Nasher

Agreed. Our defensive 50 is likely to also contain at various times Bartram, Warnock, Macdonald, Grimes and Rivers. It's an area that is in serious need of some kicking firepower. I thought Strauss may have got the nod - pleasantly surprised at this selection though.

? All I said is that they need game time. Clearly we're going to be worse off in terms of competitiveness (although if the kids are good enough the difference won't be huge) - but in my mind the disappointment of that is offset by the fact that we get valuable game time in to future players who need it.

Buckley would be in direct competition with Rohan Bail, who is fringe himself. I'd take Bail any day - torches it less often (but still more often than ideal) and his attack on ball and man is second to none.

Tom McDonald took PJ's spot on the list, not Campbell.

What's with all the wrist-slashing? We all know he's going to be a champion, but he isn't yet - and this is a seriously small setback in his development. This doesn't make James McDonald look any handier to me. This is an opportunity for a Gysberts or Tapscott to step up. I for one was wondering how to squeeze games in to these guys - here's chance #1. This is a minor disappointment at worst, and even then it's one that has silver lining.

Another thread, with basically all the same stuff in it as all the other threads. Just what we need!

Hahahaha. A much funnier way of putting the same thing I was thinking. WGAF what this guy thinks? Just another ex-footballer trying to make himself relevant again. Keep trying, Karl.

Of course this is a risk, but which is more likely to happen - an injury to Jamar or an injury to a key runner? As e25 said already - sheer weight of numbers suggests it's more likely to be the runner. You've got to cover contingencies but you can't cover every contingency - in fact you can really only cover one - so to me it makes sense to cover the more likely and probably more critical one. The loss of Jamar early in the match is a contingency I'd de-prioritise, firstly due to low probability, and secondly because it's already partially covered already by having your second ruck (Newton/Martin et al) in the rotation of 21.

I was taking the piss with the "guys" thing. Alas, you're allowed to discuss social geography if you really think it's relevant, the way you did was clearly an attempt to bait and your later post ventured well inside racist territory. It's pretty easy - contribute something meaningful to the conversation or your post will be deleted.

Deleted a bunch of posts from the topic. Guys, I know it's hard, but if you see a troll can you please resist the temptation to feed it? Thanks.

Just like everyone else around here I can only use logic to make conclusions (read: guess) based on the information I'm given, which is usually stuff all. Based on that, I might sometimes be wrong. Funny that. At least I actually try to apply logic to my conclusions unlike many. The OP was complaining that the numbers never seem to completely line up from week to week - I was giving a possible alternate way of interpreting the lists. The smartarse replies are unnecessary and unappreciated.

Yay - the old "what's a star" thingo again. We haven't done that one enough on Demonland. But anyone who listed Bail (who I'm a fan of) and Maric (who owes more than he's delivered) clearly has a different definition to mine.

Beyond using them as a high level guide, I largely ignore the numbers on these. They're vague and inaccurate by nature - even the experts coming up with the real numbers are just having an educated guess ( and whether those are the ones published or not is another matter). You can't possibly hold the club to the numbers published. I'd read it like this: Melbourne injury list Robert Campbell (achilles) - Medium term injury, progressingly slowly. Early-mid season return. Troy Davis (thyroid disorder) - No idea - will be solved when it is solved. Jack Fitzpatrick (foot) - Medium term injury, good progress. Early season return. James Frawley (shoulder) - Medium term injury, good progress. Early season return. Jordie McKenzie (groin) - Medium term injury, good progress. Early season return. Being cautious. Tom McNamara (foot) - Medium term injury, good progress. Early season return. Cale Morton (hand) - Medium term injury, good progress. Early season return. Michael Newton (hand) - Short term injury, recovering well. Ready soon. Jack Trengove (ankle) - Very short term injury - might need a week, should be right.

If you get shocked over such trivialities, your heart will be done for by the time you're 40. Loosen up a little.

I note from my team you've got Howe in the place of Watts - what are your thoughts there? [Minor point - you've got 4 on the bench when the max this year is 3]

