Nasher

Neville? Why?

Come on, if you absolutely must name an MFC player, surely it's gotta be Lynden Dunn.

I get the feeling articles like that are a ploy by the Hun to fill print space.

Someone already made that gag.

Yes - and part of this is being able to imagine what a player will become when his weight becomes proportional to his height. Recruiting the likes of Darling (or Luke Tapscott for an example closer to home) is the easy part of the business because what they will be is often what they already are. Seeing attributes you like in a body that isn't ready yet is the tricky part. That is why so many people are throwing themselves off cliffs over us recruiting Cook over Darling - because they are unable to see Barry's future vision for the player. Just to be clear I'm not saying that Cook was a good choice, I'm saying there's no way we can tell whether he was a good or bad choice until he develops further.

On your second point - his body is holding up, but as he would not release his medical records to the club, it had no way of knowing that in advance. I can't see how the club could pick him up with any confidence whatsoever. I like Rhino's used car analogy. I'm not a fan of gambling when it comes to adding talent to the list. Especially not at such a high cost - it's hard enough to get those 10-20 picks in the draft right as it is.

The parting seems to be amicable. Let's leave it at that.

What? That's a ronoesque comment if ever I've heard one. You blow in once every six months when the opportunity presents itself to grind your political axe. You're barely even a visible figure on this website, let alone being close to the most maligned. Shame really, because I think you have a lot to offer this forum, but you choose to only turn up when you need to sink a slipper in to the club's administration.

What if? I make no apology for believing in Tom and give him the benefit of the considerable doubt. If I'm wrong them I'm just wrong. If others are wrong they've burned him at the stake when no crime was committed. I'm quite comfortable here on the moral high ground.

You could pretty much summarise all Range Rover's posts in this thread with "la la, talk to the hand, he's lying.". At least the other Scully sceptics will occasionally offer him the benefit of the doubt. God I can't wait for the backpedal when Scully signs.

+1

No doubting that our senior players should be very embarrassed if Jack wins.

Watts winning the B&F would be a nice touch to finish off a crappy year.

Nice one!

McKenzie and Petterd will surely play. Tom McDonald will hopefully get a run as he's earned it by all reports. Think the last spot will be between Morton and Nicholson. Personally I'd like Morton in - I'm still hoping he'll make it; it's time to give him the opportunity to take the first step to redemption.

I can't see how there can be any intrinsic link between marriage and procreation when procreation has been occuring long before before we had the social intelligence to invent something like marriage (and so has homosexuality, I'll wager). Given that marriage is simply an artificial construct of society, I don't understand why what is "allowable" can't bend and change as our understanding of socialisation improves. You already touched on this point but didn't address it - is a marriage between a man and a woman less valid if they choose not to procreate? Other than breastfeeding (which Australians have an appallingly low rate of anyway in terms of who breastfeeds in the first place and then how long they do so for), I don't see what a loving gay male couple can't offer that can be offered by a heterosexual couple. I believe that in raising children, the most important element is love. Everything else is just stuff that lies around the edges. Could you elaborate in what way it's not the "best possible outcome"? Be specific: what would be missing from the child's life as a result of growing up in a household with gay parents?

This has been done numerous times - it's because we've been flat out worse than all those other sides. If anything it's an indictment on Richmond and Essendon that we've managed to beat them a few times during years when we've been seriously poo.

You expected Trengove to sign for another four years when he still had a full season to run on his old contract? Wow e, that's impressive. How about this week's lotto numbers? This is a massive vote of confidence from two kids who are obviously very happy being here. I don't expect that to warm the hearts of those whose hearts are long cold and dead (and to be truthful it's worth a smirk for me and not much more), but it'd be nice if those people didn't feel the need to whizz on the parade of the people who enjoyed this news.

Yep. Normally got my "reading between the lines" goggles on for these - didn't need them this week. Brad Green: Greeny didn’t involve himself in the game enough. We just need more from our leaders, and Brad needs to continue to lead with his involvement and with his voice on the ground. Stefan Martin: Stef was beaten convincingly. He didn’t spread hard, and wasn’t involved in enough play. He missed a shot early, which would’ve helped his confidence. We need Stef to dig deep and fight back hard this week. Good stuff.

Potential Coaches thread.

This is completely at odds with the post you quoted.

I agree with what you're saying here - i.e. if we qualify by and within the rules of the competition for the finals, then we implicitly deserve to be there. "Deserves" to me is just another word for "qualifies" in this instance. I don't see how we could deserve to be there any less than every other also-ran that finishes 8th every other year since this format has existed. Love the Bradbury analogy too btw.

Damn, I knew we'd forgotten something...

How does it compare to the entire lists other clubs have recruited? I know your answer might be "I don't follow other clubs I follow Melbourne", but if you're serious about having a crack at Prendergast's performance, then it needs to be compared against the other recruiter's performance and with some baseline set. Pointing out spuds we picked up with early picks or the "stars" we missed doesn't cut it. It doesn't allow for the fact that not every pick can be perfect because it's not a perfect science. If someone did the analysis (and let's face it, who could be bothered?), what I think we'd see is that every club has a list a mile long of players it missed or picks it used poorly - hence why hindsight recruiting is a fairly useless tool. Going away from the discussion a bit now: I'd love to know how the clubs actually measure the performance of their recruiting staff. Part of what makes it difficult is how you define a "successful" pick? Simon Godfrey was a PSD pick that went on to play 100 games but clearly wasn't premiership quality - is that "successful"? What about Clint Bartram? Leigh Brown was an early first round draft pick (pick #3) - would anyone have called him a "success" before last year? I also think there has to be some "too early to tell" benefit of the doubt given to all recruiters.

Pagan? How long has he been out of the game now? I'd prefer it if we stuck to people who still have some relevance in football circles.