Nasher

I don't think anyone thinks if you just wait for all your players to turn 27, they'll magically be good. Age is still a good indicator though; if your side is full of 27+ year olds, as you allude to, you've probably got a list that is in its peak. Those players who are 27+ are all going to be better than they were when they were 22-24, which most of our players are. You haven't really disproven the link between success and age at all. I would have thought most people understand that the key ingredient to contending for a flag is having lots of good players on your list.

Players recruited as mature age players are always going to be the exception to the rule. Generally age correlates with experience; if you sort our side from the weekend in order of matches played, Jones and Pedersen the only two in the under 70 games bracket (which comprised of 18 players) that aren't in the 18-22 year old age bracket. Even if you exclude them, it is still without a doubt an inexperienced side. Our median player had 55 games. Tom McDonald also seems to be experienced beyond his years with 86 games up his sleeve at 23; he is easily on 250 game pace and is a chance for 300 if his body continues to hold up.

Good question. As someone pointed out in the post-match thread, you'd be pretty upset if the umpire called "touched - play on" so your defenders shepherded it through, only for the review to reveal it wasn't touched. Once the field umpire has yelled "touched - play on" then the "touched" part should not be in question because the players have already acted up on it. The umpire should be informing the goal umpire that the kick was touched and that is the end of it. The score reviews really should only be for reviewing elements inside the goal umpire's jurisdiction.

I'm in hemingway's camp that Jesse himself probably doesn't know. It's still a long way out. I agree though that anyone outside those you named who claims they do know, is completely full of it.

Now *that* is a thread bump.

I'll believe Hogan's gone when he's standing at a press conference in his Freo trackies. Until then I'll give him the benefit of the considerable doubt and assume he's staying, enjoy watching his rise, and tune out from the blowhards like Langdon who always chuck this kind of carp out there to try and remain relevant.

Just watched his post match interview again. Heh - he is just an excited kid trapped in the body of a beast. Enjoy that while you can buddy!

How about the luxury of moving Jones to HB in the last, knowing Oliver and Viney could get the job done?

That's what I thought. He's a country lad who clearly hasn't had the publicity coaching that others like Weideman have - this was obvious when the pair were interviewed. Best to knock it on the head while it is still harmless and funny.

That's what I thought. He's a country lad who clearly hasn't had the publicity coaching that others like Weideman have - this was obvious when the pair were interviewed. Best to knock it on the head while it is still harmless and funny.

I just enjoy not having to go through the "gee, he's off to a slow start, but I'm sure he'll come on..." with our more recent batch of early draft pick midfielders. I know people have been saying it for years (looking at you, ProDee) and I'm very slow to get on the bandwagon, but top shelf quality is almost universally evident immediately. Hogan, Brayshaw and now Oliver are clear examples of first impressions counting for everything. It's no guarantee that they will actually reach the top shelf, but I am starting to think that looking all at sea early (thinking Morton, Toumpas) is pretty much a guarantee that they won't reach the top shelf.

<-- is sorry for ever mentioning it

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.