grazman

Every trade is a risk, just ask St Kilda about Andrew Lovett or Brisbane about Fev, you just have to understand what you're getting. Our trading has been judicious because we've got picks in return for players. - At some stage you need to address inbalances on the list. Hale does that. I take every thing I read on here with a large pinch of salt. After all it wasn't so long ago that a large bunch of Armchair experts were lambasting the club for picking James Frawley ahead of James Sellar in the draft. If the footy club are targetting Hale, it's probably because they are using their knowledge and experience in footy to come to an informed decision as opposed to DT rankings or such like.

Disagree, but it depends on your definition of grunt. Morton's stamina is elite. It was when we drafted him and it will only continue to improve with more preseasons.

The Hun today has said it seems Hale maybe heading our way in exchange for a second round pick, but Hawthorn are still circling. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/dons-get-tough-on-bachar-houli/story-e6frf9jf-1225933062920

That was actually the second occasion. The first time he did it training on a sub-standard suburban oval/paddock where his foot got stuck in a rabbit hole! I remember the second time because he'd done the whole rehab thing and I was at Lavy when he did it (last time I was there there was still a dent in the interchange shelter where he'd punched it). Nothing to do with the ground because Lavy was a bowling green. The third time he came back early and made it through one match only to have his knee buckle under him against the Swans when he was starting to look dangerous. Fortunately it was then third time lucky when they tightened up his 'loose' joint.

Adrian Anderson also stated that in an effort to even the ledger that next year the Umpires would wear a traditional white strip to more closely resemble the extra men the Bulldogs played with all night!

Spot On Redleg!!!! According to Il Duce, AKA Jabba the Hut, AKA Vlad, "It's unfortunate that it happened and I know Adrian Anderson yesterday apologised for the incident. I think unfortunately it has detracted from what was a fantastic event." hmmm that's a backhanded apology if ever I heard one... more so considering the club had protested before hand in an effort to get the umpires to change their strip, but were denied. Unfortunate... Nahh, how about stupid, moronic, cretinous, & puerile!!! To add salt to the wound they said it was too late to change their stip... what their mums hadn't washed their, yellow, orange or green stips???

But had two goal assists and twenty hitouts.... shocking performance what were they thinking.

agree, he'll come back via Casey, Morton will also probably get one more game to get some conditioning back. No change unless Gysberts plays a blinder for Casey. I don't think Dunn will be dropped and like most (probably none more so than Lynden himself) I'm frustrated at his lack of finishing. Dunn is working his butt off to play the other high half forward role and get to the right positions. He got 19 possessions (6 contested) in tough conditions - he was far from disgraced.

Just to clarify, the interview was done at half time - it wasn't the post match interview... said something like "we've just got to keep f...ing kicking it in their" - referring to F50 entires.

yep - hilarious. The universal adjective - actually in a coaching context he probably didn't even realise he'd used it.

Yeah - Nahh. It's a question of process. Goal umpires are trained and paid to make those the decisions, they're in the best spot to judge. I have no problem with the umpires conferring, and with the central umpire over-ruling the goal umpire if they 'know' that the ball has been touched, but in both cases you can clearly hear that the umpire's either didn't see or 'thought' the ball had been touched. In cricket you don't give an LBW if you 'think' the ball is going to hit the stumps - only if you 'know' it will. In both cases the person paid to make the decision and standing in the best spot to make the decision was over-ruled based on speculation.... not good enough.

Nup... he handballed it to the umpire.... ridiculous strip to be wearing... was just one of three occasions in the last quarter alone that players went to the umpire thinking it was a team mate (Bate and Green the others). Plus they over ruled the goal umpire in better position because they 'thought' the player had touched the ball, and they didn't pay Trengove's mark.... other than that they had a pretty good game.

and what if they don't get injured in the first five minutes? I'm not trying to be cute... but obviously the footy dept have weighed up the risks involved. We could play Martin or Spencer or Fitzpatrick, but the reality is none are really ready to compete at AFL level and the FD think our best chance of winning is to continue to set up the way we have... if Jamar gets injured then you have to improvise... as I said before Martin will give you more in the ruck than Dunn, but not enough to make a significant difference as compared to dropping a runner like Dunn or Bennell for him.

