Axis of Bob

Yep. Less defensive pressure! He's currently the best contested mark in our forward line. But you are confusing talent with application. Just because Robbo can do things the others can't yet, doesn't excuse him for his appalling lack of team ethic. That's something anyone can do, but Robbo refuses to and the kids need to see that it can't be tolerated. Unless Bailey is having him in the team so that he can use his lack of defensive pressure as an embarrassment in order to teach the kids. What about playing Stef Martin and Miller as key forwards? You'll still get the contest but also get the chasing, plus send a strong message to the kids that nobody is above being dropped for lack of team ethic. The fact that you, one of Robbo's biggest fans, acknowledge his poor team ethic is an absolute indictment on a 30 year old footballer who should have learnt from over 10 years of experience. Although Robbo will look back at the adulation that he has received as a high marking highlight reel forward, he should be ashamed of what he cost his teammates. He won't, though. Also, he may cost himself another contract at the MFC. He should be let go of at the end of the year, but someone with his contested marking ability really should have allowed himself to play for longer.

I'm not a fan of Robbo because in a team game he doesn't display a team ethic. He likes the attention that the game of football brings him personally, but his motivation to win a game of football is based upon his own desire for celebrity rather than the concept of team success. Conversely, Brad Miller is in the leadership group. He doesn't have a quarter of Robbo's talent, but he busts his gut to do the team thing week after week. As a result, I admire him as a player and as an example to the younger players - a real leader. Robbo doesn't chase unless it looks good and he goes to ground holding his head after flying for a mark purely (IMO) because he doesn't want to chase the rebounding defender which is unrewarded team running. It's selfish and it is not the way that I want our younger players to play. Since Robbo will likely not be at the club next year, I would not play him at AFL level simply because I think our side will be worse off in the long run by having Robbo's lack of team ethic rub off on the kids. Miller can't control his lack of talent, but he gives it his damn best for the team each week. Robbo has the talent, but plays for himself. I know which one I'd rather have in a young side trying to develop a winning culture.

And what will the media do about it? Will it mean that we are further away from a premiership? Jaded is right.

I was at training in the preseason and when they ran these drill Bailey would scream at them to move the ball more quickly. I very much doubt that the stop/start footy we tend to play is Bailey's gameplan, but in fact it is the quick ball movement that you want which is what he's trying to do. It's our players who are not carrying it out.

You're defending yourself as if I said that your post was 'shallow, knee-jerk and reactionary'. I said no such thing. I said that making a total judgement that Bailey is at either end of the weak/uncompromising spectrum is very black and white. Especially if he can slip from being totally uncompromising to totally weak in your mind depending entirely upon a single decision that he'll make this week which has many different and intangible factors that must be weighed up when making it. It's a strong, brave and bold statement to make based on an infinite number of factors - one that only the most uncompromising of posters could make - but certainly not shallow.

It's that black and white, eh?

$50 - Done. DN123033

Scully is a much better runner than Rich, although Rich is far more physically developed. If Scully adapts to playing with men then there is no reason why he shouldn't be a better player than Rich.

Put me in for $50 if you need it.

Wasn't having a go, but I was interested to see if you had changed your mind given how strong you were on choosing a key forward over a midfielder last year. FWIW, I was for a midfielder last year but I decided that Rich wasn't the best available player (due to his running ability) at pick 1 so ended up settling on Watts as well. And we need Scully - our midfield lacks a dynamic inside midfielder (or any elite midfielder) and he is an awesome talent. I'm undecided about our second pick, though. I think the development this year of our running mid-sized forwards has been very promising and gives us a dynamic up forward that could work well if we had a good midfield.

This is my last post on this because I can see this will get very tedious, very quickly. Plus I'm not really trying to present my argument to you, but rather those (few) people that my read this thread. You original post, the second sentence in your main paragraph, stated that the AFL was about "representation throughout the States and Territories, all about it being the ALL Australian Game". That is clearly wrong, it is about its member clubs. How would the MFC lose out? - Tasmania is a mature market. It will not bring new people or new money to the competition. AFL is the biggest game in Tasmania, even without a team. You are simply trying to reward those people by giving them a team. However since those people already follow a team you are forcing them to change their allegiances in order to make this new Tasmanian team work. You are robbing from the current clubs' supporter bases to draw the supporter base for Tasmaina (since these people already follow AFL). - The money the AFL spends on setting up a Tasmanian team will have no return to the current clubs because the market is not growing. The TV rights are not going to increase by having a Tasmanian team because they already watch the AFL. The TV advertisers won'thave access to any new viewers in order to pay more for TV. Nothing has changed, except an increase in the money spent by the AFL on Tasmania. - Decreased financial distributions to current AFL clubs. The current distributions are split between 16 clubs - soon to be 17. If you increase the number of clubs without increasing total revenue then the revenue per club goes down. If revenue goes down then we lose out. Basically it's not advantageous to us, or any of the AFL's member clubs so the AFL should not pursue it. You state that "the AFL runs the game despite (sic) the clubs". Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean that their basic charter isn't to run the competition and do what is best for the competition. Where do you think the AFL spends its money? It either goes back into the clubs or it goes into growing the game which will ensure future dividends to the clubs. It continues to grow the market in order for the TV rights deal to increase which brings more money into the game which will help the clubs. It's aim is not to be popular, it's aim is to do what is best for the game and, as a result, the AFL's member clubs. Oh, BTW, if the AFL only cares about itself and not its clubs then where does the money go? I'll tell you. The AFL only spends money on: - Running the games of footy so that the clubs can play - Growing the game to benefit clubs in the future - Distributing the excess funds to the clubs If the AFL runs things to benefit itself, then it is only benefiting the clubs, either directly or indirectly. I would hope that the AFL runs the game to benefit itself because this then flows down to benefit each of the clubs, including the club that I love - Melbourne. Anyway, it's been fun.

