deanox

i agree, but i cant help but think that it must be a direct instruction from the coaches, otherwise they would be telling him to kick. a question for those who have seen him play at sandy, does he play a similar role to what he plays for the dees?

i think this is a ridiculous thread. most of our injuries have been collision based injuries. hamstrings are caused because in our game we kick and bend over while running at speed. the hammy might occur at a different moment but the stresses placed on the body are un reasonable.

has he stopped running into people? or has his body just got that bit harder? i've loved watching bell with the ball this year, he has been a revelation...

yeah as much as i like judd i think he should of gone. i dont think he deliberately eye gouged the player. but there is no doubt his actions were reckless at best, and considering that ben holland got a reprimand after first being head butted shows that the tribunal is a joke.

demonstorm, that shows you how much the afl helped out the interstate teams back then. the fact that we could draft him but didnt have any way to force him to play for us or nobody tells you a lot about the system back then.

if 12 months ago someone had told you that bell would remain injury free and play 9 games in a row, would you have believed them? i wouldnt have.

i had no problems using it today and i checked it a number of times between 9am and 2pm for various reasons...

i left of the start of the sentence that had nothing to do with the rest of it. ward and brown havnt been injured. my point is that the only reason wheelan, bartram and rivers arent in is because they are injured so what you are saying is what we are already doing, covering for injured players. thats the most cop out statement ive ever read on the website. explain what you mean. dont use crappy little lines that mean nothing. you said you wanted 9 defenders played in the side. explain how you would rotate them. again, you refuse to answer any of the questions. the best you have suggested is that we play one of 5 players at CHF. if we name 22 players and pick positions out a hat you have a pretty good chance that one of your 5 would play there. who do you want at CHF and why? by not answering you are backing me up that all you did was 'name everyone' without any real plans. i agree that we need to play these kids, but your not suggesting anything of substance. we already are playing the kids. petterd is a first year, he is the only of the 3 debuts to have shown he is up to it straight away. frawley was injured and finally got a run. garland had a go before his time. bell has played 28 games. jones less. brock and sylvia have been injured. CJ hasnt shown any glimpses at afl level and it looks like he needs more time at sandy. newton has shown promise but his promising form has been interrupted with the sandy bye and the SoO game meaning he has only played 1 game in 3 weeks. what you are suggesting is what is already being done. and i bet that in two weeks you're gonna say 'look everyone, my thread was right', when realistically we've been doing it since round 2. at the selection table last week what changes would you have made? what would you have done differently?

yeah your right nasher. here it is from melbournefc.com.au Draft History 1994 National AFL Draft 1st round selection (Fiztroy) No.19 overall traded by West Coast for Michael Dunstan 1995 National AFL Draft traded by Fiztroy to Richmond for No.16 (Shane Clayton) and No. 32 (Nigel Credlin) 2003 NAB AFL Draft traded by Richmond for No.20 (Sam Butler)

but isnt that rewarding a good tackle? actually, the way they pay that rule if a player is pinned with no prior op they tend not to pay it, but if you are running with the ball and your arms are pinned you should be gone. if you grab the ball and instead of trying to handball or kick just let go of it when you are tackled i think you should be gone as well. yoyu cant just drop it, you need to dispose of it correctly.

all i know is he was drafted by them in 1994 and then traded to richmond in in 1995...he went at about pick 14, then went to richmond for picks 16? and 32 i think. before coming to us for 20. thats some very high draft picks there fore dutchy over the years.

but werent we already playing these players before they were injured? so do you want 6 defenders on the ground and 3 on the bench? where are your midfield rotations? i realise you said either. but we all know they are the options. the only other options are to play players horribly out of position and thats not gonna happen. what i wanted to know is who do you want to be played there. dont give me 5 names, tell me who and why. and what will you do with the other 4 players while they are not at CHF? if you say bench em you now have 7 players on the bench...4 CHF's and 3 defenders. so your saying the team is fine except for a few players who need to be dropped in favour of youth? this thread isnt exactly ground breaking then is it?

well done.

so his blueprint is a youth policy in disguise?

no, johnson remained the last player who was on fitzroys final list still competing in the afl. the player i am thinking of was traded at the end of the 1995 season. another hint: he is now at his 3rd club.

