titan_uranus

So you're clearly another idiot who subscribes to the 'you don't know what you're talking about if you haven't played AFL before'. One of the only benefits of a world where only AFL players could comment on football would be your absence from it. If you wish to go down the 'he's had a better first year, therefore he's going to be a better player' route, then go for it, but history has shown that the start a player makes to their career doesn't always reflect the career overall. I can cope with a Wines/Toumpas comparison, but not as much with a 'Wines is better than Toumpas' whinge. I'm not judging his status at all, I'm merely pointing out to those who are drooling over him that his form in the last few weeks had tapered, which may (or may not) have led to his being made the substitute (I'd say it was relevant at the least). I'm probably biased, to an extent most on here are, but not in this regard. Clearly if you needed to pick one of the two to play in your side right now you'd pick Wines, but that doesn't mean Wines is going to be the better player, and I'm more than happy to have Toumpas on the list instead of Wines.

Grimes won't come in for Dunn (as much as I'd enjoy that). Dunn's being used in defence and Grimes has been used this year in the middle. I think Grimes and Viney will be pushing directly at Rodan's spot, as well as Byrnes, Nicholson and Blease (our more fringe midfielders).

From my understanding Grimes is eligible to play this week. That means Magner is no longer eligible, as his spot was only temporary whilst Grimes was on the LTI.

Wonderful, another Watts thread on Demonland becomes a Watts v Naitanui disgrace. Watts > Naitanui. End of story. Naitanui is the most over-rated player of the last few decades.

This would make sense, if we weren't missing Grimes and Viney.

Well that shows the commentators don't really know what they're talking about. Wines is a good young player, sure, but creative play-maker he is not, so that comment is baloney. It's also pertinent to note that Wines was the sub yesterday. His game was good, sure, but before Cassisi went down, to state the obvious Wines was considered the 22nd player. The continued Wines v Toumpas stuff is frustrating, especially given Toumpas has shown true development in the space of half a season (both pre- and post-Neeld).

Last week's game no longer exists? I think he's a poor user of the ball, though I haven't been able to see the game yesterday so maybe he was alright. I've noticed his kicking to be up and under and more often than others missing the target, and I also have considered his decision-making to be poor at times. Obviously he's not the only one who's like that in our side this year, and the rest of his game more than makes up for it, so I don't particularly care. Maybe I notice it more because he's a good player otherwise, as opposed to with some other players for whom poor disposal is just one of a number of flaws.

That's more than various other players on our list. He's also doing it at the right time (i.e. under Craig and not Neeld). Obviously need to see him repeat it, but it's at least something.

I've been vehemently against the bugler ever since it started. At the end of the game is better than before it, but it's still unnecessary, pretentious, silly and embarrassing. It also reminds me of the Schwab era, and for that reason alone it should probably just be done away with.

I'd look at this glass half-full and say that for 3.5 quarters we managed to quell a midfield containing Griffin, Boyd, Cooney and others. As has been said, if we draft/trade/recruit properly, and bolster the midfield, clearly the back and forward lines are coming along nicely and we'll begin to rise.

Buckley was ruining his career by forcing him to be a forward-ruck. He clearly isn't a ruck. Thought Collingwood would break even by getting Lynch but clearly they're not, and that makes me happy.

Watched most of this game, it's nice to feel good about a side and watch players playing well for a change. It's all been said about Hogan. His kicking action is really weird and doesn't look great (I feel like his follow-through is average), but who gives a rat's, really? Pedersen was outstanding. For whatever reason, he's on the giant list of Melbourne players who have been fine at VFL level but inadequate at AFL level. He looked a class above and a leader today. Played the kind of game we should be seeing consistently from him or Dunn in the seniors. Magner and Couch are two honest footballers, but Magner's body language was appalling today, and his decision-making at times woeful. Couch's clearance work is fantastic, which obviously Melbourne is crying out for, but his disposal is shocking, truly awful. I can see why neither are getting games, though I do sympathise and at times wonder if we could at least give them a shot in a season which is long gone. It must be tough on them to see some players get rewarded based on one or two noticeable games whilst they consistently go about their business, and when we're battling in the middle, some clearance work would be appreciated. But on what I saw today, the extra speed and intensity of AFL football would be far too much for Couch, whilst Magner's not going anywhere whilst he cracks the sooks like he did today.

Exactly what scrutiny could be placed upon Patton? He's played 10 games.

