DeeSpencer

It's not as silly as it sounds. Jamar might still be our best tap ruckman and knowing Roos that will be his number 1 priority from a ruck. He might well give Gawn the long build up to make sure he's a sound AFL ruck. Remember how young Gawn is for an AFL ruck still. It makes sense to squeeze Fitzy out when you have Clark, Dawes and Hogan. I see Dawes, Fitzy and Hogan sharing games at times (Presuming Clark is fit and firing) but I prefer Dawes and Hogan. Strauss and Blease are classic Roos reclamation projects. Of course there are what we all would consider better players on the list but imagine if Blease turned in to Lewis Jetta and Strauss turned in to Nick Malceski. That's probably the thinking. Now I'd prefer Mitch Clisby as a good honest back pocket rather than Strauss and a few other players in stead of Blease but I can understand it. Potential always has to be consider in best 22 and Roos has stated he isn't keen to play kids so the bolters in to round one could be guys like Blease and Strauss.

Not sure what all that rubbish is about. He's the best midfielder (and best player) on the team and he does all the hard stuff. He's just like a lot of other captains like Andrew Swallow, Callan Ward, Nathan Van Berlo, Marc Murphy, Travis Boak. Some of those are better players than Jones with bigger names and more X factor, some aren't. The reason Jones wasn't appointed as captain before is as he admitted himself that he was more individual focused and concerned about establishing his own game before being a complete leader who helps the other players. That's fine. In fact it's a good thing. And now he's had 2 very good seasons he can show he is improving his leadership and supporting more players not just leading by example. Anyway, Paul Roos is wonderful at never committing to anything before time but he's also a creature of habit and all signs so far point to him going for multiple captains. And Jones being one of them. I'm very confident it's going to be Grimes, Jones and quite possibly a third of which Garland is a leading candidate

The positives of Neelds legacy is the bar for Roos is set so stupidly low we will be patient as long as their is improvement. The other positive is no bad/mediocre apples. Sylvia, Moloney, Rivers, Davey all gone. No big calls for Roos to make he just plays the best 22 as he sees fit.

My point was I don't think this news is any kind of revelation about the MFC or about Sylvia. Both him and us have been suboptimal for way too long. If he gets fitter and plays better at Freo I won't say he was completely rubbish to the MFC. I'd say he was completely rubbish at the MFC and that is a joint responsibility.

I never saw Sylvia do a full preseason with us. He was always training on a limited program. I never saw him mentioned up the front of a time trial as better mids should be. A lot of that was probably injury related. But at some stage with a player like that you have to get him fully fit and if he breaks down then so be it. Freo don't need a half fit Sylvia out there just because it's better than not having him at all. You'll also notice that the harder players work the luckier they are with injuries as a general rule. I'm not convinced Sylvia not being fully fit to Freo's standards tell us anything at all. If he stayed at Melbourne he'd likely be getting the same treatment by way of individual training to increase his base. Non elite player from non elite club needs extra training to get to the top line standard really doesn't need to be overreacted to and be a story about how useless either the club or Sylvia were.

No we essentially agree. I was saying that if the rules were to change in the future we might get back to traditional positions and players but as of now it's heading towards almost no permanent small forwards. And with guys like Roughead going in to the midfield it might be heading to no permanent tall forwards. With Howe showing potential on a wing, Hogan having top endurance and good skills and Clark being a very good ruck it could be an advantage we have compared to other teams.

I just look at the Sydney premiership team and don't see a full time small forward there. Bolton, Bird and Lewis Jetta played majority small forward but all did midfield time. McGlynn was the defensive forward but was replaced by Morton in the grand final who did a defensive job/also is a bigger more marking player than JKH. If JKH was a defensive small forward he could do that but I'm not sure he'd be that player until he gets super fit. And his skills are better utilised by being a ball player than a primarily defensive one. I''m not even sure how this argument started. I'm sure we can fit him in the team for lots of games next year as a permanent forward as the side will develop. Long term though if people think he'll be some kind of huge goal kicker then I think they are misjudging his traits.

Foolish to be adamant. But as the rules currently stand it's too hard to carry a small forward in the team who doesn't do at least some part of the game in the midfield. If you look at the grand final small forwards - Rioli, Bruest, Puopolo, Ballantyne, Walters they all do midfield time at least to some extent and often quite a bit in certain games. Walters does the least but is probably still building his tank. At JKH's height unless he has very strong hands and extreme pace he's unlikely to be so good around goal that he gets left there. And from his highlights I haven't seen that. I've seen a guy with very good pace and movement through traffic as well as clean disposal, all which points to utilization up the field. If the rules change to favour less rotations through positions either by keeping players stuck in certain areas or some how making players run less in a game then he could be a forward only. Right now he must be heading towards being a rotational player and I certainly see him as a better half forward than deep forward anyway.

