two sheds jackson

You can't reward poor performances with senior games, even when you rate someone as a long-term prospect and want to get experience into them. Every player needs to know that if they do the right things they'll be rewarded, and, conversely, that nobodies untouchable and if they don't work to keep their spot, then they'll lose it. Dunn was dropped, took it on the chin, worked his arse off in the VFL and by all reports played a brilliant game on the weekend. Watts has done nothing in his last two outings. If Watts stays in and Dunn stays out, what kind of message does that send? Where's the motivation for our less fancied players to work hard to improve themselves and prove everybody wrong if we don't even give them the opportunity? Where's the motivation for our more fancied players to be the best they can be, if they'll get games regardless?

While I wouldn't be surprised or dissapointed to see him dropped next week, I am surprised that people would seriously try to argue that he hasn't shown anything this year. Watch his first two return games this year. If you see nothing to like, you're not paying attention. Watts has alot of work to do on certain areas of his game, and his last two matches have been poor. This doesn't change the fact that as a 19 year old beanpole KPF, in his first year playing against other adults (let alone at the highest level), he has already shown the ability to contribute at senior level despite playing in a makeshift forwardline with little support. Let's also consider that his two poor games have come against the best side in the league, and in poor conditions, respectively. His form in the last two games put his immediate place in the side in doubt, but they don't negate his progress or cast serious doubt over his longterm prospects.

Who would he replace in the backline? He should be treated like anyone else on the list, and be made to earn his spot. He played well against West Coast and Port without setting the world on fire, and has been poor in his last two games. On present form, he is not in our best 22. He'll be very lucky to get a game next week especially with Dunn kicking 8 in the wet.

Absolutely. I wasn't exactly screaming blue murder (not that you're accusing me of it, I know) but I'll put my hand up and say I wasn't keen on the trade: I thought McLean would be handy in the next couple of years in taking some of the pressure off our young midfielders, protecting them physically and providing a good on-field example in a club bereft of senior leadership. Even thinking long-term, while I was resigned to the fact that he wouldn't be the superstar we'd initially hoped he'd be, I thought he could still be a solid contributer, and would possibly even have thrived in an environment where he is not one of the first midfielders tagged, as he had been. He is now playing in that sort of environment, and has barely fired a shot. I doubt he'd be getting a regular game at Melbourne. I'm happy to eat humble pie on this one.

I just finished a philosophy unit at uni where a lecturer pointed out that when filling out your gender in the national census, the only options to choose from are "Male", "Female", and "Intersex". He said this represents a "chilling" attempt by the "powers that be" to marginalise transgender and intersex people by lumping them all into the one category, thus refusing to recognise any of the individual intersex conditions (i.e. male to female, female to male, etc) as valid gender identities in their own right, thereby presenting Male and Female as the "ideal" genders, and everything else as deviant and undesirable. I think you've got him covered for sheer hyperbolic overanalysis.

They were already "tuckered out"; the Darwin game took a hell of a lot out of both of them, and Bailey clearly decided it would be irresponsible to play them on the weekend. Yes, we want to get games into them, but not at the expense of their physical well-being. I agree that they'd have learned alot from playing Geelong, but again, it's a matter of what takes precedence- I think they'll get more from missing Geelong and playing out the rest of the season than they would if they'd played Geelong and burned themselves out by round 15. Perhaps they should have been rested for the Darwin game instead of the Geelong game, but that's another argument altogether.

Probably overly presumtive to assume he was taking the [censored] out of Melbourne. Could have been any number of things, i.e. an in-joke between him and the other blokes that was totally unrelated to the game. There was nothing arrogant about Bomber Thompsons comment. Lloyd asked him if he felt that Bailey had modelled his gameplan on Geelong's, and whether Melbourne could be as good as Geelong in a few years. Thompson said "maybe, I don't know. I'm the coach of Geelong, not Melbourne". Fair enough. It's not his job to publically speculate on other teams, and he refused to get drawn into doing it, nothing disrespectful about that- at least not towards Melbourne.

