Akum

Absolutely right about Sellar, Bob. It's the only reason we drafted him at all. Along the same lines, how about Tom McDonald? Another pick in the 50s, but has excellent endurance (see 3km TT), good speed, and when he grows into his body might be ideal for the N. Riewoldt types. Except that he might turn out to be better offensively than just having a negating role. A more attacking defence (by releasing Frawley to a more attacking role) and a more defensive attack! Like it!

Agree totally with your main point, but the forwards were actually playing to their instructions to "get sucked up the ground"

I can understand the concern about Jack being "named", but I don't think either party would have seen it as "public humiliation", or even as "exerting authority". On the contrary, I expect that Jack would have been highly inspired that such a "no-BS" guy as Neeld considers him capable of reaching elite standard, and highly motivated to do whatever is needed to reach that standard. All indications since then are that this is exactly what's happened. So it's simply a master instructor pushing exactly the right motivation buttons. And I'm sure Neeld wouldn't have mentioned Jack to the journalist if he thought he'd be fazed by it. Jack has already experienced more than enough "spin" from journalists to let it bother him that the journalist in this case "spun" the interaction between him & Neeld to make it sound like something it's not.

Going to take a slightly different tack here: 1. Grimes: Because any season where Grimes gets on the park 20 times is simply going to be heaps better than when he doesn't. 2. Morton: Because I don't think they'll pick Morton 20 times if he's only going "so-so". To play 20 games, he'll have to be playing close to the best footy he's capable of (which is very very good), and it will mean also that the team is going so well that we can afford to play him as an attacking position. 3. Blease: Because it will mean (a) that his fitness has held out for 20 games, and (B) that using him as a crumbing forward has been an unqualified success. 4. Jurrah: Similar to Morton (and a number of others) - I simply don't think they'll pick him in 2012 unless he's doing really well, so he'll only get 20 games if he's averaging say 3 goals a game plus assists, which will be 60 goals to him plus another 40-60 to the team. Which in turn will mean either that he's learned how to star against the best defenders, or that Clark & Watts are going so well that Jurrah only gets the 3rd defender each game. 5. Strauss: Partly because he'll do better with every game, so that games 16-20 will be so much better than 1-5. And partly because he'll only get 20 games in 2012 if we play off in the Grand Final! Yeah sure, our most important players are Jamar & Frawley. But they'll do well whether the team is going well or not, and they will always be among the first picked. The guys I've chosen will only play 20 games if 2012 turns out to be a very good season.

Just wonder if Col might struggle this year under a more disciplined team structure. He seems to enjoy having a relatively free rein and may chafe if he has to play to structures. And Moloney, who's used to being on the ball for the whole time he's on the ground, may have to get used to playing some of his game time in a field position. We could have a lot of players rotating through the midfield during a game, and Beamer could be very dangerous resting in a FP, for example, or attacking off a HBF. The key influence on our story in 2012 will be how these senior players adapt to a team structure and strategy, which will be a new experience for them after playing for several seasons. Old dogs & new tricks.

And not a hint of suspicion about the result? That a batting lineup that includes Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman & Dhoni can't get 200 against 2 honest toilers & 2 raw newbies? Tendulkar chasing a wide one & Dravid playing all over a straight one? The field set to Australia's last pair?

Not frog - hypno-toad. Actually, a hypno-toad or three in Canterbury would explain a lot.

As long as "we" don't take ourselves at all seriously

... and if it was, THEN we would have a reason to be pussed off!

Gee, if the only 'Jills' you know have that much facial hair ...

This will be interesting. We're likely to go tall in the forward line, with Clark, Watts, Howe, Jurrah & Green, and also in defence, at least against some attacks, with Frawley, Rivers, Garland & Sellars. Some of our best games in 2010 were when we went in with just Jamar as ruck, with someone like Dunn as back-up, and included an extra runner. Hope we don't sacrifice too much run for the sake of height. On the other hand, we are blessed with extraordinarily athletic & agile "height" among the players I've named, so we just might get away with it. It will be an interesting balance.

There's a number of elements to this, but it probably comes down to his aerobic fitness. He did not seem fully fit last year, and seemed to be carrying a leg injury, and assuming that his aerobic fitness will be better this year (notwithstanding the latest setback) I think he'll chase and harrass more. When he does chase & harrass, he does it really well.

