45HG

How this makes him stupid, or even rates a mention, is beyond me. For all i'm aware it's a guy having a joke with a mate at the expense of an overly-sensitive supporter base that takes things far too seriously, especially those who follow players' every move on twitter. So far, he seems to have been successful.

Oh, is that the point. Ok then.

What I don't like about FA is that, it seems, the Bombers get Goddard without surrendering anything.

People saying that he "made the most of it" are missing the point of what others are saying. Question: Did anyone here watch any of Morton's games recently and honestly think to themselves "wow, he wouldn't have done [insert something he did here] at W.C. or Richmond" or anything along these lines? I'm shocked that people don't really see this for what it was; a player being in the right place at the right time. He played alright because, well, he's an alright player.

Strange, strange post. Of course I believe in culture. Yesterday's game probably proves the importance of culture more than any other example. Indeed, if you bothered to read the thread that you've just posted in you'd see that I believe culture is a great determiner for a club's success. What I don't agree with is attaching has-been 90s hash-tags that are no longer applicable to a team (possibly never have been). Culture is a fluent, malleable entity that is impacted on and influenced by a great degree of elements. I believe it can change reasonably quickly - be that in a positive or negative way.

Obviously prelims and GFs are tougher than regular season games - but I think essentially all tougher games end up doing is put the magnifying glass on what players do regularly anyway. They just have to be able to it as a natural instinct under greater pressure. Morton played 3 finals for a combined total of 33 kicks, 15 handballs and 9 marks. He had 15 tackles and kicked four goals. He was reasonably lively and pretty dangerous without being brilliant. Pretty much how I remember him as a W.C./Richmond player.

The Kangaroos have lost 8 of their last 10 finals by an average of 78 points. They did well to get to the finals in many of those cases - but that record stands for itself.

I don't understand why you follow WYL around like a puppy dog, but anyway. It's not semantics at all. It's a disagreement about a fundamental aspect of the thread - that he has improved. I don't particularly think he has improved his footy. What I saw on the weekend I've seen from him before. Perhaps he's changed behind the scenes and 1%er aspects of his game that really only those at the club could state. But, really, his marking and goal-kicking are nothing new. My disagreement also stems around the argument that often comes up about players who "will never be a premiership player." If a player is skilful enough to play AFL and can fill a role in a side, he can be a premiership player in the right side. I don't think that if Mcglynn had have played, Morton would've. He didn't do the work and get given the spot ahead of Mcglynn, poor Ben got injured. This is not a knock on Morton, this is not showing him any disrespect. He was not Swans best 22 for most of the year and the footy I saw from him when he did come in wasn't much different to what I'd have expected him to do. Not semantics at all.

The thread is saying that he improved. I said that he hasn't done anything other than what he always has. You challenged me to say not to compare regular season with finals. I said it'd be foolish to ignore the regular season when considering finals. You're now saying you never said the regular season cannot be counted. As usual, this does not compute. I maintain he played the same way he has shown throughout his career. He played a role yesterday due to circumstances outside of his control.

I'll compare whatever I like, thank you. It's moronic to think that nothing of the regular season can be used as a marker for finals - but no doubt you'll claim it again.

Highlights how ridiculous it is (most of the time) to say that "player x, y or z will never be a premiership player." He played a role - no more, no less. He did nothing yesterday (or last week) that I haven't seen him do throughout much of his career, so I don't really think he's improved necessarily.

Man U 2 - 3 Tottenham Massive

Man U 0 - 1 Tottenham

Not to mention the fact that just like (shock horror) Mark Robinson's article, it's terribly poorly written.

Is it just me, or does this seem inappropriate?

Headed into this thread to write pretty much that. After the rant above rant I watched Cummins bowl - he's just a joy to watch. Such talent. Then I watched the Indians have a go... wow? Continual short balls at 120-130kph at Watson's hip. They're sharking - surely.

