xarronn

We may well lose by 10 goals but not for the reason you have given. We had a road trip to Alice Springs, where it was quite clearly stated in the telecast that it was only 21 degrees, without humidity and seemed overcast for large stretches of the game. Hawthorn had a road trip to Brisbane where it was 26 degrees with much greater humidity.

Totally agree and it galls me too. However Dixon hasn't been that bad this year. He had kicked 21 goals before today and now 26, same as Hogan. He's 5th in total goals across the league, 5th in total contested marks, 9th in total contested marks inside 50. He's 8cm's taller and much heavier than TMac and our tallest backline player OMac, is but a babe and looks like a pretzel next to him. The thing that is also annoying, is that in the tradition of Cloke last year, Daniher last year and Membrey this year, a player who both this year and across his whole career has a ratio of Goals to behinds of 2:1, kicks 5 straight. Two small whinges, we weren't good enough today, but there was a centre bounce in which Port got the clearance and kicked a quick goal, however Trengove hit Gawn in the face with his hand as his arm came down in the ruck contest, it was accidental, but surely it should have been a free to Gawn. Same with Dixons arm swinging back into Garlands face.

Thanks for keeping this constantly updated rpfc, two points - ND 5 should now be ND 6 - Have you calculated the later ND picks based on adjustments already in the system? (The gaps are 22, 20, 19, 20 and 14, apologies if this has been discussed earlier).

Why were "we were quite happy to offload him to Richmond!"? The speculation here on Demonland was that the club was packaging an attempt to land a 'big fish'. "Why did he go through a fitness test at Richmond when clearly clearly he wasn't ready??" The statements from both the club and Trengove at the time were that the test results came as a surprise. "Did the Richmond fitness test contribute to further injury?" The statement from last year was that it was a scan that revealed a problem with the healing, not a physical trial. "He was losing pace before injury was he not?". Trengove himself said recently, that when the problem was originally diagnosed in early 2014, it came as a bit of a relief because it explained why he hadn't been able to do things which he previously had been able to. I, and many other posters here thought that an undisclosed injury, (majority thinking at the time was Osteitis Pubis), may have been the reason he slowed down in 2013. As it turns out it was (probably), this issue. I'll leave you with a question. Why would a 21 Yr old lose his pace, if not for injury? Can you explain that?

Whatever reasons we are or have been "a laughing stock of a club" , we most certainly are not so because we gave a new 12 month contract to Trengove! I reckon all clubs would have done so. As for the second statement, we gave Trengove a new 12 month contract, because he deserved the opportunity to come back after his injury, (which he suffered in the service of our club). We gave him a new contract because we are not an rsole of a club discarding players of character like so much garbage. We gave him a new contract because his potential is high and if he fails it will have been worth the risk. I fully support the club in this decision. If he fails, it won't be for lack of commitment, application and effort. If he fails it will be because no-one can predict the future

He has already been given a new contract for 2016.

I had never watched it closely before and I just accepted that prevailing view that Toumpas made a mistake resulting from his inexperience. I've watched this play quite a few times since your post Deanox. I completely agree with you. Toumpas did nearly everything right. He had no choice than to leave Montagna and try to tackle Lonie when he got the ball in the forward line and ran towards Toumpas. Lonie passed the ball to Stevens who ran by without Viney anywhere near. Toumpas then did the right thing and ran towards the fall of the ball to support Newton who was against Bruce. And you're right, it was Viney who was Stevens man at the centre bounce. Stevens got the ball and ran off leaving him for dead. Stevens then followed up his kick and got the ball again with no Viney in sight - at least on camera. Toumpas has been completely unfairly attributed with the mistake which resulted in Montagna kicking that goal. Finally of course, the awkward bounce of the ball in front of MacDonald made an implausible goal possible. Montagna gets great credit, but really it was Stevens who made that goal.

I looked up the Development League match centre and Frost was not shown on the team list for the game, even though he had been listed on the IC bench on Thursday. Frost's absence is becoming more and more mysterious.

Does anyone know how Frost went?

How about you go back and look at posts 8, 9, 16 , 17, 27, 32, 35.

Thank goodness Hardtack, for your note of civility amidst the howl of put downs. It is astonishing to see posters piling on to sink the boot in. Doesn't it strike you guys as classic bullying behaviour. As for his optimistic comments about McKenzie and Grimes, he reported what he believed he was seeing. I was also hopeful that 18 months of Roo's and his team may have produced an improvement in many of our players. Turns out it was mostly wishful thinking. But why lash Saty for expressing his thoughts. Some of the players told us the same things. Jamar told us it was the best he had felt after his first full pre-season in many years, - didn't really seem to make a difference. For many of us, Saty's training reports brightened up a long off season, I hope he returns. I have however given up hope that those who don't like him will simply ignore him, rather than pursue what seems like a relentless vendetta against him.

