mauriesy

So are you saying it's OK to have a little racism in Australia because it's much worse overseas? That's like saying it's OK to have some bashings in Australia because overseas they've got wars. The idea that Australia is totally 'tolerant' is a myth. I seriously doubt problems between HL and Collingwood were just over a homophobic scribble on a poster. There would be an ongoing problem with personalities and their views, of the type that may or may not recur at any football club. It's up to Paul Roos to find out, and to see whether HL fits in with his plans. I'm happy to leave it to him.

#54 where are you? That's showing my age.

Amazing amount of bile here for someone who wanted to take a moral stance about material that was clearly anti-gay. Just because you complain about such discrimination doesn't make you a 'nutter', 'screwball', 'self-righteous', 'easily offended' or a 'tool'. I'd imagine Brock McLean would complain too. Lumumba either can't get on at Collingwood because it's full of players like Dane Swan, or he can't get on at any 'blokey' football club. If it's the former, I don't have a problem, if it's the latter then I will have some doubts. To suggest he wouldn't improve our list is naive. He'd be a definite improvement off half-back over Grimes, Terlich or the de-listed Nicholson, and provides plenty of metres gained even if his kicking is not 100%. As usual, it depends on the cost. For me: a high draft pick, no; second-round or PSD, yes.

It's supposed to be for rookies, not crookies.

The only successful first-round draft picks we've had in the decade prior to 2012 have been Nathan Jones and, ironically, James Frawley. All the others have been underachievers relative to their selected position. The two high priority picks we got (Sylvia, Scully) were largely wasted, partly because they were bad drafts anyway (we'd be lamenting Scully like we do Watts if he'd stayed). There's not one single player left from the 2003 ND (and 2011 by the way). There's one left from 2004 (Dunn), 2005 (Jones), 2006 (Garland, if Frawley leaves) and 2007 (Grimes). These were the drafts that should have left us with established, quality, experienced players in the 25-28 age group showing leadership. Talk of cycles is irrelevant when you look at what we've done.

Agree it was a bad error of judgement and poor taste, although it would have been a little less dumb if they hadn't been photographed together.

I can see the effects of free agency, expansion clubs, the 'fixture', lack of TV appearances etc. on lower clubs, and there are some reasonable arguments in favour of being caught in a cycle that makes it hard to drag yourself off the bottom. But I think they are grossly over-stated, and they risk pervasion of a 'woe-is-us' attitude that's as self-defeating as it is annoying. There's only one main reason that we are where we are, and that is our recruiting up to 2012 was deplorable. Certainly it wasn't helped by losses to free agency and permanent injury, but if we'd drafted contestable, hard, skilled players with a strong will to win, we wouldn't be down the bottom and fearing losing players to clubs in the premiership window. The situation developed well before free agency and expansion clubs were in existence, going back as far as 2003.

We might have to rename this the No T$ no B$ no F$ thread.

Is it time to start fading Frawley out of the masthead? He can always make a miraculous re-appearance.

The usual argument will be that we don't deserve one because we've stuffed up previous picks, our trouble is all of our own making, and it's 'pity'. However, 'deserve' is not the same as 'need'. By any stretch of the imagination, we need a priority pick. Gold Coast and GWS have had the equivalent of about 15-20 each, and reduced the quality of other struggling teams' picks at the same time.

A couple (for example Crameri's free kick paid against Dunn) were the result of horrific umpiring though.

Anyone who has played 166 games of AFL football has had a much better than average career. Congratulations to him.

I think it's a good lesson for supporters in allowing a player to develop, rather than wanting to trade them out like swap cards after 20 games.

There are not many more than half a dozen players on our list who were regulars in the so-called tanking year of 2009. What's the excuse for the other 36?

I don't have a problem with Caro's article, other than perhaps to note that today there are only a handful of players left in the current side from the 'alleged tanking' year (Jones, Frawley, Dunn, Grimes, Jamar, Garland) that were moderately experienced at the time, and hardly any coaches and administrators.

I have a different theory, at least in part. Melbourne is now so spooked by 1. the fear of losing, and 2. the Etihad "hoodoo" that it's become chronic. Dunn came out earlier in the week and spoke about defeating the 'hoodoo'. As soon as that gets into the mind of players, they can't help but get stressed and choke when the pressure gets high, like it did in the last quarter. It's like the pressure that caused Greg Norman's final-round meltdown in 1996 when he realised he could become the first Australian to win the US Masters, and the first time he could win a major on US soil. His skills disappeared, and he started pulling and duffing shots that he would normally execute without thinking. Add to that Roos' idea that players "just don't know how to win" and the issue is a severe one. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting it's not a skill and personnel problem or a problem with the quality of the team. But the total lack of skill under self-induced pressure was more than just a coincidence, particularly given that we pushed Port Adelaide to 3 points away in our last game. I also think the standard responses of 'culture', 'laziness', 'dumb' and 'lack of effort' have been easy outs for success-starved supporters, and are not particularly helpful with this team under Roos coaching. Until players can execute skills under pressure, we are going nowhere. And there's only two solutions ... get rid of the players who can't, and train the rest until their feet and hands metaphorically bleed.

Should change your name to Bitter and Pessimistic then.

Regardless of what you think of some players, this is really pushing decency, let alone the Demonland Code of Conduct that says players should be afforded some respect.

So what's the ball going to do? Sit in the centre square all day?

I'm more worried about the size of her thighs. Well done Jess. And a good time to boot.

I agree with the confusion about umpiring, but can't agree with the demise of player skills. I think there's a lot of romanticising about the 'good old days', but if you watch any football match from more than a decade ago, you see far less system, lower fitness and two-way running, less structure, unaccountable defence and less accurate passing by hand and foot in favour of throwing the ball wildly on to the boot. Sides of bygone eras would get thrashed by any modern AFL football team. The only thing that might have been better in the old days is goal kicking, although Essendon did manage to hand us a premiership by kicking 7.27 in 1948.

The trouble with this thread is that everyone is frothing off everyone else's lather.

So everyone is criticising Frawley's 'loyalty' because he wants to put off contract negotiations to the end of the season, and he might go, but then they're jumping up and down with the prospect of getting Malceski, whose 'loyalty' to the Swans is that he wants to put off contract negotiations to the end of the season, and he might go? Some FA double standards here.

So we could have two coaches in succession with a succession plan to get out of coaching?

I don't particularly care how easily they kick the ball around in their back half, as long as they can't kick it easily past centre and inside 50. Players properly covering the corridor can easily then move over to the other side of the ground, even if the opposition have six kicks to get it down there.