Nasher

Wilson hasn't insinuated anything in this article - just published facts that I believe we are entitled to know.

I'd consider adding a "no player without match fitness shall ever be a sub" clause as well, because the sub should be able to play a full four quarters just as readily as just playing one. Other than that, absolutely spot on.

No problem here. It's a secured loan and it's actually a revenue stream for the club.

I think this thread has been sufficiently polluted. I'm closing it.

Another that has missed the point.

If you want amateur hour, take a look at the Adelaide/Hawthorn game when Richard Tambling had a 50 given against him for playing on from a Hawks free kick, when in fact the had umpire pointed the wrong way. What annoyed me about it was that having the umpire point in the wrong direction seems to happen all the freaking time. Surely pointing in the right direction for a free is umpiring 101.

Has to be a player who played a full game this week, either at Casey or from MFC. Someone like Bail perhaps. I think playing the same player as the sub two (or more) weeks in a row is playing with fire. I'd say if our 'first' 21 aren't collectively good enough to beat Hawthorn then the sub is going to make stuff all difference.

Likewise. Fantastic hit.

I'm in two minds about this. I do think there's some benefit in giving him a second chance to prove himself so long as the "it's not good enough" speech is delivered before hand. Then if he's arse again next week he's gone. At the same time, he really spudded it up and I'm not sure you're sending the greatest of messages to the players in the fringe if you retain him. Tough call but I think he'd be out.

If we don't need Rivers this week, then when do we ever need Rivers when Frawley and Garland are fit? I'm not sure there's ever a huge need for three "key" defenders, but we ran with it for most of the year last year. Sometimes 4 if you count Joel Macdonald as a KPD (which I don't). I can't think if any side that has three genuine tall threats in their forward line. I realise I've answered a question with a question, but they're both questions I don't know the answer to.

Rhino - Stef Martin for Hale? Given that Hale has played as their second ruck I don't think it's too silly an idea. I think bringing in Warnock would negate the balance we've gained by dropping Rivdonald. I'd like to keep the number of defenders who can't kick to a minimum.

The new rules created a role that has his name written all over it - the versatile second ruck - and so far so good. Very pleased. It's easy to forget that in ~5 years this guy has had to be programmed from scratch and then re-programmed from scratch. A definite work in progress and on today's showing I'm pleased with the progress. Keep it up Stef.

I think it's more likely that Jurrah and Green will take the better defenders and free up Petterd.

Agree with this assessment. Today was a great example of how to use it and how not to use it. I can't see what Sydney gained by having their third choice ruckman come on when the game had been an absolute slog up until then. It was a net negative for them - we on the other hand got to replace a struggling forward with a fit and firing Petterd. It almost won us the game. This just re-affirms what I've been saying all along, it must be a midfield/flanker type as the sub, but just as critically that player must be 100% fit. It's wasteful to use it as your ruck plan B (as Sydney did), and it's too risky having a player who is not match fit as some have suggested. WYL's point about Petterd being an 'impact' player is an interesting one. I'm not sure if he was the sub for that reason, or if that was just a lucky accident. I don't think you can plan to have an impact player as the sub every week - firstly because there's so few of them and you need to make sure they're fully match fit all the time, and secondly because surely you'd want your impact players on the ground all the time. I go back to my previous point - I think the two most important points is that they're the right type of player (midfielders or flankers) and that they're 100% match fit. Really happy with how the MFC used the sub today. If I had one very minor quibble - and I do mean very minor - it would be that Petterd should've been on the ground from the opening minute. I expect he will be next week anyway.

This probably answers the question as to why Sylvia is not in the leadership group. Not a massive deal and the punishment was proportional to the crime - but it's not the 100% professionalism you'd expect from a leader.

Honorable mention to the lads in the box too with use of the sub. Petterd looked extremely dangerous for the quarter he was on, while we were able to remove the impotent Maric (who I'd persevere with for now btw). Martin being a contributor for the game (and therefore not needing to be subbed off) was a massive plus as well.

So which one of these is his one trick? - The ability to take truly gutsy marks at critical moments in the game? - Ability to hit targets consistently? - Ability to win contested ball regularly? - Ability to run through blokes in a way we haven't seen since Byron Pickett came to top up his super mid 2000s? I don't normally like to say I told you so, especially after one game, but that was such a ridiculous call that I can't help myself.

Thanks for the update! I think it's hard enough to keep the Bruce issue from polluting the forum without deliberately stirring it up with threads like this, so I'm locking it.

This is a popular view around the place - but is it accurate? We added seven players to our senior list in the draft following his delisting - it hardly sounds like spots were at a premium. Keeping him would've come at the expense of either Jack Fitzpatrick (last ND pick) or Joel Macdonald (PSD pick) - that doesn't seem to me to be huge price to pay if he was a player the club really wanted.

I don't think he'd have been selected unless the club believed he could run out the whole game, sub rule or otherwise.

Yeah. And let's have a little chat about this Gerard Healy fellow. And Ron Barassi. Barassi, Healy, McLean and Bruce all have equal relevance to the MFC playing squad in 2011.

I'm against using any ruckman as a sub at all on principle. Doing so firstly risks too much run later in the game, and secondly it doesn't sufficiently mitigate the risk of injury to a key runner especially early in the game (14-18 runners in the side and one Jamar - odds of an injury are significantly greater to the runners on weight of numbers).

I think I've managed to work out why he's 81/1. It took some really hard thinking, but I've finally cracked it. It's because he won't win. I like Sylvia and I reckon he'll surely pick up a few votes, but to win you need consistent threes. I can't see it happening.

Not your finest hour.

Based on that I'd like to see B: Martin, Jetta, Trengove S: Petterd Emerg: Strauss, Warnock, Spencer