You: Me: I did not make an argument for West Sydney. I made the argument that Tasmania should not happen. The above comment relates specifically to the thinking of the AFL Commission - it's their decision and if they decide that it will benefit the clubs more to go to West Sydney than not then that is their perogative and duty. I don't have an opinion of whether or not they are right to go, but they are right to make the decision in the best interests of the clubs not the people of Australia. I don't know enough, so I don't have an opinion on whether West Sydney should go ahead or not. I do have the opinion that Tasmania shouldn't. Every club will lose members from the inclusion of Tasmania, Hawthorn would be badly affected as would St Kilda. Melbourne would also lose members and supporters, even if it's not as many. I'm willing to take a small hit for a a risk that may have a huge payoff for Melbourne FC, but I am dead against taking a bigger hit for a team that will not add significantly to the wellbeing of the Melbourne Football Club. Again - I'm not arguing West Sydney - I don't know enough about it. I repeat that your argument is based on the wrong assumption that the AFL runs the game for the people of Australia - they don't. They run it on behalf of its member clubs and these member clubs will be hurt by the introduction of a Tasmanian team.

Me: You: You said this. You made the assumption that the AFL is all about representing the states and territories. It's not - it's about representing the member clubs. A Tasmanian team does nothing to help AFL's member clubs, so it should not pursue placing a club in Tasmania. I know very little about West Sydney so I have made, and will make, no argument about whether or not the AFL goes ahead with a West Sydney team. But I do know that it definitely should not introduce a Tasmanian side. It would hurt the Melbourne Football Club to do so.

Your argument is based upon the incorrect assumption that the AFL is running the game for all Australians. The AFL Commission was not created to do what is best for the public, it was created to run the game on behalf of the clubs. Therefore the AFL will do what is best for the game and, by virtue, the member clubs of the AFL. If the AFL thinks that West Sydney will benefit the AFL and its member clubs more than a Tasmania team, then the AFL is right to ignore Tasmania. Besides, adding a Tasmania side will do nothing to grow the game, which is the reason for adding a new side. It may even hurt the AFL's member clubs to bring in a new team since the market is very small and the population already follows AFL footy - by taking away those fans from the current clubs while not growing the game at all will actually hurt the clubs and go against the AFL Commission's whole reason to exist.

Hannabal, given our midfield issues and hindsight, do you think that we may have been better off going for a midfielder rather than a key forward? As you have well noted, star key forwards are not a necessity for a premiership but a top flight midfield is.

So Cale has put on 8kg in a year? Awesome! He puts weight on much more easily than Mitch, looking at that. Plus, if he's still growing, he hasn't even begun to fill out yet. He'll be a monster!!!!!!!! But I guess, as old55 keeps saying, you just don't know what will happen. At least it's not my foot you're hitting, eh Freak?

The Roos aren't looking flash at the moment, however their single most important player is about to return after the break - Brent Harvey. He is very important to them being able to break lines and kick goals. They have sucked since he went down, but they should return to being a mediocre team with his inclusion. Mediocre should be good enough for them to beat West Coast, Richmond and us.

He's so 'WA though and through' that he was born in Fiji and grew up in Sydney. I doubt that the 'go home' factor was a very large one with Naitanui.

I agree with Enforcer's last post. But don't stop posting Freak, as I often seek out your posts, no matter how nonsensical. It's like watching a train crash, except they just keeping smashing that same train into something else each time. Also, if Morabito slides (as he very well may) it will have nothing to do with his height - but more due to the issues that Dr Jekyll raises, IMO.

If you look at the EBnW website, it's actually not Wisbey's top 5 picks at all. It's the top 5 picks of some random guy and Wisbey just so happens to have posted in the same thread. These aren't Wisbey's picks.

Other clubs' supporters are going to think negatively because Watts doesn't play for their club. Who cares what they think.

I actually wasn't directing the meaning of the post at you, but I put the first bit in because it was fun.

You don't think that playing your first game of footy against Collingwood in front of 70,000 people the day before your first VCE exam, plus all the media attention, plus all the interviews (caused by the number 1 pick playing his first game) etc, would be a little bit distracting? Surely if we are walking the walk as far as 'school comes first', then we would wait until a more appropriate time in his school schedule. There is a massive difference between the distraction of a Saturday game in Casey and a blockbuster AFL debut the day before your first exam. Maybe I'm just a bit precious and conservative - being on an emotional high for the 5 days before VCE exams probably wouldn't affect you. After all, it's his only shot at being able to debut.

..... and the VCE exam the next day?

I agree Distance. The main job of a ruckman is to create a physical presence in stoppages and clear space for midfielders. Jamar's ability to work hard for his midfielders is very good and this currently makes him by far our best ruckman. If we're relying on pinpoint passes from ruckmen as a cornerstone of our gameplan, then we are kidding ourselves.