Nasher

I mean more their stance, shape and running style. The ginger hair and no. 13 on the back just makes it all the more comical. Anyway, subjective thing is subjective. We could go on with the "does not!", "does so!" all day long.

It's hard not to - they look so alike. BB is right though - time to move past it.

As I said in the other thread, it was strange seeing a gun in Jordie's body (including jumper number - are the club taking the piss or what?) - and I say that as a former Jordie fan. Oliver is probably bigger though, I was surprised at the size of him. I did a similar double-take as I did when I saw vandenBerg for the first time last year. He definitely looks physically strong enough and good enough to play round 1, with the question of fit enough to be answered over the remainder of the pre-season. Exciting times.

And speculation is all it will ever be, as it's a little too draft tampering-ish for anyone to ever officially say it happened. It resonates well with me though and I think it did.

Fair point. I always thought Zaharakis "I fear needles" when he apparently has a tattoo on his arse sounded like an excuse for getting out of it without appearing to be dissenting.

The reason people assume they didn't know is because a) that's what Essendon said (yeah, I know) and b) it seems implausible that 34 (or more) players would knowingly and willingly be injected with a banned substance. Surely with a group that large, someone's conscience is going to kick in at some point.

That hasn't been contended by any of the people I've been having this debate with. If that's the case then I've been arguing against the wrong point. dc?

I can understand a stance of principles Choke, though I don't think it's quite as black and white as "drug cheat". DC et al seem to me to think it's the one year ban that makes a difference. I can't understand that at all.

My answer is a non-commital "I dunno". It sucks, no doubt, but he still has a truckload of time to redeem himself. If we were talking a life ban I might see your point. Ask yourself this: if Melksham has a spectacular 2017 and 2018 for the MFC, was the decision to trade still a bad one? How about if we did the trade at the end of 2016 or 2017 (ie after the ban is served)? Assuming we paid the same price, would that be better? If so, why?

Nobody will be paying him this year.

Okay. Your position is that because the player is going to miss one season out of the four he is contracted for, and for no other reason whatsoever, the entire decision to trade him in was bad. Is that correct? A yes or no will do. Edit: I'm not trying to be a tool here in case it comes across that way. Your position just makes no logical sense to me and I am trying to flesh it out.

It's already down the drain by the sounds of it.

In that case, we might as well just delist him now if we've already decided the whole trade is a bust.

I had this exact example lined up and ready to go in a previous post but left it out in the end. Obviously the club saw the reward as being worth the risks. No different here.

Again, I think you can only conclusively call the trade a mistake if you look at the first year of his contract in isolation and discount all the possibilities for years 2, 3, 4 and beyond.

The fact that the bulk of your post focuses on whether Melksham is that good a player or not really just enforces my point that the suspension is immaterial to the value of the trade. If Melksham turns out to be a bust, we'll bemoan the poor trade for years, but if he turns out to be a gun in years 2, 3 and 4 and beyond, we'll all be slapping ourselves on the back for it. Both these outcomes and everything in between are independent of his one season suspension, which is why I see it as little more than a 1%er in the total value of the trade. At the end of 2019 when he's out of contract and we're looking back, we will barely remember that this even happened, given that there would have been 3 footy seasons in between.

They probably just took the view that even if he got rubbed out, it would be worth it. One year in the context of a whole career is almost immaterial; he'll come back at the ripe old age of 25 and have another 5+ years. It's really not that different to drafting a player who does his knee on day 1, although for this he can return fit and with no risk of reoccurrence. I really don't see the big deal.

The original Weid didn't actually look as ugly as I remembered. If he did away with the mullet and had a shave he'd almost look like a human being, rather than the ogre I remember from my childhood. Moving on...

I'm just disappointed my Wayne Weidemann joke fell flat. Maybe nobody remembers who he is.

Having watched the highlights, I now get the Jordie McKenzie references. Again, not a reflection of expectations or quality of player, just looks and style. He's a dead ringer I reckon.

What do you mean? He looks nothing like Pavlich.

Wines!! I mean, Clayton!! I mean, Oliver!!

That is actually pretty relaxing, and a tad hypnotic.

Melbourne + GWS relationship = Geelong + Adelaide relationship. It's just not getting the same amount of attention because we're two low profile clubs. I also thought Essendon turned over a new leaf this year. St Kilda were this year's trade villains.

Sorry to say but Sandilands is already on a list.