old55

It's not slow - that's point - he looked slow and had zero acceleration last year. He also couldn't kick properly. He was either fatigued or injured.

"We didn't tank" - the Emperor's new clothes.

I doubt interchange spots will be wasted on defenders who usually spend close to 100% TOG. Although I do think DemonAndrew makes a good point about 7 defenders on the field: http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/32574-the-case-for-the-defence/?p=687735 So there could be 7 slots to fill from the 15.

It's a devilish concept ... I'm picturing "no case to answer" and then we shoot up the ladder this year a la West Coast in 2011 with Hogan to come in 2014. Ohh yeah!

He had a sub 3 second 20m prior to being drafted that doesn't evaporate but injury can affect pace and acceleration however BH reported he was running with pace at training before his foot flared so let's hope whatever was wrong with him last year is fixed and not ongoing. His foot problem shouldn't affect his pace when he returns so he should be firing there. Endurance is in his genes, he's a superb endurance athlete so missing the pre-season won't affect him as much as some others. I'm a believer - he's got everything going for him and I expect him to be a gun. <<< =====

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/analysis-finds-blues-similar-to-2006-cats-20130123-2d7hy.html#ixzz2Iqj7d5yE

Just for laughs ... B: Terlich Gillies Tynan F: Davey Howe Fitzpatrick HB: Taggert Sellar Clisby HF: Sylvia WattsTapscott C: Toumpas Viney Barry C: Trengove Grimes Blease HF: Kent Hogan Rodan HB: Dunn McDonald Jetta F: Byrnes Dawes Pedersen B: Nicholson Frawley Garland R: Clark M.Jones Magner R: Jamar McKenzie N.Jones I: Couch Stark I: Strauss Macdonald Evans Gawn Davis Spencer Bail

I think 20 arrivals since Neeld became coach ... B: Terlich Gillies Tynan HB: Taggert Sellar Clisby C: Toumpas Viney Barry HF: Kent Hogan Rodan F: Byrnes Dawes Pedersen R: Clark M.Jones Magner I: Couch Stark

Wonder whether his strength improvement is a requirement for selection?

Talk of Grimes, Blease and Tapscott in the backline is all very well - but the point is they're not training with that group now so that's not what Neeld is thinking (it can change - look at Tom McDonald last year) and he's had a year to get his thinking sorted out. There's 15 backline candidates without those 3.

One of the interesting snippets from the great training reports and the coaches' pre-season reviews is who is training with which group. It seems like 15 players are training with the defensive group - that's a lot to go into 6 spots and there should be some fierce competition - particularly when the ink is drying on 3 spots already with Frawley and Garland retained in the leadership group and Tom McDonald 3rd in the 2012 B&F and by all reports having a cracking pre-season. Watts, Frawley, Dunn, Strauss, Garland, Tynan, McDonald, Nicholson, Gillies, Macdonald, Sellar, Jetta, Davis, Terlich, Clisby ...

It depends who is doing the leaking. But I am hopeful you're right, that there is nothing concrete in the report that hasn't been revealed. If there isn't IMO we're home free, if there is neither the AFL or MFC would leak it. Nevertheless the club brought scrutiny on itself by telling too many people the plan.

No I'm basing it on a 6 month investigation occuring - where there's fire there's fuel.

If you want a harmonious coaching box the assistants have to know. I think all the board members have to know too - it's a pretty important strategic matter - they're giving their precious time FOC - if it was me and I strongly disagreed with the strategy, was not included in the decision and found out it happened I'd be ropeable - plausible deniability or not. All the people who need to know must have skin in the game - it seems we had people who knew but who really had no influence or skin in the game.

Only the board, Schwab, Connolly, Bailey and the 3 assistants Wellmann, Mahoney and Royal(?) needed to know and nothing in writing.

I'm referring to the tanking issue - they set McLean up and flogged it for all it's worth.

Will they still be available in 2015?

No I don't think that - but they took cheap advantage of a klutz and look where it's ended up. There's plenty of lines of investigation that good journalists don't pursue for the right reasons - this should have been one of them IMO. There's clearly a spectrum of views about Healy and Sheahan - Bub thinks they're part of a conspiracy to bring officers of the club down, you think they're good journalists pursuing a legitimate story, I think they're short-sighted opportunists ... I've never called talk-back radio but if this all plays out to the good for us you'll hear me when Healy and Russell host Wilson later this year.

Look to paraphrase Ben-Hur - I'm not alarmed that I'm on the opposite side of an argument to you.

Healy's brother is on our board and Sheahan purports to be an MFC supporter ...

There's a remote chance of an unlikely and ridiculously inept conspiracy but there's a much more likely explanation which I've provided. What I'm utterly sure of is that posters in this thread who've been accused of disloyality to the club did not conspire - they only want the best for the club - FWIW I stake my reputation here on that.

Occam's razor says no - Brock is dumb and Sheahan and Healy are uncrupulous opportunists.

I think Frawley, McDonald, Watts could be the best tall back combo going around in a couple of years.

I've never bought that the tanking investigation was brought on by a conspiracy against individual club office holders. As RPFC pointed out early in the piece - if it was a conspiracy it was the dumbest conspiracy ever because if successful it was likely to kill the club to remove the officers (which is still a possibility) and would only result in those officers drawing closer together (which has happened). I just think Brock is dumb and Sheahan and Healy are just hungry for any story no matter what the fall-out. I do think it's likely that once AA fired up the investigation in AD's absence, Haddad wanted to make his reputation and flex his muscle and that disgruntled former employees as witnesses saw an opportunity to get back at the club and fueled the fire. Yes - one possible outcome is that officers of the club go down while the club gets off relatively unscathed, officers who mis-managed the tanking and it's aftermath, and yes some posters will not be sorry to see those officers get replaced - but I completely and utterly reject any notion that there's a conspiracy to make this happen and that's what this is all about.

Believing that we could have a better President or CEO does not automatically lead to running for that position. Many here believe we could have a better Prime Minister but are very unlikely to be standing at the next Federal election. It seems to me that the point Hazy is making is not that the Board and the CEO should held responsible by us for tanking - because that's what the vast majority of us wanted them to do - but that they should be held responsible by us for tanking badly - being indiscreet and not managing the people involved well. It's very hard to argue against that.