sue

No, I'm quite happy to see it kicked backwards, across goals etc. My point is that the more the game becomes a tactical contest it is possible that the game will become less interesting to a spectator because there are less physical contests. So my chess 'analogy' (not an analogy, just an illustration by pointing to extreme case) is apt. Most spectators want action and contests. Since your opening words asked a rhetorical question trying to stereotype me, let me respond in kind: Are you one of those supporters who love watching someone on TV in close-up running with a ball rather than people contesting the footy? Sorry that's a cheap shot since noone but TV broadcasters seem to think that is an interesting shot compared with showing the movement of players down-field as they execute their coaches interesting tactics!

There was an ex-Socceroo on ABC Radio National this morning spruiking his book and Australian soccer generally. He said that soccer became tactical 100 years ago and that AFL was just now catching up with this. I fear he may be right. It is arguable that footy was more enjoyable to watch when the ball was kicked to a 'mindless' contest rather than kicked around in circles - witness the Footscray Saints match last weekend. I don't want to watch a game if tactics come at the expense of contests and excitement. Chess is full of strategy and tactics - but you don't get 100,000 people to watch a chess match.

I may have missed someone else pointing this out, but she also often calls well after something has happened which can be very annoying. Contrast this with Denis C who during a boring patch can be rabbiting on about some off-field topic and suddenly resume the call describing who has done what almost as it happens. I think he must anticipate what the players are about to do so he can get in his timely descriptions. As far as I'm concerned he is by far the best - and can throw on some genuine wit from time to time. The rest of them all have serious faults, male and female. The field of potential good female callers might be small given the male nature of the sport, but why can't they find some good men?

If he has to be 5 metres away until play on is called the player with the ball could walk on his line to within 5m to the man on the mark. Then the ump has to call O'Brien away. Interesting messes could ensure, not sure to whose advantage. But what about 'shepherding' like this when someone is coming in to kick a goal from an acute angle? Player kicking the ball goes just off line sufficient for the ump to call play on, the shepherding player then flattens the man on the mark and the player kicking the ball just runs straight through to an open goal. A bit of similar blocking of the other players surrounding the kicker might help. You'd have to practice this, but perhaps it could be made almost foolproof. If the opposition puts a line of players between the kicker and the goals to counter this, then there may be loose players for the kicker to kick to instead. Yuk. I hope they make the whole thing illegal.

I'd agree if I could only watch it. As usual Bugpond won't display it on my Mac regardless of the browser I use. Is the MFC prevented from putting such stuff up on youtube by some legal deal with the AFL?

It might make you feel a teeny bit better to know that only one other team hasn't won a pre-season game. Geelong. I did say teeny bit.

As posted on ology, before concluding that we have no game plan (eg it is skills and confidence we lack), I'd like people who say we don't have one to prove they can spot one when one does exist. So please list the gameplan of some clubs, especially ones with mediocre skills. If you can then we will have some interesting information. If you can't, stop saying WE have no gameplan.

Only one grumble - the contrast of the font is not strong against a white background. bit hard to read unless displayed in a large font. How about using black please?

I agree that it won't be helpful regarding Ball. For a start he is not a raw youngster and the data is almost all about them only. But as extra information bearing on where to put your effort in draft consideration, the past is meaningful. At a common sense level selectors apply it - they spend more time investigating and worrying about early picks. The question (well my question if the OP focussed only on the Ball issue) is: can past history give selectors a better guide when to stop wasting time investigating players who will go late in the draft. Personally I doubt it can or would be of much practical use. But in any case, it is not like tossing a coin or Lotto. The fact that 100 heads come up in a row does not change the probability that the next toss will be a head. (But it might make you suspect the coin is loaded.)

