xarronn

ANZAC eve game? That was our home game this year, probably accounts for most of the increase in home attendances.

I heard on the radio this morning that he has asked the current CEO, the former CEO and the AFL integrity officer to appear at the tribunal to be questioned by him at his appeal. Two thoughts: 1. This is the man who refused to appear before any of the investigations into this Essendon case, and he seriously expects these guys to voluntarily appear now for him? 2. My thinking is that he is not seriously expecting them to appear, but wants an excuse to not proceed when they don't play his game. Finally, IIRC, he has already lost cases in which he sued various people and was left with all the costs. He originally promised many more, I wonder if any more will see the light of day. I would love to know what all the people at Essendon think of him now.

I read Robbo's article in Saturday's Hun, and I think it was ridiculous. His logic was abysmal. HOWEVER - I heard him on SEN on Thursday afternoon and he did say, that when he read that none of the players had admitted to receiving injections, - that constituted, in his words - "a game changer" for him. I don't know if he ever wrote an article to that effect. That he would express that view and then write Saturday's article is quite incomprehensible.

"Almost a year"!!!! - he last played in the senior team in round 6. Can't remember exactly, but I think he played a few games for Casey after that. How do you calculate almost a year!

In fact he only wanted 2 years. If the Swans had allowed Stewart Dew to take up the position of successor in 2014, he would have gone at the end of 2015. Waldron may be correct, but most times I've heard him, he seems intent on creating some kind of controversy. Hard to to take too seriously.

Thanks to both for the explanation.

Is this a serious comment, or have I missed a joke earlier in this thread? What's the connection?

The big question is the impact of a season away from playing, but as for the 32 year olds, some older players have done alright this year. Matt Boyd and Enright both AA's, Harvey, Morris at dogs, Reiwolt, Sam Mitchell, etc, etc. I dislike them too, so I hope you prove correct.

You nearly had me sold on the merits of your philosophy, then I noticed your moniker. (:-)

Congrats on a great resource. Minor error re Vineys games played needs correction.

I heard Gordon interviewed this morning and when he was asked about the visit to Ballarat today, said, "is it today or tomorrow?". It definitely was a stuff up, and embarrassing for the 'dogs, but I don't reckon Gordon was to blame. The interesting thing is how many supporters they have in Ballarat. They have only signed an arrangement a couple of years ago and before that the Kangaroos were associated with the town.

I'm pretty sure there are two reasons for these contracts which are longer than would have been expected some years ago: 1. For players such as Garland, Terlich etc, obviously its to maintain depth, for Casey as much as for Melb. The development of young players at Casey needs mature bodies and leaders around them. Most VFL listed players, (with rare exceptions), just don't stick around once they are past any chance of being drafted on an AFL list. More money in Suburban or Interstate competitions. 2. Free agency has changed the scenario. Clubs are worried that they are at a disadvantage if a player wants to leave when they are out of contract. With a contract, the club has more control, a player can't just walk out if he wants to leave, but the club can still try and trade him before the end of his contract, (with the players agreement). Before Free Agency, five or six years ago, lots of commentators were saying that clubs would no longer sign up players on contracts longer than 3 years. Now we are seeing many 5, 6 and even a 9 Yr contact.

Interesting theory about the 'gap year". Firstly, it disregards the rise of Sydney, who have smashed their last two opponents, so it's not clear there is a gap at all. Secondly, by stating that timing has helped, you are in fact underestimating the 'dogs. They have played scintillating football in the finals. It's worth considering that if there is a 'gap year' they created it. They knocked both of those teams out, otherwise one or the other would be playing in the Grand Final.

Don't hold your breath. Whist an odd number of teams normally would account for byes, the overwhelming reason is that the VFL play 18 games and the AFL plays 22 games. When you factor in the two byes before the AFL Grand Final, there are only two ways to have the VFL Grand Final take place the week before the AFL GF. 1. To start the VFL season 5 weeks after the beginning of the AFL season, - meaning no games for players not in the senior team. 2. Start the season a little later and fit in 3 or 4 byes, which is what we have right now. It's just the tyranny of arithmetic. (Unless someone has a solution I am not aware of).

