two sheds jackson

I don't think Voss is a DH at all. His actual reasoning is totally understandandable; he has three genuine champions in Black, Power and Brown, and there was a genuine case for having one more crack at a premiership while those three are still around. If he hadn't done this, he'd probably be criticised for sitting on his hands and allowing a flag opportunity to slip by. For mine, he bit the bullet and took a bold but worthwhile risk, which unfortunately for him and Brisbane has completely fallen on its arse. Of course he has to take responsibility for it, but it doesn't make him an idiot or even a poor coach- for all he knew at the time, there was a good chance Fevola might straighten himself out and deliver Brisbane to the top 4. Having said that, Brisbanes approach in the last few years has certainly been a monumental failure. I said in another thread that in retrospect, they could have had Lachlan Henderson, Lewis Jetta, Jack Grimes and Daniel Rischitelli all coming through along with Daniel Rich. The funny thing is, even Voss's quest for immediate premiership success would have been better served by these guys than Fev and TJ, let alone Brisbanes long-term prospects.

I'm always a bit perplexed by these "we must hire/sack such and such a fitness guy" threads. Considering we don't know what sort of strength and conditioning programs he has going at North or what programs he would set up at Melbourne, and we don't know what programs our current conditioning staff have in place for our players, and considering that even if we were privvy to this sort of information, very few footy fans actually know the field well enough to understand if and why one program might be better than another, I'm not sure why anyone would think it's a foregone conclusion that he's awesome at his job and we should get him.

Having said that, we need him to stick around long enough to play in the Demonology/Saintsational game. It's imperative we win that, or Demonland will never reach 30,000 posters.

Just to clarify, I wasn't having a go at anyone specific, but yeah, it wasn't very serious . Sad thing is, on re-reading it, it probably wasn't that much sillier than some of the very serious, very angry posts that tend to appear here after a loss, or in response to a perceived outrage against the MFC. I'll probably need to lift my game a bit if I plan to post here in the off-season.

Maybe if you stopped accepting mediocrity and just bled a LITTLE bit of red and blue for once, just a DROP, you'd understand the whole POINT of this forum is to start threads about how Angry we are about Things!! Melbourne players who've been hurt before in markings contests are being put up for trade, Collingwood are arrogantly playing home games at OUR MCG, our Demon mascot is NOT even that scary and some guy in South Australia has written a highly speculative article about a convoluted, arse-about loophole that could in theory be used by Adelaide to get Jack Viney in two years time if all the stars totally align for them, which they have had the AUDACITY to look into. You're honestly telling me these things shouldn't keep me up at night?

Yeah, I thought that when I read it, too. He might only be "up for trade" in the sense that he's one of a dozen or so players who will be mooted in discussions with other clips during trade week to see what we can get for him. If so, it doesn't mean the club sees him as being mere trade bait and dont want him. I would imagine just about every conceivable deal gets talked about in trade week, if it didnt, they wouldnt be doing their job.

You're right, but I don't think it matters: "total combined minutes of good football" isn't a relavent statistic when assessing Dunn and Bate's place on the list. Brock McLean has still probably played more "total combined minutes of good football" than Colin Sylvia, but it's looking increasingly likely that Sylvia will have the better career. Looking at the two, Bate's form has fluctuated since his debut and continues to do so, whereas Dunn consistently had little impact in his first four years, but has addressed his weaknesses (mostly his defensive efforts and general discipline, but I also think his leads have gotten smarter and he uses the ball better) and appears to have become a well-rounded player who negates the oppositions run out of half back while being dangerous himself. One player has taken the next step, the other hasn't. I would keep them both for 2011, too. I think Bate's upside is greater than Dunn's and on song, he's a far more damaging player. On the other hand there are major weaknesses in his game that don't exist in Dunn's, and it makes him a liability at times; if he could neutralise them and close the gap between his best and his worst, he's talented enough to justify a spot in anyones forwardline.

True. Thankfully the board understands that if we don't trade him to China, our membership numbers will plummet.

It's a bit unfair to say he was being "murdered" by Harvey, whose influence was much more pronounced after Jones left the ground. Bonafide stars being tagged out of the game is the exception rather than the rule; Jones limited Harvey's influence, so he did what was asked. Wait. You're seriously saying that if the coach and the football department decide the best thing going forward is to trade a certain player, the head of the board would and should interfere with football operations and veto that decision on the grounds that said player got hurt recently in a contest?

