Gator

There's a reason Jack Watts is no longer at the club. Still, snowflakes are gonna snowflake. Poor Wattsy...

No changes were made for the GWS game and I'm sure they'll want to make as few changes as possible for this game. In: Viney, Hannan Out: Kennedy-Harris, Kent I know Kennedy-Harris has got better and contested well, and by all reports shone on the track yesterday, but he's a casualty of not quite being best 22 with a full complement of mid size players. A confident and inform Hannan offers real X-factor to the team. Put simply, we're better with these changes.

You've had one poster laugh at your post and another say, "Not your finest work", but, of course, you're (mainly) right. I wrote the following (in part) in July, 2009: A few years ago Craig Cameron effectively denounced the widely held belief that “a team is only as good as the bottom 6 of its best 22”. He argued and conclusively proved to me that a team is only as good as it ‘best 6’. He pointed out that if one analyzed the end of year ladders over recent seasons there was a strong correlation between the ‘H&A’ ladder at round 22 and the quality of a club’s top 6 players. In most cases the ladder at year’s end mirrors the quality of the team’s top 6 players. Naturally, it won’t be absolute due to vagaries such as injury, but the pattern is undeniable. And it’s not to say that the bottom 6 isn’t important to a team’s flag chances, as we know that all great sides have good depth, but it’s the stars that determine how well a team can be built and how deep it will go into September. Now, I need to add that I've shifted my view somewhat, as the game HAS changed. In the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and early 2000s the team that had the most talent nearly always won. It was predominantly a 'man on man' contested game. Flooding and zones were coming in, but even so more often than not the most talented teams won, especially prior to 2005. The evolution of the game is fascinating and right now the team with the most talent at the top end is far more regularly beaten by less talented teams due to game-plans, systems, and the fact that talent is now spread over 18 teams. I mean, who really thinks Clarkson's team is a top 4 team on talent alone ? Obviously, the best combination is a highly drilled pressure team that scores well and has the most top end talent. As 'Old' has mentioned, the Bulldogs were an anomaly, but also testament to the shift in football. So, as we know there are exceptions to every rule, but I still hold firm to the view that 'stars' win you flags. They make lesser players better and give those bottom six players the opportunity to make a difference. Those bottom six players don't get the chance to shine without the influence of their team's elite. The perfect combination is having one of the competition's elite top 6-8, a rock solid contested game-plan, and the depth of talent so no-one in your 22 gets exposed. That they can shine in pivotal moments. But be under no illusion, your top end talent is far more important to your fortunes than your bottom end talent. Especially in finals. I don't hold the view that your best 6 are cancelled out by the opposition's best 6 and that the bottom 6 are left to duke it out. It's possible that variations of this can occur, but in the main you need your best players shading the opposition's best players, which allows your core players the best opportunities to perform.

Blight's right and was backed up by Cooney. Many players don't watch games and get their feedback from media scribes as to who the dominant players are in a particular year. It seems popular for younger posters to denigrate older past players just because of their age. I automatically consider such posters dolts of the highest order.

Botempelli, Josh Kelly and Zac Merrett would be my first guesses.

I know it's possible, but I'm not convinced it works best. Give me the structure that will run out Friday week any day of the week.

Yeah nah.

I'm interested in "highest and best use"", not watering down a player's best position to squeeze in someone else. Salem wasn't great in the midfield, but is great down back. Brayshaw wasn't great as a high half forward or on a back flank, but is great on ball. Yes, players can be juggled, but invariably water finds its own level and the course you're advocating rarely is sustainable.

If I'm Sam Weideman and I'm being told we want to keep you as insurance for injuries then of course I'd be seeking opportunities elsewhere. I'd be wanting to know how the club sees me fitting in to the best 22 in my 4th year. I'd want assurances. Obviously there are no guarantees and selection is subject to form, but I'd want the vision to be clear.

You're not convincing me. But who knows, you may be right.

If I'm one of those players that answer doesn't cut it for me.

I was having this discussion yesterday. I really rate what Weideman can become, but also like what McDonald offers as the second banana. And unlike some I'm a Jesse fan and he's 3 years from his peak years. I can't see the three of them working well in the same forward half. But I could be wrong. I'll be fascinated to see what Goodwin comes up with in 2019.

For me it's the chance to run out at the G most weeks compared to Etihad. When journalists say that Melbourne have given up on getting Gaff I tend to believe them. There are some things clubs won't let out, but others they do. In this instance I see no reason to doubt these reports. Sometimes journos guess, or put two and two together, and on other occasions clubs are frank, as I'm sure we have been. You can tell by the definite nature of reporters saying Melbourne don't expect to be landing Gaff. It was very different to the commentary around Lever last year, or Hibberd prior to that. I'm virtually certain Gaff won't be coming to Melbourne. Now I'll have dolts cite all the times journos get it wrong as though that has some sort of relevance to what I just said.

I'm surprised so many are confident. From everything being reported, and there's usually smoke when there's this much fire, Gaff will either stay or go to North for the dollars. I suspect North. I hold zero hope he'll come to Melbourne. And with the elevation in form of both Harmes and Brayshaw I'm far less eager than I was.

He's suggesting what you're advocating. Cerra was pick 5 and will be a gun plus a first rounder is the equivalent of two first rounders. Actually, in my view it's better, because Cerra has already shown what he'll be. That said, I want Hogan to stay and suspect he will.

It's "bruise free" when you're sitting on your fat coit on the couch.

Why ? If I was picking 40 I wouldn't include him. He was better last year.

No Jetta in the 40, which I agree with. He had quiet patches in the season.

Things have changed since we lost to them by under a goal in round 1. There was no Viney, Brayshaw, vandenBerg, or Tom McDonald for starters. Hogan was the only tall forward. Salem wasn't playing behind the ball where he's best suited and our defensive structures were a mess. Weideman can fill Hogan's role for the structure that best suits us and we're now used to being sans Lever, although it's far from ideal. Down at the Cattery we outplayed them (without Lever) despite their massive home ground advantage, but just didn't get the job done. I'd love another crack at them. Hawkins is the key.

I didn't think Geelong would get close to our percentage. I was wrong. Right now Geelong's percentage is 129.3 (ours 129.8) with a half to go.

Ablett is scared of him. He ruined his shoulder for over a season. He won't sleep the night before.

Me too. Finally, Viney would get to play them in 2018.

Wattsy starring with 3 handballs at quarter time.

No way Jetta makes it.

I'll be shocked if he doesn't.