Johnny Karate

Western Bulldogs' recruiting has obviously been excellent. They nailed early picks in Stringer, Macrae and Bontempelli. They've had a very good run with FS recruits in Liberatore, Wallis and Hunter (and they will hope Z Cordy). Their speculative recruiting has also worked out pretty well in netting the likes of Dahlhaus, Johanisson, Adams, Jong with low draft picks. They have also been pretty clever with their recruiting of role players from other clubs in Suckling, Biggs, Stevens and Crameri (sometimes). The Tom Boyd deal is still up in the air but they've probably recruited as well as any other club over the past 5 seasons. It also helps that they've had stability in their administration, experienced on field leaders in M Boyd, Murphy, Picken and Morris and appear to have a very good coach. I'd say they are probably 3 years ahead of us. However, if Hogan, Petracca, Brayshaw, Salem and Viney turn out to be as good as I think they can, we can go past them.

All the commentary about Hogan at the moment is hyperbolic over reaction. Does he need to stop the petulant tantrums? Absolutely, but even when he was playing well last season - him shouting and swearing at his team mates was a common sight. I expect the attitude problems and his stuttering run up (and hopefully dunderheads kicking the ball woefully toward him) will be fixed over time. Champions always improve.

It would be a very 'Melbourne' thing to do if we came out and beat them. Ditto if they belted us by 100 points. I'm ready for anything.

There is no real comparison. Gibson has always been better in the air and with ball in hand. Gibson is the smarter footballer. No doubt Gibson has been better developed and had his weaknesses masked by an elite structure/club whereas the opposite would apply for Garland. However, Garland is similar to a lot of Melbourne players over the past ten years: good early start to the career but never really kicking on to greater heights. A bits and pieces player; not strong enough to go with KPFs and not quick or smart enough to adequately man elite smalls.

The great frustration I felt with last week's result was that we'd [censored] away a golden opportunity. How often in the past decade of ineptitude have we been presented with a "gimme game" like that? (Un)fortunately I couldn't make it to the game. Essendon, to their credit, may've played well but the disparity in key stats suggests that our effort simply wasn't there. If we hadn't have been playing a top up side, the margin probably would've been 100+ points. I wasn't bullish about our prospects this year. I was hoping for a couple more wins and increased competitiveness. However, we should be at the stage where we can belt a side like Essendon. Bitterly disappointed.

If I were to take a completely ruthless approach I'd put all of: Grimes, Howe, Toumpas and Watts on the table. I'd let Garland walk as an FA. I'd delist/retire: Bail, Cross, Jamar, M Jones, McKenzie, Michie, Riley and Terlich

Gawn: take a mark

Out: Kent, Jetta In: Grimes, Toumpas I'd bring in like for like types. The best way of nullifying Sandi/Clarke is Jamar offering a contest and our mids sharking plenty of taps. I'd only bother with the likes of Bail, M Jones, McKenzie et al if we are completely injury ravaged.

I'm spewing. Our best chance of a round 1 win in 9 years and our best chance of a win at Docklands in 7 and we blew it. Byrnes, Pedersen, Spencer and Bail make me puke. We may as well forfeit if we have to play those spuds in the same side again. Fitzpatrick tries really hard and was unlucky to be knocked out but is probably the same class level as those duds. Was happy with the games of Dunn, Jones x2, Georgiou, Tyson and Vince. While Jack Watts and Jimmy Toumpas put in improved performances, did anybody else notice their complete absence when the intensity rose in quarters 3 and 4? Frawley had a stinker. Cross and Michie were underwhelming. Looking forward to Garland, Viney, Hogan, Dawes and Anybodybutspencer returning to senior action.

Having grown up in the northern suburbs I have studied and worked alongside many Muslims. The overwhelming majority of which are peaceful and law abiding citizens. However, I don't believe it to be a religion that shows much respect for women or tolerance for other minorities (i.e. homosexuals). I don't believe the burqa should be allowed to be worn in banks, airports or while driving for safety and security reasons. I don't think it is the job of the government nor police to arrest any peanut wanting to leave this country to go and fight in Syria. However they shouldn't be allowed to return.

Let's say he apologises and it happens again or Snowden leaks even worse instances of espionage - it'd look even worse and put Abbott in the position of having to grovel for every little bit of what we all know is common practice. That said bugging the first lady's phone (provided she is apolitical) is probably worthy of an apology.The US NSA should apologise to Australia for clumsily letting someone like Snowden get his mits all over such sensitive information.

Not a fan of Abbott or the Libs but WTF else can he do? I would've been more shocked if there wasn't any surveillance of Indonesian officials. I'd be equally as stunned if they weren't doing it to our leaders. It is also noteworthy that Indonesia has elections coming up - there is plenty of political mileage to be gained from chest beating about foreigners spying on national leaders. Just as there is nothing for Abbott to gain by saying: "we're weally sowwy it won't happen again".