Bate will stay because his upside is considerable if he can address the glaring weaknesses in his game, and because we wouldn't get much for him in a trade. Cheney will stay because he's contracted. McNamara will go because we don't have any space.

A chance to coach Essendon, then?

It's a fair question, but I think he'll play into his 30s. With regards to the points you raised, his strengths easily compensate for his lack of speed, and carrying the odd slow midfielder won't really hurt our run. I'm not sure Sylvia will ever have the engine to spend much more time in the midfield than he does already, and it's worth considering whether you really want to see him spend significantly less time at half forward, considering what he brings to the forward line. For mine, Moloney has a few intangible qualities that put him ahead of Jones given a choice between them. It might be a dated view, but I think there'll always be some value in having a couple of huge, bollocking midfielders who will absolutely take your head off if you get between them and the ball, particularly for finals and big games. I'm not questioning the hardness of our young mids, but I don't see any coming through who fit this description (maybe Tapscott, but I havn't seen enough). Moloney is the closest thing on our list, and while this in and of itself doesn't justify his place in the team, it tips the scales in his favor when comparing him with someone who he's otherwise quite evenly matched with, in Jones. Also, while Dappa is right that we'll have a congested list in the next few years from a lack of retirements, the flipside to this is that with our scarcity of older heads, a 29 year old Moloney could play a vital leadership role.

I was starting to think I was the only one who thought Morton was alright today. Maybe I need to watch the game again, because the resounding consensus seems to be that he was awful, but I thought he was lively, provided run and generally used the ball pretty well despite the odd bad turnover. He wasn't brilliant, but he was far from being a liability. I agree with you about Bate; when he has a poor game it's like we're playing a man down at times, because he offers so little in terms of defensive pressure. Without having seen the stats, I also tend to agree with the OP that he loses too many one-on-one marking contests and that he's not as good of a contested mark as people think. We all know he's a dangerous player when on song, but if he's going to be a regular in the team he'll want to seriously improve the defensive aspects of his game.

I don't think umpires are doing a poor job; as you said, Australian Rules is a ridiculously hard game to umpire because there are so many 50/50 decisions compared to most other sports, making week-to-week consistency impossible. Factor in the massive size of the ground and the fact that the field umpires are normally nowhere near one another, and even gameday consistency is very difficult. I do think the AFL are too quick to impliment rule changes to the point where the game is becomming over-officiated. Also, in their efforts to make rules simpler, they somehow manage to make them more complicated. Case in point, the rushed behind rule was supposed to be "black and white"; if you're under pressure you're still allowed rush it, if you're doing it to waste time, you can't. But umpires have paid free kicks this year against players who've rushed it under pressure. Considering the rule was introduced in order to stop time wasting, why didn't the AFL just give umpires the power to use their own discretion, and award a free kick when they deem this to be happening? It would have solves the time-wasting problem (which was hardly an epedemic in any case) without causing the kind of confusion it has. As for McLaren, he doesn't favor or target any sides, but he rubs everyone the wrong way with his over-the-top gestures and with his penchant for awarding head-line generating free kicks, and -on occasion- awarding harsh free kicks that seem to be influenced by the crowd. If a good umpire tries to be invisible, McLaren has increasingly sought to make himself a central feature in the games he officiates.

I was about to say the exact same thing. We'll know the silly season has really started as soon as we start seeing threads from Dee_tention about how we should trade Daniel Bell instead of delisting him, to the Gold Coast for pick 4, and in turn use pick 4 to acquire a speculative 7 foot ruckman projected to go late in the draft.

Excellent post. It was actually on Channel 7, but your point is just as valid. They plug every vice they are legally allowed to plug, and for all their pretenses, they are not actually doing anything to seriously educate people about drugs. All they do is create alarmist segments exaggerating the dangers of drugs and prevelence of drug use(and this is dangerous in itself, because when kids know they're being bullshitted, they're less inclined to listen to valid warnings about the very real dangers of drugs), or, occasionally, producing "inspirational" fluff pieces about overcoming addiction like Such is Life, in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It is an absolute, objective fact that alcohol and gambling cause far more damage to society at large than every illegal drug combined, and the major networks cannot credibly present themselves as being genuinely concerned about drugs when they do so much to facilitate the problems caused by these two industries.

