pardontheinterruption

Probably fair application of a ridiculous rule which let's face it is essentially a de facto prohibition on bumping. 'Chose to bump when you could have tackled'. My head nearly exploded when I first heard this explanation. In the vast majority of instances you CAN tackle when you bump, but you bump to assert a physical presence and/or keep yourself in the play. Just another example of these strict liability head-high rules where perfectly good football plays are considered unacceptable because of the aftermath. The minute you take variables out of the question you are always going to have head-scratching decisions. I just hope once we're knocking on the door of the Finals that we don't lose a player like this.

That's true. I love this guy, he has a great combination of size, speed and ability. For a bloke who hasn't played a great deal of footy, shows a natural ability to take a mark. And I did like seeing him play forward a couple of weeks ago at the G. Saw him sprint 40m from one flank to the other to provide support (and put a nice block on to free up Davey), impressive from a big guy. BUT - at the end of the day, unless he can COMPLETELY refine his kicking style he's unlikely to become a key forward, and Warnock has to be ahead of him in terms of playing a disciplined man-on-man key defensive position, so if the club doesn't see a matchup the dropping is understandable. It's an odd (but good) situation to be on the bottom of the ladder and have too many tall defenders!

I agree 100%, certainly nothing to be proud of. I was expecting most of this thread to be along the lines of 'we cannot continue to tolerate mediocrity'. My point is that despite his major flaws, people are too quick to dismiss his contributions to the team, and even though a premiership calibre Melbourne side would be unlikely to have a player of Brad's talent as a major player, as of 24 May 2009 there doesn't appear to be any better short or long term options. On a day like today when most of our younger talent made no impact, it's just my opinion that there is a place for a bloke that will provide a (even modest) contribution. edit: I would 100% be in favour of a Miller trade to GC for reasonable compensation, makes sense for all parties concerned.

Beautifully put. I think Brad has been the victim of some overly favourable press early in his career. He is not a star player, never will be, that's not the issue. What is the issue is that out of a pick 55 we received a bloke who busts his ass to present up the ground and provide a link between defense and attack, and is one of the few guys who provides some physicality in and around the forward 50. Now sure, he is a below average kick for goal. It's a damn shame. Combine his work ethic, marking ability with above average kicking and couple that with the fact that he seems to be a good bloke we would have a bloody impressive asset. But he doesn't. He's the quintessential 'role player' that would be an ideal complement to a more skillful marking key forward and some classy smalls. a 3rd or 4th option. A link man. Even if you think all that's crap and all he does is take marks on the wing, [censored] himself and gives off a hospital handballs you have to ask yourself the next question, who do we have that will provide a better service to the team. I'm sure there will be plenty of names tossed around, but the fact that none of them got an opportunity before Newton suggests to me that there is no one else.

Hahaha, from the top tier of the G I was thinking the very same thing, was always going to be the case after giving him such a glowing endorsement! Probably one of his worst halves and a bit I've seen him play in terms of making decisive errors leading to opposition goals. Reactions from others post-game should be interesting

I'd assume given that it's a 'priority' selection' that it would take place BEFORE the first round, so that we would get 1, Richmond would get 2 (16th), Melbourne would get 3 (15th) and so on. That's just a guess though, I don't even bother trying to work out the logic behind AFL drafting/trading/concession rules.

I've been thinking the same thing. I felt so dirty last week when I almost threw my telly out the window after Tredrea pushed a Tiger defender square in the back to take the mark that led to the game winning goal, I'm actually finding myself tuning in to support them each and every week . Certainly not the standard against which we want to judge ourselves, but I can say without reservation that we are playing better footy than them at the minute and it's looking increasingly unlikely that we will win fewer games than them. Perhaps the first game of caretaker coach scenario will net them a win at some stage?

Interesting question. As of right now, I think most neutral supporters (especially non-fantasy playing neutral fans ) would rate Rioli as the superior performer, but I still like Cale as the long term prospect. First off I think that a player with Rioli's attributes coming out of the draft (small forward with speed/agility/goal sneaking etc) was always going to be more inclined to make an impact earlier than Cale (light frame more of an impediment, no defined role/position coming in). I would admit that Rioli is proving himself to be much more than a goal sneak, but I just rate Cale's ceiling a little higher. He has a unique combination of (in my opinion) height, poise, running ability that MAY allow him to become a truly transcendent player, able to play midfield, push forward and be a marking/goal kicking threat, or give a chop out down back. Now this may be a long bow to draw given he really has only played a loose defensive role that's prone to high stat accumulation. But given the tools he has to work with, and the improvement in the admittedly shaky disposal he showed early in his career, I just think he can become a really unique, special player. Actually the last time I was so high on a young player was Thompson... hope we get a better outcome this time around <_<

14,129 according to SuperFooty. Decent amount of noise generated given the size, but just looking around at so many empty seat strangely gives me a deflated feeling. I'd be interested to hear what past players (who could actually be truthful) say about crowds like that on Sunday. Logic says it doesn't have much impact, but even if running out to an empty G doesn't register, surely the boys are denied that little extra oomph from a sizeable crowd sparking up in the middle of a late-game run for instance (or for that matter, the ability to put pressure on an umpire, which most other clubs can). I have to admit, on the occasions that I've attended neutral games with 60k plus crowds the experience is incredible, feels like a completely different game regardless of the standard. Seriously, how great would it be in a couple of years to turn up to the G and regularly watch our improved side strut their stuff in front of 40-50 thousand!

I gotta say, it just didn't feel like a footy match to me, almost eerie. The time slot/weather is obviously no excuse from a hardcore fan analysis, but there's no question it comes into play for a large chunk of our fanbase (the more casual fan and families). I was only in Level 2 Reserved Area and 2A, but the lack of kids and families was quite glaring. We can't get carried away with these admittedly impressive membership numbers. Clubs are doing wonders padding numbers with small game packs/junior packs/our MCC/MFC option. The fact is that we are struggling side playing the future card, exciting for the 'faithful', possibly not as enticing for the more casual/fairweather fan who would be just as happy to watch at home. Fact remains that we will struggle to pull crowds for the interstate matchups at the G on our regular crappy Sunday arvo timeslot. 4.40pm + weather was always going to compound the problem (though even I thought we could push 20,000 given the win last week).

It may have been the hypothermia clouding my judgement, but today (as in previous weeks) his approach just exudes nerves. You can just tell as he's walking in he's praying not to [censored] it up. I think the banana was a product of he's thought process being so clouded that he doesn't even have the confidence to back his normal routine (not a great sign). He just doesn't look up to the standard unfortunately. Obviously can take a hanger, but even that impact is negated by the fact that when he flies and doesn't take it he puts himself out of the contest (and out of position to apply defensive pressure). That being said, given the number of games we will lose this year and how few of our guys are assured of their spot (about half of our first 22 in pen, half in pencil?) I hope the club gives guys an assured 3-5 block of games to prove their wares, providing them with a little confidence while doing so. By that logic he should be given another crack, but it's just so hard to find the positives that he brings to the side. He was always a stop-gap solution, but I think it's time to find a stop-gap solution to that stop-gap solution.