I don't think Martin could beat either Leuy or Clark, so It makes no sense to me to play a second ruckman that we know won't win or break even so to me it makes no difference wether Stef or Dunn contest the stoppages. We could play him up forward in lieu of Lynden but I don't think he offers the flexibility atm - I think he needs more time at Casey to learn his craft. Ditto Spencer whose aggression and attitude I like, but he's very much another long term ruck project.... ie he needs another 50 odd games at Casey before he'll even be considered ready.

We tried to play two ruckman in rd 1, and it failed. Spencer was exposed time and again when his man ran off him in defence. We've since played only Jamar with a pinch hitter. Freo are doing the same. West Coast are still persisting with two and North have three (albeit with one playing solely as a KPP) - but my point is this. At some stage you need to trade the cost of effectiveness in the ruck with flexibility around the ground (most ruckman don't give you that). It'll be interesting to see which way the winds continue to blow. This weekend we play two ruckman (though Clark gives them far more flexibilty than most). I think we'll only play Jamar and use the extra space on the bench for genuine run. I think the obvious alternative would be if the league changed the interchange rule to incorporate substitutes.

Sorry Kev, I knew I'd get it wrong

They need to lift their act. Every time Liam Pickering would discuss something they'd show the wrong passage of play and then eventually they'd show the right incident and they do it ad nauseum. Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather watch the ball in play rather than players walking around the boundary line, coming to the boundary line, players sitting on the bench or as Big Red pointed out last week balloons blowing across the ground.

I tend to lean the other way. I think Jamar enjoys rucking alone, in fact he seems to thrive on the responsibility. Letting him ruck 90% of the game means we can have one extra runner on the bench. I'm not sure they'll bring PJ in anyway after only one match at Casey. If we're going to beat Brisbane it'll have to start and finish in the midfield, the extra run will be required.

You'd think there was absolutely no case for Brent to answer - and that's without taking into consideration the bump on Col in the pre-season.

The media might want it, but the media want a lot of things that they will never accept responsibility for at the end of the day. They're completely reactionary. Every club has known about the introduction of the two new teams, and have known what that means in terms of drafting and recruiting. Some like myself, believe that clubs like us took a proactive approach to planning their destiny - ie we list managed our way to get the required draft picks when they were available - some like Richmond just let it happen to them. So to use a rather facetious analogy, you can go out drinking all night and spend all your money and try to navigate your way home in the dark and end up having the living the bejesus kicked out of you and then complain about lawless streets or you can save the last $20 for a taxi or arrange for a friend to pick you up. Rarely is there any reward for people (or football clubs) who fail to plan.

Tom Hislop

That's very contentious, I know plenty of Rugby fans who would argue the contrary. When you have sides missing the finals that have won more games than sides that make the finals (which happens), then it makes a complete mockery of the system. Not a fan at all. I think the current system works best.

Because you're only looking at one side of the equation. We wouldn't have been trading Brock for Ball. If he'd nominated only for the PSD we would have taken him for his leadership qualities alone. We got a good deal for McLean, but this wasn't initiated by the club it was Brock's decision - we were never going to use pick 11 to take Ball. Having said all that Ball made it clear he didn't want to come to Melbourne and that was the start and finish of negotiations. I didn't see it, but there were reports that quite a few Melbourne players were giving it to him in spades which is a very good sign.

Depends on the interpretation of protected area.... if a Melbourne player had followed Harry O and stood as second marker would the umpire have cleared the area? I bet they would have. Also how do you shepherd a bloke when standing behind him without actually grabbing him and giving away the free - you can't actually make contact with the man on the mark until "play on' is called. This appears to be a new tactic as the same thing was done by a Hawthorn player the previous week. The most logical response is that the umpires should interpret the 'protected area to include the mark and keep every player at least five meters away.

Richmond too perhaps.