mauriesy

You only want 24 to 27-year-olds if they show leadership qualities. That's not Didak, in fact quite the opposite.

Never. Nor any other player with "issues". The culture of the club is far more important than what one player will do to improve on-field performnance.

Good. We can have Fox and Richmond can have Schwab. No worries about motives and nepotism and everyone's happy.

A false and entirely manufactured display of offendedness on their part. Gary looked at his watch and queried their program classification. The show is rated M and starts at 10.30. At 9.30, they've got Gordon *$&@ing Ramsay swearing his way around his restaurant kitchen for an hour, but also only rated M.

Bruce was always the "go to" person for the tough task of manning up on James Hird. More often than not he came out on top.

For gawd's sake ... if you're going to pick on Bruce at least limit it to some aspect of his play. Given the importance of warming up properly and soft tissue injuries that are worse in cold weather, Bruce keeping his tracky pants on might mean he's the only sensible player out there.

I am not a fan of some tagging tactics. But if Dunn is going to be reported for those two incidents, you may as well report every player who plays goat ... "butting" (shouldering or chesting) their opponent before the game's even started. That'd be a lot of players on report every week. I'll be interested in Harvey's evidence if there's a tribunal hearing. Either he says it was of no consequence, which shows he was staging and it adds to his reputation, or he says it really matters, which breaks the unwritten code and takes it off the field ... he can't win.

I don't want to use "youth" as an excuse though. But in regard to young players, I can excuse skill errors, failure to read the play and hasty decision-making under pressure more than I can excuse not trying, not putting in or putting your head over the ball. I see our lack of experience as an explanation rather than an excuse, if that makes sense. And they are not being shown the way particularly well by our experienced players ... or what is left of them.

Interesting comparing the Kangaroos as a side "in the window" (but not particularly likely to win a premiership): 200 or more games: Grant (294), Simpson (283), Harvey (257) 150-199 games: Rawlings (174) 100-149 games: Petrie (147), Watt (145), Jones (139), Harris (132), Wells (116), Harding (104) 50-99 games: Power (99), Firrito (98), Hale (94), Pratt (77) 20-49 games: Gibson (36), Campbell (29), Thomas (28), McMahon (22) 0-19 games: Grima (13), Urquhart (7), Hansen (7), Goldstein (2) 60% of their side has 94+ games.

Not many, but that only heightens the load and expectations placed on the large number of under-50 game players.

Then you'd better look at the replay (3rd quarter, 9:00 to go onwards). The opportunity came from a spilled Sylvia mark (opposed to Firrito). When Newton gathered the ball he did look quickly back (left) behind him where Moreton (almost on the 50m line) was about five metres away from an opponent. But that option was cut off by McMahon with his arm out a couple of metres behind him, so I don't think in a split second and on his wrong foot that that was a viable option. He then looked inboard to his right (onto his left foot) and Watt was close by cutting the option back to the top of the square. Sylvia was also inboard but covered by Firrito. By that time Newton was very close to the boundary, in fact he finished well over the boundary after he took the kick. I'm not impressed by Newton. I think his defensive skills are poor and his ground-level game is generally weak, but I am not going to support the claim that the near impossible option is a good illustration of his poor decision-making.

Jeez ... I'm as disappointed in Newton as anyone, but if you think he had any other option when he kicked that goal you are indeed being very tough. I was sitting right near where he kicked it from, and he was hemmed in close to the boundary by two Kangaroos players cutting off any other option.

I agree with all you say. In the first quarter there was no pressure and tackling whatsoever, and while that improved a bit after quarter time, the skills and decision making was really sub-standard. But while a lot of people here continually call for heads to roll, particularly amongst the younger players, I hope everyone just realises what an inexperienced team we are fielding at the moment. The breakdown when they ran out on Sunday was: 200 or more games: McDonald (211) 150-199 games: Bruce (178) 100-149 games: Whelan (134), Miller (106) 50-99 games: Davey (95), Sylvia (64), Bell (58), Jamar (62) 20-49 games: Jones (45), Bate (43), P Johnson (39), Bartram (38), Dunn (35), C Johnson (28) 0-19 games: Buckley (14), Newton (13), Morton (13), Valenti (5), Martin (3), Maric (0) When 55% of your team has played less than 50 games, and 30% less than 15 games, you are going to get poor decision-making under pressure and a lack of physical presence. None of the 50+ players are big-bodied KPPs, with the exception of Miller (and Jamar as a ruckman). So not only are we calling on young inexperienced players to show skills they are still developing, we're also calling on them to try to be "hard". It's a big ask so early in their careers.

