titan_uranus

That free was bad IMO but they never should have been in that position. 44 up 20 mins into the third and 31 up 4 mins into the fourth.

Surely Brent Daniels didn’t hear the whistle when he took the advantage…

How [censored] disgusting. I cannot stand that mob and now I have to watch them play Geelong in a prelim? GWS choked worse than we did last year. Led both finals by 20+ at 3QT and lost both. Completely fell apart in this one, had a 7 point lead and the ball in a slow play with 4 minutes left, too.

So you’d keep them all out of contract waiting to see if we can find, what, 10 new players in trade week?

This is usually how it works for out of contract players. The club runs the risk that if it doesn’t accede to the player’s request, the player will put a price on their head when nominating for the draft to ensure they get to their preferred destination, and so the club does a deal to avoid getting nothing at all. For a contracted player, run the counter factual and assume we say no. What does the player do? Sit out the year in protest? How does that help their cause?

What is this?

Not yet official but seems close. Same article also says we’ve not offered Tomlinson an extension yet, and that Hore also has to wait to see if we extend him.

I’d be interested in Cerra but only on the basis that we’ve done medical due diligence and are satisfied his repeat soft tissue injuries can be fixed. At any rate, even if his soft tissue problems are fixable, he’s no longer worth a first round pick IMO. Not without something else coming back.

The main benefit to this is that he would no longer be able to kick bags against us. (In all seriousness, I’m not against it as a cheap option to try to strengthen the forward line, given my view is our capital needs to be spent first and foremost on our midfield/half back line).

When I said “sued” I should have said “claimed against”. Not all of it ends up in court, and not all of that ends up plastered all over the media either. But regardless, it’s not the club I’d be concerned about if I were Caro. It’s the MFC doctor individually, who she is borderline alleging was medically negligent, or the other medicos (ambos, hospital docs), or MCG staff (she insinuates there were miscommunications which led to Trac’s condition being worsened).

No they don’t. They get sued all the time for defamation.

I take it that you’ve not once this year bemoaned us not getting Chol, D’Ambrosio or Ginnivan, nor bemoaned Jordon leaving us?

You’re still salty about not being allowed to go on radio and mouth off at the club?

This is true. However she went very close to alleging medical negligence by the club, AFL, ambos and/or hospitals. She even caught herself and said she wasn’t explicitly suggesting as much, which was a bit like trying to unring the bell.

Great post. The way Caro stumbled over what she was raising as “issues” is telling. She was asked where they would lead and had nothing to say. All that lies at the heart of her story is that Paul Marsh has just returned from 3 months leave of absence, which means he wasn’t here at KB, and so he’s now asking questions about what happened. That’s not entirely surprising. It doesn’t mean there are new issues, nor that they’re the club’s fault (or anyone’s).

From whom? You can DM me if required.

If you think Kennedy's kicking "too regularly fails to hit targets", but you think Nick Hind is an option, I don't know what you're seeing.

Yes, I mean the affidavit itself. Is it publicly available?

Where did you get this from @Hawk the Demon?

The [censored]? If anything, it's indisputable that we're in better shape than when she started in 2013. The debate is over the role she played in that change.

Nothing could be more Brisbane than losing from 61-0.

Hawks riding a wave of confidence and fitness (largely untroubled by injury all year, although they're doing this to the Dogs without Will Day). Every year you back the EF winner to beat the QF loser, and right now how can you pick Port to beat Hawthorn? But most years straight sets doesn't happen for a reason. If they knock Port off, they're as good a chance as any side of beating Sydney at the SCG to make the GF. Which leaves the Geelong v Hawthorn GF alive. For all the equalisation measures the AFL has implemented, having Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney in the top handful of sides yet again is not good.

I suspect @DeeSpencer is talking about the 23 playing, not the entire list. The side currently playing has an average age of 25y 6m (Dogs are 26y 8m) and average games played of 107.6 (Dogs are 130.8). They're not that far off the same age/experience as Port last night (25y 10m and 107 games). I suspect they're the youngest side playing finals (perhaps GWS will be similar?) but they're nothing like some of the sides we saw in Round 24 (e.g. Fremantle was 24y 10m, Adelaide 24y 5m, GC was 24y 10m, North was 24y 9m).

“Twin reviews”?

If you accept that 7-8 become also rans, why do you then advocate for them playing 9-10? The AFL want this for money. Most of the rest of us don’t want more unnecessary games of football which, contrary to your argument, do reward mediocrity by putting 9-10 into finals (because let’s be honest, the wild card round is simply another week of finals).