Surely you are not suggesting that a $2.5 billion deal is all worked out on one weekend and that the results of two games would have any impact on the final price? Or are you suggesting that Rupert Murdoch had the wool pooled over his eyes? But actually, I'm sure that you aren't being serious, - are you?

Roo's didn't recruit Terlich, he came in 2013 along with (M)Jones. He did get a new two year contract at the end of last year. I wonder why not just one, where was he likely to go?

BULLDOGS 5G 6B DEMONS 6G 4B. a 4 point victory for the D's. Four in a row.

The question was "who's out of our side who hasn't been out for weeks?" Of those you've named only Tyson fits that category.

I recall that he also strongly pushed the tanking issue regarding Melbourne, whilst barely mentioning, and certainly not doing any real investigation about Carlton. I formed the opinion that he saw us as a soft target or he had a particular beef against the club. There is no doubt that he is trying to deflect attention from Essendon now and he pushed the same issue two years ago when it was first mentioned that there was some sort of Dank involvement at Melbourne. The other part of the Magner - Robbo tweet, if you haven't read it, was Magner's response to the question, "Did you get an injection in the stomach?" Answer "No".

I contacted the club and asked specifically whether the revenue for away games in a membership package all stayed with the MFC. ! was told that the MFC paid the home club for the number of Melbourne members with away memberships who attended that game. The specific example used to illustrate it was the Collingwood game. As has been mentioned in an earlier post, there is no problem determining how much to charge the MFC, all entry is scanned through the gates and it is very easy to determine who should be billed. The same happens with AFL memberships.

I'd bet that you got the stock standard response to what was perceived as a stock standard question, i.e. who gets the money from my membership? It's true that all the money from the membership goes to the club to start with. The club keeps it all for Home games. It would also keep all the revenue from away games if you don't attend that game. However I am sure a club forks over money to the Home team if you have paid for away games as part of your membership and you attend the away game. How could it be otherwise? Clubs generally keep all the revenue from home games (unless there is a special sharing agreement). Why would an arrangement be in place which permits clubs (like Collingwood) to undercut our revenue. Yeah I already know the answer - the AFL is a corrupt organisation led by incompetents yadda yadda. - But seriously!

I was disappointed with the rub of the green on Sunday but I also do not worry about the umpiring, nothing you can do and usually supporters see it in a one eyed way. However the second half of that bolded sentence is confirmed by an article in the Herald sun today about Sunday's umpiring in our game. The average holding the ball decisions for each club before Rd 17 was 3.7. We had TWELVE paid against us in that game. Even Wayne Campbell agreed that he was shocked at the changed interpretation over the weekend. Clearly the Demons were probably the worst affected club. We played poorly, but those decisions really rubbed salt into our wounds.

I've read this before on this site. A 'protest' that results in a nearly record loss, becomes a historical stain against the club and the players representing it on that day and obviously would reflect most on the coach, come on you can't be serious! Surely that would be an act of bast!rdry beyond comprehension! So who organised and led this decision? I clearly recall that the Ox was making expert comments on the game and in the pre-match he was very optimistic that the Demons would knock the cats off that day. He had connections to the club and you would think if there was any truth in it, he would have mentioned it at some point later.

The list management situation will be interesting this year. Do we back the recruiters to change our fortunes by maximising the available picks or back our development team to achieve that result with some players who are already here. I know very little about Hunt other than what I have read here and what I have seen on the injury list. I looked up the VFL stats for Hunt, (unfortunately not up for yesterdays game) The rows are Kicks, Handballs, Marks, Contested Marks, Goals and Behinds. He has only played the last 3 games which were against Geelong, Port Melbourne and Northern Blues. Extraordinarily he is now Casey's top goal kicker with 9 goals! (I think Jamar is second with 8) His Geelong stats were a great start, the game against Port was played in very poor conditions, so his other stats against Northern Blues will be interesting. K 9, 6, ? H 3, 0, ? M 6, 1, ? CM 3, 0, ? G 3, 2, 4 B 1, 0, ?

The four players below are contracted for 2016. At best only Grimes would be a possible trade. We did delist and pay out Evans when he had a contract for 2015, but not many clubs make a habit of that. Trengove 22, Grimes 25, M Jones 27, Terlich 25, I think Bail, Jamar, McKenzie and Riley are almost certain delist / retire. Fitzpatrick keeps teasing, he has pace and height and his role in defence has worked well at Casey and in one AFL game, I would say still a chance to be retained. I don't know enough about Hunt, but it will definitely be a question of what potential the club can see in him between now and end of season. White - first year rookie, again don't know enough, but I would imagine our recruiting team probably need some space to try and pick the next VB or / Harmes for us.

If there are no injury concerns, I would say he has had a good rest after the bye and being out of the game yesterday after the first five minutes.

What about his handpass into the goal square for a goal?

If I remember correctly, he said that Howe's first half was the best zero possession game he had seen a player have.