deanox

I think you've missed my point E. I wasn't saying I rate the list higher, I was saying that his ratings were not consistent with the ranking system/criteria he gave. For example, Langdon may be a B grader in your mind. I'd probably agree because he is a good player with flaws. But the definition of B grader given was play 10-18 on a list. He is better than that based on hus last 3 years bnf results. I think Tomlonson is a good ordinary footballer. Career role player, who gets a game more weeks then not. C grade is probably a fair description. But Tomlinson has played 86 of 92 available games in the last 4 years inc 13 of 17 for us this year. Only 12 players at MFC played more games then him. You cannot possibly argue that makes him player 18-30 on a list. By the ranking system provided he has to be called a B grader, regardless of our opinion.

I'm only going by the rankings they used. A-grade: Elite player on any AFL list B: Top 10-18 player on most lists C: An 18-30 player on a list Langdon has finished top 5, 3 years running, of course its reasonable to assess him as "probably top 9 on most lists". I'm not arguing that our players are good, i'm saying I think the system is terrible. I would have thought that A grader was at best 3-5 per team, and B grade would be top 10. C could see you out to top 18, and D below that.

I think its probably not a great way to rate the lists and as a result its a poor effort: Langdon, Lever, May, Oliver, Petracca are comfortably in the top 9 players on almost every AFL list, which would make them A grade in this rating system. Oliver and Langdon have finished top 5 in his clubs bnf the last 3 years. May is a gun and was his club captain. Petracca just finished =3rd in the Brownlow. Lever hasn't performed as well as hoped, but is recognised as being a player of that quality. Arguments could be made for Brayshaw, Salem and Viney to be in the top 9 of many lists. Probably not enough to meet the A grade on this scale? Hibberd is getting old, but he would still get a game in most teams, therefore the B grade is reasonable. Tomlinson has played 140+ games in the last few years, he is definitely in the 10-18 player list Harmes would get a game for all teams, therefore he is in B grade Preuss is about to be drafted into a club and become their ruckman, and probably play most games, therefore is B grade on that scale. My biggest issue if probably their choice of scale than anything.

Absolutely. I have a lot of compassion for the mod team too, you are all doing your best. And sometimes, you dont have the time to investigate or the emotional labour capacity to interpret pages of posts to analyses tone, or historical interactions to work out who is trolling, who is reacting etc. So sometimes I'm sure you give a mute or a warning to everyone imvolved becauses that's easier. No problems with that. And also the mods see things through the lens of their own experiences, which adds to interpretation of what is or isnt political ideological etc. We are all part of the community, we're all responsible to set the tone and standards together.

I think this is true, in that if you ignore all aspects of politics, social issues etc. you dont make it apolitical, you just make it "conservative" (I'm meaning the current political status quo, not using that as a pejorative). For example, the current discussion around coaches mental health is inherently "political". Is calling someone "crazy" offensive or is that "too PC"? Should they "toughen up" or is that "toxic masculinity"? Are we as a society doing enough to support mental health? What about our role as an AFL community? I'd hope that any discussion that does touch on these topics need not be automatically banned because they are relevant to how we think and analyse, interpret and understand. But also how it plays out determines that: arguing, fighting, baiting, trolling, doesn't help. And when these issues derail the conversatio and become the focus, it changes from a footy convo with social commentary to a political, religious or ideological discussion, and this probably isn't the place for that. My experience here has been overwhelmingly positive, I think most of us do a good job of avoiding conflicts or derailments. But special thanks must go to the admin and mod team for making it a great space.

From memory, the reports were that they thought his ongoing concussion symptoms were actually related to a neck issue, rather than concussion itself. He'd done a body of work to put it behind him and medical advice was that he was ready to go. It might have been a bad call, but sounds like it had its reasoning.

I've already apologised for derailing, and asked that we try to move on. Perhaps you missed that? No reply necessary.

And people wonder why we look to bring in players like Smith, Lewis etc

Agree with his poor effort and form, but I think the reaaon he wasn't dropped is because he was considered to have the potential to fix the connection.

The only question about draft order that I can remember was actually the MFC saying if we only had one pick it would have been difficult to choose between Scully and Trengove (ie it mjght not have been Scully), but that Scully got the no.1 on the night because of his body of work over the previous 2 years.

This year the top 6 all had high goal kicking KPFs: Kennedy, Darling, Lynch, Reiwoldt, Hawkins, Dixon, Hipwood, Mihocek.

Asolutely. But I'd say don't hate the players, hate the game.

They old. Dangerfield to retire without a flag. I couldnt be happier.

To me, the main skill/attribute Melk has/has shown that the others havn't is smart delivery inside 50. We struggled for "connection" this year and that is Melks specialty. So I suspect that is why he got got games. Disclosure: I thought he didnt deserve games.

Really? Oliver isn't a bad kick. He kicks it out of packs, under pressure mlst of the time. And he does shank some he shouldn't. BUT it is very clear that he has a very good kick on him when he thinks about it, instead of blazing away.

I think they are two sides of the same coin. If they dont get midfield minutes because Oliver Petracca Viney are ahead of them, I don't think that would be a problem. If they are being player behind Sparrow ANB and Jordan, fair enough.

I think you are right on this. From a culture perspective, a club like MFC can't afford to be too ruthless as we are requesting loyalty from our squad. So in some ways the best outcome is for some of the quality but not untradable type players to ask to move. They have currency that we can use to improve other areas of our list without robbing Peter to pay Paul. And if they ask to move got more opportunity and we help them, we are the good guys RE culture.

I hope that's one thing we can all agree on, politics and economics aside! And also, when getting behind the dees, none of that stuff should matter either. Sorry to derail the thread, happy to keep it on TMac and how we can offload his salary or at least get value from his performance!

The IPA isnt a political side, it is Gina Rinehart and a small group of friends lobbying for their own gain. It promotes climate change denialism and lobbies to make insulting someone based on their race legal. If TMac has decided the IPA is on his, or anyone elses side, then it's a poor decision.

To some extent, this is my thinking. There is a chance he didn't realise how good it was over here and constantly battled a bit of nostalgia from home, thinking that would fix all his problems. It hasn't, and if he realises this he might be able to knuckle down and return. But I do think the club would be in the best position to judge that. And we wont take him and Brown.

I'm ok with that. But to do so we either need to trade out other high salaries (TMac, etc.) or trade out multiple smaller salaries (ANB, OMac, Hannan), AND find an alternate HBF.

He also went to see Jordan Peterson and was a guest on an IPA podcast, in case anyone needs further proof of his terrible decision making.

This is my thoughts as well. He showed a lot of promise as a forward. Good hands. Knew where the goals were. He did a great job as a tagger, but really failed off half back. His problem is that he is one of our most versatile players, but we have other, non-versatile, depth in his best positions, so instead of being a second stringer he underperforms in his worst position. If we move Hannan and ANB on then there is a role for him up forward again. Otherwise I think trading him to bring in a need (KPF, genuine HBF, wing) is probably best for us and for him.

Absolutelh. The worst part is, they could do this without telling everyone they are cheating.

This thread has taken yet another excellent turn that i wasnt expecting.