Akum

... for depth

But should he go the full "Jesus" with the long hair a la GB? (Hollywood Jesus that is, not the 1st century guy) Would it help him walk on water? Or get him crucified?

Agree about Martin. Even if he ends up doing really well at Brisbane, he still had to go.

Thought I noticed a few times on the weekend a short midfielder, rather than bending to pick up the ball and then straightening up to deliver it, stayed in a crouched position and merely ran head-first at the nearest opponent, drawing the inevitable "high contact" free.<br /><br />On one occasion I think it was Dunn who tried to reach over their back and grab them around the waist in an attempt to avoid a high tackle, but still got pinged for high contact.<br /><br />I thought the original "head high tackle" rule was meant to not reward this sort of tactic. I guess the umpire's instinct is always to "protect the head" so it's a hard one to counter, except to get lower, which I thought was what they had been practising in the off-season.

But it's not like these players don't have a history elsewhere. Pedersen, Gillies & Sellar were fringe players at other clubs. And you've got to be concerned at Pedersen's & Gillies' poor positioning, use of body etc, in marking contests. And they did nothing in ruck contests, which was one reason we brought in Pedersen & Sellar. Everybody's entitled to an off game, but they'd have to improve heaps on that performance to be useful contributors.I thought it was glaringly obvious why they were fringe players, and maybe we can't expect more from them. But that's another issue. I like Dawes, he's intelligent & strong & direct & runs to good places & brings others into the game. But my concern with him is that his thumb injury seems to make it very difficult for him to take the one-grab overhead marks he was known for in his good year. He got his hands on a lot but couldn't hold them - even the one mark he took and moved it on to Howe, he had to juggle. That's going to limit his effectiveness if it doesn't improve. Just saying that the signs weren't good.

Not if by "high sprain" they mean Grade 2 or 3. Looked like a Grade 2 to me, thus the 426.

Far better than anything we've seen so far from PEdErsEn, Sellar or Gillies. Or for that matter Dawes. One of those four had better improve heaps at some stage in the season.

Really think the "release player" issue is a big one. They've had Newman & Deledio for years; we're only just setting ours up now, with Watts & Dunn in relatively new roles, and Strauss just getting going; perhaps Toumpas might come along.But for this to work, the "release player" needs to get their positioning right, know when to run off their opponent & overlap etc, and their teammates need to block for them & know where to expect to find them without having to think too much. In other words, it takes teamwork - something we've been very poor at for years - plus a lot of practice and many games to get it right. If we're relying on guys like Nicho & Tom McD and so forth to be "release players" because they're the runners and other teams don't bother to counter them - or if we have our designated "release players" getting away from opponents and teammates not finding them or turning it over - it's going to be a long season. On the other hand, if we do get better at it, we might snag a few good wins at the end of the season.

Nah, he's up for another job that's far less demanding.

K.D. Lang??

There was of course that off-the-ball king-hit that Bail copped from a certain "bruise-free" Blue while playing for Casey in 2009 or 2010.

Frankly, this thread used to give me indigestion. Now, it's like a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. Thanks Rev, all power to your arm.

REALLY like this post OD.

The main objective of today was to craft a resolution whereby it's not in anybody's interests to look into it too deeply. That's been done. Is it true that Bailey is only suspended from doing anything on match day, and doing anything one-on-one? That still leaves a lot of wriggle room for an assistant coach. Is that a punishment that fits what he was charged for? And what exactly did he do wrong again? Bailey would be justified in taking it further, but if his punishment only prevents him from doing some of the duties of an assistant coach, he's not come out of it too badly. Until, perhaps, he tries to look for another job at another club. The AFL needed to nail the coach (in some way) and to nail someone from the club (in some way that wouldn't do the club any mortal damage), and draw blood from the club itself, again without it being a mortal wound. The AFL got everything they wanted. Surprise surprise. We were grazed but not mortally wounded. I have a vague memory of some posts in 2009 that expressed concern about the amount of "loose talk" around the club, particularly by CC who was in a more responsible position then IIRC, to the effect that if any of this "loose talk" got to the "wrong ears", we could have some awkward questions to answer. Can anybody else remember something like this? Were there other occasions in 2009 when CC joked in a nudge-nudge wink-wink manner about priority picks?

What about jokes from 2009? Will Demonland cop a retrospective fine for not deleting them immediately???

