timD

I'd prefer not because he seems unable to get ou t on th epark ofr more than half the season, and we already have a pretty average list re: injuries. No need. WE also don't have the midfield to make him look good.

There's nothing in Harvey's behaviour - in fact we'd be horrified if Dean Bailey said nothing if another club came poaching as obviously as we have.

mo64 why don't you justify that comment? Talk about simplistic! Why don't you let me know about the changes to sandy's team over the past year, the injury concerns and th effect of melbourne's list and then rate his year.

I'll join in the chorus - not sure why we'd keep someone who seems to add so little regardless of the time put in to him. Then CJ is starting to produce so maybe the same with MN? THat's all I can figure - that paying him peanuts may allow him time to shape up and if not then we lose relatively little.

Green for me - he has the runs on the board and has been able to consistently produce while under the pump for the most part of 18 months. Brock has never done this. He will I think if he ever gets a decent run with injury. But he has not yet and I think rewarding a player for what he might do rather than what he has done is a little backwards. Green (captain). Brock VC and a few years of maturing to go. It will then be a lay down misere and I'd guess he'll do a bloody good job of it.

And it is the price to stay in Freo. Is he a melbourne (victorian) boy? WE may to pay a lot less if home is part of teh deal.

Tez, I'd argue that judd is younger than brown, so he would have fitted the 'window' idea better. That's why. AND had we got judd, then we'd be going for brown, i'd think, because the time frame would be shorter. As for the idea Jarka that we'll be trading 'hard' this year, I think that won't happen - because I don't think that clubs will offer much for what we've got. Who would buy wheatley or bruce or white or Yze or Carrol, and really what would we get?

THe contrast in the reporting will be typical. The more I read, the more I cannot stand the media.

Garland sounds like an interesting character and someone who may well repay time and faith placed in him. Clearly the club is keen on him.

45hotgod, that quote is a bringer of much joy to us all, I reckon.

I think Garland by the length of the straight.

It is like moving money making away from footy so that you can just get the footy right. Do other businesses to that? I've no idea - i'm not a businessman by any stretch.

CJ did not show hunger for the contest - he has not since he arrived in a consistent fashion. That has changed enormously and so must opinions of him. Good on him for showing something. It just must keep coming.

Remarkable...you manage to see something you did not argue and then say you did! "Culture nothing to do with leadership" - check your post. That position effectively sidelines culture to the type of coffee you drink. How the hell do you reckon that 'culture' works? What about players not being informed of important stuff...like what? What aspect of a person would the players NOT know about that would include or exclude them from leadership position? Only at the extremes is this possible or relevant, and extremes are not good reasons to make rules re: the way leaders are picked - extremes make bad law. As I originally stated, I think that it is best done as it is - Bailey has a role and the rest is guided by the player under the 'leading teams' group.

The changing culture line would be to do with most facets of the playing group's behaviour, Jarka. What do you think culture refers to - the player's choice of sunday movie? Clearly you do not understand what I mean by culture, nor do you see it as important. Whatever. All I could suggest is that the Swans have emphasised culture over just about everything and maybe that's a good idea. The playing group has a say but not in isolation. Probably a reasonable compromise. If that doesn't convince you that it is worth doing the way it is being done, and that there has been no error, well good for you. And cut the rhetorical crap - As if the entire available playing group will disappear in the blink of an eye. As if players have NO information to base a decision. As if players should have NO say. About 75% of the list stays around Jarka, year by year. Are you really suggesting that the remaining players have their memories wiped and cannot make informed choices nor assist the new players make theirs? As if newbies will run the club...happy for them to develop their skills but not their sense of responsibility? Culture means what? performance but not leadership...? Argue without the rhetoric - it is shallow rubbish and creates arguments over mindless details without substance. You should know I have no patience for it.

Moose, I think the two things are fairly different. Henson's work has been about portrayals of adolescence and a good argument can at least be made about it. Sam just attacks and demeans and no good argument can be made. He's sexist - makes derogatory statements/acts about women as a group. Henson plays on innocence/purity/growing up in an entirely different way. He is not being derogatory/sexist, stereotyping anybody. That said, you can evaluate the 'porn' or not nature of his work of course. It just isn't sexist.