The problem is you've questioned the coaching panel on the grounds that you don't understand why they would only rest Scully, Trengove and McKenzie, and not "all the other kids who played in Darwin" as well, when in fact these are the only first year players who played in Darwin. You're free to criticise Bailey, but Enforcer is free to point out that in this case, your basis for criticising him is ill-founded.

They were due for a rest at some stage during the season, and I'm sure the Darwin game took alot out of them. On the other hand I can understand why Geelong would have been a great learning curve for them, and perhaps there was an argument for resting them from the Darwin game instead of this weeks. I guess it depends what you value; is a gutsy win on the road against good opposition better for a young players development than playing (and probably getting killed by) the best team in the league? There's probably no right or wrong answer. I'm waffling a bit. Wonna showed enough to keep his place; he was handy in the first three quarters, and totally spent in the fourth. He wasn't alone. I was happy with his output considering it was his first senior game in nearly two years, in hot, humid conditions, and I was surprised he got generally negative reviews on this site. Unless he's unfit to the point of being a liability (and he's not), the best tact to take would be to let him build match fitness by actually, you know, playing out matches. Give him four straight weeks in the seniors and he'll be fine.

We are absolutely no chance of winning this weekend. The first two paragraphs of the article do a great job explaining why. It will have been nearly 8 days since Geelong played Collingwood at the MCG in what turned out to be a relatively easy win, while it wont have even been 7 days since Melbourne played a 1-point match in ridiculously harsh conditions that left the entire side absolutely spent. Almost any team would beat us with that sort of headstart, let alone the best side in the comp, at their home ground where they've been near unbeatable for several years. We've improved, but we're not good enough to win this one. Hell, there have been premiership teams who could never have beaten a side of Geelong's calibre under these conditions. I will be happy enough if we play well for most of the game (I expect us to run out of legs in the 4th) and it's not an absolute blowout. But if we lose by 70 or so, I won't be shocked or frustrated. The fixture has worked out well, actually. This was always gonna be the game we were least like to win, so it might as well be the one we play right after getting back from Darwin. Imagine if we'd got Essendon or Carlton instead, and outplayed them for most of the game but got steamrolled in the last quarter because we were still feeling it from Darwin, and ran out of legs.

I just don't really see how this is an example of pandering to Collingwood. It's not as if Collingwood have lobbied for unreasonably favourable treatment and the Gabba have caved. There have been problems with the surface all year, two coaches have publically complained and I'd be surprised if alot of parties haven't voiced their concerns privately. It's just gotten to a point where they can't ignore it. People only find the timing suspicious because it's Collingwood. Let's imagine Collingwood had played there a few wks ago instead of the Bulldogs, that Malthouse had said exactly what Eade said in the pape, and that this week, the Gabba were softening the ground for a Bulldogs/Lions game. If that happened, would it even rate a mention here?

Honestly, I'm all for Collingwood-bashing and I agree that they often use their drawing power as leverage to get special concessions from the AFL that we wouldn't even dare ask for. But this is not a good example. Let's look at what the article actually says: - There have been growing concerns that the Gabbas playing surface is too hard, and might even be contributing to Brisbanes spate of injuries. - Two senior coaches have come out and publically voiced concern about the playing surface. - In response, the QAFL curtain-raiser has been moved to another ground, and the groundstaff are going to fully water the surface to make it softer. In other words, concerns have been raised and measures have been taken to address them. This is not a "special concession" for Collingwood. The playing surface is dangerous, and they're trying to make it safe. Simple as that.

She's sure to give rave reviews to Mortram, Jockie McKenzie and Won-tonga Meeri (particularly when the latter kicks a magnificent goal from 50 metres out right in the square, directly in front with a 45 degree angle, and the umpire throws it back in). Other than that you're probably right.