Stuie, has posted a very good response to this, but I would add that your post reads as though you may misunderstand the differences between an aligned and a reserves VFL team. There are not that many. Even fewer for Melbourne now that the alignment was re-negotiated and we now appoint and pay for the coach etc. In both cases the AFL teams have exactly the same size AFL lists. In both cases, the VFL teams need to have VFL listed players to make up the numbers. I'm pretty sure, (virtually certain), that in both cases a certain number of the team must be VFL listed players. Jordan Russell is a VFL listed player, same as our Casey captain - Jack Hutchins. There is a salary cap for VFL listed players, so the only way Tim Smith could become a full time footballer with Casey is if he was to be drafted by Melbourne and take up a spot on the list. I'm sure Terlich was given a 2 year contract in 2014 to bolster the Casey team, I reckon the 3 Yr deal for Garland was partly for the same reason. There is another difference which has possibly been of benefit to us by being in an alignment. Aligned clubs field Development League teams. This has meant that we were able to have Hunt play quite a few games at that level. Joel Smith had that opportunity before stepping up. Going the other way, we were able to drop Max King to that level, when he clearly is not deserving of a spot in the Casey team. Posters point to the success, (recently) of the WB's with a reserves team, but frequently overlooked is Collingwood and Richmond. Of course Hawthorns alignment has not held them back. There is no doubt that our failure to develop players is a Melb FC problem, not an alignment problem.

I completely agree with your first statement. How anyone would suggest we do is quite baffling! But as for the second bolded sentence, I'm surprised that you have somehow equated Bandicoot's opinions with those of the MFC. On the other hand perhaps you are aware of something I'm not.

How is it very different?? In the old final four, the top two teams had week one of the finals off, then the winner of 1 v 2 had week 3 off, (the preliminary final) and went straight to the Grand Final. Exactly the same as happened with the bye this year! In the Final Five system the top team had the first week off and if they won in week 2, would have week three off, before playing in the Grand Final. If I remember correctly, with the Final Six both top teams had week one off. It was generally viewed as a big advantage to have those breaks, particularly before the Grand Final. I'm pretty sure that's why we have a system where both Grand Finalists, now get there through a Preliminary final. People accuse the AFL of a knee jerk reaction in bringing in the bye, but the conclusions being drawn on the basis of Geelong's loss can hardly be said to be based on well considered evidence.

And Jackson - "to control them all"

The penalty was handed down by the Match Review Panel, not the Tribunal. I think the week he received is the extra above the base penalty because of his record.

Ok, I don't disagree with the first bolded statement. I responded to what I thought was a broad assertion the AFL had done nothing to dissuade future cheating by clubs. As for the second bolded statement, Of course I don't know for sure, but my take on what Hird initiated was that he didn't set out to breach the rules, just to fly as close to the edge as possible to get whatever advantage he could and which he seemed to believe several other clubs were getting. It was kept a secret for the same reason clubs develop strategies and try to keep them secret. Dank clearly lied about what he was giving the players. So what I am saying is, I don't think the Essendon program was initiated because of the low levels of testing.

I'm completely mystified that you claim this to be the case. Do you really think that any club could go down the Essendon path again through the force of personality of the coach? Do you think any club doctor would not blow the whistle in future? Do you think players won't question what they are taking and check them out independently? I could go on, in so may ways most things have changed. Some posters want nothing less than that Essendon should have been destroyed and the fact that the AFL penalties were short of that demonstrates that the AFL is corrupt. I don't agree with that. It's always easier for people who don't have to shoulder the responsibilities and consequences to propose extreme measures. As an aside, don't forget that the AFL faced a lot of criticism and opposition from News Ltd, Essendon supporters and legal challenges from the club and Hird.

Agree with you Chook. But also the suggestion to rest Vince for potential finals would mean he would play one game in three weeks given the bye after rd 23. Or if we don't make the finals, he'd be rested one week before the end of the season. In any case, Vince himself apologised to Roos after the GC game for his very poor performance and turned it right around. He doesn't want or need a rest.

I'd be amazed if Neeld 'killed' Toumpas. Neeld was gone by mid season of the Toump's first year. He had Roos for two years and Macartney, Goodwin and Plapp for 12 months and of course Hinkley for 12. Neeld was bad, but he hasn't influenced Jimmy for nearly 3 & 1/2 years now.

I like Pedersen and I can't reconcile this comment with what I saw. Selfish acts? Which ones? There may have been a lack of vision or error of judgement in the kick for goal which he missed, but selfish act - Nuh. As for pulling out of contests, - you will need to describe them, because I just saw a player who hit hard and played his role, didn't star but did little wrong.

Undeeterred is right, he said that 5 Years ago. We have 10 players from 2012, 7 players from 2013 and another 8 players who have been in the system with other clubs at least since 2013, but many much longer, eg Lumumba and Vince. That's a total of 25. However, the irony is that many of the players who have been a mainstay, (or played big roles), in the team for much of the year have only been in the system for two or less years - Oscar, Wagner, Brayshaw, Oliver, Petracca, Vandenberg, Stretch, and this week add Neale-Bullen and Weideman.