Lord Nev

Yeah, was just about to edit my post to add "do we get anything from that?" but you were too quick for me!

Agree with your point, but isn't our training base "AAMI Park"?

Haven't been down to watch a sesh, but drive past often and backing up what others have said; Tomlinson is one big unit, it's noticeable even from the road. Has a bit of Paddy Cripps about him (not comparing them as players of course), but just that presence of size. He's an intriguing player for us next year.

What I said was: It should be when dealing with an out of form player in a team with 0 chance of playing finals after about round 6. It's incredibly poor management if it's what has happened. Maybe you interpreted it differently to intended, but if you think continually playing an out of form and injured player in every game, when finals are totally out of the question, when that player has a history of concussion, when you risk that player having another interrupted preseason is good management, then we very much disagree on how the management of players should be handled. You had a crack at me be for being "ill informed" and having "zero idea about Brayshaw's injury" situation, but I clearly said "if it's what has happened" which pretty obviously implies I don't know his injury situation and I'm talking about the handling of it in the scenario that he was indeed playing injured. Which again, would bring me to my above point where we must very much differ on what is good player management in the context of our 2019 season. And to finish by addressing your concept of the what was happening (ironic given you know as much as I do and you had a go at me for that), I think it's safe to say Brayshaw did not improve as the year went on.

IF you read the post properly maybe you would...

Yep, so no surgery as mentioned, and as mentioned if he was carrying such an injury, and combining it with poor form, it seems a baffling decision to play him every single game; especially once our season was dead and buried.

Drives me insane when people don't read posts properly too.

Because of the amount of regulations and red tapes involved in gaming, the closest they've been able to get is vague links through security companies. I think you might be overselling their power somewhat.

Didn't the Hawks nearly merge with some other loser club back in 96...

It should be when dealing with an out of form player in a team with 0 chance of playing finals after about round 6. It's incredibly poor management if it's what has happened.

Interesting given the timing of the Darwin game being replaced by an MCG game, a conspiracy theorist might say...

Strange that it survived for 150 years without pokies but then folded within 2 years after not getting a pokie license.

Yet he played every single game and had no surgery in the post-season. Something's not right there somewhere.

I don't disagree at all about the hypocrisy of the AFL slamming pokies while courting betting agencies, I believe there will be shifts in that as well, but I think the pokies, particularly given the density of their operation in poorer socio-economic regions, will be the first cab off the rank. And sorry mate, I see where you're coming from but I just can't agree with you that a founder of a responsible gambling foundation would be at all divided, particularly one who also oversaw us signing the responsible gambling charter a few years before the pokies announcement. In fact, he went as far as to say "it is an important moment for me personally" at that signing. I think you may be underestimating his stand on the issue.

Yep, but that's no guarantee he plays forward the whole year. (You may have picked up I'm not big on making future predictions)

There's a very strong push back growing in the City Of Casey, which is one of the worst areas for pokie addiction.

Yep, I've made no statements about clubs being told what to do (although there has been very strong statements made by senior AFL leadership), and sure pokies are making some clubs money, but that's not the crux of what I was saying. There's no argument that that they make money. It's not just North and the Dees that have moved out of pokies either, plenty of strong clubs have also. Jackson was a founding director of the Responsible Gaming Foundation, so I'm not sure I agree with your statement that wasn't keen on this decision.

Yep, some good points mate. I personally don't really have a stand either way on pokies, it's a grey area of the balance between free will and socio-economic targeting IMO. I don't think pokies are fading away as such, I just think we're seeing the very beginning of businesses predicting how their pokies involvement may effect their perception in the future. It may take decades, but the 'writings on the wall' comment was more about how when you see big business moving away from something that makes them money then for me it's a sign that they are forecasting.

The writing is on the wall for pokies if you pay attention to the industry. Sporting clubs are widely exiting, there's cultural shifts in the hospitality industry; and in the last 18 months or so both Coles and Woolworths have divested themselves from that part of their businesses (albeit in differing ways). It's not a matter of what is 'legal', it's a matter of what is ethically sustainable in a socially conscious consumer environment.

Haha fair enough mate. Look, I have big big hopes for him and think he holds the key to our success in a lot of ways, so let's just agree that an up and about Gus will be huge for us if it happens.

Seemingly then you rate the umpires opinions higher than the coaches. I don't share that view. Especially when we're talking about application. And you must not be very familiar with the Brownlow if you think there's never been any 'flukes'. What was he 'underdone' from this year? The club said he had a 'back issue' which was resolved well before the Christmas break, you're just making excuses. There is no 'evidence' of a bounce back. The bounce back itself will be the evidence (should it happen).

Fair enough mate, we do see it differently then a bit. Hard times test resilience and leadership, and we had very few that showed any signs of that this year which to me says the message hasn't gotten through to this point. Hopefully that can be changed as much as possible during the offseason, but you don't win a flag by giving up when things get a bit hard or you're not getting enough 'reward'.

Wasn't rested, played every game, no operation or rehab in the post-season. Doesn't seem like it.

$1,000,000 says he lacked application in 2019. That's the point mate. The consistency of application. Staggered that you are happy to give people a pass for poor performance because 'things got a bit hard in the forward line'.

Sorry mate, can't agree on this. I thought we were lifting expectations? Isn't that what you always rant about? Your own application shouldn't depend on the performance of others. Did Gawn fall away? That's your standard right there if you want to actually go out and win a flag.