i believe the holding the ball decision encompasses any decision where the player is tackled and retarded and doesnt dispose of the ball correctly. if he just drops it when he is tackled it is holding the ball, same if he bounces it. prior opportunity comes into to say, if the player has had prior opportunity as soon as he is retarded in a tackle it is holding the ball, you dont get another chance. if you havnt had prior opportunity then once you are tackled you are given a chance to get rid of it straight away, if you dont then it is holding the ball also. if the ball is dislodged during the tackle (ie bumped out then) it is play on. if the tackle prevents a player from disposing it, ie pins an arm, or runs them down and they dont get boot to ball, then it is holding the ball prior opportunity or not. if the ball is pinned to the player in the tackle then it is a ball up. i think you can get the full rules on the aflpa website. fwiw im not disagreeing with you, just clearing up the prior opportunity thing...

of that, bate, sylvia, rivers, and wheels are injured (but would otherwise be playing). the only other two who didnt play last week were CJ and buckley. i assume you are advocating swapping them for ward and brown? you have named 9 defenders, do you want petterd and bell to play midfield and one of the talls to be on the bench? you have named 5 players who you want to play CHF. which one do you want there? or do we play them for 22 minutes each, each week and rotate them through other positions as well? you dont seem to be suggesting anything new thats all, we seem to be doing it already...with the exception of newton up forward and buckley in the backline, two debuts that are yet to come...

i agree with this, its a very good point you make. players who have the ball and are run down and who simply drop it or miss the handpass or kick should be penalised, moreso than players who have a pack on top of him. the umpires should only be directed to pay holding the ball if they can see the player holding onto it and not releasing it...too many times the player no longer has the ball and is pinged. the decisions that riled me the most on sudnay were the holding the man decisions. imo if a players has the ball and is tackled and just lets the ball go it is holding the ball, not holding the man. if the umpire decides there was no prior opportunity then call play on, but if the player had possession he is fair game to be tackled...

i didnt know about ward, good pick up. there is at least another...

which current afl players were ever on the Fitzroy list? i can only think of 2...

bizzell, ward, holland, ferguson, jamar, neville, pickett, brown, wheatly, miller, warnock and CJ are the players in the gun for delisting. because they arent getting regular games or arent good enough in the long term. of that list, 5 are going to be 30 or more at the end of this year. i think we'll see holland retained as a back up defender. the jury is out on pickett, if he picks up his act there could be another season in him. ferguson hasnt shown enough and he's had enough chance, if holland is retained as the back up tall, only two of ferguson, warnock or bizzell should keep a spot (perhaps even only 1). personally i think jamar has run his dash if he cant force his way in by the end of the season, and neaves will be promoted. ward, brown, CJ and wheatly are all generally played across the half back line. i think CJ has the most up side of all of them but it wouldnt surprise me if one of ward or brown is retained for experience. miller will either be traded or retained. you dont delist 22yo, 194cm KPP with 50 games of experience. i dont think he is up to it but we'd be silly to sack him. his size alone makes him worth to keep as depth, and i still think he has a chance as a post DN FF, closer to goals suits him more. i dont know enough about neville but i beleive he hasnt shown enough, is that correct? out: ferguson, bizzell, jamar, ward, neville. (maybe pickett) retained: holland, warnock (back up KPD), CJ (another year of development) brown, wheatly (back up experienced defenders), miller (back up KPF), pickett (best 22 if he choose to play on and is fit enough) Other than pickett none of those players should be getting regular games, even by the end of this year. holland is in atm for rivers, and brown and ward are in because of injuries to wheelan and bartram. clearly we cant just sack all the players who are fringe because we would be playing first years as a backup, but 5 delistings is enough for one season, the other players will offer more than a 6th round draft pick. the following year might see any of white, neitz, holland, yze, brown, mcdonald or pickett retire, we will be a very green team in 2009, and if our drafting over the next 2 years is good (particularly this year) i think we will be challenging again 2011, that is if we don't have a big one next year.

jark it appears to me that you are suggesting we play everyone? who don't you want to be played?

the third is the obvious one...miller for newton should be the first swap you pencil in. not sure if it will happen, but it should...

i thought the same thing, we didnt have time to have a big build up, we needed it quick and long, straight down the centre... as for our tactics regarding flooding, why didnt we learn from the bulldogs game? and boundary throw in that was just poor football wasnt it.

i am really hoping we see newton soon...miller has struggled 3 weeks in a row now and i see no reason why a straight swap isnt on the cards...