DeeSpencer

Got to upgrade all the other attributes as well. Hill's not only as good a runner as Jones but better and has Isaac Smith on the other wing creating space that way, has Hodge, Mitchell and Lewis feeding the ball out from the clearances and a number of half backs running to provide options and that's not even mentioning the forward line. What I hope happens this year is that we at least have the run to take the game on more otherwise we wont ever improve our kicking. Even if we are taking safe options and retaining possession we need to working much harder and playing with much more confidence in the way we move the ball.

The only different rule for the sake of it I like is the supergoal. Easy, simple, something fun and then gone. And of course the different squad, bench and sub sizes so clubs can play more than 22 in a practice match which is a pretty standard thing across most sports. I certainly didn't like trialling the rule for a free kick for last touch over the boundary similar to soccer. That's trash that was never going to be implemented. Things like the slide rule (when adjudicated properly) and other player safety rules and even things like the deliberate rush behind rule, they are rules that are probably for the better of the game. I think what should happen is a process of using rule changes in the preseason, then trials in 2nd level comps or in the TAC and evaluating them over time. 16 players is one of those rules, I'd love to have a round or two of TAC played with 16 as a trial.

Will obviously depend on who else is in the team and the forward 50, but I expect Hogan will look to contest to inside 50 stoppages at some stage. He's a big physical guy and loves that stuff. And I don't think there's any more risk of injury than normal for a key forward doing boundary throw ins in games. Certainly a good sign as to his health though that they are happy for him to complete what is more of a non core drill. Unless we here otherwise I think we should consider his back no longer injured but just managed throughout preseason!

Means you'll just have to sit at home and sledge players via twitter https://twitter.com/bvince23/status/560725316440563712 https://twitter.com/Demonpk/status/560798294947790849

No. Teams practice all pre season for the existing rules they just grin and bear it when a special preseason rule ie. super goals, play on from the goal posts etc interrupts normal play. I'm not pro rule changes, although I do think their is some space for small rule changes to see if they will improve the game. It's important that these rules get fair trials and should be over many years of preseason football. In fact I'd want up to 5 years of pre season games to justify an effective major rule change. So if they are ever thinking of going to 16 a side (which I think does have some merit) then the pre season is a good space to trial it.

Does it? Geelong: Scarlett, Ablett, N Ablett, Hawkins, Blake Adelaide: no one West Coast prior to this year: no one Maybe over time it evens out. But Geelong not only did so well with Scarlett and Ablett but the had the 2006 draft where they got Selwood in the first round and Hawkins in the third. The current system would see them take Hawkins with their first pick most likely (pick 7). The proposed system would likely see Hawkins taken at the exact same pick with a 25% discount, possibly involving a downgrade of another pick. Either way without both Hawkins and Selwood it's unlikely Geelong would win the 2011 flag and they would also be further south on the ladder than they are now.

If the AFL take over the academies then it creates 2 problems: 1. You lose local control and likely efficiency as well as incentive for the employees involved 2. The kids don't have a direct path to staying in their home state which the rugby clubs and other sports can provide The incentive will still be there even if they have to pay the appropriate price for the likes of Heeney and Mills. If the incentive was to get cheap highly rated draft picks then the whole thing was a rort. The incentives for the academies were: - Increase the percentage of home grown players, which can be achieved by taking a mix of early, middle, late round and rookie players - 2 or 3 local players per year will eventually end up with Sydney having > 50% home grown and on a level playing field with most other clubs - Increase the NSW/QLD players drafted in general (for which the AFL kicks in 250k per year to the clubs) There are a number of other benefits of the academies - Get kids and families involved in AFL and likely supporters and members of the clubs involved (incredibly good value advertising) - Increase the number and standard of junior participation as well as coaching, which creates a positive reinforcement cycle of kids playing AFL - Likewise increase the senior participation rates and standard of the NEAFL The Swans have chosen to hire Paul Roos and now Michael O'Loughlin as academy coach. They are big names with big price tags. The other clubs aren't spending nearly as much. The AFL might have to bump up the 250k contribution to 500k, but there's no way they should pay the full inflated cost of Sydney's million dollar academy regardless of whether the swans are getting first call on top rated kids or not.

