Nasher

Exactly.

Since I can't see the papers scrambling for the scoop, or the club(s) scrambling for a press conference, I'm assuming this reported in a rumour context and not a fact context.

This line has always grated on my nerves, though I could never put my finger on why. I think I've worked it out. These young players have never known anything else other than playing football. They go from being at school, training in the afternoon and playing footy with their mates on the weekend, to ditching school and just stepping up the training. At what stage do they get to learn about hard work and professionalism? In any other industry, there's no such thing as a professional 18-21 year old. Other 18-21 year olds are either still studying, or undertaking an apprenticeship or traineeship, and very few of them will have taken on their chief hobby as a career. I don't think I started to resemble a professional in my field until I was 25. This just shows why it's doubly important for leaders of the club to show the way. They must show the young players how it must be done, and pull them in to line when they step out of it, and show what it is to be professional. Otherwise their career will just be a permanent extension of their time at school, kicking around with their mates. I think in writing this post I've almost convinced myself that the minimum draft age should be 21 too.

Or he might have set the standard. Nonetheless I expect he might have been a fraction better than Troy Longmuir, who was the player we took with our last pick before Black went. Ahh, hindsight again.

Maybe we could offer him a BOQ franchise in Melbourne? I agree that Black is a pipe-dream. A nice pipe-dream though. Didn't CAC once say on this forum that his biggest regret (including Molan etc) was talking himself out of picking Black? I find that pretty regretful too now that I think about it.

It's been a bit of a pattern recently Chook, but that's almost word for word what I thought when I heard those quotes from Green. Jarka may be right about leading a horse to water, but I'm of the view that most young people in an environment like that would listen if told by senior figures to pull their heads in. Especially if it was regularly being reinforced by the rest of the leadership.

Billy and Redleg have nailed it. There's combinations where Freo can get their home final with a good win. They will want to smash us in to oblivion, and they will succeed.

Please tell me he didn't say anything about reality checks!

"Mick, Range Rover has started another thread."

Because, for some stupid reason, I still like to try and help the hopeless to understand. I should know by now that it's a complete waste of time, but alas, I'll probably keep doing it anyway.

People just need to harden up and work out what's candid and what's just an automatic response. There are heaps of reasons why you would end up with an interview full of fluff, so it's always going to happen. The player might be nervous. He might be unsure about what he's allowed to say within grounds of confidentiality. He might get ambushed with a hand grenade of a question (see Brock McLean). All these things lead to your thought process feeling completely clouded. You feel rushed and you don't give yourself the time to really digest what you've been asked or really think through your answer and you tend to just follow the path the interviewer has put you on even if it's not the right one, or you allow the interviewer to put words in your mouth because you can't find any. This is so often the case: Interviewer: Do you think yesterday was a reality check for the club? Player X: Yeah, I think it probably was actually. Headline: Player X says match was reality check for club. When I post on Demonland, if I read something that I believe deserves a considered response, I usually take a few minutes to think about it. Get up, get a glass of water or whatever and really think it through before posting. The net result, I hope, is a well considered post that conveys the correct message clearly. The reason I do this is because I know that I'm a terrible on the spot thinker. I need time to think my answer through, otherwise I make a poor post. This is something I've learned through adulthood, though. I reckon if I was a 20 year old footballer doing interviews you'd have been tearing your hair out in frustration. As I said, not everyone is Jack Grimes, who is clearly a good on the spot thinker. Grimes gives a good interview. Really, though, bottom line is that I can't believe people are wailing about this. This has only been happening since footy media existed, surely we've learned to just accept that that's how it is by now. I've wasted more than enough of my lifetime's quota of words on this post.

Exactly. What gun megastar is Jordie keeping out of the side? He busts a gut for the team. As far as I'm concerned, he gets a game until he is surpassed by a better player. As it is I think he'll be a permanent fixture in the side for the next two years at least.

