RalphiusMaximus

Confirmed by the club here. He'll be running again in 4-6 weeks according to this. Right in time for the pre-season.

Absolutely agree that Green could be a good call on the bench. The fact that he has played as a half-back playmaker and as a winger could count in his favour here. However, the selectors have in the past shown a strong bias for midfielders, so I think it more likely that they will name the four biggest ball-winners who didn't make the starting 18. The fact that the team will never have to take the field means that they can throw balance out the window.

I have to say, the only one of our players I see as a chance at the AA team is Frawley. Green has been outperformed by a couple of other small forwards, as good as he has been, and The selectors only ever take one ruck, which is always going to be Sandilands. That leaves Green and Jamar our in the cold. I agree that the backline he has selected is dodgy. For a start he admits that they are not the best defenders, but has chosen them for their attacking ability. For that alone he needs to change things.

The same answer as to why Josh Kenendy wasn't charged for breaking Syvia's jaw, and why Moloney has been twice charged and convicted of not making contact with the head in a forceful manner.

Just to be sure. You do know that this only gets us a single spot right?

Demoting to rookie list is a nonexistent practice. What there is is delisting a player and then taking them in the rookie draft. There is precedent, but it was more of a legal fiction than a list development move. We did it with two players who would have just been cut had they not had contracts. It is in no way an established or common practice. As for not mentioning the rookies as delistings. Why would you? Cutting a rookie opens up a new rookie spot. Nothing more. It does not count towards our mandatory delistings It does not get us a pick in the National draft, nor even the pre-season draft. It was specified that you can allocate picks to Rookies you want to promote. We already know how long a player can stay a rookie, so it is a safe assumption that the likes of Spencer, Meesen, Newton, Hughes and Healey will be gone if they are not promoted. If you're that concerned about the state of our Rookie list, perhaps you could start a thread specifically for the discussion of inclusions and delistings from there? That way we wouldn't have to worry about confusion over these matters.

OK. I'll start with a look at what I think we need available to us in the drafts. Personally, I think at minimum we need 2 draft picks, 1 Rookie elevation and 1 PSD. I would prefer to have 2 rookie elevations open to us, but it may be a luxury we can't afford. Based on that, we need to open up 4-5 spots on our list. The obvious two are Miller and Bell. It seems pretty clear that the club is not going to keep them given that neither one can get a look at a senior game. I am in the retirement camp for Junior. I love the guy, and I love the way he plays, but I think his body is beginning to fail him and I would hate to see him play out another season if he spends most of it on the long term injury list and plugging away at Casey. Better to throw him a huge sendoff in round 22 this year by thrashing the Roos. These three are the obvious picks for me. After this it gets a little dodgy. We need to factor in things like whether GC snares one of our uncontracted players, whether we have anyone with trade potential and how the club feels about the guys who haven't been playing this year. Of the players GC have been runmoured to be interested in, I think Bate would be the most likely to be targeted. He is within their age range, has good experience and when fit is a very good forward option. If he were to go to them it would make life much easier for us. However, I have never heard any suggestion that he is unhappy where he is and I doubt the club would want to give him up, so there would no doubt be incentives for him to stay. I rate McNamara and Cheney as the most suitable to trade, although Straus could be a dark horse as well. None of them have looked like breaking into the senior side, and they are all quality young players. In all cases it could be a huge boost to their careers to go to another club, even if it costs them a shot at a premiership. I don't think any other clubs would show an interest in our spare ruck/tall players, so PJ and Martin are out of the running for trade bait honours. So we have the following options: Bell + Miller = Gone Junior = Retired (Green goes to veterans list and frees up a spot on main list) Trade/GC poaching = any/all of Bate, McNamara, Cheney or Straus. My ideal result would be for two of the trade/GC options to occur, allowing us to elevate both McKenzie and Spencer to the main list and use our first two ND picks and our first PSD. Obviously, there is no way to tell if the club will decide to drop PJ, or indeed to let Spencer slip. Both of these things could happen quite easily, depending on how they feel about the development of our young rucks. If we were to keep every one of our up-and-coming rucks, we would soon find ourselves top-heavy, but there are worse problems.

Watts - TAKE THE SHOT!!

It often is, but sometimes it's just reality. Would we have lost to Collingwood if the umpire had payed either of the two frees in our forward 50? Would we have lost to the Bulldogs had the Umpires not been wearing our colours? Perhaps, but highly unlikely, given that both directly contributed to the loss in the final few minutes of the game. Today it is far less concrete. I can say with certainty that the Hawks scored 18 points directly from incorrect free kicks and would have had 24 had the kick not gone out on the full. I can also say that they scored a couple of other goals indirectly from free kicks (ie. frees payed in the middle of the ground which led to a goal to another player). This more than accounts for the final margin. I may be wrong, but I can't recall a single Melbourne goal coming from a free kick. Did they pay any frees to us inside our 50? Sadly, we can not say with certainty that the result would have been different had the umpiring bias not been so evident. Given that two of the poor frees happened in the opening minutes of the game, there is no way of knowing how things would have panned out had they not been payed. The one-eyed supporter in me is screaming that every time we looked like kicking away the umps found an excuse to gift a couple of goals to the Hawks and arrest our momentum, but how can we know that the game would not have swung anyway?

