titan_uranus

It's official: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/dani...f-1225787618590 The article makes it sound like he's going to go into the ND.

More fixture news here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...46/default.aspx -Sydney to play Western Bulldogs twice (Hall factor) -There will be Monday night (after Mother's Day) as well as Thursday night football (there will be a Thursday night match in Round 14, coming out of the split round. Round 1 will also start on Thursday) -ANZAC day's on a Sunday, but the Essendon Collingwood match will be standalone, with Hawthorn and Fremantle hosting matches in different timeslots (twilight in Tassie, night in Perth).

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...49/default.aspx Went egg-throwing with his friends. Got suspended. Idiot. He's had a bit of a talking to from Sydney. He's a really good player, they certainly would hope he doesn't turn into an off-field problem.

Port: Nick Lower, Jonathan Giles, Matthew Martin (rookie), Jesse Laurie (rookie) all delisted. Daniel Stewart upgraded to senior list. http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...52/default.aspx

I would at 34. Not at 18.

Agree. If he goes PSD, Sydney will take him. That was in the article in the paper today.

I'm close to 100% sure the fixture is to be released on Friday 30th October (i.e. in 2 weeks).

If I was the AFL, and I was still looking for a new timeslot in preparation for the 2 new teams, I'd be looking at scheduling one Monday night match in 2010, but it would be between 2 lower drawing clubs. In 2009 they used Collingwood and St Kilda. Due to Collingwood, you can't use that match as an analysis of whether the timeslot is any good. If they picked 2 teams out of North, Bulldogs and us, they would see whether or not the public is really interested in Monday night football. I'd prefer to see Saturday twilight games. I think that's an OK timeslot. Given the choice between Thursday night, Saturday twilight or Monday night, I'd go Saturday twilight every time. Then, in 2012, you could have Saturdays structured similarly to Sundays (e.g. 1.10 match, 2.10 match, 4.40 match) plus night games.

1. Melbourne 2. Melbourne 3. Richmond 4. Fremantle 5. North Melbourne 6. Sydney Swans 7. West Coast 8. Port Adelaide 9. Port Adelaide 10. Essendon 11. Melbourne 12. Carlton 13. Adelaide 14. Sydney Swans 15. Western Bulldogs 16. Port Adelaide 17. Geelong 18. Melbourne 19. Richmond 20. Fremantle 21. North Melbourne 22. West Coast 23. West Coast 24. Essendon 25. North Melbourne 26. Essendon 27. Brisbane Lions 28. Geelong 29. Adelaide 30. Collingwood Bolded those picks I think are a chance to be used on Ball. I think Freo could use him. Who's in their midfield now? Palmer, Hasleby, Crowley. The talent isn't outstanding there. And another decent midfielder would allow Pavlich to play more forward. I reckon Essendon would take a look at him as well, as would North. If he made it to 30, Collingwood will 100% take him, so there's no point thinking about anything beyond that. I believe Richmond has said they won't take Ball in the ND.

Of the players they've lost (Bradshaw hasn't gone yet) name one who is in their starting 22. McDonald is one. Dalziell is possibly another. The rest were list-cloggers or developing prospects who weren't getting a game. They haven't lost any of their core talent, and Fevola more than replaces Bradshaw. Plus they get handy inclusions in Buchanan and Raines (handy is used very loosely there) and players like Rich and Polkinghorne get a pre-season.

Good to see you read all my posts then... Seriously, though, isn't that what everyone does?

Ignoring all the other changes to their list, and the expected improvement from their 2009 debutants, the only change here is that they've lost Bradshaw and received Fevola. That's an improvement, for mine. So adding back all those other things, they should make the 8 easy.

I'm not sure. On the one hand, if there is less young talent, then maybe some clubs will feel that a punt on a delisted player would be more worthwhile. On the other hand, a delisted player is a delisted player. Doesn't matter what year it is. They were delisted for a reason. I reckon it will differ between clubs. If BP thinks the draft is so shallow that the probability of a kid turning into a decent AFL player is less than the probability that we get good service out of an older, delisted player, then he will go for a delisted player, won't he?

First of all, I'd have Ball in the team before Foley. But that doesn't matter, because I'm yet to see a line up that has 4 midfielders in it. Come on HT, you seriously think Richmond would take just Cousins, Cotchin, Deledio and Foley into a match? Ball makes their team easily. Easily. I'm certain you can't trade PSD picks.

So long as we retain the QB fixture, and so long as the majority of our home games are against Victorian teams, I'll be happy. I'm really hoping we don't get lots of twilight games, and I hope we don't find ourselves hosting 4 of our 10 MCG home matches against interstate clubs again. But since we are basically in a position of no power, I'm expecting more crap.

There's no way, based on current ability, that Maric makes that team. I'm also not sure if he'll develop into a 'gun midfielder'. Wonaeamirri and Petterd are well in front of him.

If you think Bartram is of a similar ability as Rawlings, then you don't watch enough football. Rawlings is not just good at tagging (and by that I mean he can take a decent midfielder like Sam Mitchell or Jimmy Bartel and restrict their output), he also links up through the midfield. McNamara was drafted as a bottom-age player, so it's taken him some time to get to a fitness level that would get him into the seniors. Then when he was pushing for selection thanks to some good performances at Casey, he got injured, delaying his promotion to Melbourne. That's part of why he didn't play more than 2 games. If you're willing to stick with someone like Bartram who's had 3 seasons now to show what he can do (which, let's be honest, is not very much) instead of someone like McNamara, who has promise, skill and is younger, then maye you should reconsider your priorities.

This could be promising: Jason Krejza bowling for Tasmania v South Australia in their Sheffield Shield match. 1st innings figures of: 29-9-70-4. Pretty good. Looks like he's worked on his economy rate (2.41)

1. As the above few posts have said, it would be stupid to keep a player if their sole talent was to be a tagger. 2. Bruce could perform the tagging role if we had to. So could Dunn, and given that they're both contracted, Bartram shouldn't be getting a new contract. 3. McNamara's played 2 games. From what I saw of those 2 games, the kid can kick (and kick long) and mark. That'll do for now.

We should pursue the rucking role for Martin for a number of reasons. Firstly, I don't think he's good enough as a forward, and he gets squeezed out of the defence by the other KPPs we've got. Secondly, it means we don't have to continue using PJ. Thirdly, his mobility suits the role.

I don't think that's much of a selling point. It's not like he's going to be squeezed out of Richmond's midfield and forced to spend time on the bench.

'The Future Begins Now' or 'A New Beginning'. Anything that distances ourselves from the past 3 years and points towards our climb up the ladder.

Surely Richmond wouldn't be entertaining this thought unless there was some way they could ensure that we would be totally unable to select Ball in the PSD. So maybe they expect Ball to put a price on his head or something to that effect. Something that stops us from wanting/being able to take him. As for the two midfields, at the moment, unfortunately, theirs is better. Cotchin, Cousins, Foley, Deledio > Jones, Moloney, Davey, Sylvia, McDonald, whoever else we run though there. But we have a much, much stronger defence, and our forward line is a better prospect than Richmond's.

He/she also fails to mention that, in order for a club to start pre-season early, the players have to agree to it (75% support is needed, I think). So it's not like we're forcing our players into training when they don't want to.

I'd like to see a name. Who's to say this isn't written by a non-AFL follower, who doesn't understand how important pre-seasons are to individual players? Could have been written by an NRL writer, or a cricket writer. I kinda think journalists should be required by law to put their name to everything they write.