Nasher

Given the early reports of his fitness, I reckon there's a strong link between his fitness and his defensive efforts. I'm very "bullish" about the players who seem to have all the tricks except the conditioning like Blease and Gysberts. So long as injuries permit, fitness is about the easiest issue to fix with footy players I would've thought.

Good luck to him. Deserves some after the way it all unravelled as soon as he started to show something.

To be treated in a professional manner, rather than like a 16 year old girl dumping her boyfriend over the phone. Besides, expecting the issue to arise doesn't make it any less stressful when he does.

Zero games in 2005 and five in 2006 wouldn't have helped (last two seasons there).

Yes, I know. Read the post I quoted - DW seemed to be implying that there were situations where "should of" may be correct, which I was doubting.

It's not absurd, it's fairly common practice with senior management. You give him the opportunity to resign, and if he doesn't then you sack him. All parties come out smelling of roses and no blood is spilt. I strongly disagree with your assertion that he would not resign if given the opportunity. He would do so knowing that the "choice" to resign isn't really a choice at all.

Jimmy should've gone face to face. If he was unable, then he should've sent McLardy or Schwab (actually I'd say that as the coach reports directly to the CEO then Schwab should've delivered the message, but this is a separate and probably less important issue). The phone call is the worst of both worlds option.

I'm struggling to think of an occasion where it would ever be legitimate to use "should of".

Robertson Crusoe? :D Alas, we seem to have moved away from clichés and more in to grammatical nitpicks now.

Come on, surely people aren't trying to argue that a phone call to sack someone is appropriate? I'm starting to see what some around here mean when they say people will just defend the club over everything no matter what. This is as black and white an issue as I've seen for a while.

How come "T$ B$" is acceptable but my genius spoonerism of "Scum Tolly" wasn't? Boo.

Okay. Let's talk about how the team is going on the field instead. Oh wait...

Your thread is fixed, Barry.

They're just being grouped roughly by their levels. Everyone can't be at the same level as everyone else; even with everyone at their absolute peak, some are always going to be better than others. Don't think of it as "the elite group", think of it as the "strongest" group, the "middle" group, and the "least strong" group.

It's not "discussion" that I have a problem with.

Can't have our coaches looking gay can we? Groan.

The difference as I see it is Phil Scully would still be tiling roofs if it wasn't for GWS's meddling. I highly doubt Todd Viney - or Barry Mitchell - would've had too much trouble getting fairly senior gigs at AFL clubs without the help of their talented sons.

And yet, he played 28 more games than all you keyboard warriors. Never understood why people take such joy in a player's career coming to an end. You mightn't have been a huge fan and you mightn't have agreed with each or any of the recontracting decisions, but that isn't some personal offence Newton has personally committed against yourselves. He's just yet another player who has now been and gone on our list. He must've kicked a lot of cats around here, that's all I can think of.

Agreed. You can't wait forever for a player to prove he wants it, tough circumstances or not.

Erm, no it wouldn't. Dunn is fully developed and obviously inadequate at AFL level. Spencer still has a lot of development left in him. He may not reach the heights of Jolly, but the chances are he'll want to go looking for new opportunities elsewhere as Jolly did, and will probably make it away from the club, as Jolly did. The comparison is fair from that perspective.

I note with interest that they were never in the team at the same time at all in 2011. Nicholson came in round 10 - Bail's last game before the big injury was round 8. Nicholson was out again by round 22 - Bail played round 24. I reckon they're very similar types and will be earmarked for similar roles. Furthermore neither are great kicks. I'm not sure there's room for both in the side and expect that Nicholson will play second fiddle to Bail in 2012, so long as the latter remains fit.

Competing with Bail for a spot in the side?

That's some seriously tinfoil hat stuff there BB. I prefer the more simple explanation that Colin Sylvia makes dumb decisions because he has poor judgement. The contract timing is about as relevant as the weather on the day or what undies he was wearing at the time.

Yes, presumably that's why they hired him.

I can't find any confirmation online, but you have my stamp of honour that he's contracted.