Nasher

I don't agree. This is not the share market where you hold stock with the underlying principle that you'll sell it eventually, so the "sell at best price" concept doesn't make sense. Clubs should be looking at how it can get best use for its players; that may be through a trade, but most of the time it's through further development of that player, that's why relatively few players are traded each year. The club clearly took the view that it would benefit more from retaining him than it would have from the trade. If clubs adopt the mantra of looking at trade value vs future trade value only as you suggest, then they ignore what the player is worth to the club if they keep him. They probably got it wrong in this specific case as Fitzpatrick hasn't really come on, but that doesn't make the principle wrong.

I doubt footy clubs think like this. "He had a pretty good year this year, let's trade him in case he bombs next year and isn't worth anything". You'd have to assume your players are going to progress, surely.

Agree - no way. You wouldn't delist a player like Gawn until you were absolutely dead certain he was no good; not reaching true AFL standard until he is 27 is a real possibility for a guy built like him and with his history. Peter Street spent 9 seasons in the AFL system for crying out loud. There aren't many players I'd offer almost unlimited patience to but Gawn is one of them.

Well done, you've established for the third time that it's not the lack of pre-season. I heard you the first time and wanted you tell me what you thought it was if it wasn't a lack of pre-season, you reply by telling me yet again that it wasn't a lack of a pre-season. Swell. I'm not trying to argue with you, debate you or disagree with you. I'm trying to encourage you to flesh your thoughts out further in to a point where you can convince me. I did genuinely want to know where you were going with this, but it's clearly futile. I'll just assume my question will go unanswered, you need not reply any further.

I was trying really hard not to put it like that, but that's pretty much what I thought too.

I feel like it's February again. Funny how these reports can snap me out of my footy season blues. I reckon I'm the true blue sky junkie. Thanks Saty.

I'm with you stmj. I'm aware it defies all logic and form, but I reckon we'll be fired up and they'll be flat. I think psychologically it would be very hard for them to get up for this game given the absolute gulf in class. Might just be wishful thinking. I guess we'll see. We'll lose by 20 or so and C&B will say it should've been 80.

Hawthorn by 18. Points. No, I will not pass the crackpipe.

It may not be the lack of pre-season, but since you've rejected it as an explanation for his loss of form, I was hoping you would offer up another one.

That conclusion is... interesting.I'm one of the geniuses that think the only scores that matter are the ones that actually happened. I've seen as many games where I thought the score line looked harsh in comparison to how we played, and games where we played poorly but for some reason, weren't punished. The history books will show that Sydney beat us by 31, not the 60 you've recorded on your head, and if they were unable to punish us when they're clearly a class above, surely some of the credit has to go to our side anyway. Certainly I thought that at the time.

Yay, my favourite game! The one where we start taking the actual scores, then start scaling them based on whatever we think the scores *should* have been, then start talking about those fictional scores as if they are the ones that matter. While you're there C&B, can you please turn the Adelaide and Essendon games in to losses - I don't think we had a right to win those. Make Collingwood a 70 point loss, Freo 100, but make GWS, St Kilda, Port and WB x 2 narrow victories - ta.

In a professional sport, doesn't it make sense that people responsible for the management of high performance teams want metrics to measure their teams on? This isn't 'Americanisation' of the sport - whatever the hell that means - it's just bog standard performance reporting in a professional environment. I agree that it's complicated and sometimes far too hard for the layman to make head or tail of all the information, but that's surely all part of the fun? If not, there's always the option of just tuning out. I certainly don't agree that the data is all worthless just because I don't always understand it, which the OP seems to be suggesting.

Geelong's % is only as low as it is because of that one belting they took against Sydney. If you exclude that result their % is around 120% - still not around the 140% of the top teams, but much better. Just goes to show what a difference one game can make it if it's on the extreme end of the scale.

Is this a real post McQueen? Better disguised alright - couldn't see it through Pedersen's nose which was smeared all over his face. It should not be a contest in who did a better job of pretending not to punch the other bloke in the face. It should be black and white.

I wonder if anyone was more frustrated, disappointed or embarrassed than Jordie?

Ben Holland frayed my nerves in front of goal more than any other player in my lifetime.

Watching your teammates kick points isn't a big improvement. Should've passed it, no ifs or buts I reckon.

I agree, but he does needs to add an element of awareness of his surroundings though. Should get a rocket up his **** next time he costs the team a goal because he has a shot and misses when a player is free in the square. Will be a better player once he learns when it is appropriate to take a risk and have a ping, and when to pass it off.

So what's the reason then if it's not lack of pre-season? I didn't see too many people raising these complaints about Garland last year when finished second in the B&F. Something has changed between then and now, so since you're an expert, I'd love to to hear your view. Speak slowly though so I can keep up.

Does the game plan patently reject trying to kick a winning score, or is it just our players doing that?

Why is Pedersen suddenly in all the outs? Doesn't belong near Casey on form, and would be the first player of all time to miss a game with a broken nose if that's what people are worried about?

Because in the black and white land of a football supporter's forum, there are only winners and losers. We're not allowed to enjoy progress or minor victories along the way.

I remember about a decade ago now, Craig Cameron spent some time on 'land rubbing shoulders with the fans, and one of the things he discussed was how 'success' was measured in the recruiting field. One of the things back then was number of games played - which produced funny results like calling Aaron Fiora a success. By this measure, Grimes 85 games makes him a clearly successful pick. Again, that's not to say that he hasn't been disapointing in my ways, but if people want to argue that Grimes has not been a sucessful draft pick, I'm very interested to hear what clear, measurable, repeatable metric they are using to measure it.

I didn't think Riley's game was a complete bust. I know there was that one shocker to Viney but on balance I thought he was okay. He also had 5 tackles and 7 and 7 the two weeks prior. I can't see Roos being in a hurry to give those sorts of numbers up.

Under what criteria would you call Trengove or Grimes failures? No doubt they've been disappointing but they do not belong in the same bucket as Morton, Strauss, Tapscott, Blease, Gysberts, Cook et al. They can, have and do play AFL standard football.