titan_uranus

You're completely off topic. The intent of the players is irrelevant. If they took it, they took it. If they intended to take it but didn't take it, then they didn't take it. The issue is about what happened, not about intent.

Intent of whom? And why would that be relevant anyway?

As you've pointed out already, it's the first and third that are most important of those three. Mainly the third. An injection of a couple of A-grade 18 year olds, and hopefully an injection of an A-grade established player (or B-grader, maybe) will help us with depth, whilst a new, better coach will help with the latter.

He was injured, but he deserved to be dropped for his month of laziness.

Note the wording on the AFL site - 'Mitch Clisby, Melbourne, has been charged after an investigation by the AFL Match Review Panel with a level four engaging in rough conduct Offence. All the other charges just say they've been charged without this 'investigation'. They undertook an 'investigation', presumably going beyond the TV footage, to see what happened.

Watson never admitted he took AOD. His 'admission' was simply that he believed he was taking AOD. If the players didn't admit to it, then your whole argument here is...well, I refer you to your first word. Rubbish rjay. Total and utter rubbish. You are advocating here for a complete reversal of everything that constitutes natural justice. If ASADA doesn't know who took what, it is completely improper for them to just say 'well, we know someone took something, so we'll charge every player'. That is ripe to be destroyed in a court of law; that's exactly the type of situation Essendon will be able to get itself out of.

You can't 'recklessly' kick someone in the head. Either it is 'negligent' (i.e. you clearly weren't watching and had no intent whatsover, but extended your leg and hit them) or you knew what you were doing. Brown's actions weren't 'reckless'. They were intentional. Moreover, how could a kick to the head which breaks the victim's nose not be 'severe'? That is insanely ridiculous. Finally, his charge was 'misconduct in that he made unreasonable and unnecessary contact to the face'. Sorry MRP, do you mean 'kicking'? Campbell Brown is the lowest AFL player I've seen in years, if not ever. The MRP has a collective IQ no greater than a brick.

Ignoring your hyperbolic statement about innocent advantages (you realise that a better fitness manager gives a team a real/perceived advantage over another, don't you?), the point still remains - who took what, and when? If Dank does have these records (that's not a fact, as you're making it sound), then ASADA's going to need to get them soon, since the word seems to be that the investigation is winding up. If those records are flawless and comprehensive and make it patently clear who took what, then yes, that is going to make it easier to penalise players. But those records currently don't exist, and until they do, the players are going to get off.

Harris is having a massive one. Top 3 all gone, keeping us in the hunt. Pietersen and Bell could change this Test, if we can remove one or both of them cheaply we might just be in with a sniff.

An observation about umpiring/DRS: Three umpiring errors were made this morning in our innings (Rogers paid not out, Lyon paid out, Harris paid not out). The use of the DRS ensured that the correct decision was made on two of them, whilst if Lyon had chosen to review, the third error would have been corrected as well. When the DRS is used correctly, it works. The problem has generally been incorrect use by the third umpire and by the players. There are flaws which need to be addressed (Hot Spot's reliability, getting real-time Snicko, ensuring the third umpire knows exactly what he's doing), but the DRS is helping reduce the number of incorrect decisions.

Actually, there is a large place in which the players can hide. The latest mail appears to suggest that no infraction notices are going to be issued because ASADA has been unable to identify which players took what substances. The general notion that Essendon administered someone with a banned substance seems to be clear, and that is going to lead to Essendon being hit. But I don't think any specific player is going down because I don't think ASADA can prove which players took what. And to be honest, I think that's actually a reasonable outcome. Essendon as a club deserves punishment, and they're going to get it, but I've always felt a bit for the players and I'd be pretty happy if they got off despite the club being hit.

This problem, of having no respect for or faith in the coach, is immediately removed by hiring Roos, Williams or Eade. That alone is a strong enough reason to reject any notion of hiring an untried coach.

I doubt it. I'd expect that if they were stripped of points then the results of the games would remain the same (i.e. Essendon won), but that they simply received 0 premiership points for their victories.

