mauriesy

The two are not mutually incompatible. I can recognise it would be very hard to climb to the summit of Mt Everest, yet still approach the task as if I was sure I could do it. Otherwise why bother? We have only one option. Play to win and select a team to win. No football club could ever seriously abide "tanking", in my opinion. So that means picking the best players for the respective positions, young or old. It doesn't mean not giving a promising young player a start, but it does mean not promoting players who are not ready or not showing enough skill, application, experience, or whatever. "Youth at all costs" is just stupid ... for implementation of that policy, see: Richmond 06 May. And there are now even supporters questioning why Petterd didn't play from Round 1! The only player who has done that recently is Bartram, and that was based on outstanding NAB Cup form. None of McLean, Jones, Dunn, Bate or Sylvia played from Round 1 of their first season. Jeez, let's just put all of this year's draftees in for Round 1 2008.

Ah ... there's our problem then.

I thought Neale went out of his way on Footy Classified to say he and the players hadn't given up.

No wonder most women find it hard to progress in this world ... the continual innuendo, vitriol and comments about personal appearance they have to put up with. One side of me says Caroline Wilson should give that show away. Not because she's not good, but because her being talked over constantly by those verbal bullies in Carey and Hutchinson makes me uncomfortable. The other side of me says "stick in there Caroline". She is a good sports journo. I suspect she's not liked by quite a few because she gets too much into the truth. Caroline Wilson compared to Hutchinson is like Four Corners compared to Today Tonight ... one gets to real issues, the other is just self-serving sensationalist fluff. I also don't see anyone having a go at those two balding misogynists about their hairstyles or attractiveness.

Gieschen quoted on the AFL website: "On the new hands-in-the-back interpretation, he conceded it created some difficulties, because an umpire at the front of a contest could not see whether a player was touching an opponent's back. "We don't want the umpires to guess in that situation," he said. Gieschen admitted that could lead to a free kick being paid at one end, whereas a similar infringement might go unpaid at the other, depending on umpire positioning. "That's been the case in all umpiring through the ages," he said. "Unfortunately it's a fact of umpiring at AFL level." You don't suppose he is referring to a particular game played yesterday, do you? :angry:

Yes, that was as a "nominated" rookie ... one who could play games in the senior side. As you correctly point out, due to having two veterans, this year we have no nominated rookie. Warnock was elevated to the senior list for 2007, and it's not beyond possibility that Neaves, Hughes or even Bode could be elevated in 2008.

Actually I think the way we've played kids recently has been pretty good. For the record, here's our young player selection in the last five drafts: 2002: Bell (14), Smith (15), Rivers (26), Hunter (54), Ferguson (66) 2003: Sylvia (3), McLean (5), CJ (36) plus Davey (rookie) 2004: Bate (13), Dunn (15), Newton (43) plus P Johnson for pick 29 2005: Jones (12), Buckley (53), Bartram (60), Neville (68) plus Warnock rookie elevation 2006: Frawley (12), Petterd (30), Garland (46), Weetra (62) I would have thought the fact that the great majority are still on our list and contributing indicates a good success ratio. The only conspicuous early pick failure was Smith and the only other one who's gone is Hunter. Given that the later the pick, the more speculative the outcome, there have been some good picks beyond the first round. There's also been a good mix of talls and running players, unlike Richmond who have put a lot of their recent high picks into fast but soft runners. There's still ample time for players like CJ, Newton, Buckley, Neville, Frawley, Garland and Weetra, especially with the likelihood of a bit of a clean-out of quite a few retiring and older players next year. That will also give opportunity, I think, for Hughes and Neaves to progress from rookie status. I can see 4-5 draft selections and 2 Rookie elevations next year to replace players like Holland, Bizzell, Ward, Brown (maybe retired) and Wheatley without affecting the general balance and talent pool much. We don't get much output from most of these players, and it's a good time to be a young player if you put in the work and build your skills. The danger of a simplistic "play the kids" philosophy is exactly the fate Richmond suffered just this weekend.

Or our effort in the 1st quarter against Port? "Kick it long" in hope to a contest clearly isn't enough. We have to be more clever than that. Quote Neale Daniher: "I thought we improved today in a lot of areas. We still need to improve with our ability to hit with our feet, forward of centre, and that was our thing. We just weren't able to find enough targets inside 50. The first quarter just killed us, with our just banging it in there."

After watching last night's game, I can see what CAC meant about Anderson's diabolical kicking.

Besides, I'd have thought asking whether Weetra was a stroke of genius or a blunder is a tad premature. Come back in about two years and revisit the question.

Crossed out the names that have hardly been in the team this year.