So the biggest day of 2012 has arrived (don't tell the new wife). The more I think about it, the more I think this game shapes to be a cracker - especially if the weather continues the way it is heading. So many great players lining up, many of whom seem to have been created for wet weather footy on Grand Final day. Mithcell, Hodge, Sewell, Lewis, Franklin, Roughead with surprisingly tough-nutted Shiels, Suckling, Smith, Gibson, Burgoyne. Jack, Hannebury, O'Keefe, Gooes, Bolton, Kennedy, Mcveigh with Malceski, Shaw, Grundy, Mumford. It just looks to be a cracking contest. Hawthorn's dominance up forward looks like it may be quelled by the weather - but I would never write-off a combination of Franklin and Roughead (especially with the added form of Gunston). This looks to be the area that the Hawks have it over the Swans. With Reid and LRT not in the same league - yet they are favoured by the Hawks defensive concerns. The battle (as usual) is in the middle. Both mid-fields have plenty of ball-winning ability and, importantly, can kick goals. Sydney's probably kick more goals yet Hawthorn's will set more up. I have a feeling they will also kick a few more themselves than usual. There's no way that Hawthorn will kick as badly as they did last week and I find it hard to go past them.... but not by much. Hawks by 7 points.

Perhaps I'm selling him short - but am I the only one surprised to be hearing Martin's name mentioned in so many trades for reasonably high-profile players?

Geez bowling in these matches staggers me sometimes. Players make such immense mistakes - forget their basics while going for far, far too much. Morkel bowling a rank full toss with no one at square or mid wicket is case in point.

No, I'm not talking frisky-business. I've been looking at the Swans side and thinking just how well they have been able to groom players from other clubs to fill a role within their own structure. Players such as Ted Richards and Rhyce Shaw immediately come to mind - players out of favour at their previous clubs who have been brought into the team for specific reasons. Others, to varying degrees, include Mcglynn, Kennedy, Mumford not to mention players from differing pedigrees Kennelly and Pyke. A number of reasons have been offered as to why they have been able to gel so well in the Harbour Town. One of them is the culture. The players are relatively unknown in Sydney and are able to go about their business in an un-assuming manner, focusing essentially on the task at hand. By accounts, many of the players live close together and have formed a close-knit culture (Bloods culture, thanks Kirky!) Another reason that I've been thinking today is the notion of playing a role. Each player at Sydney seems to have a set role to play in each and every game. Each players seems to know his role inside out and as a by-product, seems capable of playing that role most weeks. Obviously, this can leave them somewhat one-dimensional, but I think it has been crucial to Sydney reaching the top of the tree again without needing to rebuild. Guys like Ted Richards are given a specific portfolio. They are instructed exactly how the team are to play and told explicitly how to play the role. The result of which leaves Richards knowing exactly what he needs to do. He would be acutely aware of successes and failures. The key point to this is that each team needs a clear direction for the type of footy it wants to play and then the coach needs to recruit players who will fill the parts of that machine. Obviously, teams like Hawthorn are a different case. I think that's what happens when you land guys of the Franklin/Roughead/Rioli ilk with Hodge/Mitchell to lead. Teams like Melbourne seem to have never established this culture, this game plan, this strategy. Too often, forwards have turned midfielders or vice versa with seemingly little regard for how this will help the team function. Perhaps we have not had a culture where the players feel that they can go about the task in an unassuming manner because they are turned to rock stars at the drop of a hat or not given a system to work towards. It's with this in mind that I will be interested to see which players we target/land in the trade period or through FA. Players who may seem to fit the system that Neeld and Craig seem to be implementing. Players who will, hopefully, help to instil a culture of hard-work, success and thirst for the contest within the club. Not world-beaters on their own, I hope they will be part of the Melbourne revolution. I look at a team like Sydney with a lot of respect because it takes each player to work to the top of their game. Obviously their top 6 is very good, but I don't think it's near the top 6 of the best teams in the comp. Theirs is a complete team and, I think, a role-model for our club. Go Dees! (Go the Swans tomorrow!)

You must be a very, very slower typist. If memory serves, Watts ran for us a few years ago. 09? Martin 08? Who knows, who ca....

I honestly don't know why people bother with these scenarios. If you're going to go to the effort to make them, surely you'd at least make them plausible - otherwise, what's the point? We don't start match threads every week with: "The Ideal Game" and continue to list how we'll dominate each and every 5 minutes period of the game to end up 200 point winners. Further, if you're not going to be plausible then why aim low? Why settle for Pederson for Cook when we could get Judd/Ablett/Selwood/Franklin/Rioli for Moloney?

Yet we may determine that he is worth more (or less) than the market is prepared to pay.

Words cannot describe how much I agree with the sentiment of this thread. Hits on Crawford and Welsh also come to mind. So, so reliable. If only some other, more talented, Dees players of his time could have been so relied upon. A wonderful player who should have been in our 150 Heroes list.

There were 21 frees on the night (possibly the fewest of the year). Only 8 of them were to Collingwood. I didn't particularly notice the umpiring (aside from the obvious),