Nasher

Indeed, it is strange. You'd think he was either in or not.

It's really, really frustrating when people post assumptions as if they're fact. Having one emergency not play is standard practice, otherwise none would be available to play in the case of an 'emergency', which would defeat the purpose wouldn't it? Since Cheney and Spencer both played, then it's Col who is the designated non-playing emergency. That's all there is to it. Schwab's Twitter post also means nothing. He would not give anything that wasn't confirmed already when it comes to team selection. That's not to say that Col G won't play (and there's obviously a good chance he will given Sylvia may pull out), but there's absolutely no concrete evidence at this stage to suggest he will.

It probably just means he'll be the 'active' emergency (depending on whether the other emergencies played). Whenever the emergencies are scheduled to play for the AFL side they always keep at least one out of the side to make sure one of their emergencies is actually able to play if needed.

No, your point was that the final cuts from the squad could come from anywhere in the squad, not just the extended interchange. Which is still just as wrong as it was before. When the final teams are named in about half an hour's time, Sylvia's name will certainly be in it. Sylvia withdrawing from the on the side on the day and to be replaced by one of the emergencies (what these articles are referring to) is a completely separate issue.

Better to try and find the root cause -- it's not particularly practical to have everyone change their timezone, and doing that could bugger everyone's time up again later when the actual problem magically fixes itself (you only need to review the rest of this thread to see this happens sometimes ). The place to start would be finding out what the time on the server clock is.

That's just general selection etiquette rather than a hard and fast rule, but true just the same.

That doesn't tell us anything at all about the matter at hand.

This topic has been covered a lot on Demonland in recent years. I'm quite sure that only the extended bench gets shuffled after the initial release. If you've got real examples (specific ones, not "this happened a few times last year") I'd like to see them. BRFE is quite right.

Dale Kickett anyone? Didn't he get rubbed out for 10+ weeks for punching Phil Read a couple of times? For that matter, Phil Read? Both probably too ordinary to bother remembering actually.

It might have something to do with the fact that Scully, Trengove and McKenzie are all currently playing at the required level and Watts isn't? Just maybe? By doing that you're consigning Jamar to 100% time in the ruck, is that what we really want? He's one of our most important players, I don't think it's a great idea to wear him out in round 3. I think in reality it's not going to come down to a choice between Newton and Garland, it will be a choice between Newton and Spencer, and I'm inclined to go with the former. Therefore in my eyes it comes down to a choice between an 80% fit Garland, or an 90% fit Bate. Given that Garland's not been on the park for over a year and Bate when on song is one of our best players, it's got to be Bate. I'm a massive Garland fan, btw. But given all the variables describe above in conjunction with the named extended bench, I just can't see how he's possibly going to fit in to this side.

That doesn't add up. Shouldn't there be 7 on the extended interchange? Edit: Newton also appears to be missing. Double Edit: Now that they've fixed it, I think the extended interchange lends itself to "no further changes" - Strauss out, Sylvia in. I'd give Garland another run at Casey. I'm not interested in playing Cheney ahead of Jones or Bate (both best 22 players who should be retained), and there's no way imagineable that McKenzie will be dropped. The only marginal one is Spencer vs Newton - I don't think Newton deserves to be dropped, but Jamar can't carry the load forever. I reckon Strauss is stiff, but it's only round 3. Big opportunity now to take some games at Casey by the scruff of the neck and push for selection later in the year.

No disagreement from me with any of that.

Indeed it does, but most of what he said sounds plausible. I had arrived at a similar conclusion about Jamar's one year contract myself -- keeping his options open. Smart contract management from his manager IMO.

I was under the impression it was actually pronounced "Pettard" despite the spelling. Tim Lane pronounces it "pettid" but he seems to be on his own. Edit: Snap Keyser Söze Edit2: From a post in 2007: http://www.eaglesflyinghigh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9425&start=0 (yes, eaglesflyinghigh is the world's most reliable source )

That's what I thought too. As HT says, this one definitely comes out of left field.

Has anyone even mentioned Brock, let alone had a dig at him in recent weeks?

Jordie is currently leading the competition in tackles (23). Kane Cornes is second (20), James McDonald is third (18). Fantastic effort from Jordie. It would be great if he could keep that rate up -- can we rely on that? You might expect such a young player to have a few off days during the year, though with this guy I reckon he's got the drive to keep it up consistently. Also nice to see Junior maintaining his usual high standard in this stat.

What garbage. These types of tackles are more dangerous than high and low tackles/trips. I suppose you think they should be legal too.

I always thought he looked a lot like Elija Wood, though now that he's losing the baby face I don't see it quite so much.

I get your point, but why can't he work on it in the AFL? It's only necessary to send a player in to the VFL if it's too difficult to work on that weakness at the top level. In the case of Bennell, it's not a skill weakness, it's a psychological one, and practicing at any level is going to be equally as effective as anywhere else. There's also a very good chance he'll play well for weeks and weeks without this issue popping up again - something you wouldn't see with a skill weakness. What will have been gained by dropping him to the VFL in that instance?

It's pretty easy to forget a player when he's been off the park so long that he's almost become invisible. On the OP, let's not get too carried away about patting ourselves on the back just yet. We've had promising youngsters before.

Personally, I think Watts puns should be a bannable offence. Especially recycled Watts puns.

30 would be a good return IMO. 75? You've got to be taking the micky.

Hehe. Well played.

Indeed, that's where my theory becomes grey, because it's debatable whether Bruce is best 22 or not. At this stage I'd say most definitely say yes. At year's end there's a chance he'll have been passed by quite a few.