mauriesy

I thought it was very clever. It's obviously whooshed over a few heads.

That's because Dean Martin's dead.

Noticed this at the Melbourne & Olympic Park Trust website: "Work has begun on the $268 million stadium which is expected to be completed by the end of 2009. In recent weeks the addition of two more cranes has upped the ante on the futuristic stadium’s construction as it begins to emerge from its foundations ... Construction of the third and fourth cranes has begun, the retaining wall around the pitch is taking shape and the lift shafts are in place. Although it may not be immediately obvious, the site is expanding and everything is on track ..." There's a live web cam here. On the Melbourne fc website: Help build MELBOURNEfc's new home "Work on the new football stadium at Olympic Park is progressing rapidly and the futuristic building can now be seen rising from the ground."

True. Carey was not a true FF like Lockett and Dunstall, hence the lower scoring average. However, back to Ablett ... he's 24 and has played 137 games. Right now, I reckon he's the best player in the league, even if you include Judd, Brown and Franklin in the comparison. And he's shining in a great team (just like many of the others listed did). But comparisons with the others can only really be done when Ablett's career is over. With the exception of Judd, everyone else on YM's list is either retired or in the twilight. I'll wait until Ablett jnr (and Judd) ends up playing a couple of hundred games before making a meaningful end comparison.

Is this some sort of mantra? Someone here has applied this to just about every player in our team in the last few weeks. OK, let's not field a team against the Pies. We should forfeit the match, and just give all the players a run at Sandy to freshen them up and get their confidence back.

I think it's a combination of three things: 1. He might use disposal by foot too much. Perhaps he doesn't have the awareness to hand pass, or else it's always in tighter pack-type situations and a handball either isn't necessarily an option, or he can't pick one out. 2. He doesn't make enough space into which to receive the ball. He's almost purely inside with little outside capability. I think that's a speed issue, because a tagger with pace will always keep up with him. 3. When he receives the ball, there more often than not seems to be someone on his hammer. He either gets caught before he can kick or handpass, or he rushes his disposal to avoid the tackle. I think Jones is a similar situation, but he mangles his disposal even more.

I don't see how you can absolve McLean from responsibility today. Apart from a lack of marking forwards, a lack of experience in defence and pathetic, ineffective tackling, our biggest deficit today was in the clearances. We are getting walloped in that area every week. McLean, Jones and McDonald are our starting three, but they got thrashed today. As well, they are collectively as slow as treacle. McLean totally lacks the awareness that would allow him to overcome a lack of pace. The number of times he gets caught holding the ball is frightful. All teams have to do to beat Melbourne is tag McLean and Jones with pacey taggers and we don't generate any run whatsoever. That was the most embarrassing game I've been to this year. At least the Hawks and Bulldogs in Rounds 1 and 2 played like class teams. St Kilda played mediocre, scrappy football and still made us look like dunces.

The ratings trend for the footy show has been downwards for a while, but has accelerated in the last month. It's not due to just a seasonal factor or two. It actually went up directly in the week after the Caro stunt, from viewer curiosity about the reactions. But what you or I do with our remotes is not the only issue. It's what sponsors think and perceive ... they pay the bills. There's been enough disquiet for them to get edgey about offending half their customers. For instance, Crazy Johns, one of their main sponsors, is a company with a woman (John's widow) as CEO.

Oh yes they do. The problem for Channel 9 is that too many people are doing exactly what you say ... turning off. Ratings have recently dropped from about 500,000 viewers in Melbourne to 385,000, much of it attributable to the Caro stunt. Whether the blokes like it or not, shows like the Footy Show are not doing themselves a favour if they make half the Australian population (women) turn off. So it's not a simple question of either watching Sam or turning it off. Sam, and Channel 9, have to provide something that will win over viewers, not dissuade them. I watched the Footy Show for a bit last night, and didn't miss Sam Newman at all. It was just the same without him, no worse and in some ways better without all the misogynistic rubbish Sam goes on with. The whole show could certainly stand a bit of development from the tired old "boys pie night" formula.

Very interesting, thanks for the link. I was in Laurie's maths class at school in the 1960s. Not a bad teacher either. You knew he wouldn't take any rubbish.

Nasher is quite within his rights to be circumspect. Who knows whether a player like Newton will make it. Why do you want a "definitive assessment" ... so you can come back later and say he was wrong? All you can say about Newton is that he's got enormous potential, a good sized body, is a good mark and he has had some valuable experience. But for some reason he's not going on with it at present. He needs to pull his finger out and realise that potential himself. No one else is going to do it for him.

2004. In 2005 we took Jones, Buckley, Bartram and Neville ... Buckley is in fact a month or two older than Bate, Dunn and Newton.

Looks terrible in a Collingwood jumper.

Bate, Dunn and Newton were all bottom-aged when they were picked in the 2004 draft. There's 27 days age difference between the three of them.

Forget the Gold Coast or Western Sydney, I reckon the AFL should start up a team called the Once Were AllStars. They could be nomadic and their recruiting and drafting brief would be to punt on all the injury-prone, high draft pick or once-spruiked players that other clubs have let go. The money they saved on drafting and the salary cap could go towards low membership rates and cheap ground entry. They could get sponsorship from business like The Reject Shop, The $2 Shop or Best and Less. All the supporters who think there might be value in drafting 'bargain' players that were once promising but didn't come up with the goods could switch allegiance and live in hopeful and joyous anticipation but ultimate disappointment for the rest of their lives.

This is the more interesting paragraph: "... the Casey council has continued to attempt to persuade the Demons to consider a permanent move to the home of VFL club the Scorpions, currently aligned with the Saints but likely to join forces with Melbourne by 2010." It might be Caro joining a few more dots than there really are, but it throws up a whole new scenario vis-a-vis Sandringham.

From the AFL web site: "Rookie Players All clubs can maintain a rookie list of up to six players. Participation at the NAB AFL Rookie Draft is voluntary. A player included on a club's rookie list cannot play for the club in the AFL except in the Pre-Season competition or if a rookie-listed player is promoted as a long term injury replacement player A rookie player must be 18 (and under 23) before December 31 in the year he is drafted. A club can retain a maximum of three players on its rookie list for a second season provided it nominates those players at the time of the compulsory list lodgement." Once the player returns from a long-term injury, the rookie returns to the rookie list. A rookie could be promoted in the case of a mid-year retirement, but as Nasher says, it's unlikely.

But you said a real selection discussion.

Trading a player like TJ or Bruce or Green is not the same as trading a player like Petterd. Petterd is a player who "slipped" to 30 but who shows heaps of potential. A draft pick at around the same level is a totally unknown quantity. The obverse of having a team with too much old and dead wood is having one with too much inexperience and not enough 23-27-year-old "core", which is where players like Petterd will be with a few more years development. Trade him for an 18-year-old and we're starting over again..

Why is there a tendency on this board to want to trade a player (like Petterd) "for a handy pick" after spending 2-3 years developing them?

The suspension was for 10 weeks. He got 25% off for a guilty plea.

That's got nothing to do with the context of his aggression.

Why does Daniher get the blame for that? I would have though a few trips to the tribunal and subsequent suspensions did far more to "neuter his aggression".

Is there anything that the club has done lately that supposed supporters can't wait to jump on and criticise?

I've just chopped up my membership card and posted it back to the club in pieces.