grazman

I don't have any objections to the list per se as it is only the view of an impartial view of an outsider. Mind you a bloke that has only played 8 games for the club ranked a bloke that has played 200 odd is a damning indictment.

This is both pleasing and troubling. Farmer and Johnston out are a good result for us, but clearly the interpretation on high contact as demonstrated by both Stokes and Johnston is going to be strictly enforced. Lets hope our players have taken note. BTW Freo have already sought advice and there will be no appeals to the penalties.

Hmmm. I'd like to see their rationale, "we think four weeks is too severe for an intenional act that could have permanently damaged the vision of another player." If they do challenge, then I hope the AFL imposes the maximum penalty - it was a needless and violent act of stupidity that severly damages the reputation of the game. I think that they need to go away and assess the way they come up with these penalties. I agree with Fan, I think a player that does this should look to spend at least half a season on the sideline.

Jeff's lucky he's playing in the modern era. 30 years ago, players had their own way of sorting out this sort of tactic. I think there is well and truly an onus on the AFL to send the strongest possible message in relation to such incidents.

Doesn't look good for young Jeffrey. Another Brain Explosion, compounded by the fact that his opponent dobbed him in - you could only assume he will offer evidence to the tribunal. Eye gouging is nasty - both for the potential harm to a player and the reputation of the game. You would think with Jeff's record at least four to six weeks is warranted, but we always seem to cop him coming back from injury or suspension. Any bets on whether he gets three weeks?

Beat me to it Jim. I watched the Swans and Tigers yesterday. The Swans side was 200% stronger than the one that played the previous week. For sides that see themselves as serious contenders the NAB sidetracks their preparations. They'd rather be out of it.

I'm pretty sure Michael Pickering at least was shot in terms of his body being able to withstand the rigours of footy. I think it was his knees. Just as an aside, both Goodwin and Pickering joined the Dees in 92 from Richmond and finished their careers in 93. I think we got them both for trading "Strawbs" O'Dwyer.... back in the days when teams didn't really research as heavily into player injuries as they do now.

I found Trevor Nisbett's comments interesting.... basically my interpretation was "Daniel's {Kerr} a tool, he keeps getting himself into trouble, we wish he would stop, luckily for him he can play footy"

I believe West Coast are looking into the feasibility of employing at least a dozen extra-curricular managers as well as employing an extra media manager to assist with the workload. I've also heard whispers that Woosha is using his contacts in the pharmecutical world to source a water quality manager to ensure that everything is up to AFL standard.

Here's an interesting stat from the weekend and just to give a little perspective on the merit of such a competition. Of last years finalists only two teams won in the first round. Freo and the Bulldogs, and they had to play another finalist anyway. Sydney, West Coast, Adelaide, Saint Kilda, Collingwood and the Dees all lost. With the exception of the Pies I would expect all those teams to be in the running for the finals. Just thought you'd be interested.

In fairness RR, I think Golly may have been referring to the 2002 Season. - Oh, and I think even though it was an NAB cup game CJ demonstrated enough to suggest he has arrived. If Danny Ward gets a game ahead of him from now on the Coach needs to be institutionalised. I'll disagree with most on PJ. He was beaten in the ruck, and will be on most occasions IMO, but what I like about him is the quality of his disposal and the fact that at least he is mobile. If people thought he was terrible, what did they think of Robbie Campbell and Simon Taylor? For mine I'd persist with him.

Nope. but, then I don't think they are rhetorical questions either Fan (sorry I'm being difficult I know). I don't think the answers are self evident - they are open to interpretation. I agree that there is a certain cyclical nature to a list - which depending on your recruiting can keep you up or down- and I believe our list now is strong, but whether it is getting stronger will be dependent on whether player like Bate and Dunn will be better players than Neitz and White. Like I said the clock doesn't work for me because time is constant and doesn't move backwards. Did Schwab get it wrong at the Hawks by believing in the clock? Well I think they got it wrong because they didn't get the best out of their players and recruited some duds. So here is a problem to mull over? Is the "premiership clock" simply an elaborate hoax perpetrated by coaches to deflect supporter expectations? (and yes I believe that any new coach needs time to implement his regime - but list development - well bad recruiting choices are always going to hurt clubs long term - and it demonstrates more than ever the need for clubs to invest more and more time, effort and money into selecting the right kids)

Essendon 93-2000 , 2 premierships in eight years and only dropped out of the finals in two of those eight years. The clock doesn't work for me, because for me the analogy is wrong. Time is constant, it doesn't stop or go backwards according to poor decision making, it can't be accelerated because of some miscalculation. It's an abstract concept, but one that is bounded by certain laws. How do you have 16 clubs whose chronographs are dependent on each other, but somehow working on different principles. For me its simple, players retire or get delisted, new players are traded in or drafted. When you have enough good players who play for the team then you'll have a shot. BTW I saw nothing to suggest that the Swans list in five years time won't still be strong. They have a lot of reasonable unknown juniors courtesy of their expanded rookie list. Basically they get twice the opportunity to find a Nathan Carroll or Aaron Davey as clubs like Melbourne do.

