Vogon Poetry

Matthews, great player, thug. We had one and he is loved on here. Rod Grinter. Saw him at PP one day end a young kids career in the two's by flattening him and as he lay unconscious on the ground high five his teammates as he ran to the backline. The kid never played again and was still unconscious hours later. Having said that Rod wasn't renowned for hitting players behind the play but the avoidable damage he did to players was significant. Jack Dyer was a thug as were many others. It's was a different era with different expectations and standards. Thankfully we are moving on. But just because blokes like Matthews and Brereton were thugs doesn't mean their opinions aren't relevant or they don't have great knowledge of the game. In fact, they probably have a better understanding of football violence and it's motives than most.

ANB? He's one of Dazzle's favourites!

Boooo Where is your sense of fun. We've all made shocking calls, wrong calls and good calls. Hell, I thought John Ahern was going to be a star! It's also a good reminder to keep things in perspective. PS: Wasn't having a go at you @DeeSpencer.

Tom doesn't get the love he deserves. He's a gun. I've bumped this thread not to knock those that bagged him but to highlight how easy it is to judge players too quickly and how successful the move to the forward line has been.

There have been a number of comments here about the behaviour and character of the Adelaide supporters. I've been lucky enough to be able to go to every game we've played at the Adelaide Oval (including those against PA) and not once have I ever encountered poor behaviour or aggression from an opposition supporter. They support their team with passion as we do but at the end of the game yesterday when we were cheering and celebrating hard we had a number of Adelaide supporters come up to us and congratulate us and wish us well for the rest of the season. Kudos to them and that they stayed on the ground to honour Lewis's achievement was terrific. They had to stand in terrible conditions for quite a while after they had just been beaten in a match that probably ended their chances of finals. I know it's popular to bag them but frankly I don't know any better supporters in the game. Those that have had trouble are either very unlucky or most probably have brought it upon themselves. As for the game it was a terrific win for many reasons. Last week was shattering, this week be buttered up. We were challenged and prevailed in a very hostile environment. Some of our players might have had poor games but all of them had their moments. The weather was fierce in the last quarter. The wind was blowing strongly to Adelaide's end and it was raining very heavily for a lot of the last quarter. Having said that it's not possible for me to comment on the wind at ground level as I was sitting in the top of the stand on the eastern side. Just a recommendation to anyone who hasn't been to a game in Adelaide, get there if you can, it's the best ground in Australia and fortunately we seem to play it well.

I'm assuming Frost was injured and that's why he didn't play at any level this week. When I went to training he was in rehab. Joel Smith did most of training on Wednesday but pulled out of a few drills towards the end and he didn't play at any level. Fritsch, Tim Smith and Balic didn't play at any level this week but were not mentioned in the injury report. Does anyone have any information on these players? I don't recall seeing Balic at training. Is he injured?

The discussion on Spargo is both interesting and encouraging, from his descriptions we at least will find out what his potential is because he will give himself every chance. What I also find interesting is the continual references from different things I've read about him being a much higher pick other than for his injury. If those reports are right we've picked up someone who was potentially top 10 at pick 29 because he hurt his shoulder, an injury that is unlikely to have long-term implications. My question is this. Why do recruiters mark down players that have injuries in their draft year to such an extent? Two recent players that have been marked down are Lever and Burton, players who are now playing well above their draft pick and close to where why were expected to go if they had not been injured. I'm sure more enthusiastic junior footy followers will know of other examples but others that come to mind are Joel Selwood, Jake Stringer and even perhaps Chris Judd. If Spargo was genuinely top 10 (or top 5 as Dazzle I think mentioned) how does he get to 29? It's even more confusing when you consider Geelong and WCE (from memory) had multiple picks shortly before we picked him up. I understand his issue with size but that aside the practice of marking down players who are injured in their draft year to such an extent is strange and I think it presents excellent opportunities particularly if you have a strong list.

You talk too much sense DD. Love your work.

Great news for Jack, I wish him all the best. Just as an aside does anyone know how Jack Grimes went this year. He chose not to take a one year contract which is interesting given what Trenners has done.

Most know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Does this mean we don't need Lewis?

Life is full of risks Steve. Keeping Clarrie minimizes them. Still waiting on the list of players who haven't been stars after producing results like Oliver in his second year. You could dodge the question by saying "nobody has" but that wouldn't help your position would it. I saw the Ralph solution. Seems fair but I couldn't understand where Rockliff fitted in. Can't Carlton just get him as a FA anyway?

At the cost of perhaps the best player we've seen at MFC for a very long time. Careful at the casino Steve, I don't think you understand odds very well and you don't seem sure of why you're making decisions.

You're a strange beast Steve. You started by saying you wanted three picks because you wanted a star (and you haven't seen one at MFC in your lifetime) and you'd trade Oliver for them. You changed to say you wanted to balance the list and have diversity. And now you're back to saying there is no guarantee that Oliver will be a star. Of course you're right in that position unless you think he's a star now. And you're basing "there's not guarantee he'll be a star" on a year, his second year, where he: was seventh in the overall AFLCA votes won the AFL coaches association best young player award. That was almost a given given the above. Was 5th in clearances (for the whole comp) 4th in tackles for the whole comp 2nd in contested possessions for the whole comp 5th in disposals for the whole comp. And probably much of which I can't be bothered looking for. You've got to back yourself in Steve. Is Oliver likely to be a star and how much do you believe in that position. He's shown more than potential Steve, he's proven he can do it over a whole season against the best. How many players have ever had those sort of results in their second year and NOT turned into stars? I'll let you do the research on that one because that is what you are arguing. If you're arguing diversity and three is better than one that's fine but if you're arguing "star" I reckon you are very very wrong.

Steve I'm afraid I'm now more confused than ever. You're reply to me is based around "we have plenty of inside mids and having 3 top picks would help us round out our lists and diversify our (injury) risks". That's what I took from it anyway. Your reply failed to address the "star" issue (and where Clarrie sat in that discussion) which is what we were debating. Further it adopts the exact position I thought you'd originally argue. You can see that from the posts above and hopefully why I'm confused. So is it fair to say you are now saying "look, I was wrong, Clarrie is more likely to be a star than three fresh picks and the real reason I'd do it is that three picks are better than one". That's a whole different discussion and absolutely valid but you appear to have totally abandoned your initial position.