CHAMP

I can't see any cause which would merit presenting a case to the Tribunal. The offence has been graded at the absolute bottom of the scale of offences and may thus not be argued down. Are they going to suggest it did not happen? The only course would be to go for accidental or inadvertent which would be frivilous. I say make an example of him if he fronts and give him a couple.

He gave Ben Rutten the 5th vote. Rutten was probably in the the bottom third of their best players ladder and might possibly have played his worst game for the year. You'd have to give the honours to Neitz. Who is Davis Reed anyway?

I'd say sloppy copy. Injury Update now has him listed as "Groin Strain"/ Indefinite, and also refers to the back-related hamstring scenario. Groin Strain is euphemism-speak for suspected O.P.

The Final Siren criteria differs markedly from the NAB award, viz "To be eligible players must have played in no more than 50 games before the start of the selected season and must have played in at least 5 games over the currently selected or previous season". You'll also see that McLean is 20 and Deledio (his year winner), 19. Jones was way higher last year. Time has a way of evening things out.

From a practical point of view he'd be better off with his current unit.

Last year, later in the week, Footywire used to have detailed analyses of all games. For obvious reasons I've not bothered looking this season. Give it a go around Wed.

When I read the thread title I thought it must have been a belated admission from the Football Department.

Yep, went something like this.....

Thanks. Actually what we're talking about here is the difference between best and worst. The little girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead comes to mind. Good teams can maintain an output, a level of efficiency, and can win even when not travelling well. The Demons have a propensity for switching off when you least expect it.

The team, under Daniher, has always had a tendency to "coast". This can be for a whole season, 7-9 games, one game, one half, one quarter or part of a quarter and no-one knows when the switch-off is coming. Even when they were playing well there was a tendency not to bury teams for the same reason.

Let's be honest, the last scenario would have ruined the AFL's biggest night. A lot of people wouldn't have bothered to turn on their telly. Think of all that ad revenue down the gurgler. It would have taken a lot of interest out of the betting too (although the agencies would have been happy). Rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" it's "benefit of the doubt" and ad hoc. The Tribunal have absolutely no credibilty; they're a bunch of Muppets really.

He has a back-related hamstring which started life as a simple strain. Seems he's now thinking of calling himself "122". Has only managed to play 2 in a row once this year.

You have left out the perennial "being a bit flat". One of my personal favourites because it may or may not embody elements of not being ready to play, poor concentration, not putting in satisfactorily and has the added benefit of not being too specific .

1 average + 2 crapola + 1 outstanding = 1 crapola

Hamstring soreness I understand.

Couldn't be any worse could he?

The new interpretation I understand was to bring back the contested mark. It has had the reverse effect. Bartlett would not know much about it. Gieschen was a hack "utility" who played 24 games with Footscray over 5 seasons; exactly why he was appointed has always been a mystery to me. The longer he coached Richmond the further he brought them down. He neither brings much to the table. It is against the instincts of a player not to hold his ground with the hands. The interpretation encourages players to exaggerate even the slightest contact in the back. If the rule remains in place a whole new generation of Matthew Lloyds will be born.

There'll be no surprises if we're advised "we didn't match up well (couldn't find a spot for Millsy), were well-beaten in the midfield and ran out of legs" the picture is painted and is there for all to see. Let's just hope that none of the runners get injured early.

Lloyd made his debut in Round 14 1995, having been born in April 1978. This would make him 17 years old. So really there is no comparison, it's clutching at straws really. Newton has turned 20. OK, Sheedy kept him back for 13 games because he was 17, where's the analogy?

I'd like to know what use Miller is off the bench. I just about spewed when I saw the name. It defies belief. There is no rotation. Is this another of those solid new plans?

You could be right. Juice may need to tidy up his work off the 3m board.

It all depends on whether Sautner's playing or not.

One from 12 this year (NAB-inclusive) and 3 1/2 from the last 9 in 2006.

I reckon it might be a fair thing to query the validity of planning which has a team winning 4 1/2 games of the last 21 times it has been paraded before the General Public. This is more especially so when the list of playing personnel is generally reputed to be of above average quality. In anyone's terms this is failure.

He must have purchased the compromising images that were floating around. He is sure not there on form or ability.