is for the comp to be like the sanfl where players are 'farmed out' to a few clubs, based on where they come from etc. but i think this would be a logistics nightmare with 10 afl teams, 16 vfl teams and phone calls going everywhere...

he is good, and i like watching him, however sometimes i would like to see him run with the ball, and run the ball out of the stoppage, rather than take the quick kick option, which doesnt always give you the advantage...

i think the reason they got on sylvia is because a) he has a prior record of poor behaviour and on field he hasnt exactly been delivering. and b ) sylvias issue was more relating to being so drunk he got kicked out, wasnt it?

no worries. i do like the idea of trading for top draft picks however. or trading for quality kids. i dont like the idea of trading for 25 and aboves tho...

home field advantage in cricket is if anything more important. playing on turd, the home team controls the preparations of the pitch and the ground... regarding rugby, i have played both senior and junior rugby, home ground advantage in rugby i assume would be similar to that of footy, with the exception of ground dimensions I would imagine...for rugby they are the same everywhere... considering finals are knock out, i think what you are playing for is the double chance rather than the extra home final. but it doesnt matter anyway.

i have played 7 seasons of rugby, 6 seasons of junior cricket, 6 seasons of senior cricket, 4 seasons of mixed netball, umpired afl for 5 years and played some indoor cricket along the way. i have coached junior cricket for 5 years. i have also been a melbourne member for about 13 years and attended pretty much every melbourne game, and the odd geelong or interstate game. i understand competitive sport as well as anyone. i have played in seasons where we won every game for the year then lost the semi final and was knocked out. i have played in teams where a school has dropped their 1st XV back into their seconds to knock us out of the semi final. if this is a pissing contest, i have [censored] as much as anyone else who is my age, and the only reason anyone older has [censored] more is because they've been standing at the toilet longer. if you lose a final you lose a final, imo. and if you win you should be rewarded, not punished. im not interested in discussing this anymore, if you just want to attack me personally, which you have from the start.

i know many people who would love to be set upon by swedish backpackers

so basically, would we trade robbo, a proven performer but with questionable value going forward, for henderson, a young KPP with potential to be a good player, but no guarantee he will ever play a match... its a gamble, but its up to the footy dept to decide if its a gamble worth taking...

For mine, robbo is too important too our structure to trade for draft picks, unless it include a top ten pick. i would trade robbo for some midfield pace, a player with the genuine ability to break the lines... if the dogs are enquiring about robbo, we have the upper hand to push for what we want. we need a ruck, we need pace, and we need another long term CHF, KPP. the dogs have pace, and we could use it, and allow us to focus on other areas in the draft. while bate and dunn will play some time in the middle, they will also be rested up forward a bit... robbo is good, so if we trade him it has to be worth it.

or continue the misguidance of the past...

i dont know why you have to stoop to having pot shots at me. i think my argument is pretty clear. you dont have to agree with it, as i dont have to agree with you. but my argument is as logical and rationale as yours just based on a different principal. you want to reward teams that finish higher on the ladder. i want to reward teams that win finals games. yes i believe that after 22 weeks everything is thrown out the door come finals. in fact i reckon if you asked any of the coaches how much the previous 22 weeks meant they would say they counted for nothing now. the current system continually promotes top four finishes above the bottom four. it doesnt reward finals performance. i agree to disagree, but i wont put up with you taking shots when my argument is put forward in this manner.

not to be confused with an existing deeman (no space)

but it has been argued that 8th should play 5th away and if they happen to win they get dragged to an away game against an even better placed opponent? whats the difference? at least in the old system if 8th beat 1st they were rewarded the following week with the chance to host a final and continue their campaign...

interesting thought... if confidence is still an issue with him that might be a boost as well...

fair enough...maybe not faded, but i meant has little relevence to anything to do with footy...poor word selection. 'shinboner' is a way to play footy. 'mcc toff' isnt. if we were winning and had lots of money maybe it would apply to us, but it is not an image or identity that the footballers can rally behind...

i thought the comment was too slow to play on the smalls and not strong enough to play on the talls...but much of a muchness... the only reason i would keep him is too play the jard rivers role if rivers is injured. let him be a blal watcher. let him play loose and drift and zone. dont put him on a big CHF, dont play him on a leading FF...

cheers

nailed it in one. thats who they are. we were the 'upper class, mcc types', that sterotype has faded, and doesnt bring you anything when you are crap, their identity is the underclass fighters. i know this is simply footy but any politics student worth their salt will be able to tell you about nations and states and identity. (when you think bagpipes and kilts do you think scottish? you should be thinking irish. the scotts used this 'identity' to create their own culture and nation). Fan, i like what you have said here aswell...they always seem to come from back to the wall situations. ash, in this situation, finals arent back to the wall. everyone wrote them off, said they were no good. they have done the hard work to prove them wrong. they made the top four, fighting hard all year. if the shinboner spirit is indeed true, it would get you to the finals, not help you win them. the shin boner spirit as described is a belief that they can stick together, that they will prove them wrong, and that they will fight tooth and nail when their backs are too the wall. it does not include believing you are worthy, it does not include being the best, and it has nothing to do with turning around and fighting when you are being pantsed and pushed over board... but if the playing group could rally themselves so that instead of being pushed off the edge they had their backs to the wall, there is a chance of a comeback. make sense at all? i havnt proof read it

:D anyone else noticed daniel hayes is the player profile on the mfc website front page today?

i appreciate everyones thoughts in this thread, its generated some good debate hasnt it? i think we might have to agree to disagree regarding the home final for the losing top four sides. i understand your pov, and i can see what you are saying, but my argument is that the current system skews it way to far in favour of the top 4. the old system rewarded winners, with a week off and a home final. i am considering the argument regardining 5th being a better proposition than 4th if 5th got the home final round 2. it would look like 4th, loses away, gets double chance, plays away again against lower placed winner. 5th, wins home, play home again against high placed loser. for me, the reward for finishing top 4 is the double chance...the reward for winning is the home final... what happens this year if north beat hawthorn and port adelaide and then win the GF against a team other than geelong? it would be the same as us smashing adelaide and then getting knocked out before they do...will everyone complain because they got smashed by 106 points in the first round of the finals?

i had him in 'depth', and i wasnt sure of his contract status. in the short/medium term i wouldve had godfrey gone, but thought there were many worse performed than him. we seem to have started the cleanout, and i hope there are a few more... regarding warnock, he is young compared to holland and ferguson...he appears serviceable as a 2nd tall without setting the world on fire. again, there are worse performers than warnock for mine, and as a KPD he has a specific depth role, while some of our depth runners lack the skills required to hurt the opposition...

yeah i just realised that i counted rookies in my 8...thanks for that... i would like to see one of ferguson, warnock and holland gone aswell, but would prefer ferguson or warnock gone...imo all are depth for the same position...perhaps ferguson will be retained as depth for the 'rivers' position...

what do you mean by this fatty?

more than six have gone. five mentioned in this thread (Simon Godfrey, Daniel Ward, Heath Neville, Shane Neaves, Daniel Hayes), plus retirees, nathan brown, clint bizzell, and byron pickett. thats 8 already...

if sydney beat collingwood, that argument would be invalid. they finished ahead but they lost. why should they be rewarded? i thought finals were a whole different ball game? and going on that sydney could argue that they are out, but didnt get to play a home final...