CB, I agree that PC is a good thing. I think the difficulty comes from two over-reactions. First, something is said that is offensive; then somone says that nothing can be said. In reaction to the seond statement, people throw out the logic behind not be offensive and being thoughtful. That said , I do not think that PC has gone too far. When have you been corrected for saying something non-PC? It has never happened to me and I've worked in some relatively robust places.

I hope so DOF. It is hard to say from this distance from the club. We've all heard that leading teams is now involved with teh Dee's and I've heard a bit about them through the media...so it is a guess but relatively informed. THe good bit is that it gives room to stuff up and learn, which is how most of us do it - but at a group level. I just hope to christ that it works.

Christ I hope so. I also my guess is right!

I'll have a go at this. Let's see what you think. WE have all recognised for some time the 'culture' issues at the club. Culture issues are hard to define from such a distance, but they include things like application to training and play, sense of mutual responsibility etc. Changing this needs to start from within the entire group. The group can elect leaders and see whether their decisions were any good when compared to their criteria...they may then change their criteria to better reflect the values about the group they wish to emphasise. This means that the leaders would probably change. The playing group needs to learn to hold everyone accountable - themselves and their leaders. This may take several goes. Bailey has encouraged the group to take this responsibility and the group to modify it...with the goal being that the group holds performance standards that everyone wants to keep and the leaders would exemplify it. We've not done it well, but Bailey is trying to help to get the group to in effect regulate itself in this regard - like the swans I guess. So, he can influence it but only a bit. No mistake this year - part of a process that may take some time but is aimed at a pretty thorough culture shift.

Calabreseboy, what do you mean by 'political correctness'? The way it struck me was that it means that you don't go around deliberately being offensive, particularly to weaker or marginalised groups. How do you understand the term, cause it strikes me that a lot of people think that it means you cannot say anything about anything?

You are a dead-set giggle aren't you. Who knew you were so funny. You've managed to figure out a way that your argument is actually different but you still get to have a go at me. And it has taken you a week to do it. You have also managed to change your signature, approach me about it and then defend it all without me saying a word. A delicate little creature! I'll correct you because while i do not give two hoots about you (I care less about you than you do about me - I guess you feel spurned) I do mind that you are deliberately misrepresenting me. You argue that that because Cameron could not replace neize he is a failure. You then argue that Neitz is a very good player and therfore hard to replace. I argue that CAC has tried to address the KF and KB issue - Zomer and Newton are two examples of players recruited to replace neitz. The difference here is that i recognize (a) the likelhood of success and (B) the size of the replacement. Neita hold records at the club that are the best in 150 years. Replacing that is near impossible. CAC has struggled to get a Key forward or back in a traditional sense, but has recruited players more suited to the high-run utility/KPP role. You ignore this entirely, claiming that ONLY traditional KPP's count. The fact that ther are barely a handful left in the game, that theya re highly unrealible to draft unless FS or in top 10 and we have had bugger all top 10 picks eludes you - you in fact 'deny' the existence of any of this. You then state that I state that Newton or Zomer will be just like neitz - which is a nice piece of deception. I argued originally that they would not be - they are drafting to replace his role IF they can develop - not replace our best skipper! You then reform that argument and use it against a throwaway quote. This is deceptive behaviour - low, manipulative attempts to create an argument I do not endorse and then dispute it. Do the right thing and bugger off.

Don't Himark - if you start making the comparison that I think you are going to make it will create stressfulness. And you are right about the delivery on that day - dogawful! Bater worked hard but without success - harry had the better of the day. Bater seemed to be just off on about everything. The crispness in delivery to bate could well have been the difference betwen winning and losing that match.

Excellent post Himark. Captured a number of things that people fail to capture. There is a reason that maltohuse put the c'wood most mobile backman onto him, and it is not because bate lacks mobility!

The time at Sandy has recently seemed to be part of a resurgence in CJ - by all reports his attack on the game is 1000% better. He's been several yars in the system. Dunn is being taught a new role and has time. It is a positive thing IF he can learn from being dropped.