grazman

The Neitz, White and Yze era is fast closing. It's now a year by year proposition with those guys. We didn't win a premiership with Robbie, Garry, Jimmy, Todd, Stinga etc. Fev may never play in a premiership at Carlton. If Neita goes, we may not have a dominant full forward to replace him, but hopefully we'll have a top shelf inside midfield, a rock solid defence and lots of drive from the wings and multiple targets up forward. I'll be sad to see the skipper hang up his boots, but at 32 I don't know how much more of the burden we can ask him to shoulder.

Errrr - we haven't won one with him - so yeah I think so. (I'm not trying to be a smartarse - just pointing out that it will come down to more than just one player )

Neita gets fired up, but he's not usually that vocal, he was not a happy camper!

Yep same incident. I should have said resulted in a free to the bulldogs. The vision afterwards of Neita on the bench showed him speaking to the coach and doing all the talking (when you get dragged you usually do the listening - but Neita was clearly unhappy about something)

It annoyed me today when Rocket said on the interview after the game that we were pretty much back to full strength. He would've known who was missing.

I haven't been convinced on Sylvia - I was actually advocating playing him off Half Back to get him into the game and attack the footy. He still drops some marks that he has the ability to take and goals he should kick (maybe a concentration thing), but his mark in the last quarter was absolutely top shelf. You don't see too many better contested marks in any given week of footy.

That's two good weeks in a row by Godders. I'd almost given up on him as a tagger, but now we are playing one on one footy, he has come back into it. I shouldn't have been surprised, one thing we know about Godders is he won't throw in the towel and gives it everything he's got. BTW the commentary made specific mention of the incident and said it would be reviewed. There was also an incident with Neita and Harris where he gave away the free and was then dragged. Apparently Neita told the umpires he should be reported for it and they said "OK". Make of that what you will.

Don't get me started....

Well the wing would be another option. But I've got CJ and Moloney there in the grazman team.

Just saying is all..... It's what I want to see, but what I wants and what I gets are two seperate things. I can't claim Sylvia off the HBF as an original idea, but I'm definately in favour of it. He went back against there against the Swans and I thought he played the best footy I've seen him play for us. I think he hunts opponents rather than the ball through the middle and he is just too hungry to play up forward as more than a one man forward line. Playing off half back he can still run at the ball and his fierceness and competitive edge are an asset. I accept it would leave the back line short on experience, but geez we're 0 and 6 and have just brought Danny Ward back in.... besides I think that some of the discipline Belly has developed as a defender may rub off on Col . I'll accept that some people believe Col has the X factor, I haven't seen it yet, in fact I haven't even got him pencilled in to our best starting 18.

I'd rather see Bell in the midfield and Col off the HBF.

I think it's something the AFL should seriously look at. The unfortunate reality of modern footy is that if you aren't going to make the finals then cold hard logic dictates that you will receive more benefits by winning less games (apart from maybe the negative impact of supporters and sponsors). Do teams tank games? I don't think we will ever get a definitive answer, but purely from a pragmatic point of view (as opposed to the footy purist) they'd be stupid not to - particularly if it means they can get a greater slice of pie at the end of the season with a concessionary pick.

Timely advice Finks. Maybe some people need to go back and read the conditions they've agreed to abide by. This forum gives us all the opportunity to express our views, mostly in a civilised way - if you have to resort to abuse and personal denigration I would suggest its because either you lack the capacity to express your opinions coherently and succinctly or its because you are frustrated that others don't accept your arguments - which in turn may very well be a direct result of the previous cause. Personally I have no problem with people expressing opinions that I don't agree with so long as they do so with courtesy and respect. Saying "player X is a disgrace" or "X doesn't deserve to play for the club" is not being courteous or respectful. Players try their best and I seriously doubt that someone like me is in a position to pass judgement on such things as the courage or commitment required to play at the highest level.

Sandy have a bye - no one will be playing for them this week.

Yes. Neville, Weetra etc I'd happily conceed on, but I wonder how Newton and Buckley are feeling? Maybe someone had SMS's Rev the Quarter time scores at the Telstra dome

The worst example on the weekend was the free they paid against Fevola, - watching the replay of the Neita Free Kick I thought that the free paid was fair enough, he gave the Port player a decent shove in the back after the marking contest to give Aaron the space to kick the goal. The real problem isn't the law it's the interpretation, you can't push a player in the back, that's been the rule since for ever, but for the last twenty or thirty years blokes have been pushing and shoving each other and using their hands to climb for marks, I think that the umpires should go back to what the law was designed for, to stop players being unfairly taken out of marking contests.

Did you see the highlights from Brisbane V Freo or Ottens missing from 15 metres out? Brad Green (with the exception of last year when he had an injured foot) is easily our best set shot at goal.... I think he needs to go back to the forward line when we get some midfielders back. Poor kicking at goal is poor footy.

Let us know after today Sleeve. His first was pretty good - all the things I'd expect from a 50 gamer.

Dan its an interesting topic you make and for most of us footy tragics is the reason why footy forums exist in the first place... if only.... My understanding of the Ferguson/Sewell trade (and I am happy to be corrected because obviously this is all based on heresay) is that both clubs were keen for the trade to go ahead. The Hawks wanted a tall defender and we were very keen on acquiring Sewell as a tagger/small defender. My mail was that Fergs wasn't all that keen to leave and in the end the clock ran out before we could get the deal over the line. It does go to show however, that we do have some astute judges in the footy dept. because at that stage Sewell was still a relative unknown. As far as our current small defenders go I think we are in pretty good shape. Of course we have Wheels as the elder statesman, but his soft tissue injuries now are a real concern. I think in Bell, Bartram and Petterd we have players that are the future of our defence (along with Carroll, Riv and Frawley) All three have the flexibility to move into the midfield if need be, and all three have courage, skills and pace - and significantly discipline to do a job. (I am still heading the movement to make Belly a tagger though!) CJ is a source of frustration for me because I look at him and see a wingman. Yes I loved watching his dad play, but its not just nostalgia -He has height, pace, accurate foot skills (including the ability to kick goals) and excellent vision. I know some on here have already stamped his ticket and think he doesn't have what it takes, but the way he is used in the side at the moment is driving me spare... I guess there's a reason why I post of forums and others get paid to make these decisions.