Can we do that for next week?

The article says "the inside 50 entries ladder is almost the same as the premiership ladder". That tells me the statistic by itself is meaningless. All it says is that the best teams get inside 50 and score goals, and the worst teams don't. It's like saying a golfer who hits more "greens in regulation" scores better ... well, duh. The context in the article was about power midfields vs power forwards, not simply about possessing or over possessing. It was arguing whether it might be best for a team like Carlton to continue building a power midfield that gains possession and moves the ball inside 50 more, rather than using cap dollars keeping a power-forward like Fevola. In a sense it's more relevant to our debate of whether to take Natanui, Rich or Watts than it is about possessing and game plans. Surely any team's game plan would contain the wonderful revelation that the aim is to get the ball inside 50 as much as possible? By the way, indiscriminately "bombing it long" inside 50 to Franklin and Roughead, two of the best power forwards in the league, is partly what lost the game for the Hawks on Friday night. Players like Petrie had a field day and it was turnover city.

Is there a Sandy discussion board? Perhaps they could give you a run there for a few weeks.

Here we go again. If a player runs hard and makes space, the possessions he gets aren't necessarily "cheap". They've been worked for, often very hard. Bruce's disposal needs a lot of work, but you can never question his work rate.

I was there. I train it 100km to every game and so far I've only missed the second match against Hawthorn in May when I had a family commitment.

I haven't seen a top 2 side play such roundabout football, or bomb it inside 50 in hope, as the Bulldogs did yesterday. Maybe in our ineptitude with disposal errors, we still managed to apply some pressure ourselves. The fact that they were still able to cruise past us by a lacklustre 31 points makes all those turnovers even more annoying.

There were a few minor positives today, like Dunn and Martin. But there was one huge negative ... turnovers. I've never seen a team turnover the ball so many times with kicks directly to the opposition. It was like they just kicked to any player wearing blue. You can't separate out any particular player, they all did it and it was atrocious.

If I were Jeff White I'd retire. I'll be 32 by the time next season starts, and currently can't get a senior game with the side that's on the bottom of the ladder. Why would a club like the Hawks even think about picking me?

I don't know that it's "massive". It's certainly a lot better than our current stocks, and it depends on how much importance you place on a lightish tap-rucking bean pole with some ability to be a forward presence, compared to our present lot who don't seem to be a resting forward's bootlace. Then it depends on what we need to offer. Of course getting him out of contract with PSD 1-2 would be nice, but would you trade away, say, ND pick 17-20 to ensure the deal?

No one other than Warnock, and only then if we can get him in the PSD for very little. We are not in any sort of premiership window. We are re-building with youth and developing the AFL's youngest list. From 2009 early draft picks will be at a premium with the advent of the Gold Coast, so this year is a premium. We should be looking at maximum drafting of quality young players through the National Draft, trade out and/or retire all the remaining list cloggers (including the player who is the subject of your avatar). We certainly shouldn't be recruiting any other club's second-string cast-offs or expensive prima donnas.

I'm not going to respond in depth to your rant, other than to repeat Andy Lovell's match review from last week: Daniel Bell "Daniel Bell played a really good game at half back. He beat his man and had 23 possessions. He was really strong and physical in his attack on the ball. He ran hard and gave us some good drive and rebound off half back. In his first game back, he had a really positive impact." I'll take Lovell's word over yours any day, and I'll believe the coaching staff's reason for Bell's inclusion over your personal bias against him. Of course Bell should justify his inclusion in the team, but he shouldn't have to do any more to be selected than any other player. To say that he should have to "set the world alight at Sandy before being selected", or that he "needs to absolutely dominate with Sandy before he deserves another crack with the Seniors" is applying biased standards towards one player over others, and contradicts your own supposed "professed knowledge" of the game.

Daniel Bell is a member of our football team. If he is selected by our coaching staff to be in the 22 tomorrow, I will give him my support, like I will for every player selected. By all means argue for or against his inclusion on rational grounds, but throwing stupid tantrums and hatred at a player who wears the Melbourne jumper is demeaning of both Bell and you as a supporter. You might question Bell's disposal and use of the ball, but he gives everything he's got when he's on the field. And anybody who says he is not quick hasn't watched enough of him.