Nasher

Short, sweet, and absolutely spot on Dappa. On the OP - "absolute liability"... do you really think we're worse off by having him in the side? I know you're being a cranky pants because we lost and all - but engage brain for just a few seconds please. I'd say for every goal Grimes may cost us a game, he'd save two with his excellent placement of himself. That says "absolute asset" to me.

Is the "if they'd kicked straight they'd have won by wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more" argument line correct? I didn't see the game unfortunately (or fortunately?) - I only followed online, but I noticed that within about 5 minutes they'd kicked 1.7 and their massive run of scores in the third quarter looked similar. The only possible way they can kick that many points so quickly is if they keep slamming them in in quick succession because we're unable to clear the ball from our defensive 50. If that very first point had been a goal, they'd have been 2.0 and the ball would be back in the middle of the ground, not ping-ponging around our back half. It could be that they'd just clear it and get it in there again, but it also could be that we clear it and we kick a goal. Not saying we wouldn't have been thumped anyway - I'm just saying that you can't just assume that if they'd kicked straighter they'd have won by significantly more. In our game a point affects play in a completely different manner to how a goal does, so if you hypothetically change that outcome, everything that follows is then impossible to guess. This is why it's an absolutely pointless exercise pondering the what-ifs; the only score that counts is the total score.

So it looks like we're not a top 4 possibility after all

I agree hillie. This is the reason why I just laugh whenever dumbarse opposition supporters accuse us of tanking - especially in 2008. I watched every game and I can safely say that we were so god awful that no tanking was necessary, and any experimentation that may have been done in 2009 is absolutely justified, given the level of pain I and every other MFC supporter had to endure. That said, I think we lost all our 2009 games on merit anyway.

Even if they offered you $700,000 without the necessity to cop beltings? This is the biggest argument the "but it's a gazillion bucks! Who in their right mind would turn down a gazillion bucks!" brigade overlook IMO.

Indeed. His defence of the indefensible is admirable... or something.

The FD clearly prefer 27 over 28. I don't agree but I'm happy to defer to the experts. "Disgrace" is definitely over the top.

I like that advice from the rugby coach about wanting to tackle hard. Jordie McKenzie is a great example of this - he always looks as if it is his life's mission to get the bloke. I also remember when Jake Spencer was drafted and he said something along lines that he chose footy over basketball purely because he likes hitting bodies hard. An appetite for the tough stuff is a great attribute to have.

How many people do you know who play or have played football? How many of them complain of loss of brain function to the point where they lose their train of thought mid-sentence as mentioned in this article? My answer to these questions would be "lots" and "none". Of course they can imagine it, but I think there's a difference between plausible and reasonable to expect. Broken bones, torn muscles, strain injuries etc I'd say are reasonable injuries to expect for footballers - permanent brain damage I'd say is not.

Agree - a big part of the reason Frawley was so damaging last year was that he hurts teams going the other way. He's a weapon offensively and defensively.

None, if the club's Sub policy is anything like how I'd have it. I agree with t_u, I think that's the logical arrangement.

Youch. Contact sport or not - I'd say suffering confusion to the point of having forgotten your instructions from three minutes ago and not being sure why you're standing where you are is _slightly_ above the reasonable level of physical duress one should expect.

Me too, Cards. I've tried to comment on that several times and have been unable to find the words. I find the thought of that extremely distressing.

I don't think anyone's missing the point - as someone who mentioned the Johnson hit I only did so because it was memorable to me. It even says in the article that the two most impacting were probably those he received in 2009 and 2010 while playing in the VFL. I think most of us understand that it's the complete series of events, not the individual events that have probably caused the issue.

Given that it was almost universally accepted (on Demonland at least) that his biggest issue was lack of awareness, you'd have to wonder (as jnr pointed out) whether the endless list of concussions may have had some impact on that. I guess we don't know enough about the injury (injuries?), and I certainly don't know enough about brains to know. I get to very few live matches being in Tassie, but I was at the game where Ben Johnson wiped Belly out. It's the only time I've ever booed someone at a football match, and I did that day until I was so hoarse that I couldn't anymore. It made me feel sick and I was so upset about it that I didn't know how else to respond other than just boo my head off. It still makes me sick every time I see Johnson on the field. It's a pity he can't play anymore, but who cares about that in the scheme of things? The important thing is his health, so I sincerely hope everything remains okay. Good luck Daniel.

Nothing's stopping them from seeking it, but they'd obviously be refused. On what grounds? There's hundreds of legitimate reasons, one of which includes "we're not a bank and you're not the CEO". Clearly this is a once-off special loan to a senior manager. It doesn't set any sort of precedent. If that person tried pulling the "but you gave one to Cam" trick they'd be laughed out of the boardroom.

No chance whatsoever. Here's the kool-aid. If you need to be convinced as to why we might have some chance of winning, I'm afraid there's no hope for you.

That article seems to be inventing facts for the purpose of a headline, but still... you'd have to say that Casey are officially a joke (if not already) if Fevola gets a run in the seniors after everything that has happened in the last week.

Like "I'm not training, I'm 15+ kilos overweight, and I only got three touches in the twos - play me in the ones or I'm pissing off" kind of embracing the club?

I don't agree with this line - the transaction appears in our financial statement in the annual report. Anyone who is interested in our finances can see it there, as clear as day. The only way it could be more transparent is if Cam put an ad in the paper which is clearly over the top. Once again the only question here is whether or not this is good business practice.

You realise you can't have them all on the ground at once right? Having heaps of midfielders in the side isn't going to improve anything - what we really need is the ones that are in the side to not play like sheet.

Great idea - could be a question for Cam next time he's on ustream, assuming he's privy and he'll divulge.

If 'flag core' list changes then so to will the number of matches played by flag core. We could argue and nitpick for all eternity as to who is "flag core" - but the undeniable fact is that every side who has won a flag has a core side that holds the bulk of the team's experience; therefore it's a KPI that needs to be measured. The measurement might not be perfect (in this case it can never be perfect) but it's still a critical KPI so it still must somehow be measured.

You've been on the verge of forum greatness for months - time to shine. Looking forward to the results.

It's not the risk that is the issue (though your call of "no risk" is incorrect - there's always a risk) - it's a question of business ethics and the potential conflict of interest it raises.