The issue of list development has taken hold of me lately. How does a club go about developing a list and ensuring that they are competitive? There are many different variables at different clubs, but I find it intriguing the differences of approach at Adelaide and Sydney when they changed coaches compared to say Hawthorn an Richmond - and thanks for raising that topic Fan. When Adelaide recruited the Duck, I like many others I think, made comment at the time that it smacked a little of desperation and was seen as a last roll of the dice with an aging list. Two years later the Duck was shot as was their premiership clock coach in Gary Ayres. Enter stage left Neil Craig - he had a list with aging stars, young kids and precious little in between. In that time he has manufactured one of the tightest most disciplined outfits going around that with a little luck could easily have been playing off in the last two Grand Finals. I'd fallen for the premiership clock bait and like Professor Miller asked myself "Why is it so?" - or rather "Why aren't they rebuilding?" Hawthorn adopted the premiership clock model and it remains to be seen how many of their young kids will make the cut, though I think Fan that its pretty clear why they unloaded Hay and they actually wanted to keep Everett, but he was always out for himself. To say that both they and Richmond had wasted years in wrongly assessing their list is right, only so far as they believed that some of their players were better than what they were. I think Saint Kilda will be a fascinating case study this year. Many have pinned their lack of success to one man and see that Ross Lyon is now in the box seat to have a tilt at a flag with a list approaching midnight. I can't see that there is a cycle in a list - players come on to the list and players leave it. I assume that the premiership clock being linked to the core of players is somehow linked to relative draft selections over a number of years. I think Adelaide and Sydney have demonstrated that this doesn't have to be the case. Just a rider to my previous analysis though Fan, the seven I mentioned being 30 and over didn't include two other players you mentioned. Here is a complete list of our listed players 30 and over this year - I'll leave it up to individuals how many they think would make a grand final team. Bizzell 31 Brown 31 Holland 30 Junior 31 Neitz 32 Pickett 30 Ward 30 White 30 Yze 30 FWIW I have my own theory about Premierships... those with the most money to invest in their footy departments win them. The exception in the last 20 years has been North, and all it took for them to do it was the best player the game has ever seen.

I think we are on a similar band width, if not completely on the same wavelength Fan. Older recruits/rookies like Carroll and Davey have worked for us, but only when they have got their heads right and decided they wanted to play footy. I know many subscribe to the premiership clock, but I'm not one of them. Nor do I suspect is Leigh Matthews. There was an interesting article in the HUN the other day that caught my eye. http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E19746,00.html Many may have given this a cursory glance and not much of a second thought. Many would consider that the Lions are now entering a phase of "rebuilding". They've had success and a significant experience loss. Many would expect them to accept their lot in the football cycle. I think it's a very brave move by one of the league's most successful coaches. The process is a brutal one and many an ego will be bruised, but it is one that seeks to identify those whose priority is themselves and those that are driven to succeed. It identifies weaknesses with players, coaches, staff the club culture etc. There is no scientific formula for success in footy. Sides need talent, but that alone is not enough. Many are hungry, but there are many dissapointed players from other clubs that watch the grandfinal on TV. Team unity and discipline is what separates the premiers from the contenders. Being able to work as a cohesive unit. Talent, hunger and discipline. We need to be better organised and disciplined and exploit our opponents weaknesses to cause confusion and demoralise them.

Hmmm. Not many positives to really take from interclub matches at the best of times, As Yabby Jeans would say it's a bit like dancing with your sister. It does sound a bit like ground hog day though doesn't it.... McLean - quad, Moloney - Groin, Sylvia- hmmm, Byron- weight. Then Pettard does a hammy - always a worry when the guy is 18 (28 is understandable, but 18 is a worry) Bruce on fire - he always fires early and with no injuries (touch wood) should be a monty for a swag of brownlow votes in our first four or five games. I'm hoping my predictions about Jamar come true, because I think he is a vital element if we are to go further in 07. I wont get too upset, I really don't care if we win our first NAB cup game at all, the emphasis should definately be on being conservative with players, particularly those coming back from OP or with niggling soft tissue injuries.