In 2006, when Jamar was a full year older than Spencer is now, people were writing him off and saying that he was useless. Ruckmen take a long time to come good, and it is unusual for a 21 year old ruck prospect not to look a little lumbersome around the ball and have erratic disposal, which seems to be the crux of Spencers problems. When you consider he has only played football for a quarter of his life, this rings doubly true. You delist a 21 year old ruck prospect if they have no obvious strengths or have shown no positive signs. Spencer is a fierce competitor with a good work rate, has proven a competent tap ruckman with a good leap in the center bounces, has been handy in some preseason games for Melbourne and is playing good footy for Casey. He is probably about where he should be -if not slightly ahead- at this stage in his career. What is it about Spencer that you think makes him so much worse than most other 21 year old ruckmen?

Thanks Titan. Just tried to watch it, and the 2nd quarter keeps looping so I cant watch the 2nd half. Has anyone else had this issue? Any idea how to fix it? EDIT: Sorry, problem solved.

I didn't see it. Who were the experts? What was their reasoning that stimulants are performance enhancing, and what was Cousins' reasoning that they arent? If there are serious concerns that using stimulants just before a game will enhance a players performances (I have my doubts), then of course theres no problem with testing players for amphetamines and cocaine within a 48 hour period after a game, and classing these as performance enhancing drugs. But unless they're using those drugs on gameday, moments before a game, then there is absolutely not going to be any positive affect on their performance, and so the hair tests serve no valid purpose.

Totallly agree. The argument for blanket recreational drug testing is built on nothing more than moral posturing. There seems to be three main lines of reasoning, none of which stand up under any scrutiny: - The "somebody think of the children!!" argument is by far the worst. This idea that celebrities should be rolemodels is patent rubbish. With a few isolated exceptions, AFL footballers aren't trying to present themselves as figures to be emulated. They just happen to be very gifted at a sport that people pay money to see. It would be different if they were an authority figure, or if they were in some kind of role that involved teaching people to adhere to a certain code of conduct (i.e. if they were policemen, priests, schoolteachers etc). But they are not: their job is to play football, and their duty is to be good at it. If a kid idolises a celebrity and begins to emulate negative aspects of that celebrities behavior, then it is the parents who should take stock and start teaching them how to behave, not the celebrity. Besides, without the AFL's "naming and shaming" policy, kids wouldn't even know about most of these cases, so if anything the "rolemodel" argument runs contrary to the current policy. - The argument that clubs have a right to know if their players are undertaking off-field activities that could negatively affect their performance, doesn't hold water. There are a number of off-field activities a player might do which could adversely affect their game, ranging from junk food, to drinking, to illicit drugs. But nobody would seriously suggest that clubs take stool samples to test a players diet, they don't even need to: if a player fails to meet the many fitness tests they're subject to throughout the year, or if they fail to run out games, then they'll be dropped/suspended/delisted depending on the degree of their infringement. Same should be true for illicit drugs; if their performance is being affected to an unacceptable degree, the club will notice without needing to do tests. If it is not affecting their performance to any noticeable degree, then it's their own business. Sure, we'd love all of our players to dedicate every aspect of their lifestyle to being the best footballer they can be, and to put nothing into their bodies that might remotely affect their game, like a Chris Judd or a Tom Scully. But in reality, most players dont, and as long as they are meeting or surpassing the (very rigorous) standards set for them by their club, then what they at home is not the clubs business. - The other line of reasoning is that players with serious drug problems need help, and drug testing ensures they will get some. I'm more sympathetic to this argument, but a footballer should not be treated differently to society at large. If we have a drug problem, we can get help by actively seeking it. We can only have help forced on us in the most extreme cases -i.e. when our addiction has rendered us a danger to other people or has caused us to commit a serious crime. We cannot be forced to undergo councelling because we had a joint after work on a Friday night two months ago and it showed up in a random hair test at work. These sorts of policies are often championed by the fabled "silent majority" (in reality, neither silent, nor a majority) who seem to have trouble comprehending that somebody who uses an illegal drug occasionally, does not necassarily have a "drug problem".

What sort of strategies do you think Mahoney is trying to impart on our forwards, and why do think they're failing?

