Dr. Gonzo

Yeah, they might take Sylvia, that's about it from our older players. Maybe they would want to take Dunn off our hands?

I'd rather win dirty than lose fairly. Also, you don't think "headhunters" exist in AFL? Yeats on Brereton is a famous example, Wallis on Green in 2000 another.

And what would you offer after they stopped laughing hysterically at you?

That's true, problem is he always does come home with a wet sail (particularly when contract time is up). There's always an excuse with him, that's the problem. Last year he busted his jaw, this year his back, previously he had OP. I am so frustrated by him because he could be an absolute gun. He needs to hit the scoreboard to have worth to the side and at the moment he's not doing that.

Could've and should've taken out Swan before half time as well in front of the bench. Perhaps Neeld (or someone) got in his ear at half time and said "mate your a big lump of a lad, go out and use it".

Rivers has been great this year. Jamar is rubbish, and I don't know why we gave him 3 years. We should have given him 1, 2 at most but he is a constant underperformer. Can't kick, can't mark, can't use his size in packs or to protect our ball players. ONLY thing he can do is get his palm to the ball in the ruck, pity is he can't do a bloody thing with it once he gets the tap it just goes straight to bhis feet or to the opposition. I like the big Russian and loved his words during the week, and yes you can't shank all your older players but cold hard facts, he's been playing for close to a decade (has it been a decade?) and he has played one great season and 9 bog ordinary ones. Moloney and Sylvia are just schizophrenic. I can't make up my mind what the hell we should do with them and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the decision. I can see arguments for keeping both, trading/delisting both or keeping one and trading/delisting one. I feel they both will end up staying but it wouldn't surprise me if Sylvia is gone. Moloney I think Neeld will keep just so there's someone to provide some bodywork for the kids that will come through. EDIT: Forgot to mention Green - I like Green as well and he has been a very good player for us over the journey, and I'll never forget his game as a kid against Carlton in 2000. But he is gone. At his age and the way he is playing the only way we can justify keeping him in the side is if he can contribute a couple of goals a game. He had 3 opportunities today and blew them all. I have a feeling most of his remaining career will be played out at Casey.

Haha damn straight JM. I'm glad to see I'm not alone in my thinking here, I was beginning to think I'd stepped into some kind of horrible European twilight zone and we were playing soccer or some other non contact sport all of a sudden.

They actually did go to review and because the ball hit the players heel which was between the ball and the post it was cleared as a goal. I saw a game recently where they paid out of bounds because the player with the ball ran into the point post even though the ball itself didn't touch the post so who knows WTF the rules are. Might have to go and actually check the rule book to find out because it is clear the muppets in fluoro green wouldn't have a clue. And I do agree with us taking advantage of our opportunities but really the decisions on the replay weren't even 50/50's they were blatant calls/non-calls and it happened all game.

Yep, surely Garland was thinking it was "advantage" and went for the tackle if that's the case. A bit of common sense could have been used (heaven forbid) and the ump could have tried to settle things down instead of awarding another 50 and a shot on goal.

I'll be interested to see on the replay why he got two 50's? The umps just deciding to make rules up on the go now or did something else happen off the ball? EDIT: just saw the above another rubbish decision - I don't want to harp on it and will never blame the umps for a loss but they were diabolical today, just decision after decision (or non-decision) for the whole game. And don't expect the "expert" commentators to make mention of any of it, one instance Maxwell blocks Green from the marking contest well and truly off the ball (at least 10 metres if not more) and the commentators go on about howe it was a great block by Maxwell!!! Yeah it was great, pity it's also illegal and he should've had a free paid against him.

Goddamn it, I'm generally not one to have a go at or blame the umpires, but we were absolutely raped today. A number of decisions/non-decisions indrectly resulted in goals particularly in the first quarter. There was a number early but the most blatant were the HTB on Magner and the non-call of the shepherd on Clark which both resulted in goals. There were a number of others more evident on the replay as well and I haven't even finished the first quarter yet. EDIT: that's not to say we didn't make stupid mistakes and decisions as well but bloody hell it makes it hard when the umps only see black & white.

It's about time a Melbourne player decided to hurt the opposition. Well done Tappy, loved your aggression.

Can't remember all of them but definitely included Grimes, Trengove, Jamar and also Moloney I think.

Just chucked on the replay and the pre-game on channel 7 is downright embarrassing. Only about 5 minutes in but already we have had a number of our players explaining how this is the biggest game of the year for us because we don't get to play finals and it's the only time we get to play in front of a big crowd; this was followed up with Malthouse going on again about how this is our GF and we build ourselves up for 1 game each year and how if we were up and about on Wednesday during the week they knew they were in for a big win on the Monday. They then top this off by trying to interview Frawley while he is on the ground doing his pre-game warm-up and then replaying Watts' debut where he was crunched by three Pies players as soon as he ran on to the field. Just cringeworthy

Damn straight CFH would rather a dodgy cover band belting out Walk or 5 Minutes Alone might scare the little kiddies who were brought up on Backstreet Boys though

One of our players finally shows a bit of mongrel after decades of insipid pansies and you want to pot him? Grow a spine and back your players FFS. I'll take one Tapscott over 100 Morton's, Sylvias, Jamars, Daveys etc

I don't understand why people think being stereotyped as educated and well-off is a negative thing. I would take our stereotype every day of the week over Collingwood or Richmond's.

I was one who thought he might be expendable based on the number of rucks on our list and the fact that I thought his performance peaked in 2010 - however I am glad he has signed on for 3 and can hopefully see Gawn and/or Fitzpatrick take over the rucking mantle at that time. Actually the veterans list rules have been changed - no longer is it half the salary of up to 3 or so players, now it is $100K per veteran taken outside the cap with no limit on how many veterans you can have.

On AFL360 last night Robinson asked Neeld directly if he had changed his game plan over the last couple of weeks. Neeld said something like, "not a great deal, no." Now this could be taken as, "yes I have changed it somewhat" or "no it is basically the same plan I have been trying to get them to play all year". The answer seems to lie somewhere in between RR & Hardnut.

Looks like I got the brown acid Biff. It's a despairing trip but reality is sometimes a downer.

Haha so you just take everyone at face value do you, despite what their history tells you? You probably think Bush really wenty into Iraq for WMD? Hey I've got a bridge in Sydney for sale, PM me.

Because a man is judged by his actions and we know from history that Andy D acts like a corrupt politician or businessman.

Please...are you really that naive?

I only bleed red, am I only half a supporter???

I have thought this as well, but I've been in two minds recently (and not just since Saturday). For one, you can't just turf out every player over 25 and field an underage squad or you get results like GC, GWS and us over the last couple fo seasons. Secondly I think there is merit in the fact that you hold on to your "heart & soul" players to not only provide experience & hardness on the field but also infuse a culture within the club. I think if we had our time again we would not have pushed McDonald (and even Miller) out and I think for this reason we will not be dropping Beamer at the end of the season. I feel the same way about Sylvia also. For one, we need some hard bodies around contests especially with the style Neeld is trying to implement and two, even if these guys don't turn out to be best 22 (which I doubt will happen in the near future) they are still definitely in our top 38 so I can't see the value in delisting or trading them. Particularly considering we are unlikely to get anything decent in return, probably a player who is a level below and a low draft pick.