grazman

Yeah, Nah, Maybe. Ross may help a mate out, but only if it coincides with what his club want to do anyway. Could you imagine what they'd do to him if Pav got injured in a match he wasn't scheduled to play in? Freo have the most players over 29 on their list. The WA clubs have always wanted to reduce the amount of travel their players have to do as it has a substantial affect on their bodies - particularly their recovery. Some claim that it actually shortens players careers. Their next match is on the road against Sydney. Pav and McPharlin won't be making that trip if my theory is correct. I'm not sure what the current thinking is, but I would think most clubs would want all their best 22 to have at least one and preferably two matches leading into rd 1.

Thank you, it's posts like yours that make it still worthwhile to read demonland.

BB (or should I say Deefan), I don't think there was any modification to the gameplay per se, just the structure up forward - if that makes sense. I think Roos wanted to see a competitive team, but I'm sure given the nature of these types of games that a three goal loss was neither here nor there (but a ten goal blow out might have been a real concern for both supporters and playing group). There was a quick comment at the start of the game that Melbourne and Freo had both started with a four tall forward line. My impression was that both Roos and Lyon had some conversations about this prior to the game. I think they were both looking at the experimental aspect of the NAB challenge to try to trial some players and develop some added flexibility. Dermott then spoke about Frost being identified as a swingman capable of playing forward and back. Many may only see him as a key back, but his height, athleticism and his speed (I was very impressed at his closing speed when playing in defence) mean that if he can develop his kicking he's the ideal player for both roles (and maybe Oscar Mac too) whereas I think both Col and Tommy Mac have too many limitations to play them in the forward line. I think come the season proper we will see far more of a Hawthorn style conventional forward line with two key talls and a range of smaller players capable of playing through the midfield as well ( Like others I think Vandenberg may well be a seriously good find as a smallish tall/tallish mid if he can build on his debut). Like many I was disappointed by Gawn's game, but having said that I can't believe so many are quick to write him off. At the same age Mark Jamar played 22 games in the 2006 season and couldn't crack a single B&F vote (he wasn't called donuts for nothing). Now I'm not comparing apples and oranges here, I don't think Max will be as good in the ruck (which is the only string to the Russian's bow IMO and contrary to popular belief he is rarely beaten in the ruck contest), but he can still get better. He is actually nearly four inches taller after all. Ruck men take time to develop and I'm bemused that so many supporters now would have Stefan Martin back in a heartbeat when he was a bee's [censored] away from not getting another contract at the Lions. I think Max has far more potential than Stefan (so long as his knees hold out). Anyway I think there was enough to be bullish about from that showing, but only time will tell whether my expectations have been built beyond the ability of the team to perform (which isn't really all that high anyway. 8-10 wins).

Not to mention softening us up by telling us that Hird & Co are good to go for the season instead of receiving the substantial ban they should receive for cheating.

I think the problem both the AFL and hence the players will have is WADA's view on exactly "what" the players thought they were being "secretly" injected with and the nature of their cooperation (which we are yet to really see any evidence of.

Cause we were only doing what we suspected other clubs were doing.... There maybe a very big financial work cover penalty coming there way, and almost certainly some private settlements to sort out (pretty sure the standard player contract doesn't give permission to inject players full of banned substances).

The AFL are between a rock and a hard place here. If as reasonably expected ASADA can establish a case that the EFC instituted a regime of illegally administered supplements then there has to be a significant penalty. This involves not only the standing of the AFL within Australia, but Australia's international sporting image as well. I doubt WADA would accept any sought of leniency on the grounds of expedience for a domestic competition from a club that not only tried to conceal evidence, but instituted legal proceedings on the basis that the competition they were involved in should not be involved in cooperating to find drug cheats. It would not only inflict further reputational damage on an already tarnished image it would serve as absolutely no deterrence to any other club on how to avoid/mitigate their punishment. A six month ban would be a complete blight on the game. I expect the punishment to be harsh for the players and very severe for those that were responsible for the oversight of the program. (perhaps including a lifetime ban)

steroids and EPO. Though performance enhancing is performance enhancing. Happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong, but the code doesn't discriminate in terms of the effectiveness of the substance/s taken.

Interesting that Alex Rodriguez (A Rod) from the New York Yankees is about to return to baseball after serving his 12 months for using performance enhancing drugs. The interesting side note to the story is that A Rod like Essendon obfuscated and held a belligerent line about his wrong doing. He has now written a hand written note to fans asking for forgiveness. He was banned for 162 matches (the entirety of the 2014 season - though this was actually less than the original ruling of 211 matches). While not completely similar it is worth reflecting that A Rod is as big as they come in a given sport. Sports will survive the misdemeanours of individuals (even superstars) and move on, what puts the AFL in a bind is that this wasn't one or two players this was a systematic program implemented by one of their constituent clubs. While the AFL may feel the need to get this over and done with I can't see anything less than a 12 month ban for the players and the removal of those responsible (including: Coach, Doctor, CEO and President - though 2 of those are now gone) from the game.

I think that James Hird and the PM must have taken the same supplements. Deny everything make counter allegations... and what's that over there!!!

