Nasher

That's a far more plausible number than the other rumour in this thread. I'm not sure why supporters get so hung up over how much players are paid anyway. So long as players on our list aren't leaving for money, who cares how much we play the players we recruit?

While I wouldn't have closed the thread, I'm genuinely surprised people wanted to retain two threads simultaneously discussing the same event. Ah well.

I think the fact that he is under less pressure is actually a feature of his game - he is able to get in to space when others can't. Really pleased with his progress this year.

He was there through 2011.

Freo and Ross Lyon records to go thanks!

Isn't SPC's avatar Nathan Brown?

Haha. I'm surprised but flattered at the amount of attention that got.

"We lost by 100 but Howe took mark of the year". If I was to roll up all of the games from the Neeld era and make them one, that's probably how I'd describe it.

It's just laughable to suggest he broke fingers slapping Ebert in the face when Ebert didn't have so much as a red cheek. I once punched a wall with a fair bit of force (not full force) and had some minor bruising of my knuckles. The only time I've ever seen anyone break fingers by punching someone, the recipient of the punch got totally flattened. Come on guys, it's just silly. We're just fueling our need for conspiracy theories against all common sense by running with this one.

Good story > facts I bet this myth carries on for years now. Sigh.

That's a ripping photo - you can see clearly that Watts has him by the jumper too.

As if we'd have traded pick whatever it was for a player not in our 22. Were you also in the "Lumumba is not in our 22" camp at the beginning of the year, by any chance? There is absolutely no way on Earth two zero-gamers would have been selected ahead of Melksham. He was traded in as a ready to go, clearly AFL grade flanker.

One of Wagner or Hunt would still be at Casey if we had Melksham.

They are a consequence of those named in this thread. If you really wanted to traverse the tree all the way down, you could probably name 100 people who have contributed at some level.

Heh, you always know Dean Ku..err Kent won't be far away when there's a blue on either.

Funny how in a matter of seconds the whole world can unravel isn't it? I had admired him up until that point, now this incident will replay in my head whenever I hear his name.

I think it was RGRS that pointed out that the other two Richmond players (Grigg and C.Ellis?) didn't want a bar of it either. Their body language was more "yeah, we saw it, please don't kill him".

I don't think anyone thinks if you just wait for all your players to turn 27, they'll magically be good. Age is still a good indicator though; if your side is full of 27+ year olds, as you allude to, you've probably got a list that is in its peak. Those players who are 27+ are all going to be better than they were when they were 22-24, which most of our players are. You haven't really disproven the link between success and age at all. I would have thought most people understand that the key ingredient to contending for a flag is having lots of good players on your list.

Players recruited as mature age players are always going to be the exception to the rule. Generally age correlates with experience; if you sort our side from the weekend in order of matches played, Jones and Pedersen the only two in the under 70 games bracket (which comprised of 18 players) that aren't in the 18-22 year old age bracket. Even if you exclude them, it is still without a doubt an inexperienced side. Our median player had 55 games. Tom McDonald also seems to be experienced beyond his years with 86 games up his sleeve at 23; he is easily on 250 game pace and is a chance for 300 if his body continues to hold up.

Good question. As someone pointed out in the post-match thread, you'd be pretty upset if the umpire called "touched - play on" so your defenders shepherded it through, only for the review to reveal it wasn't touched. Once the field umpire has yelled "touched - play on" then the "touched" part should not be in question because the players have already acted up on it. The umpire should be informing the goal umpire that the kick was touched and that is the end of it. The score reviews really should only be for reviewing elements inside the goal umpire's jurisdiction.

Now *that* is a thread bump.

Just watched his post match interview again. Heh - he is just an excited kid trapped in the body of a beast. Enjoy that while you can buddy!

How about the luxury of moving Jones to HB in the last, knowing Oliver and Viney could get the job done?

That's what I thought. He's a country lad who clearly hasn't had the publicity coaching that others like Weideman have - this was obvious when the pair were interviewed. Best to knock it on the head while it is still harmless and funny.

That's what I thought. He's a country lad who clearly hasn't had the publicity coaching that others like Weideman have - this was obvious when the pair were interviewed. Best to knock it on the head while it is still harmless and funny.