DeeSpencer

Yep. Hawthorn were much better than us especially in the forward line of just dropping it on first contact and either drawing a free of scrapping on the next contest. We were penalised for attempting to handball. Holding the man should only be paid for players who don't ever have the ball. If you've possessed it and haven't kicked or handballed then you're fair game I think. Pay a sling tackle if it's a dangerous tackle that results. How many times was Tom Mitchell tackling Jones or Oliver before they even got the ball yesterday. Astounding.

5;40 of this video. Must start behind the mark until play on is called. http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-09-12/is-blocking-the-mark-allowed

I believe the interpretation is you have to be 1 metre behind the player on the mark until the umpire calls play on. They have to come from behind the mark, they can't be adjacent to it. It was poorly officiated yesterday (shock horror), but it does allow another player to either be free or up as the second marker so to speak and be involved. In the dry it doesn't really achieve much. In the wet it buys extra territory so it's well worth doing. Of course our players are poorly trained both at doing it and at how to defend it. It's basically a basketball screen and you can either fight over or under it or hand off to a second player to chase the kicker whist you pick up the blocker. The Hawks do the little things so well. At one stage Bugg gave away an off ball free for holding or blocking, not sure which, I didn't see a replay of what he had done. But it made me laugh because any time a high ball was coming in to the Hawthorn forward line they were blocking for each other non stop.

Reading a bit too much in to it. Any first picked draftee hit with a ban will get 'bid to debut delayed at least one week', doesn't mean he was or is in line for selection. I expect he'll play well at VFL level but will need to do so for a good period of time before being picked.

I too was critical of the price for that reason. Still am. I just think he can be a good player but not as some special fix all interceptor. Hibberd - who has a lot more MCG experience by the way - is an excellent all round football. Aside from an aversion to tackle and a wont to play off his man he does everything well. And that's the kind of player Lever has to be and the type of player you need at the MCG. The intercepts will come for Jake as he rounds out his game and also if we pick up our forward pressure and midfield spread. The Hawks and Tigers have mastered that and had huge wins in recent grand finals. Adelaide and West Coast - teams that play on skinny grounds - have been caught out on the wide spaces of the MCG wondering why they can't lock the ball in forward and can't get their intercept players working at half back. I also disagree with how much I've seen Hibberd use his right. He's good enough to go right and get back on his left, but Lever can go left and get back on his right! His left isn't terrible either. And yes, Lever needs to get better at using the ball deep in the backline because he will end up there. Hunt has lost his spot but Wagner and Vince as much as Lever has taken it. Hunt can and should get it back.

The MCG is a huge factor for Lever. He looked good in preseason in Tassie and at Casey and was playing well at the Gabba before the dew came up and he didn't adapt to slippery conditions and a struggling side. But back on the G - firstly it holds some mental demons for the Crows from grand final day, but it's also a ground they don't play at very often or play well at. It's very wide compared to Adelaide Oval and that means you have to go side to side as a defender much more than at Adelaide Oval. It's much harder to stay in a back 6 formation, you need to be more flexible. At the Crows - Brown, Talia/Hartigan (depending on match up) and Kelly played back pocket, full back, back pocket. Lever was allowed to sit on a flank and position himself to intercept. It's why I thought he'd replace Vince in our best team, turns out for now it's Hunt but anyway... We'll likely leave Jetta and Frost/Oscar closer to goal but the G is wider and the ball can move out and around and back in to the next wave of forwards or even a drifting in wingman, be squared up at CHF or be run straight through the lines. Unless you're Rance who can get up field pressure and dominate in the air and on the ground as the deepest defender I can't see the same level of intercepting at the G as at Adelaide Oval. The trade off is there's more space and scope to counter attack and be involved on the way out. Any talk of Lever somehow magically restructuring our backline was laughable. As if talk that our backline is now lacking structure because of him - that ignores just how out of shape we were throughout a lot of last year. The idea of structuring a backline around any one player is silly to begin with. What he has to be is a very good player who makes life easier for his team mates by getting himself and them in the right spots, working hard both ways, making the right level of aggressive decisions with the ball etc.

We did get pick 35 back in this draft. That's where I would've haggled for more but it was a mid first downgraded to a late 2nd. If you think you can find a good player with either of those picks and not miss a star at pick 10 then the deal is much better. Harry Petty was the pick and if he's a solid serviceable player and Lever gets it together the deal is looking good. I'd trade two mid first rounders for 1 gun and 1 serviceable player every year for sure.

Weeds - born June 97 - 196cm Fritsch - born Dec 96 - 186cm Not really a fair comparison. Curnow had never kicked more than 2 goals in a game before tonight. So no different to Weeds. This is a year for Sam to develop a healthy, strong AFL body. Apparently with ankle surgery and a long preseason in rehab and not rushed in to AFL games that has hopefully been achieved. At VFL he has to find consistency with getting to and winning contests. If he's body is right he'll be able to rotate in as back up ruck and that will do him wonders.

1-2 weeks to deload, 1-2 weeks to rehab, 2 weeks to train/play. Think if it goes well Tom can be back under the 6 week mark. Just hoping for no further set backs for Jack.

My questions for Mr Misson are: If Tom McDonald is feeling so much better now after 10 days off legs then why wasn't he given 10 days off legs when he first felt sore 8 weeks ago? AND Why did he play in the AFLX shambles at on the Etihad car park if there was knowledge that he had any sort of niggle that could be exacerbated by a firm surface?

