Dr. Gonzo

If you notice I didn't actually begin the thread, I was only commenting on it. You bought up ND and old dee said he would have him back any day. All I was doing was pointing out that ND created a team of soft front runners which created the culture that led to what we have today. It was under ND that guys like Yze, White & Johnstone used to get games week after week on reputation alone while others like Jolly & Scott Thompson left us for greener pastures. Daniher had a skilled team who didn't like the hard stuff so we looked good against teams around or below our level and crumbled against anyone as soon as they applied some pressure to us which led to us dropping games to teams who had no right to beat us (Carlton 2004 & 2006x2 come to mind instantly). How many games did we win under ND that you can honestly say we had no right to win? Maybe one in his first year against WCE at Subiaco. Other than that we continually shot ourselves in the foot and cost ourselves ladder position because Daniher refused to hold the senior group accountable and refused to implement any sort of defensive game plan to compliment the attacking style we played well.

He seemed to be scribbling and writing quite a bit in the coaches box so I assume he did actually have specific amount of players in mind and probably told them so and pointed them out after the game. He also didn't say 4 very good players, he said a pass mark. I think Watts got a pass mark but the expectations are still higher than what he served up yesteday. For mine he was talking about Magner, Watts, Trengove and ????.

I've been trying to forget it for more than 10 years but the memory is still vivid despite trying to erase it with inhuman amounts of alcohol and other substances. There is only one cure and it is the succes of cup number 13.

And we got absolutely demolished.

I'm more interested in who the "ins" are. You can drop whoever you want but what does it matter if you just replace them with the same guys who have been under-performing for years and haven't earnt their spot? If they bring Bennell or Dunn back in what is that going to prove? They were obviously left out this week for a reason will that suddenly change after one game?

Exactly - I also feel that the criticism of Watts may be warranted. He WAS one of our better players, in the first half at least. The problem is he still didn't IMPOSE himself on the game. He didn't create many goals, he didn't kick many goals. He did get to where the ball was and rack up some possessions but did he really damage the opposition? I see Matthews and others criticism of Watts akin to Barassi's criticism of Keth Greig (amongst others) back in the day. He hounded him the most because he had the potential to be one of the best, but wasn't.

The problem is you can drop players but who do you bring in? Just more under performers who then get a game without having to earn a senior spot. Rinse and repeat in a fortnight or months time. The only players who really could come in to the side and make a difference are Petterd (deserves a spot), Sylvia (on his last chance and needs to earn it - not an automatic selection) & Jurrah (who knows if he'll ever play again). It just feels like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic - the problem with our team is there is no competition for spots in the senior side. Players get games on reputation or just for the fact that there is nobody else - how can you expect there to be a competitive fire under them when they know all they have to do to get a game is turn up?

I said exactly the same thing to someone last night - the scary thing is it is not outside the realms of possibility. If GWS show the same intent and attack on the footy and contest as they did in round 1 and they have Scully & Power back in there is a very real possibility they will roll us. Add in Patton (who I don't think is playing this year due to injury) and they already look like they are ahead of us after they have played one game in their entire history.

To win a premiership you need 4-5 A-Grade players - we have potentially one or two in Trengove & Frawley but there is no guarantee they will get there. If I had to go through the list I would put a line through the following players; Bartram, Bate, Bennell, Davey, Dunn, Fitzpatrick, Green, Jetta, Macdonald, Martin, Moloney, Morton, Rivers & Spencer That is 14 out of 38 and that is being generous. I have serious question marks next to the following; Bail, Blease, Cook, Gawn, Gysberts, Jamar, Jones, Jurrah, Sellar, Strauss & Sylvia. That is another 11 which is 25 out of 38 players on our senior list who either aren't good enough, aren't consistent enough or go missing when the pressures on. Of the rest the majority are kids who are untested. So to answer your question this list cannot win a premiership. We have serious deficiencies in our list and our culture. We lack a crumbing forward, one-two quality ball users off half back who can shut down small forwards like Milne and Ballantyne, 2-3 top line midfielders who can go forward and kick goals, at least one key forward and possibly two.

Surely you jest?

Fo' shizzle my Bizzell

Morton will be lucky if he is on a senior list next year.

Pretty sure I read somewhere earlier that Petterd didn't train with the main group yesterday so he is probably overcoming a minor injury of some sort other wise he would be in.

TD didn't hijack the thread, the thread had already evolved into a general discussion on drugs, their impact on society and how society deals with the drug question. The thread is about a former champion player addicted to drugs who has now been arrested. TD's post is well within those parameters.