We have enough in the backline without trading for more. Don't forget we have Tom McNamara hanging out at Casey waiting for a shot as well as Warnock unable to force his way back in. There is really no need for trading at this point unless a certifiable A grader is up for grabs. Perhaps another really good forward would be worth a look, but otherwise we are solid across the board.

Will the rain help or hinder? We've played some good football int he wet, but the physical style of the Hawks could make it a little difficult.

Funny thing. We can cover that loss. It would hurt, yes, but we have another great defender waiting to come in. Warnock goes to Roughead, Garland to Franklin and we continue on our merry way.

FIFA are looking at introducing either extra referees or goal-line cameras to remedy the situation. However, they do not make wholesale changes to the game, and never change rules without giving them a lot of thought beforehand. Compare this to the AFL who seem to change the rules by the month. I know which model I prefer.

Well, if he has signed then it would be old news since legally the only time he could have done so was last year. At that time he was a certain starter in every Melbourne game, one of our most damaging forwards and recently rated by Gary Lyon as potentially in the top 50 players in the league. He would likely have been quite happy with the way things were going for him at that time, so no motivation to go, but at the same time would have been a possibility from the GC perspective given that he was playing pretty good football. Either way, it would not have been anything that's happened this year that would have an impact.

God I wish they'd take a leaf out of FIFA's book and stop making massive changes to the rules. It's not up to the AFL to counter tactical innovations by the coaches. Let the coaching community do their job and come up with new tactics to stop them. The only changes I support are harsher penalties for people staging for frees.

That they do. I've noticed that all of our indigenous boys look for each other on the field. There's nothing wrong with this, it provides some really good passages of play.

Let me just say that 8 1/2 is one of the most overrated films of all time. Fellini must have been high as a kite when he made it.

Jurrah finally pulls in the mark of the year.

Actually, in the NRL the field umpire asks the for a ruling on a specific incident and only that incident. Even if the video ref spots something that would have affected teh call, he's only allowed to advise on the point requested. For instance if the field umpire asks "was he offside when the ball was kicked?" and the video clearly shows a forward pass but that the player was onside, he rules it a try.

Funny, I thought they were playing out of their skins in the first half and we were playing a shocker. If we hadn't been turning the ball over all the time it would have been another game like the Sydney one.

That'd be Brad Green who played his first few seasons as a forward right? The guy who got to learn the ropes at AFL level in one position before moving up the ground and playing through the midfield and half back line, showing his versatility and playmaking ability once he'd matured as a player? Thanks for illustrating my point so nicely. As for Goodes, I can admit that he was played in many postions early on, however, it wasn't until he was able to focus on one position that he blossomed. To quote the oh-so-reputable wikipedia:

And then they leave it at the door right? Seriously, the umpiring in all areas (even boundary) has been a joke this season. I don't think I've ever seen it this bad.

So you're attributing a move made out of desperation by Daniher to good planning and player management by Bailey? Dunn wasn't moved out of the forward line to learn anything, he was used as a tagger because Cornes was smashing us and everyone else they tried that day was hopeless. Unfortunately for him he succeeded in stopping the rampage and suddenly found himself the designated run-with player. And yes, this did almost end his career. Just look at the posts from earlier this year and last year. How many people on here were declaring him worthless, not even good enough to trade? He was drafted as a forward and that is where he should have been played. I detect the presence of someone who is absolutely determined to be contrary and negative somewhere around here... Yes, he needs to hold his marks and kick straight. If you have actually watched any of his games this year you would know exactly what I'm talking about. He presents well, he flies into packs, he can take the loose ball and turn his opponent inside out in a flash. However, too often when he flies he drops the mark and his kicking on the run is inaccurate. If he can get consistency in these two little things (yes little, they are only a matter of practice and confidence) he will be playing in the forward line on a regular basis. I really don't think you read this paragraph at all. Skimming looking for someone to troll? Perhaps. I really don't see how playing him all over the place at this stage is good for the team. The best thing for the team would be to let him settle and improve. Not only would he learn more playing in one position, but for an immature player (as mentioned earlier) it would help settle his mind and allow him to focus on what he is doing. Nor did I ever call him a superstar. I did compare him to a couple of players who are superstars and to whom he shows similarities in Goodes and Pavlich, and I maintain that this is a valid comparison. They are both players who are moved around to have the most impact for their team, and are able to dominate the game in any role they are asked to play. If Morton lives up to the potential we all see in him he will be in this category. It should be noted however that both Pavlich and Goodes were predominantly played in one position while they were developing. It was only after they were established as gun players that the chopping and changing began.

That would be a hitout to advantage would it not?

I am very much in agreement with the stance on utilities. There is no shame in being really good at one position, and no need for players to be good at all of them. It very nearly destroyed Dunn's career when they decided to play him as a tagger instead of a forward, and while it is paying off now with his defensive pressure in the forward 50, this is more due to luck than planning. As for Stef Martin, I can see a real future for him as a forward. He has such great agility for a big guy, if he learns to take marks and kick goals he will be a nightmare. The Cale issue is a little more complicated. He is one of the rare players who could come to master any position on the ground. He has the potential to be another Pavlich or Goodes, in that they are able to play anywhere on the ground and dominate with their size, athleticism and ball skills. I think there is an argument to be made for having him learn it all, but it would be much better for his development right now to be able to settle in one place and gain confidence in his abilities and his role in the team. He still has plenty of maturing to do, both mentally and physically, before we need to ask him to take on the role filled by the legitimate superstars of other sides.