Ok let's leave the gambling machine question to the side for a while. They are a sick scourge and the AFL should be ashamed that they sell TV rights for 1billion dollars for 5 years but leave their clubs on life support owning this crap. The very fans who go to games are the same ones exploited by these silly machines. Dumb people but people none the less. Now lets look at the AFL financial support and position of the club.... 2.3 mil in debt to the Gaming commission which in fairness isn't too much debt on a business that takes in 11.2 mil per year we can probably live with that level of debt and the AFL guaranteeing it isn't a big deal their as they are really guaranteeing the rest of the business doesn't go down the drain. But a 3 million dollar operating loan sounds pretty nasty. We will need a successful season of revenue next year to make that operating loan shrink down and not get bigger. Personally I think the all AFL clubs should split from outside business ventures because I'd like to buy a membership to a football club with the prime business of football and not a part time football club/part time pokie pub company.

Aaron Davey and David Rodan must be disappointed to miss out. To be serious though it's not too bad and if Paul Roos can work miracles well enough to get the best out of Strauss and Blease and make them consistent capable players then I won't at all be upset that they are in the 22. About 12 or so names pick themselves, another 4 or 5 are new or from new positions and Roos has traditionally shown he gets those players in to play in the seniors and to have a few chances and the last 3 or so spots (1 back, 1 mid/sub, 1 forward) are probably completely up for grabs. Hopefully despite a limited and relaxed campaign we get someone putting their name up for them in the NAB Challenge. Based on training it's been hard to identify any huge stand outs who will come from the clouds for a certain round 1 performance but that's not a bad thing really. You have to have a strong 22 in the first place to get bolters in to it and we don't.

Likely because whilst confidence and adrenaline would provide a boost for the next 5 or so minutes eventually fatigue would set in. A player on a natural boost is good but a player completely zapped of energy is so bad it more than cancels the good. All players are trained now for short spurts on the ground of up to 10 minutes with a couple of minutes rest. The idea being the key defenders get their rest when the balls up the other end and same with the deep forwards who only have a couple of spells a game. Certainly what I'd do is have a select group who I would say to avoid their rotation after a goal unless they are completely stuffed. That would be the full forward, forward pocket or other stay at home small. It's counter productive taking them off. But for the midfielders who have gone forward and kicked a goal it's probably more important to get a short rest so they can go back in the rotation. Injuries are also more likely to occur when fatigued.

As long as you get your pies and beer from the supermarket it will still be reasonably priced. But I shudder at the cost at the ground. The stadium food vendors are a monopoly much more than AFL clubs. And luckily we've got the big sexy MCG with all it's seats to supply that should hopefully keep AFL prices cheap. Clubs with smaller stadiums will sell all seats to reserved seat members and for a price but luckily the MCG even for teams like Collingwood wont be sold out besides for massive blockbusters. We are lucky that way. But I agree about this Geelong decision being wrong. I think they should put on a members BBQ at open trainings. $1 a sausage for members, $2 for non members. Then they get to reward members and make a buck and no one gets disadvantaged.

Contract years are a beautiful thing for players like Blease. Let's just be careful that if we see some improvement not to over react. On a similar note I expect Dunn to be better in 2014 than 2013 as he seems to always play better in a contract year.

It's an interesting one because for most kids even these days 2 bucks isn't a big one and the parents will pay it. But I do see that especially in Geelong 2 dollars can still be a price to pay so I understand that. I probably would've though that $5 for adults, $3 concession, free for under 15's might have been a better system. Geelong's argument is that the money raised will then be fed back in to the community and probably targeted to the kids who's parents can't afford the 2 dollars. So in a way they aren't losing in the long term. Geelong's membership problem is pretty simple - if you're from Geelong then I presume you need a membership plus a reserved seat (either for the year or for one game) to get in and they'll only be so many available. And then 4 other home games are in Melbourne. If you're from Melbourne then 7 of your games will be away home games in Geelong. The counter is that every home game they get they make way more for less attendance. So Geelong can get the same revenue with less members and less attendance than anyone else. So I'm not buying Brian Cook's we desperately need more members statement.

Any chance we can get an update on exactly has gone wrong with Kent. He seemed to play pretty well in round 22. Come back a couple of months later and he can't run? Shall we bombard the club on twitter or will Saty old boy get an update from the horses mouth at training.