I think that is the universal dilemma of modern football i.e. getting the ball down quickly to a contest but risking dispossession and a turnover, versus kicking shorter and maintaining possession but allowing the opposition to flood back to block off options. If you have the answer, please provide it. Even coaches can't work it out.

Jeez, I hate that disrespectful notation. You're not The Great Dee-viator are you?

You can only hope. He's in the same position as Carroll a couple of years ago. While he probably won't ever be a KPP, he might still have more upside as a third tall than Bizzell, Wheatley or Ferguson.

The Match Review Panel is a bunch of administrators looking for any possible negligent contact and desiring to penalise it, whereas the tribunal itself is now paneled by a bunch of blinkered ex-players who are sympathetic to the player's position and can't see the implications of the precedents they are setting. I also tend to think the points system is a joke. It is over-formulaic, and I thought it was better when people had to take some responsibility for working out the negligence or guilt of a player for themselves, rather than matching the actions against a points table and doing complex mathemathical calculations to determine penalties. I defer in the common sense of these matters to your fellow female ... my better half ... who thought Burgoyne's case was marginal in the field of play and under the conditions, but couldn't work out how Goodes didn't get suspended for at least a week for a dirty, forceful action that felled someone behind the play who wasn't expecting it.

Yes. The team has simply lost too many key players, had to use too many fringe/depth players in key positions, and lacked enough bench rotation to keep up with the pace. The solution to the ruck won't be found immediately. White will keep deteriorating as a ruckman. Jamar doesn't look the goods around the ground, PJ is not a ruckman, and even if he gets promoted next year Neaves is still a development proposition. That leaves manufacturing a trade of some sort, I believe. Hopefully Frawley will turn into the one more quality key defender we need. I think ultimately Rivers, Frawley and Carroll/Warnock is the only good tall backline possibility. Time has passed Bizzell, Wheatley, Ferguson and Holland by ... they are simply not quite fast enough, good enough, young enough or strong enough ... in a couple of cases all four.

So at a time when we lack running power, you'd waste one of our most aerobically capable run-with players by plonking him cold in the forward line? He's not a full-forward. He's too light for a start. He's a player who is better playing across the whole forward line where his speed is useful, applying forward line pressure by chasing out of defence, and feeding off bigger forwards like Neitz or Robertson. Problem is we haven't had Neitz or Robertson. Pickett was one of the players who made the team a lot harder last year. Just what we needed at the time. Maybe one day Hughes will make the team. But at the moment he's not good enough.

Am I happy with the performance in 2007 of experienced players like TJ, White, Yze, Pickett and Miller? Of course not. They set an example as older members of the team in terms of their application and they are all down on form (some a lot, some a little). But can we clear up this "leadership" thing? The leadership group is Neitz and McLean (both of whom have been injured for four weeks), Green (also injured last week), McDonald and Bruce (who I don't think you can really criticise in terms of how hard they are trying). The ones in question are actually not the "leaders" in the group, unless you mean simply that every older player is a "leader".

"Seems like". "Looks like". "Appears to be". "I reckon". "I think it's obvious". Too much opinion parading as fact on this board at the moment.

This leadership question is mainly hot air. It's an easy one to latch on to and whine about. All of our leadership group were off the park on Saturday night injured with the exception of Bruce. As usual, Bruce ran his guts out and was one of our best. Our problems at the moment are (I think in order of importance): 1. skills generally, 2. lack of fit inside midfielders (McLean, Jones, plus Moloney unfit) and players who can run hard (e.g. Green, Bartram, plus Sylvia, Pickett unfit), 3. lack of forward targets (Neitz, Robertson), 4. ruck (not only taps but around the ground contribution from all of White, Jamar and PJ) and 5. lack on one more decent, tall backman. In regard to skills, with the players that we have injured, we have too many substituting into the team who are below good AFL standard. That's not to question some players endeavour (like Godfrey, Ward), but simply that kicking skills and the ability to hit targets fall below standard as a team. And harder players on the park like Moloney and Sylvia still have OP problems, exacerbated by diminished substitutions off the bench when they do play by the level of injuries we have received.

Final: Sandy 21.18.144 Scorpions 10.5.65 9 to 1 goal last quarter. Agree about Newton possible for next week. Ward's injury is an arm.

Nearly finished ... Sandringham 19.16 Scorpions 10.5

Someone is going to be hoisted?

Some of the masses here were arguing in the last draft for picking up Polak. Remember the moans about our lack of activity in the trade period? We would probably have traded the pick we used for Petterd.

Plus what's the obsession with "200cm", other than it's a nice round figure? Why not 198 or 199cm? We've got three of them. (No comment of whether they're actually any good.)