titan_uranus

This is why the AFLPA, and the AFL, are not happy. There is very little chance Franklin is going to last 9 years. More important, there is very little chance either Sydney or Franklin expect him to keep playing for 9 years. The main issue that arises is one of payments. If he doesn't make it through the 9 years, and retires or is delisted, the remaining wages owed to him have to be paid in that year's cap. Brisbane got around this by keeping Voss on their list despite him having retired. In the modern era, with a stronger AFLPA, I don't think Sydney can get away with that. Rookie or otherwise, to waste a spot on an AFL list just to benefit a rich player, for what might be 2-3-4 years, won't be acceptable. There may well also be legal issues, relating to competition law. If Sydney is trying to shore up Franklin to mainly keep him off the market for 9 years, the AFL might be concerned with the anti-competitive nature of the contract.

You got the analogy wrong (hand wringing = angst, as mentioned), but your points are generally spot on. This move is bad for Melbourne. GWS now has more money to try to attract the same players we're going to be interested in (GWS has money, we have Roos and the city of Melbourne. That's the true material difference between the clubs right now, IMO). They're also more likely to be able to keep any players they were possibly going to lose, such as Adams, given they now have more money to up their offers. The Mumford one I'm not so sure about, given the rumours all seem to link him to Hawthorn (seemingly as part of a trade, and to replace Bailey).

Huge. Tony Sheahan was on the money before anyone else. Good on him. This is seriously huge. First, that Sydney can afford Franklin. Second, that he would have one successful club for another (if I were a Hawks fan I'd be more upset). Third, that GWS has missed out - where do they go now?

No, that wasn't your point. If it was, you wouldn't/shouldn't have started going on about attitudes and elite running. Gunston and Fyfe are two of the skinniest players in their respective sides. Your devotion to your sinking ship of an argument seems to be clouding your judgement on that. And finally, as has been addressed, Morton's running was elite by AFL standards. His attitude was not, but his running was.

You're not helping your own point. Attitude is not relevant to the debate as to build. They're all skinny players. Their attitudes are clearly different, but their bodies less so. Also, if Morton is anything, anything at all, he's an elite runner. That was rarely in question when he was here. Gunston and Fyfe definitely have different appetites for the contest and different attitudes towards how they play. They remain, however, skinny.

I had some doubts about the umpiring too. I thought they were far too keen on paying holding the ball, I suspect because they were told not to let Fremantle's overly defensive game ruin the GF.

Let's be clear about a few things. First of all, this whole Shaw and 10 for pick 2 thing is absolute nonsense. It's nothing but a speculative piece of garbage written by Jay Clark, who knows nothing about football. There is no way in hell that any side, from Melbourne to Hawthorn, thinks Heath Shaw is worth that much. Not one. Secondly, this talk of trading Clark to Fremantle is insanity. Clark showed at his peak last year that he can be a totally dominant FF. We can't just put the burden on Hogan to be a star from Round 1, and we need to make sure we have the leadership and direction in the forward line to help Hogan develop. Clark is integral to our push up the ladder. He goes nowhere.

I'd be fairly shocked if Fremantle was shopping Fyfe around. As much as they need a FF, Fyfe is not worth it. More likely, I think, would be that GWS is snooping around and offering pick 1 for Fyfe.

We're aware.

Two main reasons why Hawthorn won (or more aptly, Fremantle lost): 1. Bad kicking for goal. Enough said on the kicking, but in the first half the main problem was the places they were taking the shots from. Too many shots were taken from 40-60 metres out, and with that early squally wind that was stupid. Hawthorn's goals came from close range (or Gunston, who almost never misses). 2. Subbing Clarke off. Bailey was always going to be taken off so they were probably planning on it, but in the fourth quarter when Fremantle went forward, there was just nothing there for them. Pavlich was the only forward. It let Lake play loose and he continued to mark their inside 50s. Clarke was doing his job, nothing special but he was providing Sandilands with support. In the fourth the two ruckmen should have alternated between ruck and FF to man up Lake and provide a target. Massive mistake from Lyon, I think. In the end, Hawthorn was clearly the best side this year and deserved the flag. Hopefully they go away now.

Haven't heard, but I'm sure I can guess: SEN: Question Colless: Whinge. Repeat.