Sounds a long time for a medial meniscus tear (by the way, "meniscus" is medispeak for what most people would know as the "cartilage" in the knee, so "torn medial cartilage" might be a more familiar term) so maybe it's a larger tear. The medial meniscus is often damaged at the same time as an AC tear, so I wonder if there was any previous damage to it?

During the surgery for the meniscus repair, they'll be able to have a good look at how the ACL repair is holding up. And hopefully they won't have to remove too much of the meniscus.

I'm all for facial hair as a rule. I'm all for micro-mini skirts too, just not on fat girls. Some people need to stay well away from stuff.

And ... um ... Jack Viney?

I'd be a bit worried about my long-term future right now if I were Clint Bartram. This guy can play a run-with game & get plenty of ball going the other way, is hard at the ball, great tackler and reasonably good disposal - at least he doesn't seem to miss running into an open goal from 30m. Clint will have to improve his disposal out of sight to keep him out.

Yeah, it's never a "fitness cardinal" or a "fitness mufti". They must all be Hindu.

Clearly resting the number out of sheer respect.

Who was the last Melbourne player - let alone midfielder - to kick 6 in a game?

Do they really believe that all this whingeing and bleating and underhandedness is making them attractive to the western Sydney public? Are they giving their public the impression of a team with a strong character or a weak character? Imagine if the NRL carried on like this if they wanted to put a 2nd rugby league team in Melbourne - would it make you feel more or less inclined to support them?

Did she approve?

Saw Bobby Bright perform in Williamstown just a few years back - still a great entertainer, had the crowd in the palm of his hand. Top bloke too.

Not crying. Mate. Just defending a top quality young footballer against what must be the lowest accusation that can be made against a professional athlete in any contact sport. Especially when it's totally wrong. You think it means nothing? Perhaps you missed the fuss earlier in the year when Josh Fraser was accused of "dogging" a contest. That was just as idiotic. Of course Jack's not immune from criticism! You can say you don't think he's hard enough at the ball if that's your opinion. You can say you're concerned that the club has told him to keep himself out of trouble if that's what you think. But that's light years away from repeated wild accusations about "deliberately avoiding contests". None of his opponents accuse him of that. You don't expect it from so-called "supporters". Wouldn't be a problem at all except that dandeeman's posts are usually good on the whole IMO - if he was a nuffer I wouldn't bother. I just think he should know better and should accept responsibility for what he posted.

I'm readng things that aren't there?? At no stage have you bagged Jack Watts?? You need to take a look at your OP, dandeeman. I've bolded the bits where you've bagged Jack DIRECTLY for "a tendency to ... avoid the packs" and "not placing himself in contested situations". Then you talk about "a player who actively avoids contests" and "a player (who) hasn't got confidence in the players body to withstand a contest", but this is in a thread you started that you called "Jack Watts", where you don't mention any other player. OK, you've spent the rest of the thread backpedalling from these ridiculous and extremely offensive statements. You then come on all injured and hard done by when somebody calls you "idiot". What other word is there? And you have no idea what I'm talking about? Let me try again - slowly. The club and Jack want him to put himself in pressure situations, to see if his game holds up, to see whether his vision and decision-making and disposal, attributes that stamp him as elite and for which they recruited him, stand up under pressure. So far, despite him being underdone and underdeveloped, it looks good. Just because he's not crashing packs and taking pack marks doesn't mean that he's avoiding contests. Let me repeat - the most offensive thing you can say about any player is that he actively avoids contests. You've said this directly about Jack twice, and indirectly another twice. Then when challenged to back it up you repeat it and emphasise it by calling it "indisputable" in a later post. Then other clowns are encouraged by this garbage to come out of the woodwork and say it's true. How can this be construed as anything other than a post that is very offensive towards Jack? If Jack happened to read this, what other possible conclusion could he draw from it? Other than that you have no idea what you're talking about. You expect to cop this trash from outside the club, but not from those who call themselves "supporters". You've been backpedalling from the offensive parts of your OP the whole thread since. Perhaps you were trying to have a go at the club for what you consider to be their instructions. So if you didn't mean it to come across as offensively as it actually reads, have the guts to take responsibility for the words you posted, say you didn't mean it that way and TAKE IT BACK. Don't think you can counter the offensiveness by inane statements such as "Jack Watts seems like a great kid with a good head on his shoulders and immense ability" (who you happen to think avoids contests).