I don't want to put the broom through just because we've had a bad loss, as we've generally been playing pretty good footy, but we sudddenly have a couple of injuries, a few blokes who clearly arent up to it and two blokes in Aussie and Morton who absolutely have to come in. So: Out: Bruce (inj), Bate (inj), Hughes, Rivers In: Aussie, Morton, Gysberts, MacDonald (straight swap for Rivers, apparently in Casey's best) Sylvia and PJ can count themselves very lucky. Everyone else has generally been good this year.

You're either a troll, have a personal vendetta or have absolutely no idea. We were rubbish today, and Bailey has to take some responsibility when the side performs like this. But to take one crap performance from a young side and call it categorical proof (or "inevitable" proof, whatever the hell that means) that the coach isn't up to the job, is just ridiculous. The one positive to come out of games like today, is that there won't be any more ridiculous posts saying we're a chance to make the top 4. On the downside, we'll have equally ridiculous posts saying that the coach needs to be sacked.

Eth38; it’s odd that in another thread (which understandably got deleted) you said you see Spencer as a likely delistee at years end, but have taken issue with a poster for “writing Fitzpatrick off”: the way I read it he was only saying that Fitzpatrick is no certainty to make it. He’s right. From what I saw last year of Spencer I was impressed with his aggression and thought he had a good leap in the centre bounces. I havn’t seen him at Casey this year so I don’t know how he’s been coming on, but the reports seem resoundingly positive. He does look lumbersome around the ball, has a weird kicking action and his disposal isn’t flash at this stage, but these things arent unusual or even too alarming for a 20 yr old ruck prospect, particularly one who only started playing football in his late teens. I wouldn’t say I’m “excited” about Spencer just yet, but I’m encouraged by what I’ve seen and would be shocked if he’s not around next year. I get the feeling some people are more excited with Gawn and Fitzpatrick because 1) we havn’t seen them yet, which means we haven’t seen them do anything wrong, and 2) they are cited as having “freakish” traits (Fitzpatrick’s speed and Gawn’s height), while Spencer is a more traditional ruckman. It seems like you think these two are odds on to make it, but despite the raps on them, there is a reasonable chance they wont. Talls –particularly ruckmen- are hard to gauge when they’re of drafting age, which is why (apart from obvious guns like Kruezer) they go late in the draft. These two went quite late in a purportedly shallow draft; there must be at least a few question marks surrounding their game (and yes, I know Gawn was injured). You said in the other post that Spencer would go at years end because we don’t need him with Gawn and Fitzpatrick. I would be keeping all three, and hoping like hell that at least one of them ends up being good.

Yeah, can someone please clarify this? If Richmond had a long-term lease, then why was Mathieson able to terminate it just like that? Do we definitely have the machines for the next ten years, or can he [censored] us off and sell them to Carlton any time he likes? I feel kind of stupid, because I've read the article twice, but I still don't understand this aspect of the deal.

He's Paul Hopgood in the same way that I'm a brontosaurus. Which is to say that he is Yze Magic, pretending to be Paul Hopgood.

I agree that we'll struggle to finish higher than 10th. We are an outside (and I mean absolutely minute) chance of scraping into the 8 if we maintain our current form and everything goes right, but this is extremely unlikely given that we're a young side, and therefor prone to inconsistency and bound to tire as the year goes on. And as Jaded said, we have had a pretty good run of home games so far, and two of our three wins come from ordinary sides in Adelaide (just barely) and Richmond. Top 4 is absolutely not in the cards, and I still wouldn't rate us as a top 4 prospect even if we'd beaten Collingwood and the Bulldogs and were 5-2.

You'll struggle to find a more ardent Anglican than my grandmas husband. The name doesn't worry him, let alone stop him from barracking. The Christian community at large do not seem offended by the moniker; I've certainly never heard of any actual Christians complaining about the name. Occasionally, people come out with this notion that our name makes us unappealing to religious demographics- while I can obviously understand the theory behind it, the facts seem to state otherwise. In our heyday, as one of the best-supported clubs in the VFL in the 50s and 60s, you can bet that the vast majority of out supporters were Christians. So we'd be throwing away the name that we have used for most of our existence, and which is indelibly linked with our history and legacy, in order to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.