old55

Clearly you're new here and haven't read enough of Ash's excellent posts to realise he sees plenty of the Demons and knows more about them than most MFC supporters. You may not always agree with what he says but it's always well thought out.

Craig Cameron's responsible and it's the correct decision IMO. Really good small forwards are very hard to find. They almost always have a defect ... 1. Inability to win their own contested ball in final's heat 2. Unwilling or unfit enough to run defensively 3. Too slight to apply real physical pressure when tackling 4. Inability to manufacture the opportunist goal 5. Weak overhead Not surprisngly the Daveys both have the same defects (1 (so far anyway), 3, and 5) and we don't want multiples of it. Their defensive running is good but their tackling is just not effective. At best we can get a spread of small forwards who compensate for each others defects. IMO the reason why Brown or recently Godfrey have played small forward roles is because of what they deliver against 2 and 3. Pickett fails 2. Yze fails 1 and 2. That's OK if you get compensation elsewhere. One of our big failings has been our ability to win contested ball at HF. Miller just drops too many marks and is useless below his knees, but that's a different story. In theory Sylvia delivers on all 5 points and that is why he is played there but he's being crucified while he learns his craft. Experience is crucial for the role. I'd much prefer to see him off half-back with Bell. I'd like to see Whelan played in the forward line in place of Godfrey and Brown for the reasons above and he's strong overhead. None of them are going to deliver much on point 4. I know it's been tried before but I'd give it another go. He needs to work harder at it. I'd prefer to see Ward played in the forward line for the same reason, he has the pace to run defensively against the pacier half-backs. As our attacking option himself off HB he's just too wasteful and by definition of his role - too loose. Ironically he could play tighter at HF if that was his instruction and the goals are a bigger target than a forward on the lead so his iffy disposal would be less exposed. We need more skillful small backs and harder working, more effective small forwards.

Yes he has played match winning games against Richmond, Collingwood and the Dogs inthe past couple of years. It'd be great if he can play like that against Sydney or Adelaide.

Clean solution from Sydney Eagle at BigFooty. It works much better than the other way around where EVERY club would nominate Tom Hawkins ... although I'm not sure about the detail of his Ben Cousins example - was he eligible for both?

Just to dig up Neddie, dust him off and take another swing with the whip ... Interesting that Superintendent Mick Williams said that if a patron at an AFL venue said what Selwood is alleged to have said then he would be evicted from the venue by Victoria Police.

One area he will help is winning contested ball at HF. While we are winning the clearances, when Junior wins 8 of them, a low % are effective and most go to a contest. There are 3 outcomes - we win the contest, a stoppage (i.e. another chance for a clearance) or we lose the contest. I think we have been losing more than our fair share of these contests at HF (that's probably what Godfrey has been in the forward line to correct) When we lose the contest, we lose possession and then our opponents have had a million options running off our poor defensive effort. Pickett will help us win more contests or at least force a stoppage, therefore lessening the occasions requiring hard defensive running. As I said above though I don't expect him to help the defensive running much.

He might actually be able to get a touch in the forward line where Davey can't. But one of our biggest problems has been lack of hard defensive running by our half-forwards, mids and half-backs after our too frequent turn-overs. I'm not holding my breath that Pickett will help in this area.

Is there a direct connection between being a star and having a star son? What about all those stars whose fathers never played at the highest level? What about all those stars whose sons never played? It does seem as though the most successful F/S players fathers were fine footnballers: Silvagni, Fletcher, Scarlett, Ablett. The criterion is 100 games but they don't need to be 100 starring games. Our ordinary 100 gamers could still produce prodigous progeny. I guess it also depends how many sons they have. FWIW I like the F/S but would like to see a change like the one DD explains.

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.