I found it to be a silly article on the whole and agreed with Little Goffy's sentiments. Off the top of my head picks 1-40 from the past 12 drafts would produce a team with the talents of: B: Waters - Frawley - Carlisle HB: Goddard - Taylor - Hodge C: Mitchell - J Selwood - Bartel HF: Franklin - N Riewoldt - Dangerfield F: S Johnson - JJ Kennedy - Rioli R: Goldstein - Pendlebury - Judd I: Naitanui - Kerr - Griffen - Cotchin Like Ro-Ro I'm doing this on the fly but I'd also be willing to bet there'd be a far higher proportion of NQRs, never made its and never managed a game picked after 40 over the past 12 years. Making a team of the worst players from the best picks and comparing it to a team of the best players from the worst picks is a fun yet pointless exercise. You'd have to be pretty stupid to draw the conclusion that the draft is a lottery on that basis.

EFA= Edited for accuracy. Given recent delistings Clark was the only player we got out of the 2011 draft/trading period. Not that hard to be the best...

EFA

IIRC that draft (2011) was BP's farewell tour. Yes we traded away our first pick for Clark and yes GWS got the lion's share of the talent but to not have any one recruit make it past the 2 year mark is freaking diabolical.

B: Terlich - Frawley - Garland HB: Grimes - McDonald - Clisby C: Vince - Tyson - Watts HF: Howe - Dawes - Trengove F: Kent - Clark - Hogan R: Jamar - N Jones - Viney I: Michie - Toumpas - #9 - Barry E: Gawn - Fitzpatrick - Blease

I can't disagree with much of that and I have been impressed by the bits and pieces I've seen. That said Cale Morton had some impressive moments 13 games into his career. I'm not saying Tyson is a similar player or will go off a cliff like Cale Morton and hope to hell he doesn't, in fact I hope he becomes a champion and I get abusive PMs from half of demonland reminding me of my [censored] comments on this thread! I just believe that to give up pick two you'd want to be on a sure thing as history suggests that you've a very good chance of at least netting a very good player if not a superstar at the draft with that pick. Maybe I'm too conservative and that's why I'm sitting on my arse tap tap tapping away rather than calling the shots in a red and blue polo shirt at Etihad right now. It's aggressive, it's bold and hugely risky IMO and I hope it comes off.

Wrong. It was 3, Kennedy (pick 4 in 2005 - largely unproven at the time) & 20 for Judd, 36 & 54. The initial point was that if the best player in the competition's value was a top 3 pick (or alternatively 3 top 20 picks) why have we given away a top 3 pick (or two top 20 picks) for a largely unproven kid and an overall worsened draft position that may or may not net us anything better than what we could've got at the draft initially? Yes Tyson was a pick 3 and yes he has had two years in the system but that doesn't equate to pick two - by that logic Jack Watts>pick 1. Pick 20 could've been used on Bernie Vince who would've had far more immediate impact on our midfield in 2014. As I've said previously we'd want to nail pick 9 at the draft. I bow to Roos & co's greater knowledge of the landscape than I and hope to one day happily eat humble pie and look at today as the day the club really got it right. I'm happy to disagree with others but I don't see this as a great deal for our club presently.

I disagree. Carlton paid about the same price in the draft for Chris Judd in 2007 who was the best player in the comp. I understand that we get pick 9 as a sweetener but its still a big punt on an unproven kid. I was hoping if we were to trade pick 2 it would be on a proven midfielder at the least. I'm not araldited to my position and will happily eat humble pie if Tyson and pick 9 prove to be amazeballs - however I'm skeptical at this stage.

It looks like its Tyson, Picks 9 & 53 for pick 2, 20 & 74. At first glance I'm underwhelmed - I understood trading pick 2 for an established midfielder such as Sloane, Rockliff, Shuey, S Selwood or even Shiel at a pinch. I cannot understand sacrificing another high draft pick for a kid who hasn't yet made it over one who might be a star (Aish/Kelly). Tyson has played 13 of a possible 44 games due to injury, Collingwood will pay less for Taylor Adams who is far more established and so far more durable. Here's hoping we nail pick 9.

Football is a game of momentum - it's about capitalising on your opportunities when you're on top and minimising the damage when things don't go your way. Talent helps but belief is paramount in achieving these aims. When things go our way during the course of a game we might string two or three goals together in 10 minutes. When they don't we might string two or three possessions together in twenty and cop a handy cricket score in the meantime. Our improvement will come from Roos' ability to instill belief and then structures into the team.

Both are pathetic and their big plans for the country seem to amount to nothing beyond "I want to be Prime Minister because I want to be Prime Minister and besides the other guy is way worse." David Marr probably put it best when he said that the contest is between two false identities. Rudd is a contradictory, odd, bordering on antisocial personality whose colleagues were stunned when he ran for pre-selection in the late 90's because he seemed to be morbidly terrified of talking to anybody. Whereas Abbott's personality is tempered by the nature of politics - the public wont cop any policies from him that have a faint hint of his religion (rightly or wrongly) and his party won't support him on the social justice causes that he believes in. However, given it isn't a presidential style of government and parties tend to change leaders on a whim - I'd suggest voters should decide their vote upon the basis of the best candidate for their electorate. Not Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd.

Should get Brett Ratten back as midfield coach. We all know he'd sort us out.

Fitzpatrick's chase down and tackle that was paid against him for 'legging' in the first quarter set me right off. I respect they have the toughest job in football but they were shocking all day. Their dubious application of the sliding rule as well as hands in the back were mind bogglingly stupid!