Nasher

Watson's amazing ability to inexplicably get out when he's in good form is frustrating and his running between wickets is a worry. Really though, he's the least of our worries at the moment. He, Hussey, Haddin and perhaps Siddle are the only players whose spots in this side are safe at the moment.

The selectors have been perfectly clear that Smith is in the side for his potential as a batsman, that's why placing him at 8 defies logic. I'm not sure how this couldn't be clear actually. He's batting at six, didn't bowl a ball in Perth and bowled 18 overs when the quicks all bowled more than 25 in this test. A specialist spinner would've bowled a shirtload of overs today I'd have thought.

You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you were there, in person, to witness one of the most humiliating Ashes loses of all time. Awesome!

Rain? Four days of heavy rain? Please?

I'm not at all worried about any of our young guns being poached - it just does not make logical sense. Which young guns did GC take from other clubs? They paid an exorbitant price for an established star in Ablett - the rest of the players they took were average-good senior players. They didn't take a single unestablished star from anyone, and I think they're very unlikely to get any, because: Most clubs recognise the value of their young star-potential players (e.g. Tom Scully) and will fight to the death not to lose the player Young players are not going to be seeking the same coin as players in their mid-late 20s. If their management are worth their salt, the player and his management will realise that their best earning is ahead of them, and they are better off at this point becoming elite at their craft (to increase future value) and bonding with their team. The money grubbing can come later. The biggest point: new clubs such as GWS are not going to pay star-potential players the same kind of money that GC paid Ablett, because the star is as yet unestablished. Ablett being a gun for a few years at GC is as close to a sure thing as you get in football because he already is one right now - the same doesn't apply for player like Scully. Perhaps the more pertinent point is that this contract will be Ablett's biggest one of his career; post this contract he'll be on the downhill slope money wise. If GWS paid overs for a Scully now, they're going to have to pay even more overs when he's 25 and they've got a whole list they have to pay. He'd end up filling their salary cap on his own. I've used Scully as the example here because he's clearly the player people are worried about losing, but you could substitute his name with any young gun in the league (Dustin Martin et al). You can call this head-in-sand stuff if you like but I think the probability of losing Scully to GWS is so slim that only the worst MFCSS sufferers would even bother giving it any thought, let alone worrying about it or wasting brain cycles on deciding whether they'd begrudge him or not. As I see it, the most likely players we'd lose are the average-good types like Bate or Warnock. Good enough to get a game in a new side and remain competitive. We won't lose our young star-potentials for the reasons I outlined above, and I doubt our best senior players are likely to be targets because they're not good enough for GWS to pay overs, so we'd just match whatever was offered. Given that, if a player of the target ilk (Bate, Warnock et al) believes he can get better coin and further opportunities at a new club, then more power to him.

Indeed. I really do believe Demonland could be used as an effective medium for communicating with members. Obviously a fairly low percentage, but effective all the same. All we need now is for Chris to sign up and we've just about got all the bases covered :-p

Really? As far as I know, none of me or my mates ever had photos of each other with slug in hand. I must have had a sheltered youth. Also, I wouldn't call Nick Riewoldt at 28 or Nick Dal Santo at 26 "young", but I guess that's debateable.

Come on, these guys invited this upon themselves - 100%. Any adult capable of reasonable/rational thought knows that if you allow nude photos of yourself to be taken that there's a very high probability of them coming out, regardless of how much you trust the photographer. Especially when you're a public figure. My executive summary of the situation: Girl: spiteful, nasty piece of work with clear issues. Footballers: Complete idiots for putting themselves in such a stupid, compromising position. Everyone loses. Well done, everyone.

Take a deep breath and relax. It's only a matter of time before we have a player or two getting caught being a dumb-dumb; such is the nature of having so many meathead footballers in the public spotlight. If a few nudie photos are the worst we get stung with in the next few years, then I say we've gotten off lightly. These photos aren't scandalous and these boys have not done anything wrong (in the evidence presented), either morally or legally in my view. This is just very embarrassing for those involved. I wouldn't mind bumping that "our players are model citizens" thread from a few months ago though.

Doggo, I'm of the opinion that you don't post enough these days. I agree with everything you have said.

My point, as per my previous post (possibly directly above this one) was that it's unreasonable to expect to replace your FB with anyone of even remotely the same quality. You can't expect another Frawley - if Frawley goes down then you have to put up with someone who's "adequate but not great" - Warnock et al, or you cut your losses, move Rivers on to a key forward and try to strengthen another area. Every club has this problem. Your best players are irreplaceable - this is a fact of life. Two Frawleys eh? Will go great with our three Liam Jurrahs, four Jack Watts and seven Tom Scullys.

How many other clubs can replace their starting full back with someone out of the 'reserves'? Collingwood '10 with Nathan Brown playing a lot of the season in the VFL is the only club I can think of that have AFL grade key defenders to spare. What do Footscray do if Lake goes down? Morris is in the same mould as Colin. Essendon? Fletcher is approaching 40 - in his time I can only recall two other competent KPD's - Wellman and Pears, with absolutely nothing in between. What do Carlton do if... whoever their FB is goes down? St. Kilda? Geelong? With Scarlett and Taylor their setup is much like ours.

Troy Davis. There's one KPB being groomed for the the future. The club will continue to develop new players in every position, and it's (in this case at least) got nothing to do with the incumbents not being good enough. Bring in Warnock, Davis or whoever else is on the list at the time and suits the required match ups.

Umm, no, not at all. There's never been any question about Grimes' attitude off the track, nor has there been any doubt over his mental strength. I can't see even a vague connection between Grimes' situation and Sylvia's. The only question mark over Grimes (for me) is that he's not 100% settled on the field yet; he hasn't had an extended run of games and there's some doubt over what position he'll play in long term. The same question does not apply to Sylvia. On Sylvia - I thought he was a chance to be in the leadership group, but in the end I'm indifferent to the outcome. I think anyone in a pro- or anti- camp could mount a strong case.

Not in keeping with my experience with Chris either.

I based my answer on another question: does he play on key position forwards? Given that he's considered a good matchup for Franklin and I consider Franklin to be a key position forward, then yes, he plays on key position forwards. Who plays on key position fowards? Key position defenders, of course. I guess the whole point of this question is the definition of KPF and KPD is a lot more fluid than it used to be, so it's all open to interpretation.

Hayden.

This. IMO in the coming years he's the "A grade" needed to complement Frawley's "elite". To answer the question: yes, I see him as a modern key defender.

You'd bet your house on Watson making a 50 and not going on with it. Still, i'll happily settle for an opener that consistently scores 50s, which Watson clearly does. Have I mentioned that I love Mike Hussey?

Only very young children or an adults with an equivalent mind would have fear struck in to them by any mascot. That's well wide of what the point of a mascot is.

Exactly! Why would I be proud of being indifferent? I tend not to have emotions on top of my non-emotions.

I'm sure there's some point you're trying to subtly make, so you might as well just go ahead and say it because I don't have a reasonable answer to your bizarre question.

I see that and I just see a Hawthorn player. It invokes no emotion whatsoever; positive or negative.

My thoughts also.

Mitch switched on with the bat. Could this mean he's also going to be switched on with the ball? Let's bloody well hope so, because otherwise there's no reason to keep watching/following this Test. Also, I love Mike Hussey. Wish he'd gone on though.