Well I certainly don't see it as breaking part 1 which is what I truly see as sexism. I understand how objectification and stereotyping can be sexist but I don't see LFL alone doing that. I suppose mainly I have a problem with part 2 of that definition being used too liberally. I mean so some women are sex objects therefore means it disadvantages other women because when they are the apply for jobs the men awarding the position will think they are sexual objects? Really? I have a problem with the idea of stereotyping women. That means stereotyping 50% of the population. I understand how you can stereotype a subgroup of the communtiy ie. Collingwood cheer squad member, drives a holden, lives in Epping, predominantly wears track suits maybe = unlikely to contain full set of teeth. But I can't stereotype half the population because 100 aussie girls have decided to play american football in skimpy outfits. Again I think you should watch a game. The girls aren't wearing lingerie in the sense of what you might by your partner for valentines day. They are wearing heavy duty sports bras really, then topped with sizeable shoulder pads and bather bottoms. They bare plenty of cleavage, midriff and leg but it's not nearly as blatantly sexual as you think. I imagine the appeal for long time watchers comes from the mix of attractive girls who then go out and play hard. Which again was what struck me watching the game is that they may dress seductively but they hit hard. Sure they are flaunting it but they are displaying that fit, athletic girls are sexual objects. Just like footballers are sexual objects to many female footy fans who go and watch. Some women feel they are demeaning other female sports. I see it as them making an opportunity for themselves to play what they consider serious sport. The simple fact is that men have a genetic advantage that makes them better athletically and therefore mens sport will always dominate womens. Women have an advantage in the ability to draw male attention. If women want to use that advantage to allow them to be commercially viable as athletes then I don't see the problem.

I haven't been in a couple of weeks but as of then he was rarely sighted. And I think in recent reports there's mention of him doing some handball drills and that's about it. He's definitely one to hopefully see more of after the xmas break. Hoping he can have a strong second half of the season and isn't rushed.

it's so frustrating as there's 2 ways anyone gets in or out of the place once out the front gate - either the road back to Cranbourne or the road the heads towards Berwick (Clyde road?). So why not have a gate on each one? The secondary one only needs to be open for special events but it needs to happen.

No doubt they'll be a long way from full power but it's also their last tune up and will come 2 weeks after their last NAB challenge match (and 2 weeks before their season opener) so I'd expect them to put out most of their round 1 team for a hit out. It's great for us to get Richmond, Geelong and Hawthorn as practice matches and they'll be no denying how far off we are if we are getting hammered. I expect us to take a pretty young side in to the first match against Richmond but then use the game against Geelong in Alice and finally this Hawthorn one. Dear Casey Fields, Please start planning your traffic management for this match now. Build a second exit from Casey fields to allow people to get out of the place. Yours truly, Demonland.

Yeah but if womens tennis was any good then Sharapova would wear a decent dress like they did in the 1960's. If Rihanna could sing she'd get up on stage wearing more than whatever she does now, same goes for Miley. None of that might be to your taste but once again I've awfully confused as to how that is sexism.

This came up not too long ago on bigfooty. The consensus was that if the kid was adopted legitimately at an age before any doubts could be put forward then he would be illegible for FS. There was somewhat of a test case. Apparently the FS rule could be applied to club staff as well as players in its infancy and that a female Essendon (who would've thought) director with links to the Indigenous community had a strong connection with Richard Cole. And at the time the club did make some overtures about the father son rule.

Very serious. Women have the right to be upset by the LFL, but I can't see how it's sexist. They aren't playing in those uniforms because men forced them to. Do you know what's sexist. Men and women tennis players getting paid the same when men offer a far superior product. That's sexism.

Well actually with these new digital TV channels I think you'll find if that if someone makes a program for free and it will be watched by anyone at all then they'll air it. 7mate may be paying a bit for a broadcast deal to help supplement the costs of production but if they are screening in 10:30 on a Saturday night on mate I think most of the costs will be covered by the league. So in all likelihood the crowd attending the game is supplementing the broadcast on TV which in turn is hoping to draw more to the games. I presume other sports in particular womens sports would do the same plus would add some government funding to make it all happen +/- be broadcast on the ABC.

Good point. Money and picks aren't worth that much too us at the time. We've had plenty of both to use with no success. I'm a bit more worried about Vince in terms of picks and money! And a 3-4 year deal at 28 not 24

So women choosing to wear a uniform are then demeaning other young women who are then bad role models for other young women? Even if that's true then what does sexism have to do with any of it? And presuming you're a man what does it have anything to do with you? If you don't like it don't watch. But don't watch porn, go the strippers, listen to Rihanna music, buy Victoria's Secret or do anything else that promotes women cashing in on their bodies. And to not be sexist don't buy bonds undies with pat rafter or Michael Clarke in his jocks, don't listen to Ricky Martin and avoid shopping in any shops which have picture of male models on the walls.