I thought I heard Fletcher was one who refused to participate in the program

Interesting comments about Casey. Even far removed up here in Canberra I had serious concerns at the start of last year in regards to certain comments as to the relationship with the Casey coaching staff and the development of MFC listed players. Seems like they may have found a better way forward with the MFC picking up the tab for Casey's coaching and (I'm guessing as a result) Melbourne gaining greater autonomy over the direction and development of MFC listed players. In the end for the relationship to work for the MFC we have to be the senior partner, (sorry but the notion that its an equal relationship is simply a furphy) but we must also understand our responsibilities and give due respect to the benefits that Casey brings to the partnership.

Sorry, I haven't got enough time atm to read the whole thread, but thought I'd add my 2cents worth (sorry if its been mentioned already). Why the draft age should be raised. Because there is more certainty and less risk with draft picks (most players then become more a known quantity - with maybe the exception of a few KPP) Why it won't be raised. The AFL believe it would allow the most promising junior talent to be poached by other sports because they won't wait around a couple more years when they can earn big dollars earlier. (not saying I believe that btw, but I think its a real concern for the administrators of our game).

Yeah, Nah. What I've seen in the games that he's played hasn't made me believe that it's a lack of fitness that he can't get enough of the ball - he's good enough to get drafted, but not to stay on a list.

A perceptual illusion - It must exist because there's a word for it. But it's about imagining what will be rather than the current reality and the fault is often with the expectations that are built up in the absence of hard evidence (by the recruiters rather than the recruit). If we were to increase the draft age to 20 we could relegate potential to a subordinate category rather than the primacy that it currently occupies.

While new draftees get a minimum of 2 years I wouldn't be surprised if the club tried to get picks 2 & 3 to commit beyond that.

I think the big plus for Lever is the big knock on Wright - appetite for the contest. If Wright doesn't like the physical aspects of the game playing against boys then that's a serious concern. Its all speculative at this stage given we're primarily relying on the opinions of others, but the best comparison is Watts, what he does is very special what he doesn't do is beyond frustrating. If Lever has the same work ethic and competitiveness of a Nathan Jones (going by reports) then that's a very big tick along with his other attributes (strong in the air, awareness in traffic, neat skills, height etc). NB. Not saying either is like Watts or Jones, just using current players as a point of comparison.

Lever is apparently 192-194. Played mainly as a key back, but been training as a midfielder. Goddard is 191 and Goodes 194. This is the type of swingman we need, able to run off halfback or hold down a KPP, run through the middle all at various stages of the game. (incredibly hard to match up on) I'm not as worried about X factor, we just need hungry competitive footballers who can stick at a task. His knee is a worry, but so is diabetes.

We're in furious agreement - a pick in the low teens was tongue in cheek - it's more likely to be a top ten pick even with FA compensation to other clubs unless something really does click, but the point still stands we need to trade in a low pick which means giving something up. Accepting that you may have to give up a good player and your first rounder to get a player who isn't available as a free agent who would you take out of Treloar, Shiel and Kennedy? (My order of preference mainly due to age). Daisycutter, Personally I don't think Tex is overrated. Off a knee reconstruction his stats are more than favourable in comparison to Hawkins for example: Walker: 15 games averaged 14.7 possessions (6.8 contested), 5.6 marks, 2.3 goals (34 total) Hawkins: 23 games averaged 12.1 possessions (6.5 contested) 6.4 marks, 2.7 goals (63 total) I think he's a better match for our game plan being a very mobile forward and more value for money. I also think in terms of gettable targets he's the one I'd be working on more than Dangerfield (though one doesn't preclude the other) - we've probably been putting some work into him and his manager. I doubt Hawkins will leave Geelong. The time to start working on trading is now - put the effort into managers by talking dollars and years and hope that the right combination of circumstances will prevail to facilitate the movement. A lot will depend on Phil Walsh and how Adelaide perform of course, the same with Leon Cameron. The pressure will definitely be on in the first half of the year. Its a funny sort of game now - a bit like RL when players are playing out a season knowing they're going to be playing for someone else the following year.

Only problem is he's not a free agent and I don't think a pick in the low teens will be enough to satisfy the Swans. Otherwise I agree we should have a crack at whoever we can get.

Tex Walker as a Free Agent and one of Treloar/Shiel (doubt we could come up with the combination of picks/players to satisfy for both) would make me very happy.

Agree completely Ol 55. Only time will tell whethet we paid unders or overs. Too many armchair generals prepared to throw the towel in because clearly the people running the show have no fortitude or brains. Oh the irony. We traded in identified list weaknesses with the exception of dragging in an elite midfielder. My relatively uniformed view is because we rated 2&3 higher than what others were prepared to pay.

I'm not sure it's a lock that the Saints take McCartin. They're working to a long term plan. They'll get Membrey to replace Stanley (apples for apples). I can't see how their hand is forced so they 'have' to take McCartin, particularly if they rate Petracca above him. Talls are risky. Petracca looks a safer bet.

X man Dan Hannebery. Not sur about the other references other than he visited Knox Grammar.

Grimes a first rounder too.