It also reduces the amount of violent crime, by the users to fund their habit and by the pushers to maintain their turf. The problem is while certain governments are able to fund their covert wars through black budgets funded in part by the illicit drug trade there is no hope of decriminalisation on a large scale. It is also an extremely convenient method of depriving people of their civil rights on the basis of labelling them a "suspected drug user". The thing with keeping all "recreational" drugs prohibited is that humanity is also deprived of the many benefits that some of these substances could provide. Marijuana has so many benefits that are well documented that it is a crime to keep it illegal. The fact that research into other drugs such as psilocybin, LSD & MDMA is halted by the criminalisation of them has probably put psychiatry back decades. I am convinced that the guided and educated use of hallucinogens can help people with addictions or other minor mental "illnesses" (for lack of a better word) far better than current psychology/psychiatry and the drugs they peddle on behalf of companies like Pfizer which are far more dangerous and addictive than many prohibited substances.

It wouldn't surprise me if most of these drugs are developed by US intelligence/military related industries - they already feed their pilots (and probably other armed forces) "dextroamphetamine" i.e. speed to enable them to perform long missions at optimum level. Diet pills are also basically "speed" which suppresses a persons appetite. Drugs are everywhere and I agree that the issue needs to be addressed in an intelligent way rather than just illegal bad, legal good manner. I think what is being fed to us in our food and what is prescribed by GP's/psych's is of far greater importance, particularly when people either don't know what they are consuming or are relying on someone else's "expertise" to make the decisions for them.

Just wanted to bump this thread for anyone who is interested in trading some of the stuff they bought. There's a few games I really want (94QF v Carlton, 87 Night GF v Essendon) but am always looking for new stuff that I don't have. Anyone interested in trading PM me, I have built up a decent collection of games to trade so not just the ones I got through the NAG sale.

That game wasn't the best and I'm surprised they chose it considering the catalogue available. It wa a low scoring game at Waverley - not much to get excited about other than it was against the Pies. Wouldhave preferred our win against them in 92 at Vic Park or 93 with Jako kicking 9. That game was a pretty poor standard but not all games from back then were. I wish they had've shown the '94 QF against the Blues that is one game I am dying to see again.

Yeah I understand that and I'm not having a go at you, just using this as an example. Many kids are exposed to drugs by the age of 14-15 and are just as ill informed about making a decision. I know there were some kids in my school who had tried marijuana before they had even finished primary school. The problem is around education I agree but even that counts for nought sometimes when confronted by your peers and the invincibility of youth. Just saying drugs are bad and shouldn't be touched is counter-productive because once a kid tries marijuana at the age of 14 or 15 and realises there isn't much wrong with it and they are not going to die it increases the chances they will then try something a bit "harder" because they think, well if I was lied to about this drug they're probably lying about all drugs.

I see many people on here commenting that they have no empathy or compassion for Cousins for whatever reason - but they miss the point that this isn't about someone seeking public approval, empathy or compassion. This is a man (still young) who has personal demons to battle which is made even more difficult by being in the public eye and having an ego fuelled by too many slaps on the back and wry smiles from a young age because he can run and kick an inflated piece of leather. I don't see him out there pleading for your approval so why do people on here feel the need to use the opportunity for their self-righteous moralising and judgment? It really is egotistical of them Just to pick out one argument, RobbieF commented on having given up the drink but also stating he can't understand why someone would inject or swallow something that is potentially harmful. The fact is regardless of having now given up booze you did pick up a drink for the first time once so you would know exactly why someone would inject or swallw something that is potentially harmful. You were lucky enough that your drug of choice was easier to give up than some others which create a greater chemical dependence due to the foreign nature of the chemicals used to our biology. Some drugs the body absorbs and processes better than others for this reason which is why it is more difficult for someone on speed to go cold turkey than someone who is on weed or MDMA. This is a broader social issue but the facts coming in are that prohibition doesn't work. There are many reasons but taking this one in particular, question why does speed/meth even exist? It's a cheap, easy to make substitute for cocaine. If natural drugs like weed, opium, psilocybin, coca were decriminalised or god forbid legalised it would take out a massive market for other prohibited drugs which are more potent & more addictive and are used to fund violent gangsters, dictatorships and even coups, assassinations and terrorism of the CIA who is one of the biggest drug runners in the world. When the Afghan war started Afghan opium accounted for about 7% of world supply - it now makes up somewhere around 92%. Same thing happened during the Vietnam War. This is why drugs remain illegal and why the chances of them ever being decriminalised are slim to none while the current world order remains.

