old55

Queen and Rhino, I respect your opinions ... This is the Selwood evidence: "I saw that tatt on his arm and I said 'what's that [censored] on your arm?' and I said 'I was with a girl like that the other night.'" "... I was with a girl like that ..." Do you believe Selwood said this? I do not. You can join the dots.

I absolutely agree with you Redders it is a ludicrous situation. The worst possible outcome was reached. Headland should have been suspended, no matter what the provocation - provocation should only allow for a reduced sentence. In my view Selwood should also have been suspended and now he has added coward and liar to his unenviable dossier. A small point ... This was always the case - I can't lay a fair hip and shoulder in the street.

Keen to hear your explanation of how BB is responsible for McLean, Neitz and Robertson's collision injuries? BTW, that must have been some sort of ATM in the stoneage 70s ...

Yes, maybe Selwood (with the assistance of WC PR) now recalls he said: "I once saw a movie where someone who looks a bit like me was intimate with someone who looks a bit like that person in your tattoo Des." Maybe Headland is a violent hothead, on the other hand maybe he is a man with first hand experience of paedophilia. If it is the latter then a strong response is not surprising. We would never know if it is the latter because he's unlikely to go public just to avoid a 6 week suspension. When Selwood considers saying what he said, he needs to take into account that there is a possibility he is saying it to someone with that experience, consider the impact and consequences, and not say it, anywhere, anytime, any situation. If found guilty, he has brought the AFL game into significant direpute and should be suspended from playing.

That's not what I said - read what I said. If Headland (or anyone else) has direct experience of paedophilia it's not surprising that they would have an extreme reaction to that taunt. It's not safe for Selwood to assume that Headland (or anyone else he is taunting) has no direct experience of paedophilia. Selwood has to take responsibility for what he said.

So was Selwood "assuming he hasn't" too? That's not a safe assumption because some people, many people have. What Selwood did is wrong.

I don't think it's that simple ... I have no evidence or knowledge of this being the case ... but what if Des Headland has personal experience of this kind of thing? If not him, then others do. An extreme reaction in this case is not surprising at all. They're not just words and Selwood has to take responsibility.

Make a booking in that Addis Ababa steak house for me will ya!

I agree with you. it's Daniher's list and it's Daniher's plan - he needs to [censored] or get off the pot. But it's not as simple as it appears in Pedroworld where we didn't have as many inside 50s as St.Kilda because we didn't have enough forwards, and by the same reasoning we're must be on water restrictions because we don't have enough dams and people are starving in Ethiopia because there aren't enough restaurants ... "Move the ball in quickly to a potent forward line" - what a great idea. While you're down there invite all those guys in Iraq to a nice morning tea and settle their differences and get some really smart scientists together to build a really cheap efficient solar cell. How hard can it be?

Inside 50s were Saints 53 Melbourne 33 - those 6 forwards of yours would've got mighty cold.

It was ugly, but it's not wrist-slashing time. The Saints are a talented line up even without Roo and Max and they played very well. They ran very hard to form a wall 30-60 metres from where we had possession and tackled ferociously. Not just a flood in our forward line but a flood wherever we could kick to. It reminded me, not surprisingly, of our loss to the Swans at the MCG late last year. We didn't always win there ... The fundamental idea is that against better sides like Sydney and St.Kilda you cannot kick to a contest or you'll turn it over, you need to maintain possession. As pointed out elsewhere St.Kilda let Holland and Ward get plenty of the ball because they know under pressure they'll turn it over. If you don't agree with that then don't read any of my posts. So we need to keep possession - last year vs Sydney we tried to kick to possession without any success, this game we tried run and carry without success. I know what we are trying to do, we are trying to break the line but it's just not working, yet. FWIW when the Saints went 7-7 in their foward 50 and we were 5-5 in ours I think we should have moved another one back. The St.Kilda game plan requires a huge workrate at a ground like the MCG and IMO they were spent at 3 qtr time but because we had Whelan and McLean off we didn't have the rotation to take advantage of this. If we had a full 22 I think there is a good chance we would've run over them. That said if they kicked straight we wouln't have been within cooee so the margin was probably about right. It was telling between first game coach and 200+ game veteran. Suffice to say if the Saints win the flag, Neale will be looking for a new job, I'm pleased we're trying something new, we're not going to win it without that.

I haven't got a best 22, I've got about a best 16 and the other 6 vary. Sylvia's in the last 6 if fit but I'm not as big a fan of him as most are.

Pretty good 22, only missing Rivers and Pickett, altho both of them are in my top 10. I have no problems with the tall-small balance, it's predicted to be a wet night.

You know I said we can't win the flag with all three of Yze, Robbo and Davey in the side, but if Neitz was out we may need all 3 to have any hope of kicking a winning score. I guess what that means is we can't win it without Neitz. If Davey fires in September he'll move into my top 10, same for Yze actually but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Nice top 10, it's not easy, but I like your approach - who are the 10 most inportant if we are going to win the flag. Mine: 1. Bruce 2. McLean 3. Neitz 4. Johnstone 5. Rivers 6. Carroll 7. McDonald 8. Pickett 9. Whelan 10. White === 11. Green 12. Robertson 13. Jamar 14. Jones 15. Davey 16. Bartram === the rest

Is Dappa Dan going to do the 30,000 word analysis?

Part of the agreement with the AFLPA is that AFL listed players get the weekend off prior to the AFL season. Clubs have to get special permission to play listed players who have had limited pre-seasons due to injury. PJ does not fit this criterion. Anyone can play for Sandy next week.

Very pleased to hear this - I was worried his ankle injury may have hurt his pace which is one of his key assets. I agree with Fan that his ball winning attributes have been under-exposed and that he will be a very good midfielder, not just stopper for years to come.

We've got a very good leadership group, if as expected Neitz steps aside in 2008 Bruce, McLean and Green have an opportunity to stake their claim in 2007. If Cam Bruce led from the front and polled high or even won the 2007 Brownlow or NSM - then he'd be hard to deny. No-one's a bigger fan of McLean than me. Green would be a very good captain too.

It's no coincidence that rookie and risk both start with r. Sounds like the club and the AFLPA has been doing their best and hopefully Daniel can sort out his issues for his own sake.

Spiritual Leader ... http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E19742,00.html http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E19742,00.html

Thanks deetail! Is the devil in you?

I reckon the Hawks would be very well placed to make a play with Lance Franklin and the host of early pick players they have accumulated in the past 3 years. WC are thin in the ruck particularly now that Gardiner is gone. Cox, then Seaby then nothing. Brisbane would be very well placed to get involved in a 3-way with Charman and McDonald established and Cameron Wood and Leuenberger in the mix.

That's partly true, if he insists on going into the PSD or trade him WC must do it. But have you heard of "the market"? Teams will bid for him, there'll be an auction and the winning bidder will have to pay heavily.

You're on the right track there IMO. It would have to be our best players and those with some years left. Those 3 would have to be in the equation and I agree that McLean is the only untouchable on the list. Also needs to be highly paid players to free sufficient salary cap space - it'll take the best part of $1M/yr. West Coast have no choice if Judd says I'll go into the PSD if you don't accept a reasonable offer from one of my preferred club(s). I'm not saying he's worth it and I'm not saying he's not, but this is what you are looking at: Johnstone + Bruce Johnstone/Bruce + Bell/CJ + 1st pick (hopefully in double figures)