Nasher

I agree that it's great that he dominated, but attitude-wise I think we need to raise the bar a bit higher than "didn't sook". It should be a given that players don't sook when demoted.

They gang tackled him and he got a free for in the back, so he got up off the ground and kicked the footy. Pendlebury's take on it (in the interview with Jones) was that all it achieved was giving away his first touch. Not disputing that they went after him. Just disputing any assertion that it did them any good.

First line was a just a light hearted joke mate, sorry if I offended you. The rest I thought explained and justified my position with no assumptions or judgements, but fair enough. Enjoy your flight.

Yep: you look at one individual matchup in isolation, and I look at the big picture. No, I do see your point, but I think it's just a moot one if your team is getting thrashed. We tagged him well too, but we also did a lot of other things well that night too, our pressure on the ball in general (through the middle and forward) meant their ball use was under pressure, rushed and in general, poor. Their forwards had to push back a lot to help out, which meant when they did get it, their forays forward were disorganised. I'd hardly be losing sleep over Sloane's tag if I were the Crows. Footy is a team game, St Kilda's system as a team tonight sucks. Given that they're being annihilated in every other aspect of the game, St Kilda ought to be questioning whether tagging one singular player is the best use of their midfield resources.

They're 57 points behind, I'd say it isn't working.

I'm sure Steve appreciates the reminder that what he posted was his opinion. I'm not sure whose opinion he thought he was posting.

Demonland is not a "rumour forum". Rumours get discussed naturally, but that's not the entirety of what the forum is about.

Great news - and a big middle finger to everyone in footy circles who helped the rumours and pressure on him get legs.

I for one am looking forward to when we can move past this expression.

I choose to believe Spencer is still a chance. I was so sure. Delusion got me through 2008-2013, so why stop now?

Salem: clearly best 22 returns from suspension Spencer: only ruckman, not competing with smalls for selection JKH: rewarded for 47 touch VFL game Stretch will be fine, and will get his chance again. Patience.

WTF. You're killing me here Goody!

Same. Bit disappointed to be honest.

I've read this paragraph half a dozen times now, and I can't see past an insinuation that because she did a piece on WAG fashion, she invited the twitter trolling to the point of suicide upon herself. Please tell me I have misunderstood.

For someone who has a reputation for being injured, Reid hasn't missed that much footy. Other than the entirety of 2016, and a heap in 2013, he's only missed a handful of games. Played 22/24 in 2011, 22/25 in 2012, 20/25 in 2014, 22/24 in 2015 and 10/10 this year so far. That doesn't scream broken player to me. I'd be surprised if they got rid of Rohan. The most interesting of the three in my opinion. The OP's list of grievances is specific enough to sound plausible and difficult to fabricate, so I'll be interested to see if any of it turns out to be accurate.

I think they will bring in Spencer. It's not just the improvement in the actual ruck, it's the flow-on effect in the rest of the structure. Pedersen plays forward/second ruck and provides a much needed target (doubly important if Hogan doesn't play), Watts stays as a permanent forward, TMac goes back to full time defence and pushes OMac out of the side. To me, that's four positional upgrades by just adding one player. Plus it'll be nice to win the odd hitout - I know we've been on top of clearances without them, but it will still only help, surely. It doesn't matter if Spencer only plays a game or two until Gawn returns, it's still definitely worthwhile I think.

Hmm. I thought I recalled him being promoted - maybe I'm thinking of Mitch Clisby from a couple of years ago.

And for what it's worth: Lumumba, JKH, Kennedy, White and Trengove to go. 5 is a pretty reasonable turnover. [ed: forgot White was only on the rookie list. Four changes to the senior list might be underdoing it.] Hulett or King will only go if we need spots, and only with the intention of being rookie listed. Otherwise they'll be given time as developing talls. vanders will be signed for another two, or one if the injury prognosis is really grim. Has too high a ceiling to give up on him yet. Tim Smith for a second year on the rookie list if he doesn't do enough for a promotion to the senior list in the back half of the season. Isn't Pedersen up again this year? Thought he only signed for one. He's a year by year proposition, but at this stage I'm leaning towards keeping him while there is so much uncertainty around our development talls.

I was of the belief that it wouldn't help too, but whatever. Angus has access to much better advice than I do, so if he thinks this will help - even if it is purely for confidence - I'm all for it.

Best of luck. Hope he is able to get it right, as he is an asset at his best.

It's never too soon. I start thinking about it before round 1 usually. It's fun to see how my own view changes as the season unfolds.

Spencer AFL or VFL "depending on matchups" according to Misson. The caveat on matchups is just the fitness guy not overstepping the boundaries of his role by pre-empting selection - clearly Spencer is an upgrade on Pedersen in the ruck (who is an upgrade on TMac as second ruck/forward, who is an upgrade on OMac as a defender) and they view Spencer as 100% fit and primed. Zero doubt in my mind that he's in now.

With pick 9? And being Nathan's brother would have been irrelevant to the recruitment team. If I was going to rewrite history on that draft I'd pick Cripps at 9 - but I'm pretty happy with Salem.

It's been their grand final too lately anyway. How many players on their list have actually played in one?

And possibly Spencer.