I should also say that IMHO we're more likely to get better as the season goes on, because the team will get more used to playing together & what to expect from one another, and the game plan may take time to gel. On the other hand, sings of improvement will have to be there in the first half of the season. The pressure will pile on if not. So it doesn't bother me if we lose to Port in R1, and it's not going to matter how well we might look against GWS or GCS. But we have a bye round 12; the 4 games before that are against Pies (R11), Hawks (R10), Freo (R9) & Toigs (R8). MFC's future could well depend on how we do in these 4 games. Whatever the fallout is from the tanking inquiry, if we can't do any better than last year in these games, we'll all be in a deep deep hole. If we really take it up to these teams, win or lose, we'll be OK.

Is it true what was mentioned in one article (Ralph?) about burden of proof? That for the AFL Commission, we effectively have to prove we didn't do anything wrong, while for the court, the AFL have to prove that we did? If it is true, wouldn't that be a key factor in how we respond? And for those who believe we should accept a $500,000 fine and suspensions to CC & DB - do you still believe this if we would have to agree to charges of match-fixing or draft-tampering in order to do so?

I'm more concerned that if all the apparent improvement in the off-season is followed by disappointing performances in the real stuff, he may not have 2 years. If the apparent outcomes of the tanking issue are near the mark, after 5 disappointing years, we will need to show signs of major improvement in the first half of this season.

Apart from anything else, if this is true, it seems to suggest that there have been at least 2 leaks to the media before the relevant parties have been informed. What sort of process is this?

Fair enough. Seemed like the sort of thing MW would say tho'.

Hey, I agree with you! I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but it's the things are.Agree about Woodward & Bernstein, but they weren't reporting sport, and they didn't have a 24-hour news cycle and the internet to contend with. As far as CW's employer is concerned, they want her to get attention for them, above all the clamour of every other writer who's competing for the public's attention. The worst thing that could happen for the employer is that she gets ignored. And she's going to get attention - what she writes is going to be talked about & argued over, as witnessed by the however many indignant posts on d'land (plus ology, BF, Bomberblitz etc etc) - only if she writes something inflammatory & provocative. That's not "right", not by any means, but it's the way things are. And the way to get attention is - and has always been - to play on people's fears and anxieties, because people are emotional about their team. Above all, we fear that she has more influence over this issue than she actually does. The AFL, by the way, would be very pleased with her, because she's provoking people to talk and argue AFL rather than cricket or ARL - or Superbowl or Justin Bieber or MKR or whatever else. But I doubt the AFL take the content of her article seriously, and it's pretty clear that Don M (and MFC and their legal team) don't either. Don does not want to get dragged into a debate with the likes of Caro (Caro, on the other hand, would love that to happen because it would give her heaps of attention). But given that her latest article has provoked so much fear and anxiety amongst "members & supporters", he does want us to know that they have the matter in hand, and that what she's written about is irrelevant at best to the ultimate decision. He's done it really well.

Seems to me that DM's article was entirely for the benefit of "members and supporters". In my view, Caro's just doing her job. If she'd written a factual balanced article that was fair to all parties, we'd all go "yeah, good article" and move on to something else. As it is, she's generated a huge amount of anxiety & fear - and chatter - both here and Bummerbitz. In the media, the Mae West principle applies - the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Her job is to get attention and provoke a reaction, not to be fair and factual, and lately she's been far too successful in this. The club's only broken its strategy of "no comment" because it's picked up the amount of fear among "members and supporters", generated by Caro's article, that our defence to the AFL is in trouble. He's telling us that our response is far more crafted and effective than the objections of most supporters to the charges, which Caro rightly pointed out would be a very poor defence. I also get the strong message that it's clear to the club that while Caro and her ilk may be generating a lot of fear among members and supporters, they have no influence where it counts within the AFL, so the club's not worried about what she prints as far as the AFL is concerned. But it did want to convey to "members and supporters" that it's got the situation well in hand. I'm no fan of Caro, but to me she's just doing her job, which is to get attention for her paper by being provocative. The number of posts and amount of anxiety on D'land (and almost certainly elsewhere) shows that she's got far more attention than she deserves.

Yeh, he'll look like Dwayne Lamb.

Not speaking as a 'sports scientist', then?

Seemed to work for the Swans, some of the worst facial fuzz since W.G. Grace.Come to think of it, worked well for W.G. too!