sue

More worried about Harmes' attempts to dance.

I see your disinterest and raise it to being uninterested. But then why did I open this thread?

Here's an equalisation strategy for the AFL. Simply force the better teams (based on last year's performance with maybe a mid-year review) to play at Geelong (applies to C'wood etc too). That way Geelong are more likely to be beaten at home and the top teams are more likely to lose playing there. A win-win for equalisation. 😃

My cynicism suggests the rules were written to allow Geelong's ground to be legal. Or at least not updated since 1880 to conform to what would be reasonable for a modern professional sport.

For the first time I looked at the satellite view of the Geelong ground. At first I thought it was a velodrome. It looked so unlike any footy ground. That should not be allowed in a professional sport.

OK EO. Only one. JVR plays even worse than Weid and loses confidence. Furthermore since he then wouldn't play again this year, it means we've fiddled with what little forward synergy there is by not playing the established players, however iffy they are. ' So it would be a big gamble to play him. If it came off it would be wonderful, but only the club internally would know the real risk. If he plays I hope he kicks 4 goals.

I don't think it is the time to play JVR, but there is a big difference between now and when Watts was thrown to the lions (sorry wrong team). Outside of keen Casey watchers, no one in the broader AFL community knows JVR from a bar of the proverbial soap. So the #1 saviour pressure is not there. C'wood wouldn't feel especially keen to rattle him more than they would for any debutant. But this being a big match with a huge crowd it does not seem a good moment for anyone to debut in a key position.

Looks like the mergencies did get back. JVR goals

But what about the emergencies? They could have left earlier.

Goodwin was talking up Jackson's performance last night. Given his lacklustre performance sounds like he was talking up the price.

Complacent is not the same as every man for himself.

True, but it's getting more and more comical. Kozzie at CHF has to win the prize.

Bloody little brothers! I posted several times that Gus' interview was ambiguous and there was no need to assume he was looking for mid-field time. I kept asking for evidence of that and no one provided any. Then his little brother piped up. Which was depressing. Now we know his little brother is a [censored] stirrer. Get him to the MFC!

Agree. Though regarding example #2, if they handball it far enough in front of themselves, surely it is not holding the ball? But I can see if you allowed tiny handballs it would seem almost like bouncing which is penalised. Since we don't want yet another distance for the umpires to have to estimate, I guess all such handballs are best penalised. But if you penalised that almost any handball with an opponent about to tackle could be considered playing for a free, particularly delayed ones. Another grey area.

Thanks - finally some actual evidence from someone who would know about his preferences.

No I'm not. I don't have any personal feelings about this to make me scratching for evidence that he won't go. I just ask where is the evidence that "it is widely known"? And I maintain his answer to the question is ambiguous and taken with other statements he has made about being happy on the back line, we have no real evidence of his intentions. I presume you are not putting any weight on jokes about Brownlows.

But who knows what he means. It could mean some other club chasing him wants him to play in the mid-field but he does not want to, so may reject them even if they offer more $. We don't know. I still haven't seen any evidence of "It is well known that he wants to play more in the midfield". He may, but jokes about Brownlows may be just that: a joke.

please provide exact quote or link.

What is the evidence that he wants to play inside mid?

Not impossible that all those things have been ticked off and there could be a simultaneous announcement on a podcast and elsewhere.

I know nothing but why is it assumed that Gus' remark about factoring in where on the field he is expected to play automatically means he is hankering for mid-field. After all these years, is it not possible that other clubs want him to play there and he doesn't want to now?

I gather from recent posts thanking D11 that he/she has a record of providing good inside information. Unfortunately such well informed posts are drowned in posts from people who know nothing yet post just as confidently and pretend inside knowledge. For those of us ignorant (like me), I'd love to see a list of names of posters who have an established record of having inside information.

Ok Sorry I didn’t see you had retracted “official” but a mild criticism of one word is enough to make you reconsider how much info you pass on? Surely not.

No need to be so narky D11. There have been lots of posts saying he is gone where the poster implies they have inside knowledge or use the word official loosely. It's unreasonable to say 'officially' until it is announced by the club or player. And it is reasonable to ask anyone posting the basis for their statement. If by 'offically' you mean you have a reliable inside source that tells you it has happened, you should simply say so.

That is an interesting idea. The trouble with 'can't play the next game' idea is that it could endanger players. For example, coaches might be encouraged to keep a player on the ground with a minor injury (which would be OK in a week), but after playing-on the injury might get much worse. I guess you could argue if the coach wants to take the risk with injuring his players, so be it .