Chook

That's definitely one possibility, although a few people here seem to blame it for our abysmal form during the '80s. There were some awesome suggestions in a forum a few weeks ago. Did you see any of them?

Welcome to the forum, buddy, and I hope you stay. I'd like to get your opinion on the game tomorrow afternoon.

God, I hope not. To be honest, though, I think we might have to, according to the AFL's rules.

That might work well, but I just reckon that having Jones tag another player accomplishes exactly what the opposition wants - to minimize Jones' aggressive ball-winning ability, something that we probably don't want.

That's true, but while he's on our list, fit and playing games, then there's still a chance it will.

I reckon we should keep him for at least another year. If he shows no signs of improving, then we would probably be better off delisting the guy. Although he might be best suited to a Will Minson type of role. Basically to provide a big target to contest the ball up forward. Not necessarily to mark the ball, but to provide a crumbing situation for Davey or Aussie.

Yeah. That'd stop him from totally self-destructing on bad days, too. I mean, he got what, four touches in our win against the Dockers earlier in the year. I'm all for switching him to a small forward role for a spell or making him a little more accountable if it's just not happening for him on the ball. By the way, I would really be interested in a face off between those two midfields, though.

I voted Other. I think that Cameron Bruce has a lot of respect down at the Dees. On top of that, he plays well enough to poll votes in every game he plays and (other than Nathan Jones) is the only player to have played every game this year. So if his body holds up, he's my bet to take it out from Green, Wheatley and Brock McLean, who, in my opinion, would have won it, had he not been injured.

That's right. Wrecker will be eligible then as well It's wierd for me this year, too. It's the first year I've ever been older than a player. Cale Morton was born in 1990, while I was born in '89.

That's true, but it would probably lose to a midfield consisting of Judd, Ablett, Kerr, Goodes and Cooney because it wouldn't be attacking enough. It'd be good because they're all great players, but it might get too caught up in reacting to the attacking mindset of its opposition.

A Club can nominate a player to be a veteran if that player has been listed at that Club for a minimum of ten years and is 30 years or older. Also, there is no limit to the number of veterans allowed. So that means that Jeff White, Adem Yze, David Neitz (obviously), James McDonald and even Russell Robertson are all eligible next year. But with Neita retired, White and Yze probably gone and James McDonald a possibility, only Robbo may be eligible next year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/27/2288346.htm ". . . the 16 existing clubs will be allowed to register two additional rookies for the 2009 and 2010 seasons as compensation for [the two new Clubs' draft concessions]." Also, another thing I think is important is that only half of a rookie's salary is counted against his team's salary cap. That means that we could keep Valenti on the rookie list and keep a bit more cash free if we wanted to pick up a high-profile player from another team.

Good suggestion, but because we've already got Dunn performing that role, the team might suffer from too much negativity. It would be similar to Brent Stanton of the Dons being given a run-with role because he gets tagged from time to time; something that might take away more from Essendon than from their opponents.

Well, that's true. You're a smart one.

As of tomorrow's match, just Jones and Brucie. With that said, it seems that Cameron Bruce is a pretty good chance; captain, team leader, hard worker, good player. So I'd go for Bruce to win it.

For those not too attached to the Dees to consider that article a personal attack, I reckon it's a pretty funny piece.

To be fair, Freo gets a pretty bad run, too. A lot of their games are this 4PM Sunday game which nobody wants to go to or watch on TV. It's a shame the AFL doesn't consider distributing the so-called "blockbuster" games more evenly. I mean, I'd be happy if each team got four of the 66 night matches as home games. That would even out the big-money games and give each club 8 night matches per year (4 home and 4 away). I reckon that, in the long term, that would maximize profit for the AFL, if that's what they're looking for, since supporters of each team would look forward to each night match. I mean, I'm much more likely to go to our only Friday match this year than a Collingwood or Essendon supporter would be to go to their ninth or tenth. Well, that's what I think, anyway.

Wow. Great insight into some of the closer goings-on at the Club. Congratulations on such an informative first post.

True, but watch this, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OxmmVC8woY&NR=1 How could you not want a guy who can tackle like this. Not to mention his ability to win the center clearances, a pivotal stat, and one in which we get pumped every week. Rich, for mine, is the way for the future.

Do you think people should be attacked for being "Ankles Country Members," who "aren't committed enough" to get to the footy, though? If persistent criticism of a player's lack of commitment isn't tolerated, why should abuse of a committed MFC member's perceived lack of commitment be allowed? To be honest, I don't think either should be worth banning a Demonlander for. Also, Y_M's continual support of Sylvia, despite others' disagreement, shows that his dislike of Bruce's style is genuine, not just "trolling." Don't get me wrong, the guy's an out-and-out idiot. But I don't think he should be banned for his lack of brain cells.

I reckon that's a bit harsh. He never (as far as I know) attacked the guy personally. The only thing he's really done is voice his criticism of the way Bruce plays. But if the Powers That Be have warned him that his behaviour is out of line but he hasn't listened, then he deserves to have been suspended. If, however, the ban has come like a bolt from the blue, then that's unfair. By the way, I think this should be moved from the footy board, since it's not really about the team.

Thanks, buddy.

It really just shows that every footy supporter, no matter who they barrack for, is just another person, and that they shouldn't be judged for who they support. Compare this guy with the one who spat on Danny Frawley a few years ago - or St. Kilda supporters (who I once thought were all feral) with one stranger who spontaneously gave me a spare ticket to our elimination final with the Saints in '06, when his son was sick. One can sometimes become caught up in the weekly prejudice that goes on at the footy - against the umpires, against the AFL itself, or against whatever team we're playing that week. It's crazy really. What a cool guy.

So, the choice is between a power forward, a gun midfielder and a gifted ruckman. My theory on this is that West Coast won a Premiership (nearly two in a row) with the aid of two stellar midfielders and, once they left, the rest of the team crumbled. Carlton and Richmond both have had a gun forward who would regularly kick 6 or more goals, yet they have still been monstered in almost every game they played. Only now are they starting to play good footy - and that's mostly due to the arrival and maturity of their midfields. Finally, Fremantle have the most dominant ruckman in the competition, as well as a power forward but have won only two games this year - and that's due to the inability of their midfield to capitalize on its advantage in the ruck. This year, Sydney are functioning nearly as well without Barry Hall - a power forward - as they did when he was firing. So, in my opinion, developing a potent midfield will be the most effective way to move forward in the Premiership race. Therefore we should pick Rich. Failing that, we should take Naitanui, who can play as a utility midfielder.

Yeah. I just posted another thread about this. What a champion.