Nasher

You do realise "QFT" means "quoted for truth", right? So, you're supposed to quote what you think is true.

They can be eased back at Sandy. Firstly the intensity is lower, and secondly they can be made to only play a half (particularly if they play in the reserves) in a bid to increase their fitness. If they've been out for X months, they're going to get slaughtered if they're brought straight back in to the team, and how their body would hold up is generally an unknown when they have been out for a long time. You don't know how much game time they're capable of, and at AFL level you need them to be capable of at least 70% if needs be. No coach is going to take that risk. If any of Bartram, Rivers and Whelan aren't selected this week, it will not be due to fitness. They seem to have demonstrated they're capable of running out a game at Sandy.

I think it's a fair question, but it's one there's no answer to. How could we possibly know? We might've lost by 130 if Sheedy had coached or we may have won. I have no idea which it is and neither does anyone. That said, I doubt it would have made any significant difference.

"We didn't come to play today"? Sounds Nealesque BB!

We have a grand total of one bloke on the injury list who has a soft tissue injury. Enough said. The only other person on the injury list was injured before he even got here. More YM quality.

What's Rutten got to do with it? He has never been a ruckman. Sure you're not confusing him for Ben Hudson? The closest thing I've heard of a ruckman becoming a key defender is Al Nicholson, and well.... I don't like the idea anyway. Meesen's supposed strength is his fitness and endurance, i.e. he can run all day like a midfielder. That would go to waste at full back.

Mate, your whole premise is bollocks. I have days at work where I fuck up, am extremely unproductive, don't get close to meeting the objectives set by my bosses and just generally have a crap day. I'll tell you now, come pay day I still take every cent. Conversely, if I have an excellent day, my bosses do not pay me anything extra. At the end of the day the players will be going "yep, that was a terrible day at the office", and that's it. It was a bad day. Expecting them to forgo their livelihoods over a (very) bad day is stupid. You wouldn't do it, I wouldn't do it, why should they? Btw not buying a membership is the absolute worst way to "protest" about what's going on the club. There just isn't a worse way. If we all did that then the club goes belly up. We'll have lots to whinge about then.

I tried, but couldn't come up with 6 players worth giving votes to. Good luck to whoever braves this task.

Really? Better not pick him next week then. He'll look out of place.

Drop them both and don't play a ruck next week. Have an extra midfielder waiting at the feet of the opposition ruckman instead of contesting the ruck contest. At least that way we might get some use out of that position around the ground.

Unfortunately it was. I watched it on FS1. Thought Weetra showed today that he knows how to get the footy. Fundamental skill #1 - check.

Deebest, the thing that is doubly stupid about it is that it's against Box Hill, the side aligned with the team that we're playing against! So Hawthorn are in exactly the same boat. It's a complete shambles.

Neither does anyone else. Brown is a once in a lifetime player.

Me too condemned. Being truly awful at it didn't help.

Proper team has been released. For the purposes of not being confusing, check here: --> http://demonland.ugbox.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=9173

What! I picked Bartram in my SC team on the basis that he was named and he is very cheap. Poo. I really hope Morton plays. How exciting if he does.

I'm not suggesting that we don't expand our membership base Jack. I just think that if that's our only objective, or even our primary objective, then we're pushing shit uphill and we're screwed. (I recently heard this being described as a "salmon day" -- swimming upstream all day only to get screwed and die in the end). Btw I may be "removed" from Melbourne but I've spent enough time on other forums to know how much the public looks down on our club. You don't have to be in Melbourne to recognise that.

And you needed to waste your time writing it in the first place?

Given what we paid I doubt our FD considered him to be a "gun".

Yeah you're right. All we need is a membership base the size of the bigger clubs. Piece of cake! Let's get cracking. Alternatively, lets find ways of making our much smaller membership base a more profitable one, which is what I believe McNamee is getting at. As rosy as the notion of building our membership base sounds, I reckon 95% percent of kids these days are just brainwashed in to supporting the same team as their parents. The time for "recruiting" supporters was in the 70s. We missed the boat there. Time to try something else. Rather than trying to expand our membership base, which I believe is going to be a completely fruitless task, we should be trying to increase revenue streams despite our small membership base. If McNamee is capable of doing that then I believe that long term our club will be much, much better off.

I told myself that this year I was going to spend some time doing research so I had a chance of winning. I then proceeded to leave it until the absolute last minute (just then) to pick my team. I'm sure i'll get caned, but oh well. All in good fun!

That's been said several times in this thread, but I don't think it makes sense when talking about footy players. Which player is more likely to be "risked" -- the player whose mere presence can turn the result of a game, or the fringe flanker whose influence is neither here nor there?

A marathon is a race isn't it? :D

Who says we have to elevate either? Valenti is more likely to be AFL ready, but in all likelihood I'd elevant neither.

I would! He can't be footy boss and club president, and he'll hopefully still be in his job long after our current President has stood aside.