This show is horrible - no wonder I barely watch it anymore - the horrible staged "spontaneous" gags like Crawfords dolls spewing all over Sammy are just horrible and pathetic. Who finds this funny? It is obviously contrived.

If the Pies, Bombers or Blues don't lose anyone of significance to the expansion I will be very [censored] off. On Footy Classified Monday night Caroline Wilson heavily indicated that there was a gentlemans agreement between Allen and Eddie not to go after any Collingwood players and I'm sure Sheedy would have similar feelings about the Bombers.

On one hand that's right - but I don't think he's really asking for anyone's compassion or understanding is he? Addiction is an illness, albeit one that is self-imposed. Everyone has their demons and it doesn't really matter what your background is. I doubt he had his first line thinking it would end up like it has the last few years. I can understand the judgments that get thrown around because at the end of the day the addicts problem is self-inflicted and s/he has control over his own destiny with every action he takes. But once you fall into the habit (and it is very much to do with habit as well as chemical dependence) it can be a very difficult cycle to break. Thats all well and good but there's a reason the "Just Say No" crowd and the drug war has failed. The fact is all drugs are different. Alcohol is one of the most destructive drugs around but it is legal. Caffeine and sugar are drugs that invade most processed foods that we consume in western society. Drugs like LSD and psilocybin have many beneficial uses if the user is educated about them. Meanwhile drugs like heroin and meth have no real benefits whatsoever though are highly addictive due to the euphoric feelings they give you immediately and which you keep chasing after the first hit looking to recreate that feeling. So you can tell your kids that drug users are stupid and they should just stay away as drugs are dangerous but what happens when they have a puff on a joint and realise that its relatively harmless? How do you reconcile the fact that alcohol & tobacco are both dangerous/deadly but legal while marijuana and MDMA are no worse (and in many cases better) but are illegal? This is why "Just Say No" doesn't work because kids are smart and quickly realise that it is [censored]. This doesn't mean you should condone your kids taking drugs or even tell them it's up to them or there are no dangers with drugs, but education is better than simply telling them all drugs are bad and deadly and drug users are stupid because odds are they will have at least one friend if not a number of friends who end up at least experimenting with drugs at some stage.

I have thought this for a long time and spoken about it on here or 'Ology previously - it really is a no-brainer to at least have a go at it. Teams like Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond and Essendon all built their massive supporter bases off the back of European immigration in the 50's, 60's & 70's so I see no reason why we couldn't do the same today. Give free tickets out to them more than once a year to have them keep coming back or have more opportunities to come back. Any time we play a non Vic team at home there should be free tickets available to international students in the city. I'm pretty sure we did this R5, 2010 against Brisbane and it was our biggest ever crowd against them (although still only about 35K it was a step in the right direction.) There's no need to limit this to any ethnic communities either, target all of them. If we get some from one group and some from another, who cares, it doesn't have to be exclusive to one ethnic group. The Casey thing I'm not so sure about, yeah it's a growth corridor but who is living there? I don't live out that way and never go there but I'd think it is more likely to be suburban anglo's or at least people who have been living here for a couple of generations already - they are more likely to already have an allegiance to a specific club and are unlikely to change just because Melbourne trains down the road, particularly if we are rubbish which we have been. If Collingwood began training where I lived when I was a kid I don't think it would have made much of a difference to the kids who lived around the area. in fact I was in the old Collingwood zone and we used to have them come out training etc sometimes and it didn't make me want to barrack for them. The idea of a Demon Shop in the city, while nice, is pretty impractical. It would cost a mint in rent alone and I couldn't really see us making too much money back off it. How depressing would it be to walk in there and the place is a ghost town in the middle of a packed city. Maybe though we could have stalls set up at the uni open days and try and target the international students there with free tickets, scarves, coffee etc Would be way cheaper than opening up a shop with limited target market in an expensive real estate.

Perhaps next time we'll have to give up draft picks if we want to sign an assistant coach from another club? http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/poach-coach-make-it-fair-trade-20120327-1vwjf.html What do they constitute "poaching" though? If we sign someone for 2013 who's contract expires Oct 2012 how is that "poaching"? I'm sure the clubs above the law would find ways around this anyhow. Did people hear us bitching and moaning when Essendon pinched Wellman off us after he just signed a new contract? Just get on with the job and stop being crybabies about it. You'd think the bigger clubs would be against this as there is no off-field salary cap so they can just pay more if they want to keep their off-field staff.