rpfc

Beat St Kilda at Etihad a week after beating the Pies on QB and that is four of the above... Some are more meaningful than others though. Beating Geelong down at Mordor would be huge, and of course beating Hawthorn, but Geelong are on a precipice - I would love to push them over...

We won that quarter. I get that they had the run of play and kicked poorly into their forward line and at goal but we chastise ourselves on here for saying 'we should have won' and some keyboard hero always yells that 'winning is all that matters' in an effort to end that conversation... Well, 'we won that quarter'!

Marked one off last year when we beat the Crows over there.

You spent the summer seeing positives in the close losses we had and convinced yourself that this team was not a disgrace and that we could turn those losses into wins, then last week we were 4 goals ahead at HT and you can't take a positive from that? That's the incongruity I can see.

And that would that be a reflection on who, exactly?

You are the one that had a go at me for saying the GC game last year 'we were never in' after losing by 8 points... We were leading by 27 points after your half of no positives...

That's a more eloquent, enlarged, and engorged version of 'relax, we've got this'...

That's an interesting point, although it may not be true for golf: http://www.sportseconomics.org/sports-economics/why-do-golfers-earn-more-than-tennis-players But there are about 800 AFL players. There are many, many more professional Tennis and Golf players splitting up that money. And if we are talking about 'who brings in the money' the top 50 tennis players and golfers have got an argument to say they should see most of the money...

lol Yes, they did... Posters convinced themselves the 3 clangers a game McDonald made were a 'showstopper' or indicative of his whole play. If I can be stuffed later I can have a search...

NBA doesn't fight for audiences? The NFL isn't mildly popular... MLB is starting when the playoffs begin. NHLs playoffs are on at the same time as NBA playoffs. I am just pointing out that revenue in other sports goes to players in a higher proportion than the AFL.

Who knew a 194cm key back wasn't a finished product at 22?

In the NBA - the players are guaranteed around 50% of the TV money. In the AFL - the players were fighting for 27%... Some things are different - like the NBA doesn't have to spend as much on grassroots or developmental football programs - but that is still quite a disparity...

When footy has been as much fun for this club over the last 7 years - I can understand the desire to not look at a sherrin the rest of the week... But if Roos sees it as an issue then have the game of the week on in the physio room, at lunch, play a quarter before a team meeting, etc.

You can ignore those that struggle to stay civil or just seem to get on here to harangue posters. The repeat offenders are the problem, not the vast majority... Manage Ignore Prefs in your profile screen.

Your grammar must be in Canberra then... Boom!

No it wasn't. The emcee was fine, we would have been saying the same things would we have done that at the G in a home game.

Picks 1 and 2 - Ablett and Rockliff out for weeks... There is a chance you can get Ablett via trade if I like it - but only if I like it...

There is that battered psyche again... Lumumba gets angry when things go against him - our tenured senior players get forlorn. Anger is more useful, changing that mindset is one of Roos' main jobs in his last 42 games.

I will have a look at it below, but I am not fixing equalisation by fixing the draft age. I just want to fix the draft age, the fact it is a plus to equalisation is a peripheral advantage. They are great examples of players that are ready right away - but they are not examples of players that will be tempted to other sports. They will be the ones pampered and singled out early to make money in this industry. One year or even a two year wait, while dominating a revamped TAC Comp or State League, to hit the AFL is not going to see them leave for another sport. The State Leagues have more ability than you think - Ainslie plays in what everyone would consider a 'third' tier league and yet delivered a bloke straight into the AFL at 23 to perform. No doubt an AFL environment is more beneficial to ones development but that isn't really what we are arguing here - we are arguing that the wrong teenagers are chosen for development by being picked in the AFL draft at such an immature age. This is an interesting idea but who is running these teams? And paying for them? Is it an extension of the TAC Cup, or an extension on what the NEAFL attempts to be, or are the AFL clubs expected to run these teams as their reserves? I think something like this is fine, if you can find the funding for it. But it isn't a mitigation for the teens that get selected in the AFL - it can happen with a older draft minimum age - it would in fact help those 19 year olds prepare for their jump. If you are worried about losing players to other codes then reducing list sizes and opportunities in AFL is not helping in that regard. If these 18 year olds become 20 year olds on the cusp - perhaps they will choose a different sport, or continue their studies instead of sport. That isn't bad thing for making the draft a more exact science but reducing opportunity at AFL level by a quarter is more damaging to keeping athletes in the sport than raising the minimum draft age. Would the best be on display? Or would there be a bunch of 25 year olds? Would these teams want to win or would they want to develop? What happens to the kids on an AFL list in this environment? And if they want to develop kids then is the level of footy going to that great? And can the game afford to develop only 10-20% lower than AFL level? Does the draft hit rate increase? Or do bigger bodies get selected? Leaving talented sticks like Fyfe for the better teams down the ladder? I really don't see the gap closing simply because of your reforms - I can see it having the unintended consequences of clubs looking past talent and drafting bigger bodies, thus leaving talent for those teams at the top of the ladder that will 'arrive' a year or two later. There will, of course, be unintended consequences to raising the draft age but it will raise the value of draft picks, begin to filter kids who are not suited to AFL, and push back a life decision for teenagers just out of (or still in) school.

I would welcome it for the reasons stipulated earlier. 18 is too young. One year, a gap year of sorts, is not going to lose the next Natinui to Union or Rioli to soccer. It is far more likely to remove the Cooks and Gysberts from being selected with 1st round picks or maybe at all as they are exposed playing in a semi professional environment. I would have them 2 years removed from school but will take the 1 year if that is what is on offer. The gap for high draft picks to play AFL is becoming so wide that the have diminished the value of high draft picks - and that hurts the competition.

We were running 10 ahead in the contested possies in the first half and then that second half happened... These numbers are a throw back to a time I thought had past. I am more interested in the response from our best players next week than trying to find a fringe player to drop...

Well, the midfield - the first choice midfield - was the reason for the malaise and the annihilation. Who do you drop from that? Perhaps Cross for JKH or Toumpas/Jones/Grimes/Michie. Maybe. But he is value to run with someone, and he is a fine leader. But at the end of the hard, long day - Jones and Tyson need to lift and that will lift everyone else as they won't have to attempt to carry a burden they simply can't carry. You just cannot replace your best players and because we have so few - when they are down - we will invariably look terrible.

I had a very brief chat to Vanders this morning and that was the sum of it according to the coaching staff. Went to sleep after half time, no answers, and here we are, once again, bemoaning a bereft midfield. I think it is best sum up by the fact that some on here think that a 20 year old flank/mid being omitted was the major cause of the malaise... Our midfield is not deep and not good - Tyson, Vince and Jones are our class in their prime - that's it. Until they have genuine and consistent help (they get a little from Viney and Cross) we are going to be vulnerable to being smashed in the middle like that.

Depends who you get it from though doesn't it?

My point was that this isn't a 'zero sum game' - most teams have been stronger than us on every line for a few years now. I would say our backline is our strength but it is hard to build a winning gamplan out of there without a willing midfield with talent. Then our forward line is quickly becoming a strength but that is impossible to build a winning gameplan from without a midfield that gets first use or moves the ball quickly out of the middle or from the backline. There are a multitude of gameplans to win footy games (I can take you through my own teams fairly simple one if anyone wishes) but they all rely on being able to compete in the middle of the ground. If you lose any strength in the middle, your gameplan is almost moot.