45HG

I also would've liked him to thank the club for their efforts etc. and who know, perhaps that's something that he'll look back on in time and regret not doing. I can't speak for him, but I can speak for how I see the club managing the situation and, I think, we did a very good job - the best we could've done.

We looked after him and cared for him because it was the right thing to do. Strong cultures and clubs are built on organisations that are tight knit and look after one another. The fabric we wove to support Liam will, hopefully, hold us in good stead for the future amongst the players that are there now and will come into the future. We didn't look after him in the hope of getting compensation for him should he walk. We did it because it was the right thing to do. Good on us. We can hold our heads up proudly and say that we did the utmost to help a member of our community and a member of our club. His situation away from, and inside of (to a much, much lesser extent), football has indeed been very sad and I wish him all the best in his career and, more importantly, his life.

He'll be a very good player for the MFC in the years to come, I just hope he becomes an A-grade player for the club. Had a difficult season but grew into it as the year went on. Strange to single out his disposal average - given the team as a whole got far less of the footy this year and he was playing a more defensive role.

I see at as Scully for Dawes, Barry and two of Hogan, Viney and Toumpass. Without the extra high pick to trade, I don't think we'd have got Viney in the second round.

What I saw of Lyon today wasn't great.

Not sure what happened here, Channel 9 cut away from the super over. Amazing innings from FAF - deserves all the praise that should, and will, come his away. Also credit to AB for a very, very uncharacteristic inning.

Rubbish, rubbish batting from Rudolph.

Just watched .Hard to watch - obviously I don't know him from a bar of soap but he doesn't seem thrilled about heading there. I wish the kid all the best and hope he enjoys his time wherever that may be.

This year, Clarke has 1271 runs at an average of 127.1 and 7 wickets at 27.57

Have you seen Chris Dawes?

None of this explains why the move is necessary. I disagree with the decision of his to change numbers. That's fine, he probably cares as much for my opinion as I care of his on my career choices. I see what you're saying and their rationale. It doesn't mean i agree with it, however. I like players staying in a number if it can be helped - he was 16 to me. But, oh well, he's 31 now.

Tom $cully could yet go down as a Melbourne great. Always had an inkling he would.

How dare you (I'm a little flattered, boys). I don't know what to think anymore! Should've just stayed with 45. Not particularly thrilled with it. Don't see the need, don't see how it will change culture at all. But, at the end of the day, it won't affect how he plays and he has, in my opinion, his best footy in front of him. Not membership burning stuff, but not the best decision from my point of view - especially for the username side of things! I just get stuck in the simulacra of our past. The further that we move away from it, the more we feel the need to underline it and remind everyone of it. Stuff that. Respect your history, but don't let it determine your future. That's the stamp I'd be putting on it - look to the future.

Caro?

Pattinson bowls like he bats.

How the hell did Collingwood end up with Grundy?

Did he? That's no good to hear - I wish the kid all the best.

The way he's going, that's only two innings away!

He's also scored at a faster rate this year than any other (though that's not surprising). As a ludicrous stat, his 4 double tons this year have come at an average of 1022!

Versus SL 23 (In at 2-36 off 9.4 overs) 60 (2-5, 3.2) 13 (2-95, 36.5) 6 (3-101, 35.5) 112 (3-188, 55.5) Versus SA 151 (3-40,16.2) 2 (2-11, 5.3) 11 (3-193, 46.3) 2 (3-141, 36.5) Versus NZ 139 (3-91, 27.1) 22 (3-31, 15.2) 0 (3-159, 45.4) Versus India 31 (3-159, 48.3) 1 (3-24, 11.3) 329* (3-37, 8.5) 18 (3-242, 44.5) 210 (3-84, 25.5) 37 (3-40, 11.4) Versus West Indies 73 (3-84, 23.6) 6 (3-126, 33.6) 45 (3-83,32.3) 15 (3-57, 24.5) 24 (3-105, 45.3) 25 (3-112, 55.2) Versus South Africa 259* (3-40, 9.3) 224* (3-55, 12.6) When he's come in after the team has posted 100, he has scores of 6, 112, 11, 2, 0, 31, 18, 6, 24 and 25 - 235 runs at 23.5 (10 innings) When he's come in before the team has posted 100 he has scores of 23, 60, 13, 151, 2, 139, 22, 1, 329*, 210, 37, 73, 45, 15, 259* and 224* - 1603 runs at 123.31 (16 innings) This year he's now scored 1265 runs from 8 matches at 141.

Where's Old Dee when you need him?

A 17-round season could alleviate that problem but, at the end of the day, the best teams shine at the end of the year regardless I reckon.

Just making it up?

Hyperinflation.

No team from outside the top 4 has made a grand final under the current system and only two have made a prelim. I think the winners end up being deserving regardless. In terms of the OP - what I wonder is if a team is 7th under that system, they then only play teams under them. In terms of a points system, couldn't they easily end up jumping up into a 3rd or so just from playing weaker teams while those above play the harder teams?