Nasher

I'm not suggesting it means anything. Someone asked how to get the numbers, so I provided them.

To be fair, he offered his opinion when asked for it by Redleg. I don't see these comments as concerning himself with club politics.

I was commenting on his output in 2008 and 2010 in that thread. It's hardly pumping him up. He sucked last year and needs to improve on tonight. Has credits in the bank, though, for mine.

Reckon that's very harsh Franky. Particularly on Garland.

Does that mean anything, these days? Most sides have more than three good defenders. Even we have more than three good defenders.

Not a single goal was kicked to one of the ends for 3 of the 4 quarters. What the...?

Can't be bothered writing a 22, but for mine Frost and Newton went from question marks to certainties. On GRRM's 22, I suspect Grimes will play, on the field, in place of JKH. I'm not the fan I used to be, but I just don't get the impression Roos is in a rush to leave him out. I'd have Pedersen in place of Gawn - think we need one of our rucks to be mobile. Gawn and Jamar together is one dinosaur too many IMO. Michie and Toumpas competing to fill in for Bernie. Watts, if fit, for Vandenberg. Loved AV's game tonight, but I want Watts to be given every chance. Not convinced that our coaches will ditch one of their clear favourites for a newbie from the NEAFL. There, I wrote a 22 without writing a 22.

On tonight's show, I would. No line drawn in a players name is ever permanent - not for me anyway - but they are down the queue at present for mine. Can't say I won't have completely changed my mind in a week's time after the next game, but that's what I think right now.

Not a free agent for another 2 years mate.

He didn't say "where we're at" isn't subject to change, I guess.

Ugh, forgot about Dawes missing for round one. Sparked a new round of hitting my head on the wall over that one. The second ruck has to stand up, then, and it has to be Pedersen IMO. Gawn and Jamar not mobile enough for mine, which is what Dawes offers. Pedersen's got a few weeks to find form.

I don't see Gawn, Pedersen and Jamar all playing when we're up for points. None particularly amazed me today, reckon there's a lot to play out in that regard over the rest of the PS.

Looked a threat in the second half. I'm a JKH fan, but Garlett is a step up. Suspect he's probably got a short shelf life, but he definitely takes the pressure off JKH to come on immediately.

What was wrong with Dawes?

Vandenberg is a unit. Felt like a real noob when he came on and I went, "uhh, who's the tall in 37?". Not sure if it was just the TV effect, but he looks big. I tried to buy rpfc's softly softly approach, but he looked like he belonged out there to me.

I've stopped reading during the play. Can't stand the nauseating theatrics any more.

Not suicidal, which is a great relief. Plenty to be happy about I thought. Our imports plus incremental natural improvement from young players such as Salem really added something.

Vandenberg very impressive. Built like an outhouse. Much better input from Dawes, Lumumba and Garlett that quarter. Tyson and Hogan - gush.

The Wona game on. Told my 7 year old son that I watched this whole game with him as a baby sleeping in my arms and nearly threw him with excitement. He thought that was hilarious. Feels like yesterday, where the hell is the time going?

On the thread listing, if you click where it says "xxxx replies", it brings up a list. The centurions and double-centurion: Member name Posts beelzebub 282 ManDee 149 old dee 125 daisycutter 125 Dees2014 105 jnrmac 104 Edit: Looking at the list, this is my first contribution. Damn. Did so well in keeping my nose clean.

Garland's "breakout" (as much as I hate that word) year was in 2008, not 2010. 2010 was just picking up where he left off after he missed all but the first game of 2009 with a foot injury. http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11905-2008-player-review-20-colin-garland/

Garland doesn't belong on that list; he was established in the side and playing regular, good footy by the time he was 21. I know it feels like he's been around forever but the guy is only 26, he's only just reached "well in to his career" now and his best footy is arguably still ahead of him. I agree with the gist of your point, though.

I think if your midfield sucks to begin with, then by definition you can't have good depth. I agree that people confuse "lots of nearly good enough players" with "good depth". The likes of Aidan Riley fit squarely in to this category for me. Midfield depth is a 1%er anyway. Of far more importance is having the midfield group in your best 22 be par or better if you want the side to be competitive.

Give this man the prize. I've removed "Dick" from the filter. If anyone ever finds silly words in the filter that need removing, PM me rather than just hoping we might stumble on it in the thread.

Yes. Have some pride, damnit!