The Chazz

Sorry, I don't see how that is being tough or reading too much in to their comments. I'm just asking the question about how we can say a player still has good years left in him just because he polled votes in Round 21. Does this qualify him for an extra year in contract negotiations? I would like to think that Bruce would NOT use this arguement in his negotiations. Is that being too harsh? Sorry, but harden up.

It's hard to say that it's the most absurd thing I've heard, the amount of comments from people wanting to pick up Tom Hawkins would take 1st prize there. However, I think it is a little premature that people are saying Rich has reached his limit. Surely a kid that has just finished his 2nd season of AFL football has more upside than that? Surely? Let's look at it this way, IF (and that's a bloody big "if") he has reached his level, is that level sufficient to hold a spot in our team for the next 10 years? I would probably say yes, definitely the next 5 years, and I can't really see it stopping there. We have a similar bloke on our list that will play next year. Big bodied, dominant kick, tough as nails, what upside will Lukle Tapscott have? Just throwing it out there, considering he and Rich are very similar. Nb. I'm hoping Tapscott wins the Rising Star next year and is a 10+ year player for the club.

I still don't understand this part of your opinion. Obtaining votes in Round 21 means bugger all about him being able to run out a full season. As you said, he missed a lot of the preseason, so does that mean we have to manage him that way in the years to come just so he can be our best player in round 21? Personally, I'd like someone that is going to get votes in every game. Based on your logic, do you agree with Juniors departure because he failed to get votes at the end of the season? We agree, he deserves a one year contract, no arguement whatsoever. As I said, 2 years is dangerous, becuase if he drops off between then and now, he WILL get the tap on the shoulder, which will lead to endless rants on here about Bailey having no respect for the club stalwarts. Any more than 2 years is just plain stupidity. Bruce might be able to run out a season, but we are playing football here, not running a marathon. Will his skills and speed be suffucient to sustain his spot in the seniors for the next 2 years? Personally I doubt it.

Personally, I hope in season 2013 that we don't have to look for one or two big name recruits. I'd like to think that the handfule of early draft picks from the rebuild will be those big names, and we wont have to lure them to come to the Club becasue they will already be here with well structured contracts. I think we have learnt alot from the success of Geelong, especially in the efforts of keeping this team together for a decade, with (hopefully) minimal fear of losing our better players.

Personally, I'm dead against 2 goal umpires up each end. I think it would create greater confusion, especially when there is that questionable decision to be made and all umpires in the area get involved. That said, video technology in my opinion is the only answer, but will it create a lot more issues? As posters have already said, will they rewind it to pick up on that free kick missed? Realistically, the use of technology should be used to answer the following questions; 1. Did the ball hit the post? 2. Did the ball go through the goal or behind areas? 3. Was the ball touched on the line? 4. Did the ball come off the attacking teams foot? From what I can think of, the above questions would be the only ones that could effectively be decided through the use of technology. The question of being touched off the boot would be near impossible to be paid as thre can literally be a fingernail in it, and I don't think our technology could pick up on it. This will probably lead to people asking how can I say that when question 3 above can also be a fingernail decision, well, it would be a case of "Goal Umpires Decision", and that is what's paid. I don't think you could introduce technology to decide free kicks = let's face it, as much as they are blind d!ckheads, the umpires look at an incident and in their view, make the right decision. A lot of the rules are open to interpretation, that's the joys of this great game. With that said, how can technology be introduced to ensure it works. Obviously anytime a decision is referred to the "video ref", this will create a stoppage in play. So, do we implement the tennis/cricket system where each team have a certain amount of challenges per match? Wouldn't take long for sides to use this as a tactic to slow down play and set up zones, slow down opposition, etc. therefore, this method is a complete NO! Probably the only way I can see it working is giving the responsibility to the central umpire. He confronts the Goal Umpire, a clear "was it a goal - yes or no?", and asks both boundary umpires the same thing. If there is 4 green lights (with the central ump included), then it's a goal. An answer of "I think so", it is automatically a red light. All it would take is 1 red light for the decision to be referred upstairs. I think this is the only system that would work - am happy to hear opinions or other suggestions though! At the end of the day, the errors are growing in costly-ness (?). The Hawkins poster in last years GF could be argued that it cost St Kilda the flag. If it is possibly costing a team a premiership, then something HAS to be done about it. Only other point for those who don't want it introduced - there are minimal decision each year that are questioned. The introduction of technology wont slow EVERY game down, heck, we can go for weeks where there would be no need for the video. So, if that is your main arguement, just have a think about how many times a scoring decision was brought up this year - would be less than 10, out of a total of 616 home and away quarters, which is approx 18,480 minutes!

Ironcially, this Saturday there will be me (Melb of course) and my wife (Geelong), a mate (melb) and his wife (kiwi - enough said), and another mate (Carlton) and his wife (collingwood). Between Melb, Geel and Carl, we have beaten Collingwood 13 times in grand finals out of their 24 losses!