You're overstating Davis' ability to compete in the air. It's not like he played like Mitch Clark. Watts is just as competitive in the air as Davis was. If Watts lacks competitiveness, it's not in the air it's on the ground. Watts is not a key forward in the sense of being someone like Dawes, Clark or Hogan. But, as B-H alluded to, he is in the mould of a Gunston-type forward. I'm not saying Watts doesn't add value in defence, though there are some games where's been largely ineffectual down there. What I think, though, is that in the long term Watts is best suited to playing as the third tall in the forward line, pushing up past half forward at times. As for McKenzie, one kick doesn't make a player. On the whole, McKenzie's kicking is poor, he misses targets too often and doesn't usually have penetration (yes, he made 50 yesterday, but if that wasn't a surprise to you, then you don't watch McKenzie enough). I'm rapt with his performance in shutting down Ablett, and as I said, if he is continually able to tag a midfielder out of a game, then he stays in the side no matter how he kicks. He wasn't doing that at the start of the year though, and when he doesn't tag someone effectively, he offers almost nothing.

He might have been handy, that's for sure. However, on the form he'd displayed in the previous month, he wouldn't have been. He's been lazy and hasn't gotten involved in games enough. Clearly has more talent than about 20 other players on our list combined, but he's not been producing for us of late.

I haven't been able to see all of the game, which is a bit disappointing given I've sat through some much worse performances. On the failure to run over the top of them - yes, they were down to one on the bench. But look at our draw. This was our second consecutive interstate game. It was our third game in four weeks outside of Melbourne. The past month has included a trip to Geelong in the wet and a trip to Brisbane. That's a really tough 5 week period for any club, let alone one as terrible as ours with a fitness base as low as ours. So to not steamroll them, rotations or no rotations, doesn't surprise me too much, nor disappoint me. What disappoints me is the fact that we went inside 50 more than them, had more of the ball than them, had more scoring shots than them, but couldn't get it done. That's not a common position for us, so in that regard it's something of a positive, but at the same time as a football match, you'd expect to win games like this. Lessons to learn for our players. Those slamming Byrnes need to read Nasher's post a few pages back. Byrnes, in general over his career, is an accurate kick, and has kicked far more goals than behinds (both in 2013 and in his career). Last night was an exception, not the norm. He had 7 shots on goal. Melbourne players outside of Mitch Clark don't usually do that. Yes, some of his misses were poor, but given that our disposal team-wide wasn't great, let's at least acknowledge that he was able to create scoring opportunities. Garland continues to develop into an A-grader, as does N Jones. Spencer and Gawn have shown this year that they promise to be a really competitive ruck duo. Our forward line is crying out for a marking target, so when Clark, Dawes, Hogan and/or Howe line up there next year, that aspect of our failings will be rectified. Not sure why we keep playing Davey, he's adding very little. Nicholson also should be the first one dropped. McKenzie keeps getting a game while he keeps shutting players out, but his kicking is still a problem. Those whinging about Watts wanting to see who the new coach is should look to last night as explanation. Watts is a forward and should be played there. It's ridiculous how Craig kept him back whilst Davis floundered up forward. How can you blame Watts for wanting to know what his future holds when he's being played out of position on a weekly basis?

Disappointing to have lost that quarter given the dominance we appeared to show. From the comments here about Nicholson, I just do not understand why we play him.

Rubbish shot from Clarke. We've been lucky this morning some regards, though Rogers looks a bit settled in. Three down now but no Clarke. We need a big one from Rogers.

Regardless of how scrappy things are, we've had more disposals, more contested possessions, more inside 50s (WTF?!) and more centre clearances. And, until that Thompson goal, we actually were leading.

Explanation for those without TV/radio?

That's the correct DRS decision. The third umpire would have told Hill it was 'umpire's call' on hitting the stumps, and he would have said 'I didn't think it was hitting the stumps'. Therefore, on the catch it was not out because he didn't hit it, but on the LBW it remains not out because, ignoring the bat, it wasn't hitting the stumps. Rogers very lucky, though.

So for those not able to watch, who is standing out? Statistics would suggest N Jones, Viney, Trengove and Terlich are all getting amongst it. Anyone standing out? Conversely, who's struggling? Nicholson copping some flak I see. Anyone else? I guess, after last week, to be 3 points down at half time is a positive. Disposals: 180-190 Clearances: 17-19 Inside 50s: 26-22 Contested possessions: 58-67 Tackles: 33-22

2/12. Warner and Khawaja both found wanting against inswing. Good bowling, but both of them were struggling to get bat on ball in general. Broad's bowled a few leg-side deliveries, but neither was able to put them away. Need Rogers and Clarke to hold on, wear the shine off the ball, see off the swing, because as it keeps swinging we're going to keep losing wickets.

But Watts has kicked two goals...is he playing HBF?

Is it McKenzie? Also, for help, where is Davis playing? Forward? Does that mean Watts is in defence?