All she added was quotes from a Rugby League coach who couldn't comment on specifics and the price tag of the deposit. If that's the best she can do a few months later then that's fine by me.

This injury update was seemingly the first bit of positive news in a long time for both of them. With McKenna it's hard to imagine that they can't fix his hamstrings eventually. Foot problems are on a different level but it's nice to here they plan for Vanders to run outside, being in rehab for an entire year is bad enough without having to do most of it without even joining the group outside.

Interestingly no update on Jones. That probably tells me they expect him to play which is good, but they also don't want to go public with an update on his back. I think Lewis and ANB get through, always have. They were back running a few days after the injury and have had a lot of time. I'm not confident on Tom. There's a big step between not running and being ready to play and at best that step using takes 2 weeks no matter the injury.

I'm not big on unfair intrusions in to personal lives and reporting on rumours, especially when the sources are clearly vague. Otherwise do your best media.

I haven't seen any tentativeness to get the ball or lay a tackle but at the same time that kind of stuff isn't only natural ability but it takes training and team work as well as the right mindset. It's certainly going to make selection difficult and it will be interesting to see how the forward pressure works in round 1. Apparently Gold Coast's small forwards have a club where the player who gets the least tackles buys breakfast or coffees or some such thing. I'd steal that idea for sure!

Was hoping we avoided the Watts/Fritsch chat. Can we call it a day on that one now? With the vagaries of the draft it's more a coincidence than an intended move I'd imagine. As for young Bayley - has a nose for a goal, lovely kick, competitive overhead. He'll need to have convinced the coaches his defensive work is up to scratch to get picked for round 1. I hope he has.

They test the biomechanics in the rehab process. That's been the big issue with Vanders, he's not flexing his ankle right after so much heel trouble that they can't progress him to running. I'm sure they've done a lot of that stuff with Tom and it's why they start (and often stay) in the rehab group for so long. I was a bit angry before and shot my mouth off. Really when I look across the competition I think our guys do a good job, but I also think we've had a lot of foot injuries for a long time and I'm not sure if we have nailed the right solution. There's probably limitations about what we can do with the ground at Gosch's - although I think it's in good condition. There's talk that players have shoe deals that means they have to wear certain brands of footwear. So many variables and I'm not sure the best surgeons, biomechanists, fitness guys, physios etc really understand the feet all that well anyway!

I liked the match up of Tom in the ruck against Blicavs who can make things happen with his running. That said, Cam is probably better once the ball hits the deck. Hard to know which I'd prefer up forward. Tommy more reliable but Cam's good games as a forward - when he's on his bike and tackling are exceptional. My main concern isn't round 1, it's getting Tom healed quickly.

Why would the club release injury information that only panics fans and helps the opposition? Journos work long and hard to chase stories and if they get one you say well done.

Maybe one day we'll give the Misson a missile in to the sea. Tom's as fit as anyone, doesn't need to overdo the running and get a hotspot. Oh well. In Pedersen we trust. Jones is a worry given he's had neck surgery and a broken back. His style of play has taxed his body. The positive is we have an explanation for why he looked a long way off his best in JLT 2. JLT 1 was rust, I wasn't worried, but he struggled last week. Epidural's can work but you're hoping it relieves the inflammation to allow for the rehab not just a short term pain fix. Surely they wait until he's right to play him. That might come in the next 2 weeks but I have my doubts. Not as worried about Lewis, ANB, Harmes and others yet. Think they'll be alright.

I'd extend Jetta but I don't think that's a huge issue. I wonder if Harmes isn't worth getting done before the season to get him cheaper so to speak. Obviously the club would want to sign Brayshaw and Oscar but I'd probably let them play and earn the bigger deals if they want them. No idea what to do with Tom McDonald.

I hope we'd get rid of all high contact being a free, it's lazy umpiring. So often the duckers are rewarded. There was a few nice occasions both ways on Saturday when the umps yelled 'play on ducked' and even an holding the ball against a North ducker. In this case Salem had the ball, a high fend is a free kick, but I don't think that's what Salem did. What he did was the equivalent of a forward raising a knee in a marking contest which I'm fine with. If in doubt, I'd always lean towards the guy with the ball rather than a tackler.

The AFLW played jumped up and put the elbow out prior to being tackled. Salem was bracing for contact and had the North player run in to his elbow, it shouldn't have been a free kick.

Needs to find more of the ball and up his defensive game to lock in a consistent spot. That's a reality of a mid sized forward in modern footy. But his upside and nose for a goal is probably too good to leave out. What I liked was how many smart little things he did: - the crumb where he's read the flight and stayed down - the low and fast kick to a lead - the quick play on to dish off a goal and my favourite of the day - the punch when caught behind 2 opponents that set up a goal

Base wage this year is 80k for players drafted 40+, 90k for players drafted 1-20. With $4000 match payments and $3000 bonus for ever 5 games played. So pretty much it's close to 200k if you play every game. 3rd, 4th and pretty much until a player establishes themselves are probably the hardest players to know what kind of deal they are on. Minimum is 105k with 4,300 match payment but you'd think clubs would go well above minimum for anyone who's played a few games in the first 2 years. Salary cap is 12.5 million. Which fits with the average wage of just over 300k. Given there's a lot of depth and youth at most clubs who make less than the average I think teams can squeeze in a few big contracts ie. 750k+ and can have a lot of solid players making 400-500. I think where the media reporting and guess work goes wrong is for the players who are allegedly signing deals worth 550, 600, 700 etc. My guess is a lot of those deals are very incentive based and they work out a lot lower than reported.