Well said. Could sum up that poster quite easily. E25 - love your comment "he won votes in a contentious manner, clearly as a result of his teammates being so sub-par that he stood out amongst the pack; not necessarily because he was the best." Up there with your best of the year!

Ok, in closing, your point is invalid, but...if they start giving Brownlow votes for games played in the finals series, then I will front the AFL and submit your arguement. Until then, I will continue to respect the Brownlow Medal in its current format, that being the award for the Best and Fairest throughout the home and away season, a format that has stood the times and obsession of rule changes by the AFL. Good bye.

You are entitled to an opinion about this rule, but thought you would be thankful that there is still the odd rule that the AFL haven't changed. Because it has taken you until 2010 to bring it up makes you (in my opinion and a fewe others that have posted regarding it) sound very bitter about the winner. Obviously you will say he doesn't deserve it, but it will be interesting to see reactions from other Melbourne supporters should Scully win the Brownlow after serving a suspension from the previous years finals series. I for one wont be saying that he doesn't deserve it. Scully is an angel though, so he probably wont get suspended EVER!

Bloody brilliant! Have printed off a copy and placed it "in the pool room" where we will be watching the game with a Collingwood supporter! Cheers for the link.

From early reports, absolutely. I think Tappers may even have him covered for speed. The introduction of Rich in to our midfield would then allow Tappers to play a true half forward flank role and hopefully kick 30-40 goals a year. It's the one area I want to see us increase next year - more goals from our mids/flankers. We started this year with Dunn getting more, I think it's an area that needs to improve for us to become top 4. Geelong always have great contribution from the mids in terms of goals scored, admittingly they lack a good key forward, however, Stevie J and J-Pod still kicked 100+ between them, as well as Ablett, Chappy, etc kicking a lot between them. It's going to be up blokes like Scully, Trengove, Tapscott, Sylvia and Dunn to do this, as I can't really see (what I call) enough (around 20 goals each a season) coming from Moloney, Grimes, Morton, McKenzie, Flash and Jones.

Actually, I'm beginning to think you're the challenged one. I was giving you an "out" for your comments about how there is a loophole in the AFL's system regarding finals and Brownlow eligibility. If you had've said that you were annoyed with the man himself, then I could understand your frustration with him winning the Brownlow. The fact remains that according to the rules, C Judd was eligible to win the 2010 Brownlow Medal, he did win it, yet you are saying he should've been ineligible. What part of that is difficult for you to understand? And you think I'm challenged??!! From what I have seen/heard, you're the only one in Australia that has brought up this topic (plenty have brought up the Pav incident). There are a lot of experts out there who are in the media spotlight, and not one of them (to my knowledge) have supported your arguement - is that telling you something? Also, to help end your concerns of a Judd-crush from my side, while I did say in an earlier post that he deserved it, I did also comment that there were a number of players who probably deserved it. Pre-Brownlow I was asked who would win, I said that I think Swan will win, hoped Luke Hodge (my actual man-crush!) would win, and thought Sandilands and Goddard would be a good place bet. TBH, I laughted at Judd's AA selection, so I think it's time you took your own advice and "gave it a rest", challenged one.

So, is this (WJ's post) why you disagree with his winning of the Brownlow?

Good for you thinking that he has up to 4 years left, but you will have to go and watch a Swans game to see him do it, that's Shepparton Swans with Robbo and Ooze. That point you made about "being the last Melbourne player to gets votes in the Brownlow is proof that he still has the legs" is an idiotic arguement and you know it. It means jack sh!t about him being able to run out the year. There were 22 players playing in round 22 for Melbourne, does that mean the rest of our list can't run out the year? If you really want to make these comments, tell me why he didn't he get best on ground for all of our wins? And if he was sooo good in Round 21, why didn't he win the game for us in Round 22? From memory, some would argue that he cost us the game in that match - was his carelessness due to a lack of fitness? Your point has nothing. I have great fears that if he were to get a 2 year contract, that in the 2nd year, there is greater chance of him getting that tap on the shoulder toward the end of the season, then there will be another interesting group on here claiming we don't do anything to build loyalty and a great culture in the Club, and by the sounds of it JCB, you'll be the president of that group.

Is he a trade option? We have absolutely no idea. One thing can be sure though, our FD would know, and I would like to think that if it is true, they are seriously considering our options. While he may not have as much upside as say Tom Scully, he is still a very good footballer, and if we are going to chase someone this trade period, I would rather him than Mundy. Personally, I think if we are going to use our first pick as trade bait, it will be for a Full Forward, unless we could get the Big Q for a steal (very late pick/PSD pick). Rich would be a perfect addition to our midfield, hard, inside player who can hit a forward target like no-one else his age.