Send him the message to go hard or it's Casey for the year next year. He'll either go hard, or play at Casey for the year. If he achieves the former, he's kept. If he doesn't, he's traded for scrap value - I'd bet that for the talent there'd be some other club willing to have a go at achieving what we couldn't. We could get really, really lucky like with Travis or Brock and score a first rounder, but we'd be looking at a second rounder or worse in reality I think. It sounds pretty simple, makes me wonder what I'm missing. I'm in danger of entering the zone of posting meaningless vagaries (which I hate it when other people do), but I hate the idea of letting him coast and be "okay"; I want an environment that demands our players get the best out of themselves.

A young player gives platitudes and mindless cliches in an interview with the press? My god, how could he? I've never, in all my years of supporting football, seen a footballer do this. Ground breaking. Some of these kids aren't very good at speaking frankly in interviews. In fact, the vast majority of them aren't, but you can't just interview Jack Grimes all the time. Some of you really need to just learn which interviews you ignore and which ones are worth reading in to.

I agree - my satisfaction in a player's output is not absolute, it's relative to where their ceiling is. For someone like Jordie McKenzie, I'm stoked that he's made it to "adequate for now". Lynden Dunn is probably also "adequate for now" which is a disappointment; I think he could be a better player than he is. For Watts, "Good" is disappointing given the attributes he does have.

I think we should sack Leigh Brown. Goals are what win games and forwards kick goals. We haven't kicked many goals so it must be Brown's fault. Also, sack Jade Rawlings because it's the defenders jobs to stop goals, and the opposition are kicking a lot goals, so it must be Rawlings fault. Yes, sack all the line coaches, and next year if we're no good again, sack all the new line coaches, and do this again every year until we somehow magically find the right combination that lifts us in to the top 4. What could possibly go wrong with this plan?

Yes. The other good one is when one of our players was flattened after taking a mark (can't remember who it was now). Ump's response? "He did it by accident." So what? The rule doesn't have to say it was deliberate. How about the necessity to have eyes on the ball all the time? As Dunstall pointed out on TV, surely you've got the right to assess what's going on around you. And "the making an attempt" thing when legimitately tackled. Surely the only possibilities are, you had no prior opportunity to get rid of it so ball up; you had prior opportunity but didn't dispose correctly so free kick, or you disposed correctly; play on. Apparently there's a fourth now: had no prior opportunity, but you didn't flail your pinned arms around like a madman in a futile (and probably fake) attempt to get rid of the ball, so free kick to the tackler. How's Buddy's "natural arc" these days? We could do this all day.

I think I'm an appointed moderator of the forum, with the descretion to close posts if I think they add nothing to the forum. This is one of those. If you have a complaint, sent it to Whispering_Jack, who is the co-owner and ultimately the active "boss" of the site.

We don't need another one of these threads.

He was an alias for a poster currently serving a suspension.

Actually, to make it more interesting: from 1986 onwards, for every draft, order the players in best to worst order, then line them up with the selection order and that'll give the players from each club. With the revised lists, revise the ladder suitably, which will give you a new draft order to rinse and repeat with for 1987. You'll also have to take in to account that each club will then trade differently based on their revised playing lists and ladder order, and that different injuries will occur etc, due to every player not being at the same place at the same time. Eventually you should be able to tell me who wins the 2011 premiership if every club selected perfectly every time for every year in the draft. Ain't hindsight a wonderful thing!

Go all the way back to 1987, please.

Am I the only one who finds these sorts of discussions an absolute bore? Yes, many of us are disappointed with aspects with Watts' game. Yes, other good players were available in that draft (amazing! Other good players in a draft? I can't believe it.) But hindcasting is one of the most tedious and useless exercises we can do as people. There's nothing to learn from a Watts vs Naitanui thread. If Watts was a poor pick then it's because Watts was a poor pick; it's got nothing to do with the fact that Naitanui was also available. It's why I also find the Cook vs Darling discussions boring. The reason Cook was a poor pick is not because Darling was available, Cook was a poor pick because as it turns out, he's not much of a player. Was James Frawley a bad pick, considering Jack Riewoldt was available?

Ah okay, thanks for that.

Can someone explain the difference between a "good record" and "no record, good or bad"? If I've never incurred a speeding ticket or any other driving infringement, do I have a "good record", or "no record, good or bad"?