Nasher

Low key announcement for a low key bloke - doesn't seem the sort for fanfare. Definitely one of my favourites. There's been a lot of discussion about Jack Grimes and how the MFC did him no favours during his key developing years - Nev Jetta is in exactly the same boat. It's fantastic that he's turned in to such a solid defender given that he was as close to the scrap heap as you can get without ending up in it; his transformation in to such a reliable player really was against all odds. It's a testament to his own strength of character, as well as the developmental skills of our current coaching team. I was surprised when the club re-drafted him on to the rookie list but I'm now very glad they did. On the field his last two matches have been down relative to his last couple of seasons. Perhaps he was a man distracted and this will be a huge weight off his shoulders.

REVISION (I'm sure nobody cares, but it was bugging me): With PA and Collingwood: Out: Howe, Toumpas In: Kennedy, 29, 50 Which enabled the GC trade: Out: 6, 29, R1 2016 In: 3, 10 Which enabled the GWS trade: Out: 10, 43, 64 In: Bugg, 7 Netting off the final results, also excluding the zero-value pick we traded out [64], I think it was this: Out: Howe, Toumpas, 6 [Ah Chee], R1 2016 In: Kennedy, Bugg, 3 [Oliver], 7 [Weideman], 50 [Hulett].

I've actually stuffed that up anyway - we got Weideman and Bugg with that pick 10 and pick 43 went with it to GWS- I think Hulett arrived as part of that deal, not the Gold Coast one. The trade was more complex than the Saturn rocket - glad it's Mahoney, Viney and Taylor orchestrating that stuff and not me.

Because Toumpas was a potato? Anyway, the final trade was EDIT I stuffed this up, see posts below We got rid of two players who were borderline, a pick that doesn't even exist until next year and a decent player for a ready made mid, the next big inside midfielder, and two young key forwards with plenty to work with. Even in hindsight it's hard to fault this trade I think.

We beat GWS and got umpired out against North. Oh sorry, I forgot those didn't count. The Goliath Slaying Saints season has featured a loss to West Coast by 103 points, a loss to Adelaide by 88 points, and all their other wins have been against sides outside the 8. Keep finding ways of how this game reflects poorly on the MFC though.

Amazing how people will use pretty much any result to confirm their existing thoughts. If you're the type to want the sky to be falling, to write off anything good happening to the MFC, or to make bold declarations about average teams passing us, last night's result was a confirmation bias goldmine. All it said to me is that this year, no team is unbeatable. I actually took confidence from it rather than the opposite.

You're right, according to this article, assuming it's reflective of the final rules. Given that we took two first rounders in 2015 (Oliver, Weideman), in theory we could trade our 2017 first rounder this year, *and* our 2018 first rounder next year and still fall within the "two first rounders in four years" rule. A future first rounder is a pretty risky commodity to accept for the receiving club though - firstly because of the obvious reason you don't know where the position of it will be, but the second reason is that it delays your player development by a year. This is why the trade with Gold Coast last year was such a belter - had it not happened, we'd have had pick 6 and not 3 or 10 - assuming Oliver was gone and we took Weideman at 6, our Oliver equivalent player would a) be a year behind in development and b) probably a lower caliber player since our pick will be in the 10ish range. I don't reckon it'd get the deal done for a player of any significant quality. Especially when we are competing with clubs who have a first rounder *this* year to offer (and I know you weren't suggesting it would Stu - just extrapolating my own point further).

I thought we weren't allowed to do that again this year, having done it last year.

Not unlikely though, West Coast are already two games clear now as it is - and with Essendon up next, so that's not going to change soon. The top 8 is all but settled already. If you're in to ladder watching, our job from now is at best to nab 9th from Port, and at worst, defend 10th from Carlton and St Kilda (who play GWS and Geelong respectively this week). I think it's highly likely that we'll remain 10th and not move at all for the remainder of the season.

I'm on flu time unfortunately, this is the first time I've been online for any decent period of time all week.

Why would Jetta leave?

How about Jesse informing us that he'd like to be traded in round 13?

I've never lived in WA, but I suspect that prior to the Eagles being formed, not very many people over there were members of any of the VFL clubs or took anything more than a passing interest. Placing a team/teams there adds to the total membership and support of the national competition. In Tassie, everyone who might ever barrack for an AFL team already does, and is probably already a member of the club they barrack for. You've known me from this forum for a damn long time now, you reckon I'd drop my MFC membership and pick up a "Tassie Devils" one just because they rocked up? Does it help AFL membership and growth if I did? Tassie would gain a membership and the MFC would lose one, a net change of zero. That just seems pointless to me. Furthermore, there's no prospect of ever being able to draw a crowd of 30000 or more with a Tasmanian team. Our population is too small, sparse, and parochial about which end of the state they live in. You could argue there's no prospect of GWS ever doing that either, but I think you would be wrong. It might have worked in the early 90s when our local competition was strong, and hadn't yet been killed off by mass televisation of the AFL (people still went to the footy then). Too late now I reckon.

Without wanting to raise a tedious debate that has been done a dozen times already, putting a team in Tasmania would not be expanding the game, it would be diluting it.

Bang on as usual WYL. We're just as bad as we were in the 4 win 2014 season.

Unlike most in the match day thread, I didn't hate the first three quarters. In a game where strength matters, I felt we were just hanging on in the contest, which is a decent effort given the age and experience gap. Obviously the last quarter was limp and disappointing. Easy to blame selecting talls, but there were plenty of littles who gave us nothing, and I think it's no coincidence that it was young, under strength players like Stretch who were the least effective in the conditions. Pretty hard to swallow the idea that Grimes or Michie would have made that much difference.

Isn't SPC's avatar Nathan Brown?

My argument is purely that the emergencies (i.e. the three players who will not be selected, hence "the changes") will come from the extended bench. It was DemonWA who introduced the concept of players withdrawing through injury, which I said had nothing to do with my point, and you seem to agree with. If it's that tiresome, you're welcome to cease arguing.

That's not what we're talking about. Changes to the selected team will come from the extended bench only, I'd bet...someone else's house on it.

Not saying I'm not stunningly awesome at analysing football Clint. Just saying it's got nothing to do with my job title

I had Laidler listed as 189cm (from Google - may have been the wikipedia article), which is the same height as Josh Wagner and yes, 2cm taller than Hunt. I would hardly call it a significant difference. We can continue to quibble about a 1cm error if you like, but I would not have considered Laidler a "tall" - and certainly not the slow, lumbering type you'd expect to be left out due to weather conditions. My forum title is as it is because I have control of the forum software and do the maintenance on it. It is not intended to say anything about football nous.

Heh, no. Just suggesting that Laidler is a tall in the same sense that Wagner or Hunt are talls (i.e. they're not).

tall flanker

Alternate suggestion: Laidler has actually injured his knee. Radical idea I know.

I think he's suggesting he saw Kent with an injury (hence "saw something"). Obviously nobody in their right mind would suggest Kent be dropped after that game.