Will be a new development coach. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/melbourne/news/2013-09-23/miller-returns-to-demons

Those who think Hawthorn are a monty to win the premiership clearly don't watch enough of Fremantle. In Melbourne, in a first Grand Final, with that added pressure, I don't know if Fremantle will get over Hawthorn, but the possibility is absolutely there, and on current form, there is a strong chance Fremantle will get up. And boy would I love that. How did he not make the AA team? Both Hawthorn and Fremantle were inaccurate in their preliminary finals.

Don't agree at all. Geelong got the game at Simonds. How much more advantage did they need? They lost because Fremantle was (and is) better than them, not because Ross Lyon rested some players. Then, they lost to Hawthorn because Hawthorn was (and is) better than them. Don't forget Hawthorn had more inside 50s, more clearances, more of the ball, and more scoring shots. The current finals system rewards teams who finish top 4. You get the shot at the week off, which history shows is the key to getting into the GF. Also, preliminary finals aren't 'lopsided' - Hawthorn was down by 20 at three quarter time and only took the lead with 5 or so minutes remaining, and only won by 5 points, with Varcoe missing a shot in the last minute that would have forced the game into overtime. Last year Hawthorn beat Adelaide by 2 points. The year before, Collingwood beat Hawthorn by 3 points. Make the top 4, get a shot at a week off and a preliminary. Propping up teams 4-8, or even 3 and 4 at the expense of 1 and 2, diminishes the home and away portion of the year.

Mitch Duncan in the fourth quarter didn't help. Twice took marks in defensive 50 and turned it over from his kick out by bombing long and without purpose. Leigh Matthews summed it up - Geelong was playing like there was only 30 seconds left even when there was 3 minutes to go. I disagree with you on your predictions of the GF. Fremantle is a worthy opponent, and will take it up to Hawthorn. Under real pressure, like last night, Hawthorn can buckle. Crowley is capable of nullifying Mitchell, without whom Hawthorn would have lost by 4 or so goals last night. Up forward, Pavlich is capable of tearing Lake/Stratton apart. Fremantle's midfield pressure will keep the contest tight, too.

Colless is a sh*t-stirring cry-baby. The game will be better off when he's no longer involved with it.

Because, if we don't have any LTIs, we can't play Clisby until Round 12 (when all clubs are allowed to promote one rookie regardless of LTIs). Clisby is borderline best 22 right now. He earned his spot on the senior list, and deserves to be in the running to play AFL football from Round 1.

Ralph Carr appears to be incompetent. Whilst I don't really sympathise with Martin, who's had that Richmond deal in front of him for a long time, and who has gotten himself into a lot of the trouble that is hurting his career move prospects, Carr's apparently ineptitude is destroying his value by the second.

This. Sylvia is the only player on our list who exhibits genuine A-grade talent both inside and out (not that he ever shows it consistently). Adams has this, and is improved almost weekly.

If Jay Clark said it, then it's almost certainly not true.

Martin's talent is exactly, and I mean exactly, what we need. He has explosive pace but gets his own ball (i.e. he's both 'outside' and 'inside'), and he kicks goals. Obviously the off-field stuff and his culture issues are a problem, but if Roos thinks there's something to work with, then I'm all for taking him.

When it's Watts, they're 'demands'. I guarantee if it was Jack Viney, people would be saying 'good on him for taking a stand on his career, what a legend, he owes this club nothing' etc etc.

Quite possibly, yes. I'm not sure what you're on about. Of course there would be no WADA; unless your workplace is the MCG, WADA is completely irrelevant. Ignoring that, what has WorkSafe got to complain about? They'll inspect and find...what? At the moment, nothing. If they are to undertake an investigation, they'll do so after ASADA has finished. If ASADA doesn't charge the players, then WorkSafe won't bother. I've had this semantics argument a few times, but suffice to say I don't think this bit is correct. I don't agree that he said 'I took AOD'.

Well done to Zimbabwe for winning only their 10th Test ever, and their first against a side other than Bangladesh since 2001. There's a bit of talent in Zimbabwe. A pity there are so many external factors hampering their professionalism. More exposure to the better Test sides might see them develop into something more than a minnow.

ANZ Stadium is a disgrace. The AFL is borderline putting player safety at risk by subjecting them to the woefully sub-standard surface. A paltry crowd of 37,000 means there is no justification any longer for continuing to play games at that soulless piece of junk. The sooner the AFL leaves ANZ Stadium to the NRL, the better.