Smokey

Fair point. Lever has obviously struggled since the knee issues, but one thing I constantly see when hes on the park is him barking orders at other players. Jones and Viney are seemingly incapable of doing this, probably because they don't have the footy IQ to direct play. Sure, Lever would be a risk to promote as the knee could go again, but the last thing we need is more captains like Jones and Viney. I don't actually mind the Melksham suggestion either tbh. May is obviously another good option, but I reckon we should be looking for a captain that has 7-8 years left in them, not 3-4. Stability is desperately needed everywhere in our team, and captaincy is no exception.

Is it just me or are the media trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here? "Almighty spray"? How do they come to that conclusion? Does anyone have audio on what was said? I must be missing something here, otherwise once again the media are purely speculating. Obviously this is a frustrating year for all and I'm sure tensions are at boiling point everywhere. I guess we have no one to blame but ourselves for giving the media nothing much else to talk about ...

I think Max does enough and doesn't need the burden of captaining. That and he doesnt really show the on field generalship expected of a captain, although he certainly leads by example with his effort and output. Just let Max do what he does best - play great footy. Lever for mine.

When you are in a positive to predict that, please let me know so I can put a bunch of money in my sportsbet account. Thanks in advance!

What is finals success? Making the finals? Winning a final? Premiership?

I'm not a fan of him as a captain, but if ld rather him on our side than to play against us.

Footy is a billion dollar industry. Is it any surprise that its management has fallen upon businessman concerned mostly with a bottom line?

Id guess the reason could be that we understand Hore is a known quantity and obviously best 22 next year, so we are giving Omac one last look in a new role to see if we can get anything out of him other than being back half depth. That's what I'd be doing at this stage anyway.

Our ruckman being named in a notional team that could never actually exist is truly of little concern. Wake me up when AA selection translates into winning games.

We know how bad we are right now. What does digging up increasingly obscure stats to prove it actually do for us at this stage?

This has already been analysed ad nauseam.

Dumb thread This place would be better if the creation of threads was vetted by admins.

Whether they are giving a legacy star a sendoff game or not is quite different to talking about the internal processes of a footy department. I'm sure you'd get a similar response from Goody right now if Jones were playing for Casey and on his last year right now. I don't recall many candid media appearances from Clarkson which divulge the internal workings, vision and roadmap of their footy department ...

I can write you a shell script which can automate the authoring and posting of these one dimensional comments for you. It will be a simple script with minimal parameters, consistent with your normal output on Demonland. It will free you up for other things like yelling at customer service staff or whinging about franking credits, both things I assume you do regularly.

The OP somewhat debunks this if you care to read it properly ...

Reflecting on AVB as an "important player" and on how much of a better place we'd be in this season with him is probably the most damning assessment of our year to date. He's 28 and has played less games than the average 21 year old on our list. Add the fact he is horribly injury prone - in what way does this fit the profile of an important player? The bloke can't stay on the park to save himself, he's as unreliable as anyone on our list. I like him as a player, and he's in my best 22 right now if he were fit - but christ how the mighty have fallen if this is the bloke we reckon could've been the difference in any substantial way this year ...

I couldn't care less if he stuck with us through tough times or whatever. He was always just a good B grade player (which is fine), but in his age he is naturally going to fall off a bit in certain areas. Again, that's fine. What's not fine is him getting paid any more than that offer, because frankly he isn't worth more than that. I don't subscribe to the notion that because he's been around the club a long while that his salary should be measured any differently to the next player. Sentiment should have ZERO bearing when considering contractual and financial matters. Not happy with that Nate? So long then. Thanks for your service, you've earned a life membership. I'd rather give the money to some younger blokes coming through anyway, because Nate will NOT be the difference in us tasting any sort of success next year (as far fetched as that seems right now).

Brilliant post.

What the hell is going on with KK? He needs games for the rest of year so we can understand whether he’ll be useful at all or yet another list clogger.

Anderson please.

You're career choice does not make you the bastion of gender equality, nurse boy Back on track - a lot to like about Sunday, but the frustration of not being able to execute the basics like set shot kicking is becoming almost impossible to endure. This season cannot finish quickly enough.

On the surface it may seem like strange in’s, but think about it another way. With the season cooked - perhaps guys like ANB and the Wagner’s were selected to see whether they can prove themselves as genuine depth for our list or not. I agree with this approach if true, we might as well see if these guys are worth keeping on the list or not. Show us your worth now in the 1’s or face delistment. We know what the best 22 is gonna look like next year, so now is a good time to see which fringe players will survive at seasons end. You’d have to think if any of them get dropped even once more this year that their days must be numbered.

Will reserve my outrage until I see concrete details on what appears to be more invasive rule changes. We have enough to worry about at the moment

Well said BB, agree with all