I watched about half of it and changed the channel. It was about what you'd expect from a Channel 7 documentary; a glib, uninformative tabloid piece, and I agree with P Man that from what I saw, they glossed over the more serious aspects of drug addiction. It's not that they glorified it, it's just that they turned a deathly serious and complex issue into a fluffy, easily digestible piece of popcorn entertainment. I also agree with WYL that he is clearly very much in the process of fighting his addiction and has a long way to go, and I'm not sure if participating in these types of programs is the best thing for a recovering addict, but I guess that's his call. Why? If you were a drug addicticted footballer and were thinking of coming out and trying to get help, and the AFL had a one-strike policy for recreational drug use, would this not make you less likely to come forward? If you were a drug addict, and you got caught by your employer, fired from your job and publically outed and shamed in the newspapers and berated by f)ckwit journalists and the general public, do you really think this would actually help you to fight the addiction? I think the AFL's drug policy should be changed, but with more of a view towards better educating players about the dangers and improving rehab services for footballers, at the expense of taking a punitive approach against recreational drug users, which is a proven failure as a deterrent.

I'll wait for the rumour to get some legs before giving it much thought, but the idea that we shouldn't chase him because "our midfied is stacked" or because "we need a KPF" is silly. Rischitelli is 24, and would be able to take over the role of several players in our side right now, and do it better. This might all sound glib and simplistic, but that's because it's a cut-and-dry situation: you don't bypass a player who will make your team significantly better just because he's not structurally vital. We'll only chase a KPF at his expense if one emerges who is of similar quality. As a sidenote, I'd hate to be a Brisbane supporter. I can understand why Voss felt the need to take a leap of faith, and strike while Black/Power/Brown were still around, but it looks like backfiring terribly. With the older guys a year closer to retirement, theres been a mass exodus of early draft picks and fancied younger prospects, with Rischitelli the latest casualty. And with the next two drafts dominated by the expansion clubs, there's no relief in sight. It's even more depressing (for them) when you consider in hindsight, they could have had a young brigade of Jack Grimes, Lewis Jetta, Lachlan Henderson and Michael Rischitelli coming through alongside Daniel Rich. They'd even be a better short-term prospect if they'd taken the long-term approach.

[quote name='Demons 32' date='19 August 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1282190606' post='358896'

For how long?

At the start of the year, nobody thought Melbourne were a chance to play finals. By your logic, none of the players you mentioned should have gotten a single game this season. This is a developemental year, and finals are irrelevant. We want to get as many games as possible into these players, as quickly as possible. As long as their performance warrants it and as long as it doesn't present a risk to their long-term well-being, they'll be played until the end of the season.

My cousins horse got out the other day and wandered onto Chris Judd's aunties parole officers dentists backyard and ate at least seven of his oranges, so trust me, there is no question whatsoever that Chris Johnson will walk out of his contract at Carlton at the end of the year and take over from Bailey as senior coach.

Yep. For all the vitriol directed towards Ben Cousins, I find most of it comes from people who have been sheltered from the harsh realities of life. They're the kind of people who'll go on a shallow, "drugs R 4 lozerss!!" tangent, despite having had no actual experience with drugs and absolutely no understanding of the kind of stuff recovering addicts go through in their struggle to quit and to stay drug-free (for a lot of people, it's a struggle that never really ends). For all their hot air and their populist, moralistic bleating, most of them haven't got a clue what they're on about. He should be commended for the job he's doing so far in turning his life around, and hopefully, as a public figure, he might provide a bit of hope for people in similar situations. Anyway, heres hoping he comes up and plays out the season. I wouldn't have thought they'd have kept putting him back out there if it was anything major, with the match dead and buried at half-time.

Yep. Let's drop a highly talented young player in decent form- a player who the club has publically said it wants to get as many AFL games into as possible, as quickly as possible- in favor of a guy who will be delisted at the end of the year. That's gonna do our long-term prospects no end of good.

I hate them even more than that. I want to beat them by a point.