Nasher

By the logic you've demonstrated in this thread, the Ox was clearly finished in 1996 after 67 games. He missed nearly two *entire* seasons!For a more modern example, how about Max Bailey? Clubs have waited much longer for much worse players than Clark.

In: Tapscott, Spencer, Davis Out: Garland, Gawn, Toumpas. Surprises me that some want to drop the sub rather than the subee. Kent added energy and Toumpas had a disaster.

Jumper number 1.

I suspect he might have been playing injured. Just a hunch ;-)

You still have to pay him his fixed term contract and it's still counted in the cap, and besides we're still miles off reaching the cap anyway. So yes it's sunk. I only see downside to delisting him and no upside.

When those who are qualified to say so declare it a bust, upon which the club and Clark will agree upon mutual retirement terms. I've got to say I'm staggered that anyone who saw him play doesn't want to give him every last opportunity to get fixed, especially when all the costs of retention are sunk.

If you really want to run with the ROI notion, what you're proposing still doesn't make any sense. If we bought his stock at $20 a share, you're wanting to flog it off for 1c. It costs us nothing extra to keep him (contracted and would still come under the salary cap so it's all a sunk cost), and we know what he adds when fit, so we might as well wait until he either comes back or wait until the liquidators step in. It makes no sense to cut our losses now.

I'm not sure I'm the one being daft here. You're either trying to tell us that he should be delisted if he has a career injury, or we've got a player on our list who is paid a lot but hasn't played much. Thank goodness we've got you here to point that out, we might not have worked it out otherwise. This is such the bleeding obvious that I thought you must be trying to make some other subtle point that I was missing. Guess not.Anyway, Clark is probably our best player and he'll be given every last opportunity to get up to scratch. If there is even the slightest chance of a return, the club will wait. And I'm absolutely fine with that, I too can wait.

I'm really not sure what your point is, unless you're suggesting that we should have forseen this.

I once made a comment that Cale Morton would be Craig Cameron's legacy. Sadly what panned out wasn't quite what I had in mind.

If it's not a decent mid on the table then we're better off just keeping Fitzpatrick IMO.

...for England? He's playing as a non-international player and has retired from Cricket in Australia. He could be the next Darren Pattinson.

Quick, rush Ed Cowan back!We're gone. The cupboard is completely bare. It's the Aussie equivalent of out: Pedersen in: Dunn.

Hutchy from TV's last name is Hutchison, not Hutchinson.

Cross will be a DFA. If we want him he'll cost nothing. I certainly wouldn't trade Fitzpatrick for him.

I wonder how they'd be travelling if they didn't have him. Suns take Ablett, Giants take Scully.

Casey just haven't been the same since the MFC took Fitzpatrick off them ;-)

Please elaborate, with verbatim quotes preferably (don't paraphrase, I want the opportunity to derive my own interpretation). I very much doubt it is the club's intention to turn Watts in to a ruckman; it seemed to me to be an on-the-fly tactic borne out of necessity, and that's absolutely fine with me.

The conditions, two injured players and two players doing not doing their share of the work might have been a contributing factor.

P_man was talking about Wines being sensational, not Toumpas. Thanks for the long winded rebuttal, though

Player, 2013 games, average % time on ground Drew Petrie, 16, 99.3 Ted Richards, 15, 98.7 Tom McDonald, 11, 98.3 In round 1, 11 players had 100% game time. Lee Spurr, Dustin Fletcher, Robbie Tarrant, Cale Hooker, Zac Dawson, Nathan Brown, Ted Richards, Lachie Henderson, Michael Jamison, Heath Grundy, Drew Petrie. As I asserted, mostly key defenders. In round 2 there were 3 players, one of whom was James Frawley. In round 3, 12. Source is AFL website. Doesn't sound rare at all to me, though I accept the explanation as to why Garland should probably have been rotated.

It's ground breaking to know that in 5 weeks we've suddenly turned from miles off the pace to middle of the road. It's an interesting point in light of the almost universally accepted wisdom that our midfield is third world.

?It was a serious question.

Despite what many people say, the statistics usually do tell the story.

It's fairly standard practice for key defenders to have 100% game time isn't it?