Skuit

Not specifically targeting you Wells but there's been a bit of this sentiment around. Forget for a second the financial and future membership benefits of playing in a final and those further unquantifiable aspects in terms of experience and belief etc., and just examine the contention that we'd be simply making up the numbers in the event of an unlikely finals' birth. Of the current 8, we were done by Sydney in atrocious conditions away and couldn't match it with a still inexperienced Bulldogs side prior to their more serious string of injuries. We've beaten two of the top four in GWS and the Hawks, gave the latter a decent run in our previous fixture, and were within a couple of goals in the final quarter against Adelaide. An errant kick from defeating North in Tassie, and under a goal against the Eagles away while hammering them in the stats. In our last match-up we beat Geelong at Kardinia, a team that despite improvements has shown it is still vulnerable against lesser sides. These teams will be tougher come finals time, but if we do make it, we'll be going in with a full head of steam and I wouldn't discount us as mere fodder. We could also get lucky with a de facto 'home' fixture against Geelong or Western in an elimination final. Prediction: North or St Kilda will win on the weekend and put this thread to bed.

Cheers LH - that's what I thought, but also not sure if this equates to a maximum score of 40 or some coaches' composite out of 10. Or if there's some mechanism to counter reasonable absence, such as discounting the bottom handful of individual vote scores? Could probably discern the former by digging up an old vote tally. Anyways, with Roos' focus on footballers playing their role, it could throw up a few surprises as graded to expectations rather than talent. He's made mention a few times after decent performances that Max has some things he needs to work on. Meanwhile, someone like Bugg could be doing exactly as asked week in week out.

Once again, can someone explain the current voting system? It could have an impact on people's predictions.

Hogan to outpoint Schulz on the weekend.

Viney was the next Melbourne captain before he was even on our list.

Jesse has been absent in our two best wins over the last two seasons. No longer an elephant in the room and not sacrilegious to discuss. But the kid has talent. Let's work out what it is that enhances our attack when he is away and incorporate his attributes into that mix.

Harsh on VDB

I have a European partner who has refused to watch a second of AFL all year despite my contention that it's not all that complicated to understand. Until Round 19, that very second, when she stopped in front of the TV: 'What's going on?' '[censored] if I know.'

I'm amused that three individual footballers will receive Brownlow Medal votes from that match.

And cheers to whoever programmed the countdown clock on the club website.

Captain-in-waiting Jack Viney should be made this week's special guest one-man selection-panel, with the primary selection criteria vs. the Saints being: this ends here!

Basset in enemy territory at Port. Was a revelation at Norwood. AA alongside Goodwin. I sincerely hope they get him in to replace Simon next year.

Yeah, sorry. I should have added a

I've brought this up a few times but I still can't work it out. Everyone's hands would have been on the table - we wanted Prestia, the GCFC wanted to hold him for now (then) but otherwise it would cost a top-ten pick at the next opportunity - but we gave them that exact only pick a year in advance - excluding us from any such a deal in the future? It all makes no sense, but I'm certain we've engaged in some form of tampering; I just can't nail what it was. I need a decent conspiracy that I can place my hat on. Anyone? I also can't understand the GCFC draft-pick stockpile strategy, considering their need for fairly immediate success and discounting their academy - are we set to send a big name to the Gold Coast in a trade?

Before my time, but . . . http://www.blueseum.org/Greg+Wells Maybe someone can recall?

Over-dramatic? Sure. But if you're going to put a law in place then you need to consider the extreme examples of how it might be exploited as well as the genuine motivations for the proposal (i-e not to cover for injuries). And it's not like those in the industry are averse to exploiting a rule change for their own advantage. I'm not suggesting writing off an idea based on those extreme examples, but to consider the potential permutations and adjust the legislation. List management is a major factor in our competition. To have a mid-season change of landscape is against the spirit of the competition, and potentially bad for all parties involved - including the players. E.g. Hawthorn, a team close to bottoming out in terms of list profile, need an additional ruck due to injuries to push for another flag. They invite Spencer, our back-up ruck not getting first-grade games, along for the ride. Is this fair to Sydney etc., who can't secure a trade? Will Spencer be cast back into the wilderness once those injuries return or a rebuild is enacted? If Spencer asks for a mid-season trade, and we were to deny it, where does that leave those parties for the remainder of the season? It all seems to lead to an unnecessary ugliness for the game when instead you could have agreed de-listings and a mini-draft (I know this last part is contradictory but it would be a more even playing field). I still haven't heard anyone's recollections of how this worked in the past (as recent as 93?) and what rules were in place back then . . .

It's another case of poor MFC development. The coaching staff should have said, 'see ball, get ball, kick ball.'

I optimistically punched us in on the ladder predictor for a win in every game after the bye . . . and we still missed the eight. Stupid optimism.

I think we need a definitive answer on future-drafting regulations and then sticky it. It seems to pop up in every second thread.

Gil had this to say: the way fans feel about mid-season trading would play a big part in whether the move proceeded. This strikes me as a standard public softening process. They'll get the market research in next and twist the results in favour of the outcome they desire. Much as when it seemed the MFC members were all for the crowded Schwab branding. I personally think this is a horrible horrible idea. Unnecessary and against the spirit of the competition in so many regards. I could at most accept a mid-season delisting and mini-draft period over a blanket bye week but a half-point trade period and the media response would be ugly in the utmost - and, while the ramifications are unknown, it would not in application be a case of just covering for injuries as it's being currently framed. In summary; if the people of this board are against the idea, I think they should strongly let their voices be heard. We are the fans. We're the ones who put the money in to prop up the individual clubs. If we can reach a significant Demonland consensus then perhaps we should forward a submission to the AFL on behalf of the forum. Pitch over.

Demonlandist: my glasses are broken

From the article: 'The AFL last had a mid-season draft in 1993.' I have no recollection of this whatsoever. Can someone refresh my memory? Who was traded and what were the circumstances?

Probably inviting a whole can of worms - but who would you consider the closest to that category from our club rjay?

I have a question that is in no way whatsoever a veiled opinion. Some posters have questioned Trenners pace. A common response is that Jack is a smart footballer with good skills. I'm curious if there are some ready examples of highly skilled ' dumb' footballers?

This is not a shot at you Jesse. But being treated equally isn't the whole point of feminism. And that's often where the confusion resides. Feminism is a very broad concept with many competing ideas, but commonly, it's a theoretical model by which to examine the ingrained prejudices of society. Arguing that Caroline Wilson is being treated the way she is because she is a journalist and not because she is a woman misses the point somewhat, as a feminist critique would counter that this is a patriarchal view of what is acceptable in the field of journalism. Ditto looking up the definition of feminism in the dictionary, as language constructs and the very dictionary itself were designed by the dominant patriarchy.