Axis of Bob

It works now. Cheers Nash (and Andy)

So I had responded to everything. Thanks, but please stop making things up to win cheap points.

So you can be arsed. I have responded to every 'argument' you have presented. If there is one that I have missed then quote it and I will respond to it. ..... happily. "No comment?"

Sorry, I thought you'd finished. Aparently not.

But he is generally a very good kick. And he wasn't exactly Robinson Crusoe last week.

Ironically, the AFL stopped Judd-esq deals because they thought that it would be unfair on the poorer clubs without the connections. They were trying to make the salary cap stricter. ie, make it more even. The Sydney TPP excess was due to the increased cost of living in Sydney. It originally had (some time ago) extra due to the difficulty in luring/keeping players in Sydney (like Brisbane) but that has since disappeared as the club became a more attractive place to be and NSW/QLD are producing more native players. So the only part it gets is due to the cost of living allowance. It was done to make it fair for those clubs. As I said, the AFL is invested in the evenness of the competition. But everyone likes a bad guy, so the AFL is an easy target for you. But your complaints against them are misguided if you believe them to be specifically aimed at keeping the poorer clubs (like ours) on the bottom of the ladder.

He's been shaky with some of his set shots every now and then, but he is generally an excellent field kick. I don't see why he is being labelled a poor kick.

First point has been previously explained. Second point is not true. No club has twice the number of games against the two easy beats than any other club. The most is 3 games, the least is 2. The AFL is in place to represent the clubs and the interests of the game of AFL football. It is a non-profit organisation that distrubutes any extra money to the club that it represents. It's aim is to promote AFL football and that include a healthy AFL competition which is competitive. Having its clubs being financially viable is part of that. It maximises its profits where possible so that it can reinvest in the game to both grow the game and keep its member clubs financially healthy. The AFL is invested in the competitiveness of the league. It has no reason to reduce competition within the league.

That's just you having a general [censored] about everything. The only two that are vaguely rational are the first two, but even they aren't examples of the AFL deliberately trying to skew the playing field. 1- The fixture. Have you got a better idea to have the fixture fairer? Besides, the outcome of the draw is random from year to year. Some years the draw is helpful, some years it isn't. That isn't the AFL deliberately trying to keep the low teams at the bottom. 2- The salary cap was an effort to keep things level. It was on the basis that it was more difficult to keep players in Sydney and Brisbane, and also that it was difficult to lure players to GWS and GC without using money. They needed extra money to get players, much in the same way that we would have to pay extra money to Cloke if we were to get him to leave Collingwood. These conditions were also agreed to by the clubs. In other words, the AFL tries its hardest to keep a level playing field because that's what makes it a great product.

Yep. I can hear the chorus of people here (and at the club) calling for us to have poor skills. Interesting that the comparion was with West Coast, who were one of the poorest skilled clubs af all in 2010. Especially considering the closesness of our picks int he 2008 draft, where we can see where the focus was for each club. Melbourne West Coast Pick 1 - Jack Watts 2- Nic Naitanui 17- Sam Blease 18- Luke Shuey 19- James Strauss 20- Tom Swift 35- Jamie Bennell 36- Ash Smith 51- Neville Jetta 52- Jordan Jones 64- Rohan Bail So, looking at that, we picked 5 highly skilled players and a roughie (Bail). Each time we picked a highly skilled player in preference (Watts - Naitanui, Strauss - Swift, Jetta - Jones, while we both picked skill with Blease, Shuey, Bennell and Swift). I don't think any team doesn't think that skill is important. Including us.

You didn't pose the question .... you made an outright statement. You said "I know, a shocking law written by the AFL to keep the lower clubs down in there [sic] place." You said that the AFL created the law in order to promote a disparity in the league to ensure that poor clubs stay poor. That is simply untrue and idiotic. The AFL has done its best (possibly the best in the world) to ensure that the competition is even and that all clubs have a chance of being successful. This can be seen by the introduction of the draft/salary cap system, the distribution of money to less financially powerful clubs, the opposition to free acency and the compromised free agency when they did introduce it. What incentive does the AFL have to make the league less competitive? What incentive does it have to create permanent cellar dwellers? You statement was utterly ridiculous and is consistent with many of your other, poorly thought out and sensationalist posts.