The maths is somewhat complicated. The idea is very simple. Pay additional or move back in the draft in order to get to a reasonable level of compensation for the value of a draftee. Having it as part of the draft is also a very important step forward. As for the actual maths and the exchanging of draft picks - something similar already is inbuilt in more trades. Most can get their heads around it after the deals go through. The academies will become pipelines. They have to be restricted to stop top 3 draft picks going for pick 18 or even top 20 picks going for pick 40. That is a farce that undermines the equalisation aspect of the draft. Father son is less of an issue as it's a bit of what goes around comes around for most teams and should level out more now West Coast and Adelaide are up level and probably not too long until Freo and Port will be. But Joe Daniher was a freak talent. If not number 1 then top 2. Essendon got him for pick 10. Bottom 4 teams lost access to an elite talent. The Viney situation was wrapped up in multiple deals, but the principle is the same.

I think Sorrento are pretty well connected with supporters, so might possibly have put together a decent life after footy package of employment/trade skills and cash which trumps what the VFL could offer. He finished the season in reasonable health, trained on with us and still got injured. So it wouldn't surprise me if he just doesn't have the confidence in his body ever getting back to AFL standard. Tough, strong, hard, kicks it a mile and can use his body to take a mark, he should be a pretty good local footballer!

1) Yes. He's had a poor season but such is the nature of t20. No qualms on his leadership and his a solid tactician. 2) Yes. The big bash stepped up a long way. He isn't a regular international and we have one batting international already. Spend the spot on an elite bowler if possible 3) Who knows. I don't know how the salary cap situation works with guys likely to play ODI's. As long as you know what you're getting I'd still be keen to keep them. 4) Probably not. Particularly Quiney and Huss, they are solid veterans who likely don't break the bank. David Hussey can be the finisher, rebuilder and bowl handy overs, they missed him tonight. Quiney is probably a depth batter I'd suggest. Had he won them the game in Brisbane that he nearly did with tremendous finishing I think we'd have hosted the semi and likely won it. McKay seems to have lost a yard of pace and deception with his stock ball that never looked great but was very effective. But his slower balls worked well tonight. Really I'd get an elite bowler in to go with Hastings/Bird/Beer so that you've got 4 very good bowlers who all offer something different. Then I'd have more competition for the 4th bowling option and all rounders. It would leave you skinny with batting but I'd expect White, Stoinis, Handscomb, Hussey and Quiney to offer more next year with uninterrupted campaigns. Next years line up: White Stoinis Pietersen Hussey Maxwell/Quiney Handscomb Falkner/Boland/McKay/extra batsmen/Triffit keeping depending on circumstances Hastings International bowler Bird Beer

Amazing win. Love the way he feeds off the crowd and expresses his emotions. Got to keep going for it even when it doesn't work. His serve looks world class. Particularly for a 19 year old. So when he fills out and gets the body fine tuned it will be a weapon. And he's strong enough on backhand, forehand and volleys with both the power needed and the athleticism. But it's not skills that make champions it's heart and mindset. Experience helps as well and he got so much tonight! Watching Murray v Dimitrov those guys are probably a step too far for Kyrgios to beat regularly right now. But the definitive list of guys I wouldn't give Kyrgios a serious show against probably stretches to about the top 10 and that's it. With a few more results he'll push in to the top 30 which means seedings and regular grand slam draws to get through to the 3rd and 4th rounds and the more of them you stay in the more you get used to competing with the guys at the pointy end. I'm certainly along for the ride. And I still expect Tomic to produce some good tournaments at some stage. Don't mind Kokkinakis either! Keen to see Sam Groth at Wimbledon serving bullets on the grass!

Nicholson's height, build, number, hair cut, inbred country ears. It's Nicholson. Not sure about the body critique though. Nicho had the right body for a player who was built on speed and endurance. I bet Tom McDonald misses his old house mate and training buddy pushing him in the runs.

