Nasher

Agreed. The delist and re-rookie is something you only do to players you don't want to keep, but are contracted because it's expensive (still got to pay full wages and it all counts under the cap) and risky (because you may lose the player). I don't think there are any players at all that fit this criterion this year and even if there was, Martin is definitely not one of them. On how many times you need to point it out, that's a bottomless pit buddy. My experience with footy forums is that they're full of people who want to sprout their opinions with no desire to actually learn anything about the game or the way the politics of it work. You'll need to keep pointing it out an infinite number of times until you give up in frustration.

...and so ends a disastrous season for him personally. What a stinker.

Totally agree, and have said similar in other threads.

Noticed this because I was trying to find the differences between your side and mine - you've got Davey twice.

This took a bit of effort - I tried to stick with a process that allowed me to remain objective and end up with a reasonably balanced side, but it was tough. The result: B: Bartram Frawley Garland HB: Grimes Rivers Macdonald C: Scully Sylvia Davey HF: Petterd Watts Dunn F: Green Jurrah Wonaeamirri R: Jamar Moloney McDonald Int: Morton Trengove McKenzie Bruce Em: Bate Bennell Jones

They may have the capacity to play 100% game time, but they wouldn't be doing it at 100% output. That's why rotations are there and why we see so many of them now: so blokes don't get buggered. Not even the fittest of fit midfielders play even close to 100% game time anymore. On Trengove, I believe he's in our best 22, and the only plausible reason for leaving him out for mine would be lack of fitness - but as he had only been out for two weeks (not three as you said), I didn't think that argument would apply to him. When he lined up for Casey I took this to mean that he was fit, but they chose not to play him, which I believed to be a mistake. Hannabal's post refutes my assumption that he was fit, so I was wrong there. Fine. In answer to your question, had he been 100% fit last week I'd have left out Paul Johnson or Rohan Bail for Trengove. I don't believe either of the "he's young" or "nobody else deserved to lose their place" arguments hold any water at all. He's fit: he plays.

I haven't heard the interview, but that was already a lock for me anyway. It was lunacy that he ever played in the VFL.

He's only played one game though according to the stats on their site. Woewodin's only played twice. Looks as if Robertson, Brown and the Yzes are regular though. The least number of goals Robbo has kicked in a game is three and he's only done that twice. That's a pretty impressive effort, though you'd expect it at that level if he's still relatively fit.

...wow. That analogy works surprisingly well. Well done lads

I know you're only kidding, but I felt sick reading that. There is absolutely no way I could endure another period of disgraceful footy that 08 and 09 brought any time soon. It stretched me to breaking point.

Very similar types - both very tough, durable, courageous with massive tanks and historically poor kicks. Bartram is definitely the superior player to Godfrey though - better in every aspect IMO.

Or he's just a footballer and he likes winning.

He wore 49 last year. Jordie was offered a spot on the senior list at the end of last year but volunteered to stay on the rookie list so we could draft another player. Presumably the club has shown that it clearly intends to keep him so gave him an appropriate "senior" number.

I'm always surprised every time I see Col interviewed. For some reason I always expect him to sound like a meathead, but he's very well spoken. It doesn't fit with how I expect him to sound.

Right, that settles it then

The "laughable" comment was because someone 'lol'ed in response to juzzk1d's suggestion of dropping Bail. Regardless of whether we've missed Moloney (or Trengove) or not is beside the point. These guys are clearly amongst our best players. It's not making change for the sake of making change - it's that I can't stomach the idea of leaving out two players who are amongst our best players in the squad, just because we're afraid of dropping a few peripheral players. In the Moloney example, by refusing to make the change, you're essentially choosing the 23rd best available player over a player clearly in the top 10. That just makes no sense to me.

My view is that finishing 8th and playing in (assuming, of course) one losing final does not magically transform our season from "development year" to "mistimed tilt" - it's just finishing 8th rather than 9th. I think you and others are reading far, far more in to the negative impacts of making the finals than what really exist.

Jones played close to his best game of the year. I find it extremely unlikely he'll go. I don't think the idea of omitting Bail is laughable. I'm a fan and I think he does add to the side, but does he add enough to justify omitting someone else? Not saying I'd drop him, but I think it's worth considering.

Agreed.

Bit slow off the mark are we this week, folks? Out: Jurrah, Johnson In: Trengove, Moloney Like Maric last week, in my opinion Jurrah was 22nd best player and will demoted accordingly. Not sure if this is the direction the FD will take as we all know what Jurrah can do, but for mine he's just out of form and we need to find room for the remaining two automatic selections. I don't particularly want to drop Johnson while he's playing good footy, especially when it enables Jamar to operate better as well, but to me this omission would be the one that weakens the side the least. Trengove apparently tore it up in the VFL which just goes to prove everything many of us said last week - it's a joke that he's in the VFL. Moloney also speaks for himself.

As has been alluded to by Rhino et al, we may not "deserve" to make the finals, but neither do any of the other jokers currently occupying the 7-9 positions. I'd be pretty stoked if we pushed them out of the way.

Carlton and Essendon's plight has nothing to do with prematurely making the finals, it's just because they're average sides. I'm not fussed about finals. My expectations for the season have already been exceeded; anything from this point onwards is just cream. That said, I can't understand why you'd actively not want us to make the finals, even if we do all know that we'd just be making up numbers if we got there. It would be a huge achievement to get there, and it gives us an opportunity to see how our team goes when it really counts.

Whose spot in the side does he take? I think it's as simple as the fact that our backline balance looks close to perfect at the moment and there's no room for Warnock in there at the moment.

Worst post of the thread so far.

Brisbane turned up. They lifted in the second half and the pressure became two-way. We didn't kick a lot of goals, but with the exception of our weekly let-a-dud-have-a-purple-patch with Proud kicking a couple and Brown plucking a goal out of his classy arse, neither did they. It was a war of attrition and overall I'm reasonably happy with how we went. Not stoked like last week, but happy.