What?!?! Do you think before you write? Everything the AFL does is geared around trying to make the competition more even. Why would they possibly want the competition to become less even? Where is the incentive for them? Why do the empty vessels make so much noise?

A kicked ball could also theoretically travel 1 metres in 2 seconds, or it could travel 10 kilometres in 2 seconds. Physics is fun!

We've been linked with both and I'd be surprised if we couldn't get both Cloke and Boak, given how rubbish and young our list has been. We have been hearing for years about how we have been prepaying our salaries in preparation for free agency. $1.6 between Cloke and Boak shouldn't break the bank ...... but the only people who would have any idea about that are those involved with Tim Harrington.

I don't see why people are upset with getting Cloke because he's not a midfielder. To quote a burrito ad, "can't we have both?" If we get Cloke, which midfielder are we sacrificing?

I'm here on my phone, but not my PC.

I'd be happy with this. It gives us a real structure and makes our recruiting so much easier. Having all of our big men in place means that we can focus on runners, which come on more quickly. Having Cloke and Clark in tandem for the rest of the decade makes us ultra dangerous. One of the reasons for the two key forwards is to get the ball inside 50. One pushes up to the footy whole the other pushes back to goal. We have been hearing the club constantly talking about prepaying contacts to create free agency room. Think about the $5m as being paid in the last few years, rather than in the next few. That means that we could get him, effectively, for free through FA.

One of our biggest advantages in attracting Boak is the same thing that got us Clark .... we can get the deal done. We have pick 4 so Boak knows that he can get here easily. Geelong will have two picks at about 20 so a deal will be tough. I like the sound of 4 and 13 for Boak and 7, but if it is just a straight pick 4 swap then I'd probably been fine with it. He is a strong midfielder with pace, so he's definitely the type we need.

Based on that statement, I don't believe you understand what I'm saying. You appear to be thinking it's "Morton = good vs Morton = bad". I'm saying "Selecting Morton to play this week = a reason to not go to any more games and also spew up vs Selecting Morton to play this week = not necessarily a reason to not go to any more games and also spew up" Do you understand the difference? It's independent of any "judgement of time".

I'd go for Prestia quite happily. He has really good pace and gives us something we don't have - a line breaking nugget who is a penetrating kick.

I get that you don't like Morton, picket. So much so that you want a medal of martyrdom. You're clearly biased against him, so don't expect your views on him to be taken by the Demonland readers as being objective. Does that mean that I think the sun shines from Cale's ass? No, but he has some excellent attributes that, if harnessed, could help the side a lot.

On another note, it's really good to hear that Gysberts is continuing to work hard defensively in stoppages as well as winning the footy. Tom Couch, kicking 4 goals, indicates that he's spreading more and getting into space. That's what he needs to do more of to become an AFL player, and there's a good chance that he could come in this week (if that was the case). Green doing well and getting good possession numbers as well as goals should help us in the AFL. Especially now that we have a couple of tall forwards playing (Garland and Rivers) which should allow him to get a smaller opponent which is when he excels. He doesn't have the pace to mismatch the big guys, but he is still much better overhead than most smalls.

I didn't see the game today, but he would certainly help with our ability to spread from stoppages. If he's done what he has been asked to do then I have no problem with him playing AFL next week. Will I not go to another game if he's selected? I'm not a fan of hyperbole, nor attention seeking. Would you like a medal? It will say: "For heroic self sacrifice due to a protest against the selection of a fringe AFL footballer for a game vs Freo" - It's not exactly lying in front of a tank, is it?

So So he has played his role well enough, according to the club, to be one of Casey's best players for the day. He has adhered to the coach's instructions better than most others on the side. Yet "if he gets in this week ... not only won't you go again ... you'll spew up"?