Little Goffy

So, uh, is Steele injured or just not someone Fox is aware of? Other than that, the logic is simple enough and Sharp is a genuine possibility who I'd be happy for us to get. We definitely need a succession line for the inside mids.

Literally the least broken aspect of the game. FIXED!

What safest thou on the manners and lordly qualities of yonder Zak, scion of the Butterses? We're in an awkward situation where we seem to have a great many young players with good character and leadership potential, but none who explicitly stand out as 'next captain'. It might be very, very interesting to see who emerges with new boldness as player and leader without the two 'awkward' champions filling the status. I'm cautiously optimistic that a leader will rise, but would not make any predictions with confidence.

Perennially stranded in Sydney. I think I'm more annoyed at not being able to be part of the emergence of the women's game than even about missing the men's season. This is a time which will have future medals and trophies named after it!

What, no Mason Cox?

Sorry I didn't include you in the team, Mr Reddan-A'Blew! The 'why' is related to a moment of folklore where 191/192cm players seemed to be cursed for a number of drafts, lead by Matthew Bate, Lydnen Dunn, Colin Garland and Cale Morton - most of them began at 191 and progressed to 192cm during their career, but there was a debate at the time about whether these players would be tall enough to be key targets, or too tall to be mobile players. This was back in the era where '4-2-6' became a MFCSS trigger and Juice Newton was being given one more chance every single year. The 'how' was pretty simple and actually came before the 'why' in a way - I was bumming around on AFL Tables and noticed you could sort players in each team by height. Sure enough, 191cm players tended to include a very short list of absolute guns and then a disproportionate number of never-quite players, giving me the confirmation bias I craved. Oh, and @beelzebub, you're quite right some sources have Neitz as a little taller, presumably measured before going bald? But footywire, AFLTables and his retirement announcement (made post-baldness, of course) https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/85783/champion-david-neitz-retires all had him at 191cm, which is why is he was in the team but also noted as being one of the 'disputable' entries. @Ghostwriter Taylor Walker was 190cm at draft and is now 192cm, so at some point he was in between.

Very well, it turns out it was absolutely not too easy! Congratulations to perennial obscurity-hunter @Demonstone and to @Palace Dees for getting it. The factor all these players have in common is that they are generally listed at 191cm! Not bigs, not smalls, and including the very unusual height ruckmen Adam Goodes, Polly Farmer and Mike Fitzpatrick. Truly deceptively simple, it seems!

Surely by tomorrow that'll be 'ex' sports reporter Jon Anderson.

For the record, this thread is the first time I had ever heard of Lennox Hoffman. How bizarre that in a single draft Geelong managed to bring in two kids eligible for this team?

A final clue! As any good Demon supporter knows, glory (and answers) comes to those who give ruckmen special contemplation.

If you were playing pool by other names, this team would be neither stripes nor solids. Does that make them the 8-balls of the AFL? (I may have to give a prize just for anyone who can parse that clue)

I'd forgotten Darling was still playing! For those still hunting a podium finish, it has nothing to do with shenanigans in tents, but might affect comfort levels in tents. Fun fact - Taylor Walker was not eligible at the start or end of his career, but was for a few seasons during it. It was ambiguous enough, and he is annoying enough, for him to not be included.

@Demonstone , of course, has come through with the early prizewinner. As a reward he can nominate any current player eligible for this team to be transferred to the Demons. Bonus points if he can identify a player who is the only eligible candidate from their club! (We have to give him extra work or he gets bored and starts disrupting the other kids in class) @Palace Dees has placed as runner up. His prize is a time machine with the ability to redo or simply annihilate all record of the 2007 draft.

Tom Swift famously retired young from football to study medicine, but then went on to switch to finance, supposedly now working for CitiGroup and/or Essendon's investment planning. All of that is far too complicated for me, and nothing to do with eligibility for the team. However, Swift and our own David Neitz are probably the two most debatable members of the team. Some sources say in, some say out.

Proud of myself for coming up with a team which reached a little back into history, although my knowledge of players and their lives doesn't cover much before this century. Fun to discover that I could include our very own young gun in the list! Not everyone on the team was eligible for their whole careers. Some sources even give different accounts - that ought to start some health arguments. Interestingly, the criteria provided a pretty incredible best 22, but by the time you fill the 'seconds' team you begin scraping the barrel. So, what do all these players allegedly have in common? B: Anthony Daniher Steven Silvagni Sam Fisher HB: Danny Frawley Justin Leppitsch Matt Rosa C: Blake Acres Anthony Koutafides Harvey Langford HF: Adam Goodes Peter McKenna Josh Weddle F: Jack Darling David Neitz Logan Morris FOLL: Graham 'Polly' Farmer Scott Pendlebury Jobe Watson Bench: Rex Hunt Mike Fitzpatrick Jason McCartney Tom Swift

A weird side note is that Jack Steele, as captain and all-round good guy, was probably part of the wooing effort until a few weeks ago.

THAT was easy? I guess I never did well in advanced acrostics in school, either. Also, bad handwriting. That settles it. I'm going to fling one out and see if it is too easy or stumps people.

For an awful moment I thought this was a Tom McdDonald father-son selection coming up in the next few seasons. I'm sure I saw the a couple of little blonde munchkins climbing on him back during the Covid hubs, and I not ready for the implications of them already being teenagers!

Or if Sharp gets as far as us, we downgrade the pick in a deal with Adelaide so they can get the positionally needed local talent and we can get some 2026 draft position as well as a late first rounder for the like of Sumner-Pickett etc

I promise it'll be easier without any triggers around. Plus, there should be a nationally supported sick leave entitlement for extra days off, called 'not murdering people leave'. "I'm taking a homicide day" should already be a thing.

The best way to solve this problem is to eliminate the other codes so Australian Football can reign undisputed. At least in Australia. I'd settle for just eliminating the Rugbies, then we can have Football and Soccer, which is simple enough. In fact, in all circumstances, it is a good idea to eliminate rugby. Who loses from that, really? It's like banning smoking. Sure, some people will be cranky for about 8 weeks, but by week 10 everyone is winning.

If the poor kid is taken by Essendon then we can describe him as like Houston, but if he slides to us or we trade up then obviously he is Hibberd with an extra 5cm. That's an exciting prospect and I'd love it if some magic happened and we were able to get him.

The romance and positional appropriateness of Latrelle Sumner-Pickett, combined with my liking of Thredgold, keeps bringing me back to live pick trade shenanigans. Lots of scenarios where we downgrade either or both picks and gain useful 2026 draft position as the premium. The top players I get excited about would need to have a surprise slide even to reach 7 and 8, while on the other hand there seems to be a bulge in the middle of the draft. The first round is allegedly disappointing compared to other first rounds, but the second round might be one of the better second rounds, if you follow my meaning. There might not be a Langford, but there could be a Bowey, Rivers and Fritsch.

You can still use the old non-metric scales, like the one for talls that goes from 'beanpole' to 'big lump of a lad'. He's already been assessed as between 'chunky' and 'solidly built', which actually mean the same thing but also both mean different things depending on how much you like the person in question.

I looked at an article about the Tassie Stadium issues and there was an add on the page for a Temu clearance sale. Is that a lookalike? Delivery date indicative only, product may not be exactly as portrayed in image, additional taxes may apply in your region.