Chook

A three year deal for Pederson is just bizarre to say the least. The only possible benefit of that move is that it shows fringe players at other clubs that job security is something we have to offer. But why offer job security when you're getting nothing in return? Again, just a bizarre move all around.

What characteristics to Majak and NicNat have in common? They're both big muscular black guys. On a completely different topic, Gerard Healy loves Majak and NicNat you say?

It's easy to bomb the ball into the forward 50. It's a lot harder to pinpoint a pass into that space. Part of that is because our fowards don't know how to lead, and part of it is because our mids don't have the footskills or the vision to hit up our forwards. Of course another big part is that we're often just handing the ball over straight from the centre bounce. It's not a simple problem. Guys like Sylvia can often win the ball in a centre bounce, but then they might waste it by kicking it over the heads of our forwards. Chris Dawes might know what I'm talking about here.

Viney, Terlich, M. Jones, Frawley, Tapscott, Gawn, Dawes, Howe, Evans, Dunn and McKenzie were all better than Sellar last week. That's 11 names.

I think the "counting on our ruckmen to stand the goal-line" part of the plan is also asking a little too much.

How about instead of subjecting the players to this humiliation, why don't they spring for an extra microphone so we can hear the bloody questions?

This is unrelated to the drug issue, but I've never been particularly impressed with Neil Craig at our club. Whenever I see him, he just seems to be sitting quietly with his arms folded. What's the deal with that?

This brings up an interesting question. Could we ever get to a point where women could play in the AFL? Of course it is a highly physical game, but there do exist women who are genetically suited to things like wrestling and weight-lifting, so that might not be an obstacle.\ We would probably never see more than a few women in the AFL, but if they're good enough I'd love to see it. There are a million obstacles, but so what?

Perhaps he was never injured; simply rested.

Did you read how I think we should use him, or was that too much for your gif-clogged brain to handle?

Garland would be wasted on Riewoldt. We need his run, and Riewoldt is being used almost as a defensive forward nowadays. I'd start Sellar on him, and allow Garland to play on a less dangerous/defensive forward. If that doesn't work and Riewoldt runs amok, then we should switch Garland onto Riewoldt. Although, McGuane is a smaller forward isn't he? Garland typically plays on those sorts of players, which would mean that he'd go to McGuane and Frawley would play on his old rival Riewoldt. It's an interesting conundrum. If only we were good enough that questions like these actually mattered...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Good question. I don't think the team sheet has much bearing on the real match-ups, but I think his best footy is played as a tagger.

I was wondering when someone would post this. It's great. Is it your creation, or someone else's? I'm lucky enough that the only place I talk about footy is on Demonland.

Find the place where I said "we should get Lance Franklin and play him in the midfield." Do that and I'll give you a million dollars. Point to this post as the place where I said it and you will have proved how dumb you are.

That Lance Franklin would be a Gary Ablett level midfielder if he played entire games there. Point to me where I said we should get him as a midfielder. You can't, because I didn't. If you want to know, I think we should get him for the Mitch Clark role. I would then put Clark on one wing, with Jack Watts on another. Both of them would have the job of delivering the ball inside 50 to Franklin and Dawes.

Actually, Danny Frawley was their Dean Bailey; Terry Wallace was their Mark Neeld. They never had a Neil Daniher, and we're still one coach behind them in the "eat your own" rebuild.

Did I say we should? No. FAIL

I agree. We've seen what Spencer has to offer; now let's see Fitzpatrick's wares. I'd say that Jamar will miss, and that we'll have to sit through another week of Spencer. Oh well...

Lance Franklin could be a Gary Ablett level midfielder if he played entire games there. PS Stop it with the bloody gifs! I will say that the area where we fall down hard is in our deliveries into about 60-40 metres from goal. Whether that's because of our forwards or our mids I'm not sure (largely because our real forward line has yet to play this year), but either way getting Franklin would allow us to shift our players so that either he or Clark could play the role of high half-forward who gives us that all-important kick inside 50. I'm for it.

Tapscott applied a lot of physical pressure last week. He caused about six or seven turnovers, and to my mind actually played his best game of the year. Nicholson is the very definition of NQR, but he does the things we accuse our players of not doing every week. He runs hard, he tackles and he provides options for his team-mates. His work rate counteracts his pathetic disposal, but I'll grant you that the minute our more skilled players run and present like him, he will be straight out of the side. About McKenzie, he's also a representative of that group of pathetic but hardworking footballers that we have to play every week. I will say on his behalf that he was involved in 2 of our goals last week, and because he plays hard on his man he rarely allows them to collect clean possessions. McKenzie doesn't hurt us. He doesn't help us much either, but unfortunately there are players (like Blease for example) who help us a lot, but hurt us more with their poor pressure and over-eager turnovers.

Bail, Rodan and Nicholson all possess characteristics that Blease doesn't. I'll agree that he should be given another crack soon, but those guys have what we need at this stage of our development. Of course it's worth noting that neither Bail nor Rodan will be in the team this week (Bail probably not and Rodan definitely not).

Nicholson, Tapscott and McKenzie were never going to be dropped. All three were (unfortunately) among our better players last week. Nicholson was our worst of that bunch, but he still ran and delivered the ball as well as he can. Rohan Bail is the one that really needs to be dropped, so from the list WJ provided I'd say the ins and outs will be: IN: Jamar, Trengove, Magner, Jetta, Toumpas OUT: Spencer, Viney, Byrnes, Bail, Sylvia I think Toumpas should possibly remain in the VFL, especially against Richmond. They play a physical brand of footy that would absolutely cane Toumpas at this stage of his development. But if its a choice between him and Davis, I'd go with the Toump. It will be interesting to see what he can bring to the table this time around.

No it isn't. Not even close.

Are you kidding? It's not even the worst Melbourne team of the year.