They do. For a start they tell you that the chances of getting a top player from an early pick is better than from a lower pick. You might say that is bloody obvious, but the past drafts do confirm what your common sense predicts. The question is can the past history tell you more than this. The initial post is a reasonable attempt to help identify the point at which agonising over who to pick is not worth the ulcers. People talking about Lotto and bum pick 1 players are missing the point. I'd guess that the most likely lesson from such an analysis would be something like: Picks after say 25 are not worth agonizing over - just go for whoever seems to fit the needs and it is is a matter of luck if you get someone who turns out to be a top player. Earlier picks are worth agonizing over, especially if you think you know what are the early signs of a future champ or a future dud. Of course if you really do know how to detect future duds, then you should activate your dud-selector for every selection including choosing the person who cuts up the oranges for 3/4 time! (By the way, when did that stop happening?)

Apologies if this has been asked before, but the thread is so long....... Is there anything to prevent Melb doing a deal with C'wood (other than not trusting the bastards)) where Melb pick up Ball at 18 but undertakes to let C'wood sign him up in return for something valuable from C'wood. I don't expect that C'wood have anything to offer (certainly want more than pick 30 for 18!), but just curious about the rules.

which reminds me, how does the 'asking price' work? If a club picks him do they have to pay whatever he has announced he wants? What if no one wants to pay the amount demanded? What happens to the player then?

Sorry, it wasn't to you in particular, but to those who say it is just part of footy. So what makes it conclusive gouging in your view? (this one is to you). Blood pouring from the eyes? The next Campbell Brown telling the truth? Someone rubbing their eyes? - but they could just be acting trying to get the other bloke into trouble. Sometimes the tribunal just has to decided on the evidence before it. And yes, I'd be a more inclined to give Judd the benefit of the doubt but for 2 things. One he did it in the past and less importantly he approached the small pack with the clear intent to do what he did - it didn't happen in a jumble of a large pack - which makes him even stupider.

You CANNOT rule out eye gouge from the vision - and he has a clear record of it in the past (if not convicted). But in any case what has messing with anyone's face got to do with footy?!!! Where do you draw the line as I asked in an earlier post? What is unacceptable to you? The fact that his opponent was neither unconscious as a result of 'pressure points' or unable to see because of scratched eyes just indicates Judd didn't succeed. But the act is a low act and the effect on the opponent should not be taken into account much (unlike say a negligent bump, where you get rubbed out for longer if the guy ends up in hospital). The really bad thing about this is that Judd is a great player. You can understand some second-rater who never quite makes it and gets frustrated doing something stupid. But why would a guy with Judd's skills. His actions during the week indicate a surprisingly stupid man . I had assumed he was pretty smart till now.

If he gets off, or even gets a reduced punishment then the AFL will have lost all credibility. Corrupt possible, credible - never. And for those few posters around the net who think this is just part of the manly rough and tumble of footy, where do they draw the line? When someone sharpens his fingernails before gouging, or carries a knife on the field. A hard bump in play is fine, what Judd did (twice) is not. I trust Judd will not be happy when the first small kid is blinded by some young(er) idiot emulating him and comes up with the same juvenile excuses Judd has come up with. I am just amazed Carlton has the gall to keep pushing this - they should shut up and hope everyone forgets about this asap. They must be a bunch of arrogant twits.

AFL site says he has got 2 weeks with early plea. And is eligible for both this year and next Brownlow. What a turkey with his story about pressure points. I thought he was smart but you have to wonder.

Recall the passionate calls for him to be brought into the team. So much was based on desperation for a forward and hoping he was the messiah. I think the bashing is partly the result of frustrated expectations. Don't know if he would have had as much stick if he had come into the team without the messiah mantle and performed as badly.

I wonder if any commentators will be putting the boot into St Kilda for not making 'winning every match' their priority. Their team v Hawthorn this week is aimed at longer-term success by making sure so many of their top players are in good shape for the finals. What St Kilda is doing makes sense. So is what Melbourne is doing. Get off our backs!

A couple of comments about the crowd size. As well as the factors you mentioned, the fact that the Ruby mob decided (quite recently) to play a do or die match for the Canberra Raiders at the same time can't have helped. (They died.) I've been to all the recent Demons v Swans matches at Manuka. Usually the crowd is a sea of red & white. Not this time - it seemed there was a large contingent of Melb supporters (as usual given the worst seats at the ground).