Nasher

Why would you bother challenging a reprimand? I know the points carry over, but it wouldn't be worth the risk.

Great analogy.

I agree. There's no doubt Davey stunk this year prior to his injury, but last year he was far and away our most lethal user of the ball by foot (cue all the "he's been struggling for years" revisionists). Our coaching staff (starting in the ND era) had the foresight to transform him in to a midfielder and that's what he now is. We'd be wasting one of our best weapons if he played exclusively as a forward. Form is temporary and all that.

We weren't yet at the bottom of the U-curve four years ago.

Though I think that's extreme, I'd still call it progress from being a bottom 1-2 club.

You're kidding aren't you? (Look at me, I can be a patronising knob too!) No leadership and mental fragility are a symptom of the lack of maturity. I don't think those two items are "bigger issues" than our lack of maturity. I think it sits front and centre. As for poor coaching - I note that this never comes up when we win. Was Bailey a hero last week and a chump this week? I'm no expert (neither are you) but I just don't believe we're in a position to judge the coaching when the team's form is on such a rollercoaster.

Whose responsibility is it to ensure that a player has been nominated for the rookie draft? I always assumed the players just nominated themselves, so it's a bit of a boo-boo if he forgot to nominate himself. That'd be like me turning up for a job interview and saying "whoops, I forgot to apply for the job".

He struggled last night, but I'd be surprised and disappointed if he lost his spot in the side for it. I'm all for omitting players when their effort is not up to scratch, but that's not true in this case and I am dead against dropping young players for making mistakes. Chalk that one up to experience and give him the chance to do better next game.

This is nothing ground breaking, you're just saying that other clubs will be in their prime around the same time as us. This happens every year - clubs well within their window don't win flags because better sides are also in their prime: see Bulldogs and St. Kilda who now look as if their windows are closing. Two excellent sides look to be gunning for the flag this year in Geelong and Collingwood and both are clearly flag-worthy, but at least one of them is going to come away disappointed. Our list will be in its prime 2013-2016, but obviously we'll still need to be at the absolute top of our game if we're to win the flag through there.

Why would that be deluded? It's spot on for mine.

Funny how the umpiring is always worse when we get flogged, isn't it? I especially love the "the umpiring doesn't excuse the loss, but..." posts. That said, the 50 against Rivers made me sad.

I'll raise you all that with having to come in to the office to start work at 8AM, and end up spending half my morning deleting ridiculously abusive posts on Demonland.

Don't be sorry, just note that many like myself won't bother reading your post if it's all in caps.

And Jamar rucks for three quarters with no break? My belief is the opposite of yours. The smalls make the best subs and I think Blease is the right choice tonight.

Perhaps it's because players aren't robots and nor are their managers, so each individual (and combination) will think and operate differently? Noting that Richmond signed Martin and we're yet to sign Scully, then drawing the conclusion that therefore MFC=crap and RFC=good is a mega long bow.

I don't quite follow your logic, but I'm pretty sure subtracting the 22 is the right thing to do. Subtracting 22 games from each total is just subtracting 1 game per player. It doesn't take you back to round 1, it just cancels out the fact that the stat has the post game matches played figure, not the pre-game match. For example, right at this exact moment in time (before the game), Colin Garland has played 49 games, but when I look at that site after it publishes the stats, it will say 50 there. Therefore, I subtract the 1 game to get the number back to the pre-match figure. Do this for each of the 22 players = subtracting 22 from the total.

In his 31st game Franklin kicked a bag of 6 to take his career tally to 45.

Spot on Jarka. I made this point (click) on Christmas day (stuck at work, gah) - funny how six months later we still have to rehash the same old crap.

Indeed. Jurrah's way ahead of some seriously classy company and has probably had far worse delivery than any of them.

I'm with you Webber, good post. I'm not against Demetriou's plan of aggressive expansion at all. I want this game to be played world wide - this is clearly not going to happen in my lifetime, but the place to start is making sure it's played everywhere in Australia. I'll be as crapped as anyone if we lose Scully, but I don't translate that in to wanting the whole GWS to fail. That's churlish and over the top. Furthermore I hate it when people speak for me - no, not everyone wants the venture to fail. You guys kind of sound like a child who has cracked the sads because Mummy and Daddy are having another baby and have asked you to share your toys with him - bitter and resentful at your baby sibling when they've done nothing other than enter the world.

I got all the numbers from here: http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/games/2011/111220110514.html I took the number at the bottom of the table (which has the post game tally) and subtracted 22 to get the pre-game tally. So I get 1,298 against North.

If I remember correctly DemonWorshipper, you had the highest post count (by far?) on the Aimoo forum. You dropped off as soon as we cut across. This forum software is a massive improvement on the Aimoo stuff. My only regret is that I was not able to continue to host the site anymore - it's nice to feel like you're giving something to the community. These days the best I can offer is to be a punching bag for anyone who wants to bitch about the moderators Being called a "High Tower wannabe" for my moderating style is probably up there with my highlights on Demonland. :D

I decided to actually do some analysis for myself for once rather than waiting for someone else to do it. All stats count the number of matches played PRIOR to the match. Melbourne's total matches played this week will be 1252. Gold Coast's last week as 1180. Gold Coast's lowest total of the season was against Melbourne with a paltry 802 games. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why we flogged 'em? Brown and Ablett out makes a huge impact on their total, not to mention their ability as a side. Interesting to note that last week against Richmond, we actually took in the more experienced side, however this week's change (Macdonald out, Blease in) would've tipped us under. This week we will not see Melbourne's most inexperieced side. Its most inexperienced side of the year beat the Bummers by 33 points, with a tally of 1138 games between them. How delightful, couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. Our opposition's experience tally this week is 2156, which is AFTER they lose two 100+ gamers from their side and replace them with kids. This is a seriously experienced side, and we're every chance to severely embarrass them.

The first list has 25 names in it and the second one only has 22. The first has the emergencies too - Wonaeamirri, Gawn and Howe didn't play against Carlton. Take those out, bold Warnock in the first list, unbold Nicholson in the second list and bold Howe, and I think it's then correct. Edit: Argh, for clarity's sake: Trengove for Jetta Garland for Warnock Howe for Bate Scully for Maric Jamar for Newton Strauss for Evans I think the OP is right, it's obvious why we look so much better now compared to then. The last one is probably 50/50, but in every other case it's a clear and pronounced value add. Confirms what most of us already thought at the time - the team we fielded against Carlton carried a lot of slack. It is interesting to see this on paper though.

Amazing isn't it? Out: 104 games In: 0 games Didn't think the number would get a lot lower than it has been. That said, a few numbers have rejoined the side since we last got a count.