No mean feat to be able to "hang around" any football club for ten years Franky. I guess the rules are pretty cut and dried. No matter what people may think of the relative playing merits of blokes like Nico or Shane Zantuck, they got their life membership because of the time they gave to the MFC. Whilst any of three you mention would be worthy recipients, if you start fudging the boundaries, where do you stop?

Fan, Jaded. I know I'm flogging a dead horse here and probably only reinforcing my own self defeating prophecies. But here goes.... I don't necessarily agree with your contention Fan. To a point it is true - teenagers rarely have the motor or the body shape to compete for 120 minutes at AFL standard. But...I would expect that by the time a player reaches 23 and over they are starting to approach their maximum in terms of physical condition and hence capacity. Neitz is still a powerful player, but this is complemented by his experience. I did a little research that suggest that neither Robbo's or Adem's last three finals were a patch on their previous three. This of course can be explained by playing different roles, injuries etc. My own view is that neither player has contributed significantly in the last three finals and the trend is going downwards and doesn't compare favourably to players of a similar age like Neita, Junior and Whitey. As you say Jaded Pickett is a big game player and his stats compare favourably. I realise that the following data is a little arbitrary in a way but compare the age of the Grand Finalists and our last team. Dees. 30+ three 26-29 nine 23-25 three 18-22 seven Swans 30+ one 26-29 ten 23-25 seven 18-22 four Eagles 30+ two 26-29 six 23-25 nine 18-22 five Looks comprable, sort of.... well how about this year. With the same sides in 07 the Dees will have 7 players over 30, the Swans 4 players and the Eagles just one (Banfield retired). My contention is that of more importance than the age of a player is attitude. No disrespect to Kent Kingsley, but just because you get older, doesn't mean you get better. I'm not pushing older guys out for younger guys because they are younger, I'm suggesting we pick blokes on form and attitude irrespective of their age.

I'm not sure of your contention Fan, but if you mean that McLean, Bartram, Jones etc weren't the players that let us down last year then I agree. My view is that I don't care how many games a bloke has played for the club, the only form that is important is his current form. I don't want Yesterday's hero's, I want today's.

I think if we are going to be as good as Jared Rivers suggested this week in the media - then we need the next tier of younger players to move to the next level (which at least in pre season it appears as though they are). With Bate, Jones, McLean, Bell, Dunn etc coming on, the 30+ players I see as automatic selections are the skipper and junior. As mercurial as some of the other older brigade are - Yze, Robbo, Byron etc. They really need to be consistent rather than brilliant and If we are to be a contender I see them as depth players. One good performance every three or four games from three or four players isn't enough. Premierships are won by sides with the players who play consistently well, not necessarily brilliantly well.

Given that the list is now three years older, and so is Clint, I can't see him being in our best 22. If he is then good luck to him, but it would be an indictment on the notion of "list development"

There are a couple of thorny issues involved. Firstly the rule itself (as pointed out by Simon Beasley) can be easily flaunted and is almost impossible to police. I assume the only players that have been caught have had accounts in their own name. Secondly Daniel Ward has been mentioned in despatches for gambling before - but this is not a second offense, nor is it related. The only issue in the first instance was a private matter that really should not have made the press and had absolutely nothing to do with him being an AFL footballer. Like most people the players most renowned for a flutter came to mind first.... but would my response be any different if it was Brock that was named instead of Daniel. Its worth bearing that in mind when people frame their responses. FWIW I think the AFL has a far bigger issue with recreational drugs than players betting on matches, but this should help to deflect attention and show AFL House's resolution to uphold the image of the game.

Not really - but since taking over as coach the Swans have not progressed past the first round since. They didn't win a single pre season match in 05 and had a very lacklustre 06 preseason (including twice losing to fellow preseason slugs Essendon). They play the favourites in the Bulldogs - I'd say save any of your hard earned because it may as well be $141 - the Swans won't even raise a sweat.

I doubt it somehow. If he was going to bulk up he would have done so already. Pity he wasn't playing in the 70s because he could have sunk a slab every night and he would have had the bulk to play.

Bookies aren't stupid, which explains why sides like Brisbane and Sydney are so far down the odds. I think that's a fair field. I wouldn't waste even a kopek on the toigs though.