Umpiring AFL is a thankless and horrendously difficult job. There are too many rules and far too much subjectivity in their application. The rushed behind rule is ridiculous. Just like the interchange infringement rule, it was a knee-jerk reaction to a non-existent problem. The fact that an umpire thought that incident was worthy of a free kick is a disgrace. Both rules should be abandoned.

That is what he is insinuating. It's rubbish.

It's one thing to query the decisions mods make. They don't get them right 100% of the time (though they're damn close). It's another altogether to start a thread whinging about it.

Watson says he knew he was taking AOD, but claims he's fine. This means Watson believes taking AOD is fine. This must mean one of two things. Either, they're going to argue that, at the time they administered it, it was neither banned, nor prohibited, nor anything, or they're going to argue that it should never have been banned/prohibited/whatever. They can't argue they didn't know; if it was banned/prohibited at the time, it's case closed. No matter what happens, Essendon deserves to be punished by the AFL for bringing the game into disrepute. If 'not tanking' gets you a $500,000 fine, surely 'not taking drugs' gets you the same, or worse.

This is a game we can win for sure; the Dogs are a weak side. We can't afford to give them a headstart like we did with the Saints last week. Those three goals in five minutes killed us. We've kicked the first goal in a match twice all year (Josh Kennedy for West Coast has done it five times himself). I'd love to see us get the first and get a lead (even a tiny one) going, just to see how it helps our confidence. The side is getting better. Still a few holes (Dunn, Nicholson), but with Frawley back in, we step up another notch. You mean 5 wins.

Watson is going to open, says Lehmann: http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/645441.html. He's opened in the tour match with Cowan, who made 3. Currently Watson's on 72. Watson opening means, you'd think, one of Cowan and Rogers will shift down the order, probably to 3. Cowan's opened in this match with Watson, so maybe it will be Rogers to bat at 3? Amazing innings for Somerset. 2/304, then 3/310. Then 9/310. They lost 6/0. Six wickets. For. Zero. Runs. Amazing. Pattinson and Starc took 4 each, Siddle couldn't get one. With Watson, Cowan, Rogers and Clarke the presumed top 4, Haddin and the bowlers from 7-11, we now have Hughes, Khawaja, Faulkner and maybe Steve Smith battling for the last two spots. I'll ignore Smith because he didn't make the tour match, so it's Hughes, Khawaja and Faulkner for those middle two. You'd assume that Watson opening means he can't bowl too much, so maybe we'll lean towards Faulkner for a fifth bowler. He sure as heck better make some runs though.

The Australian side playing Somerset right now is this: Cowan Watson Hughes Khawaja Clarke Faulkner Haddin Siddle Pattinson Starc Lyon Before the game Haddin said that Rogers wasn't playing because he's had a lot of time in the middle for Middlesex already, so he's already got his form. What worries me is the inclusion of Faulkner. Not a fan. I think the idea is that we get more from playing Faulkner than we do from playing the weaker of Hughes/Khawaja. I don't like it. I'd hope to see Rogers open, Watson to bat at 6, and Faulkner not to play the first Test. But I'm guessing that, unless Hughes and Khawaja both pile on the runs (that's not going to happen), the weaker of those two will be dropped to make room for Rogers.

More info: Non-playing Dees learn on match day

It's actually so sad to think that it's hard for many on here to remember a time when Melbourne was a normal, competitive football team. For the last seven seasons now, we've spent our time in-fighting over new coaches, bad players, who should be dropped, who should be delisted, who to draft, who to trade, how bad our list is, the lack of members/supporters, our financials, so on and so forth. I can't wait for us to return at some point to just being a regular, competitive footy side, where we spend each week not attacking ourselves, but contemplating which forward set up is going to get us into the finals, or which teams stand between us and a flag, and which of our players are in contention for AA/Brownlows. Smashed us, and White's face. I was in the stands and heard it happen. Sickening.

If it's the case that we can't even talk to Williams or Eade because of their contracts to other clubs, then, whether Roos is interested or otherwise, I wouldn't want us to make a decision before the end of the season. We shouldn't be signing Roos unless and until we've talked to all possible candidates. That means talking to Williams and Eade (amongst others) to see if Roos is indeed the best candidate out there.

Negativity over Barry = MFCSS.

Good to see Bruce Matthews at least pick up on the Simpkin disgrace: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/why-st-kildas-tom-simpkin-should-have-received-more-than-a-two-week-suspension/story-fnii08h4-1226669662544