Defensive: Bartram, Garland, Macdonald, Bail, Rivers, Grimes Guts: Jamar, Scully, Trengove, Davey, Moloney, Sylvia Forwards: Watts, Bate, Dunn, Green, Jurrah, Maric Pine: Petterd, Jones, Martin Sub: Jetta For the purposes of this thread I'm more interested in the discussion and the balance of teams and the rationale than the actual team. I've also named them in groups rather than positions - if you'd prefer to name yours in positions then feel free. I've tried to balance the team I'd like to see with the team I'd expect to see in an attempt to come up with a realistic round one team. As an example of this, I've got Jones in the bench where I'd have preferred Jetta on pre-season form (this didn't actually come down to a choice between Jones and Jetta though - I'll elaborate further on). I started out by listing the entire team (from memory, so hopefully there aren't any embarrassing omissions), scratched off the "definitely won't" play, putting the "definitely will play" in position, then filling in the gaps as necessary. I've assumed Frawley, Morton, McKenzie and Newton are unavailable through injury. The sticking points for me were: - Ruck. The second ruck problem for me was by far the hardest to solve. I couldn't decide whether we needed a second ruck in the side and in the end went with the safer option of having him in the side with the runner (Jetta) as the sub, rather than vice versa. The logic in the end was that I believe it's a lot easier and much less risky to sub out the ruckman with a runner than being forced in to subbing a runner with a ruckman. I chose Martin more out of 'type' than any belief in his ability to fill the role - given that his time in ruck should be significantly less than 50%, then he needs to be mobile and able to fill other roles. I don't think Spencer meets the guidelines there. Despite his lack of popularity around here, I'd have chosen Newton if he were fit as I believe this is the role he is on the list to perform. I also considered Dunn as the pinch-hit ruckman, but I thought that was too risky an approach, a) because he could get cained in the ruck and B) he fills an important role in the forward line. - On pre-season form I really wanted Jetta in the side but couldn't make it happen - but he's there as "plan B" if Martin spuds it up. - Maric vs Wonaeamirri - I like the latter more but with pre-season fitness and form, it was a no-brainer at this point. I'm very glad there might be some competition for this spot. - Bate. I'm not sure he's got a place forever but found it surprisingly difficult to find a better alternative as a marking option. I'll be surprised if he doesn't play. Interested in the thoughts of others.

I'm all for taking credit where it's due, but...

No doubt an opportunity was missed in 2000 - we missed out on a flag when that particular list was in its prime (~2003-2004). We also missed out on a flag during the Northey era. Who knows why - it could've been poor player development, it could've been rotten luck due to injuries, it could've been poor coaching, it could've just been that the players we had just plain weren't good enough. I still don't see the link between then and now though, other than the name of the club. The staff and player rolls were completely different during both those eras and are completely different again in this era. There's absolutely no logic in concluding that this time will be the same as last time because none of the variables are the same - that's just your emotionally battered footy heart saying that.

I sniggered at that post too. The two things Stef does have are speed and height. We're just waiting for the rest to turn up.

RR, obviously if we lose a game by 20 points but Bailey came out and went "but it's okay, we won three quarters!", I might be a tad crapped off, but that is clearly not the point of the "winning quarters" goal. rpfc's and dandeeman's posts have covered why it makes sense.

If we win enough quarters then winning the game will come naturally. I don't mind that mantra.

Goodes doesn't save his best for us, he's just an effing good player. Two Brownlows to his name support that.

I said nothing of the sort. I expect all players to follow the old cliche of "take it one week at the time", believe they can always win the next match, and throw everything they've got at it to make sure they do. Those responsible for managing expectations though - i.e. coaching staff and supporters - should know exactly where the side is at at all times, because setting the bar too high with unrealistic expectations is just as dangerous as setting it too low. We've seen the disastrous effects of this before - Peter Schwab's "we're going to win the premiership" anyone?

These clubs aren't continually playing in finals and winning flags. They have crap years where they finish at or near the bottom just like everyone else. How were Hawthorn travelling in the early 00's - when they jagged the likes of Hodge, Roughhead and Franklin with early draft picks? The difference is that they have won flags when they have been at the top of their cycle. But to suggest that they're "continually contending" is garbage. Very rarely to clubs win flags out of phase - Hawthorn were the only ones to do it in the 00s, every other team won on the back of mature, stable playing lists. How many cycles you've been through doesn't matter. I reckon even as a 20-something I've been through enough to know that it's a frustrating, long process, and that sometimes it's hard to be patient. But the only cycle that has any relevance to the current one is the current one. Whether you've been waiting 4 years or 40, the only thing that matters is that our list is not currently in flag-winning condition but there is a very clear plan to make sure it is in one, and the plan is very clear for all to see. But I guess that's less important than stomping your feet and saying "we've been putting up with this for 40 years rahrahrah".

This rebuild is about three years old, not 46 (or 44). I reckon it'll be interesting to read footy forums in 30 years time. Those of us under the age of about 30 have grown in the era of drafts and rebuilding, we understand that premiership opportunities come in cycles, and that you can't win one at the wrong point in the cycle in all but the most exceptional cases. This is what the draft and smaller playing lists have given us. The older generation who insist that teams should be in premiership contention 100% of the time (as it was pre-90s) and can't grasp why our winning the wooden spoon in 1978 has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on our current inability to be in premiership contention will eventually disappear.