Terry Wallace is a genius. If he wasn't going to play him in favour of youth five matches into a season why recontract him at the end of last year.? Maybe I just don't understand.

I'm surprised that people are even talking about Tarrant and Polak - I hope its not the same people that have been criticising the club for a lack of leadership. Both Tarrant and Polak carry significant baggage. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain that Tarrant was interested in getting out of Melbourne which is why he went West. As for Polak he was recruited as a CHB, yet hasn't played there. He apparently played a very good game against the Eagles, but I don't know why people are saying he's having a good year. I watched him closely against both Collingwood and the Bulldogs and while he does a couple of nice things he goes missing far too often. He really should be establishing himself as a dominant player now if he were going to be one, he's not mentally tough enough to be that sort of player. He is destined to disappoint.

Agree. to quote REM - I'm losing my religion.

Unbelievable. The tribunal has swung 180 degrees. May as well instruct our blokes to trip, headbut, punch, elbow and take flying drop kicks, They'll be cited, but they won't get suspended... Oh wait they play for Melbourne - disregard the previous comments.

It was and I'm certainly not saying the list doesn't have its problems - it certainly does, but there is also reason to be optimistic. No team including the Eagles, Swans or Lions before them have had a "perfect" list.

Maybe its because I'm a keen student of history, or maybe its because of my appreciation for ironic symbolism that I’m drawn to this topic. Almost certainly some will argue that I’m clutching at straws and I can’t completely discount that either, but as footy supporters if we don't live in hope - what other alternative is there? Round Six 2007 looms as much as a watershed for Neale Daniher as it did in 97 for Neil Balme. I made mention the other day of the complete contrast in the reactions to both Paul Gardner and Joseph Gutnik in response to poor on field performances. It was against the Saints in this very round that Joseph stormed the commentary box and promised the Melbourne faithful that things would change or heads would roll. Three weeks later after a dismal outing at AAMI against Port Balme was shown the door. Many would claim the current season was derailed against the Saints and a similar showing against Port in 2007 will virtually assure the same future for Daniher. I won’t head down the slippery slope of blame and recrimination, there are plenty of others doing that, but it is striking the number of similarities in the seasons. Ten years ago we managed to topple the reigning premiers (North) in Round 1 and from there it was all downhill as we copped a bath a week later against Collingwood. We hit Round 9 against the Power at 1 and seven. We front them this week, at 0 and five and realistically are only a slightly better chance of beating them this year as we were ten years ago. By round 9 we may realistically even be in a worse situation than we were ten years ago. The most obvious parallels between the two years was the impact that injuries had on the field. There’s no doubt that Balme was unlucky. . As the Footy Almanac suggested, 1996 was a dismal one for the club on the injury front, it certainly wasn’t destined to improve in 97. Schwarz was returning from a third knee reconstruction, Prymke never played again, Lyon managed only five injury ravaged games and Tingay only three. Glen Lovett (14) and Leoncelli (12) ensured that there would be no continuity in keeping our best players out on the park and left far too much to too few. Stynes, Viney, Febey, Ingerson and Brett Lovett battled on, but the supporting cast was thin. There were the youthful Neitz, Farmer, Yze and Woewodin, but the rest were largely football journeymen that were not to endure for much longer. A break down of the lists suggests that the lists are relatively similar in age composition Aged 18-21 - 1997 (13) -2007 (17) Aged 22-25 - 1997 (11) -2007 (8) Aged 26-29 - 1997 (11) -2007 (9) Aged 18-21 - 1997 (7) -2007 (8). The view at the time was that the 97 list was no good – the worst ever, well until this year apparently. Like most when I think of future on field performance, I look to the junior talent. For the sake of comparison the following names were 21 and under in 1997. Mark Bradly, The CC twins (3 games between them), Farmer (37), Clayton Gardiner, Grgic, Hayden Lamaro, Nicholson, Yze (19), Woewodin, Mark Winterton, Todd McHardy, and Leigh Newton. Of those at the start of 97 only two had indicated that they would be regular senior players and only Woewodin, Nicholson and Grgic would join them to become established league players. In 2007 we have: Bartram,(22) Bate (14), Buckley, Dunn(11), Frawley, Garland, CJ (13), Jones (8), McLean(47), Neville, Newton, Petterd, Weetra, Bode, Hughes, Neaves and formerly Hayes. It’s debatable, but I’d argue that the 2007 season saw us far more reliant on our juniors than we were ten years ago. We know not all will go on to play senior football, we know some will become very good players This is even more evident if we are to compare the 22 and 23 year olds. Rivers (61), Moloney (51), Sylvia (36), Bell (28), PJ (11), and Warnock (2) opposed to 1997’s Charles (43), Leoncelli (33), Pesch (31), Neitz (3) and Gaspar (0). I’ll let others prognosticate as to the relative merits of the two lists, the point I’m getting at is that there is a core group there to move beyond 2007 as there was in 97. Port Adelaide have shown that the fortunes of a footy club can turn around very quickly. In 1998 significantly we had a new coach, the No 1 draft pick, a high profile recruit, a seasoned veteran courtesy of the PSD and importantly our best players back on deck. I have no idea how the rest of the year will shape up, (Its still far too early to start dreaming of draft picks), but if the trend continues, then I am happy to look ahead.