Watts' often plays well in Darwin when they go in those big cool rooms during the breaks. You could be on to something here Ron! I'm just a bit over the Roos is a messiah because he got Watts to have a season remarkably similar to ever other year he's had. And that Watts' is some kind of special outside player who can play good footy whilst refusing to put his body on the line. It's crap. He's not the third Hill brother. He's not even Andrew Gaff. You got to go when it's your turn and do defensive things. It's really pretty simple stuff.

Maybe, but in general free agency drives up the superstars and above average players who make a difference and in turn means that there's no point paying for a C+ or B- player when you can get the same return from a legitimate C grader on the minimum. Half the players in that 24-27 year range who aren't young kids on the improve or quality best 15-20 on your list will all end up signing 1 year 150k deals trying to prove they can have great years before being locked away for longer term deals with decent money. At least that's how it works in the NBA and NFL so I'd expect the same thing here.

Hawthorn are making a mockery of it now. They have about 12 players who deserve to be paid as much as our top 3 and if they were paid anywhere near market rate they'd be miles over the salary cap. I'm not sure we need wages public. But at the same time I don't think it would really hurt anyone. The draftees have their wages published, as do the top players. Would anyone be upset to find out the a C grade battler earns 200k?

Will be interesting to see if Pedo can hold down a spot as a full time key forward this year. With Dawes out round one it's likely he'll get the chance to play at least that game. Pedersen, Hogan, Gawn most likely if they have good NAB cups with Jamar in the ruck. Sub one of the rucks at 3/4 time and have Pedo do relief ruck work for the last quarter would be the preliminary plan. It's good to know he's fitter. Hopefully he's picked up a yard of pace to go with it.

Ahhh the old kick it long and keep all the forwards in the forward line theory. Nice idea, until you realise with opposition backlines zoning as well as mids and forwards pressuring our up field players the ball wont ever get inside 50. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with need to move the ball quicker and try to get more forwards inside 50, but it's not as simple as bomb it long. Agree that Gawn and Jamar need to show something forward. Gawn has been a dominant forward at VFL level. But at AFL can't seem to take strong marks nearly as often. I hope he's flying for marks more this year instead of crouching and trying to muscle blokes. Jamar had that stint at his best when not only was he a good ruck but very handy forward. Maybe his best preseason in years stokes him up. Otherwise Pedersen will take one of their spots which is fine if he's in great form, but does put pressure on the number 1 ruck without a legit back up.

But less surprisingly Salem, Newton and Stretch were alongside them. Terlich can actually kick pretty well. No real issues with his ball drop or technique, he just runs in to trouble from half back. If he played midfield or half forward he'd probably be known as a good kick. Grimes' is a little less fluent, but when balanced isn't shocking. McKenzie certainly isn't a good kick, but put him in any local footy team and he'd be one of the best kicks out there.

One one hand it was smart. But on the other I'm somewhat disappointed our players decided to fork out 20 bucks each and buy the coaches pizza when they had a masterchef challenge. The youngsters could've learnt some life skills and it was another team bonding exercise, not to mention some humour when one group of players inevitably serves up burnt toast. An opportunity missed I'd say.

Say what you want about Neeld, in some ways the sample size is too small to work out. But Leon Davis and Alan Didak were both stars under Mick and both are as soft as butter. Dane Swan played great footy pretty much playing like a kid in under 9's. Paul Roos' best Sydney teams were much more structured and defensive than Mick's Collingwood team.

I'm not an expert on this injury at all. But it wouldn't be xrays, it would at minimum be a CT or likely an MRI to see anything. And I think being off it for so long and now in the boot there wont be much to see. I think there will come a time when the boot is due to come off and then likely another time when he might start back running that they will scan him to check that it's looking good. I think the issue is that you've screwed the bone back together and then new bone is obviously going to form to some extent but you just don't know how strong it will be. So you could scan it all the time and in all likelihood you wouldn't see anything changing. Unless the surgery failed completely (and they've probably checked enough now to know) then it's going to take the same process of weight bearing and building up to running and increasing the stress until we find out.