Amazing to think that Hawthorn's success was pretty much becasue of one man, and even more suprising to think it was Croad! He's pretty much the common denominator in their story, I just can't believe it though!!! I think that our Coach would probably be one of the best going around to help get a team up for Jimmy's sake. The players should be able to do it alone, but I think Bailey has the right personality to keep driving it home. I personally wouldn't want anyone else leading our boys through this period.

Here's the link http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/harbrow-sees-sunny-times-as-he-joins-gold-coast-20100920-15jrz.html "Brisbane is understood to be entertaining trading midfielder Daniel Rich to West Coast for the Eagles' No. 1 pick in the national draft - the No. 4 pick overall." Should we meet with the Lions? I'm tipping pick 12 wont do it, so who do we lose? Edit: Changed our pick to it's correct position (to keep G2W happy!).

Far out - see the bit about Brisbane entertaining the idea of trading Daniel Rich for pick 4 from WCE?

Tough call isn't it? Do we want to be like Hawthorn and get there quick, pinch hit a flag, then drop off, or do we want to build a group that will take a bit longer to get there, but when they do, pile on 3 or 4 flags in a period of time (aka Brisbane, Geelong, possibly the current Collingwood)? I'd love to see a flag next year, but if I have to wait a couple more years to see us challenge for multiple flags, I'd take that too! There's no reason that we should drop off if we make it earlier than expected, but there's no reason Hawthorn should've dropped off either. I wont be expecting finals next year, I'll expect improvement again. If it means September then great, if not, as long as we continue to move forward I'm fine with that.

Found this article via Big Footy, well worth a read for those of us that may be getting a little far ahead of ourselves! http://www.backpagelead.com.au/afl/2520-hosing-down-great-expectations Fairly realistic views of our CEO.

Which ones? Personally I didn't think Scull deserved 3 votes against the Bulldogs. Losing team, half his possessions in one quarter, worth 3 votes? Would have though 1 for sure, 2 if he was lucky. That said I am stoked for the kid to get rewarded with a BOG for the match. Oh boy, I have a feeling I'm going to pay for this one!!!! Edit - the bit in italics. Had to try and save myself somehow!

The NRL have the McIntyre system in place. Because of the results from week 1 of their finals, on the weekend we saw the team that finished 7th take on the team that finished 3rd at...wait for it...the home ground of 7th!!! And, the team that finished 2nd, played the team that finished 6th at...you guessed it...the home ground of 6th!!! That would potentially mean that Geelong would have had to play Freo at Freo under the similar system. And people are questioning if our current system is fair. There is no other possible scenario that could beat our current system. Don't you think the Collingwood faithful would have come up with it by now? The only alternative I heard was that the highest ranked of the teams that went straight in to the prelim get to chose their opponent after the results of the semi's. There is no logic in that, other than to give the minor premier 4 rewards for finishing on top (1. potential week off 2. choose your own opponent 3. home ground advantage in your first final 4. home ground advantage in your 2nd final). Please leave it as is. the NRL love our system, but wont change to our system (typical case of mine's bigger than yours).

Fair point. All for opinions/disagreements, but when we have facts slapping us across the face, and people are arguing against them, makes some look like they are chopping heavy on a bunch of sour grapes. I expect that from Collingwood and Geelong supporters, not us.

What is there to justify? this rule has been in place for as long as I can remember. It's only today that we are questioning it? How can you say finals are fair go? He got rubbed out for 3 or 4 weeks FFS. And, the last I knew, the Brownlow Medal is awarded to the Best & Fairest of the Home and Away season. Is that justification enough? Just like the Coleman Medal - you don't add your goals kicked in the Finals series to determine the Coleman Medalist. Ok, let's question the Fairest aspect in relation to the Pav incident, HE DIDN'T GET REPORTED SO HE IS STILL ELIGIBLE TO BE THE BEST AND FAIREST FOR THE YEAR. Am I missing an underlying issue in regards to Judd? All I will say to the Melbourne supporters that are whinging - would you like to see Tom Scully not accept a Brownlow because he got suspended in the finals series from the year before? Would you like to see Jack Trengove not accept his medal because he got away with elbowing Joel Selwood in the face? I doubt it! I'm as one-eyed as the rest of you, but this group of sooks on here make you look absolutely pathetic.

Chris Grant, along with Corey McKernan will be feeling fine today. He (Judd) wasn't reported, therefore is 100% eligible to receive the Brownlow. The "should've been found guilty" story is painful, he wasn't, so let's move on. There are a number of players each season that get off on charges that they shouldn't, and there are a number that get suspended for things they shouldn't, it's been like it for decades. As I commented on in an earlier post, I can't believe we, Melbourne supporters, are whinging about this. If other teams are complaining, let them, we as Melbourne supporters are better than that, and don't need a % of our supporters carrying on like spoilt little brats. Grow up, you are giving the rest of us a bad name.