Chook

Again, I agree. I'm just saying that there was a time when all of that didn't matter. All that used to matter was the number of goals kicked. Not any more, and that's a good thing. Carn the Juice!

Winning cultures only exist in teams that are winning a lot at the time. Hawthorn, Geelong, the Bulldogs, Sydney; all these teams have winning cultures now, but will soon become rabbles again, while Melbourne, West Coast, Carlton and others will soon start winning again. Richmond, a so-called Top Club, was abysmal a few years ago, and so was Carlton. Bad teams create an illusion of bad culture, and vice versa.

I didn't see it so I can't say. It'd be a shame if he got suspended; he's coming into some good form.

Not too sure. The problem with North is that they rely too heavily on their better players to perform every week.The rest of their guys may work well as a team, but they're not good enough collectively to win the flag, particularly if Grant, Harvey, Hale or Wells get injured.

Don't get me wrong, I agree and was very happy with him. I'm just pointing out that it takes very little to turn a poor game into a good one. Especially for a young forward.

A lot of people think the Kangas have it. Not me. They lose winnable games far too easily for that. The truth is that no team nowadays really has a 'winning' or 'losing' culture. Some teams are better than other, sure, but Geelong's winning culture will fade very quickly in a few years. This will probably coincide with the resurgence of the good old Carlton arrogance that inexplicably went missing in the past 6 or so years.

It's interesting that Newton has kicked 2 goals a few times this year but been lambasted. He did the same yesterday but has been widely praised, and that's on the back of just a few more marks and tackles. It just goes to show how much more guys in the forward line have to do these days in order to be seen to have played a satisfactory game.

But there's an ideological difference between tanking and what Sumich was talking about. It probably amounts to much the same thing - poor performance, but there is a difference. Being bad now in order to find out something about your players and gameplan is not the same as intentionally making it hard for your team to win so that you can pick up better draft picks.

That's a real shame. I for one love the game almost as much as I love the Dees.

Yeah, I'd like to see Richmond and St. Kilda in there for Richo and Harvey, and Brisbane for Travis Johnstone.

What, you mean he's not real? Then where to the presents come from?

That's true, but for some reason I never had any problem with that. Travis' laconic running style is just so distinctive that I could pick him out from a team full of lookalikes a mile away. On Trav, does anyone else find themselves watching Lions games just a little more closely than they used to? Or is it just me? I'm embarrassed to admit they may now be my second team. A distant second, of course.

Yeah, it seems Richmond may have got a draft selection right for once.

Well, between beating 9thmond and losing to Port Adelaide, the latter might be the harder task.

I was there. And given I am in the minority regarding the quality of the umpiring, I'm not going to argue with you about it. Regarding the other point; tanking, I believe any team that puts players in for early surgery is tanking to a degree, so yes, the Eagles were tanking in that regard. But I don't believe that the players on the field or the coaches in the box were trying not to win, which is what the cynics here are saying. But I'll admit that I may just be hoping, for the sake of the game, that that's the case. I always try to believe that the umpires are doing a good job - at least as far as conforming to the legislation put down by the AFL. And I also hope that no team would ever try to take advantage of a drafting system designed to equalize the competition.

Good points. Even better point.

Yeah maybe.

Totally agree. Nothing more to add

The thing about Maric that I don't like is that he looks too much like Clint Bartram. So whenever he does something good, I think Barters has done it. Consequently, I always come away from a game thinking "Gee, Clint Bartram played well today, but I hardly even saw Maric." I think he needs to work on that aspect of his game. Mabe he should dye his hair bright pink like that Australian runner.

Can he be nominated next year? What are the criteria?

No he's not.

That's true, our average list age might decrease, but the age of the guys playing would be a little higher. I reckon West Coast will be in heavy debut mode, while we'll be playing guys who've already played their first game.

Just goest to show what a great year Brockie was having up until his injury.

What does that mean?

Probably not. With some of the guys to come in next year for us, our average age will increase a bit. I reckon West Coast's won't increase as much as ours.