Moving on McCarthy would be ballsy. I wonder what Rodgers opinion is of him. Not right now, but in the middle of winning streak. Moving on Dom Capers might be better. From the outside his level of support amongst GB and NFL fans wavers. He did a better job this year and I like where your secondary is heading and he made your run defense better this year. Plus after years and years of status quo he made a move on AJ Hawk. From watching the horribly bad Bears defenses the last two years I reckon you can tell a lot from inside linebackers. I think to be a star defensive linemen or star defensive back you need a heap of talent. Coaching, scheme, talent around you etc can and does help, but I feel it takes special athletes at those spot. Of course to be a truly special linebacker like Keuchly or Bobby Wagner or someone of that like you need to be great as well. But to be a standard linebacker I think you need a bit of athleticism, some smarts but really just a good scheme and coaching will get you have way there. If these days running backs are dime a dozen in some ways by default it means two down inside linebackers can be as well. And every year good ones are plucked from late in the draft and put in to good schemes and do very well. So when I see poor play from inside linebackers it makes me question the quality of the coaching. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how close the superbowl is. Last year the real grand final turned out to be the NFC championship game. This year the NFC has had some weaker teams in the bottom of the NFC North and East, as well as the debacle that is the NFC South but still a strong West. The AFC East and West (Oakland aside) were solid, the AFC North all had solid records but lined up against the NFC South for 4 free kicks each. The AFC South turned out 2 mid level teams (sorry Colts) and 2 battlers. Dallas, Detroit and maybe Arizona with a first string QB were probably all teams who could call themselves solid play off teams. I don't really know what to make of the Colts and Broncos but you can't really ignore their entire seasons just for a bad loss each, though they seem to me like deceptive cats more than horses! Baltimore are sleeping giants that only wake in January. Overall I wouldn't say their was a clear gap in the two conferences and we should be in for a great superbowl. I'm thinking a tight defensive battle as Seattle shut down Gronk and restrict the Pats running game whilst the Pats restrict Lynch and blanket Wilson. But I reckon it will be a 2 minute drill to win it. Just not sure whether it will be Brady or Wilson steering it in.

But it's 16-0 at the half, partly thanks to the SeaHawks themselves going for a big 3rd down TD, getting picked and not getting the 3 points because of the scoreboard pressure you applied. The Pats are the best team in football due to the Patriot way, which in short is by doing what you need to win and not holding fast to a stereotype. So I really think you're over critical of a change in game plan that worked for a half. The first field goal you had 3 goes from inside 7 and didn't get there. I understand taking the points. The second field goal gave Rodgers two goes and he got to the 1. I would've gone for it from there. But 5 minutes later you get a TD! So it might have been 10-0 but then no touchdown. Again by this stage it's 13-0. The third field goal - In hindsight I go for it at 4 and 1 from your 22, but if you don't convert then it's 13-0 and on the next drive Wilson checks it down at 3 and 8, the convert the field goal and it's 13-3 at half time not 16-0. I'd be annoyed in hindsight. But it's probably the 3rd field goal that would really give me grief and I'm still thinking it's 16-0 at half time despite Rodgers throwing two picks. At 19-7 I think that was the time to say ok if they get the ball back they're looking at an onside kick either way to get the two scores. What does it matter if they have 5 minutes or 3 minutes. In fact you throw the ball it gives you more time to have more plays on offense. These are the two series that I would have regrets about: Green Bay Packers at 06:53 1-10-GB 13(6:53) (Shotgun) 44-J.Starks right end to GB 14 for 1 yard (50-K.Wright). 2-9-GB 14(6:09) (Shotgun) 44-J.Starks up the middle to GB 19 for 5 yards (50-K.Wright). 3-4-GB 19(5:26) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to 81-A.Quarless (50-K.Wright). 4-4-GB 19(5:22) 8-T.Masthay punts 37 yards to SEA 44, Center-61-B.Goode. 19-B.Walters to SEA 46 for 2 yards (31-D.House; 86-B.Bostick). Green Bay Packers at 05:04 1-10-GB 43(5:04) (Shotgun) 27-E.Lacy left tackle to GB 39 for -4 yards (94-K.Williams). Timeout #1 by SEA at 04:57. 2-14-GB 39(4:57) (Shotgun) 27-E.Lacy left tackle to GB 37 for -2 yards (72-M.Bennett). Timeout #2 by SEA at 04:50. 3-16-GB 37(4:50) (Shotgun) 27-E.Lacy up the middle to GB 39 for 2 yards (54-B.Wagner; 72-M.Bennett). 4-14-GB 39(4:00) 8-T.Masthay punts 30 yards to SEA 31, Center-61-B.Goode, out of bounds. The first series kind of worked, 2 runs to get in to a 3rd and manageable that Rodgers then converts because he's Aaron Rodgers right. But even the throw is short when the defense was all up trying to get a huge stop. I guess Rodgers' mobility might've factored in but I'm thinking you have to get Nelson or Cobb involved and play to your QB's strength which is brilliant throws to WR's who always find the soft open spot, not a quick pass to a back up TE. The second series of runs are really just killing time outs. The 3rd play is oh crap we now have 3 and 16 so we can't throw it anyway but that's where I think you look for a screen because a run up the middle in to a 9 man box with the Seattle defense just won cut it. At least some kind of funky screen might have given you a chance. You could even target Sherman because at this stage I don't think he was moving his left arm at all so he's not going to come flying in to bust up a screen. Not sure on Earl Thomas and his shoulder either. Maybe the runs and time outs forced the onside kick. But if you do 1 run and 2 passes even if they are incomplete you are still kill some time. They take over at 4;30 with maybe 1 more time out, but then maybe they run the ball a bit more knowing they have time to score twice without rushing. They went the onside kick with 2 minutes left. Even if they had 2:30 or 3 minutes left I'm still taking the onside kick because I'm scared of giving the ball back to Rodgers who never gives it back to me. IT's all in hindsight and comes back to 'don't fumble the onside kick'!!! But still it's those last two series that would annoy me more than the points left on the field in the first half. I'll say one more thing as well. The miraculous come back from Seattle does deflect from the stupid overtime rules. I feel robbed that we didn't get a college style over time with both teams having shots from the 40. Lets be honest, with the lack of big plays these days we don't watch games for special team kick offs. Nor do we want to see just one half of the game in overtime. Wilson/Lynch at one end punching it in from the 40 and Rodgers going for it on all downs to get the tying score from the other is what the game deserved. I don't feel like it's unfair on Green Bay so much, I mean play good defense and you get the stop, I just think it's unfair for the fans!

It's harsh to call McCarthy a bad coach. I know I'd love a superbowl winning coach who also developed the best QB in the game. But I get the feeling he's far from perfect. I think some of it stems from him being the play caller. I don't know the stats but I just don't like head coaches calling plays. It's hard to hire an offensive genius without them then calling the plays as head coach, maybe Belichick's got it right. Hire Josh McDaniels, get him to flame out in Denver then come crawling back with a point to prove, but due to Pats coaches failing once they leave the nest no one wants him for another shot! The reason's for Green Bay losing I'd summarise as this: - 80% luck - we've got the onside kick, the crazy 2 point conversion that had no right to land in a receivers lap and the coin toss just to name a few. An unbelievable sequence - 5% on the poor guy who muffed the onside kick - 5% on the Packers defense and special teams, both who have been great for most of the game giving up big plays late And getting back to where I started: - 10% on McCarthy's play calling in the second half. You've got Aaron Rodgers! Yes I know you want to kill the clock but run, run, run, punt with Eddie Lacy whilst Rodgers is there doesn't get the game wrapped up. Nor was there any big play attempts. I know all about Seattle's secondary but you have to give up one play to try for 40 yards deep to Nelson or Cobb right???

Pushed by Gordon I'm sure. Smorgon hired him at age 35 and with only 6 years post footy (no doubt getting some experience during his career) in the business world. Of course he had more footy knowledge than the average CEO, but that's not the core responsibility of the CEO as we know! Unless he was incredibly bright I don't think he had the experience needed to run a modern footy club. Particularly one like the Dogs where they are trying to grow throughout the Western Suburbs and doing things like their residential development.