Rogue

Hilfenhaus will be in his element in England. While we can argue about who the four bowlers should be, I think it's clear we should include four bona fide bowlers in the side. On the note of Lee, he might have Ashes experience but I'm not sure his record's that great, is it? I heard the stats from the 2005 tour and they were pretty ordinary. Yeah, he's a fair way back in the queue. I think Katich's decent with the ball and Clarke seems to have the magic touch. I think this is the view the selectors will take. I hope he gets a chance to bowl in the second innings, if only for his own pride.

I don't know if it does - none of my last post was factual.

I agree (unsurprisingly, since I've been saying this for months). I expect a much more competitive side but I'm not sure we'll necessarily see many more wins. Our forward line is a massive problem - not just our personnel but also the structure (or lack thereof, particularly after we win the ball from the opposition).

I stayed for the entire match and can confirm that the conditions were ridiculous at the end. The wind was very strong and the rain was coming in at what was almost a horizontal angle - on the outer side people had their umbrellas pointing straight out in front of them and were trying to peer under the umbrella to watch the game. It was quite funny. I didn't think getting out of the ground was a huge problem - I've waited around for just as long at other grounds.

That's saying something.

Hehe :D

I agree that McGain should play, particularly with injury clouds over a couple of our quicks. I also think that Hilfenhaus could be a major weapon in England, as I've said a few times. Btw, does Siddle remind anyone else of McDermott?

'Sauce' is pretty common internets usage.

Yeah, they are done here. Jaded told me she was doing it as a casual job and made a mistake. Suffice to say she doesn't work there anymore.

Good to hear. Hrm.

I can't wait until we get a sponsor, and not just because it'll help give us some measure of financial security. Some of these suggestions are ridiculous.

I guess the Saints already have a link with the bayside area.

No surprise - it was the same last year, despite the vastly different on-field fortunes of the two sides.

I'm not sure about that. Around 300 on the last day is a big ask with Smith injured. However, it's a decent pitch and we don't have a spinner, so it's not impossible.

Yeah, this has been discussed a fair bit on these boards (particularly when there was a discussion about Casey as a boutique stadium).

The difference between the MFC and Sydney presence at the Princes Park match was pretty stark, and while Sydney were still selling after the game we don't even do so at home and away games. I'm sure there's a market there after a decent performance - people come out happy with the Club and are happy to spend some money on merchandise, or decide they want to come to a few more games this year and will sign up for a membership. The membership tents should also have EFTPOS facilities - I know at least one other Club does.

Yeah, it's in a pretty ordinary location. They also advertised a weekend sale last year and when I got there they'd closed up despite advertising that they'd be open until x time. I'm not a huge fan.

Realism > rubbish. Btw, don't people complain when someone like Bruce or Green attend a press conference and claim we can still make the 8 when we're 1-13?

To be honest I don't see what Coles or Safeway/Woolworths would get out of sponsoring an AFL team. Brand recognition? Yeah, because they're such an unknown. Loyalty? I can't see there'd be much noticeable difference. Where's the imperative for them to throw money away? Yeah, and even if Globe did have cash to splash around, I don't see how an AFL team fits with their brand image.

You didn't say that part of the reason Sylvia cops flak is because of his high draft ranking, or that the reason Sylvia cops flak from some is because of his high draft ranking, you said the reason he's criticised is because of his high draft ranking. I don't care what draft pick he was chosen with, ergo you're wrong. If he starts 'killing it' that'll be great - I hope all our players do. It won't change what's occurred in the past, and that's what's been commented on. Unless someone's said that he'll never make it you'll find it hard to crow about what he does in future. As for assessing him, I'll assess him based on his output, regardless of his draft ranking (just like now). You might not agree with it, but it has nothing to do with his draft ranking. Sylvia doesn't attack the contest harder than anyone when the ball is in dispute. He attacks a player with the ball as hard as anyone, but he must have the worst record of getting hands on the footy first when there's a 50/50 contest. Is it just me or does Sylvia sometimes seem content to let the other player take the ball so that he can then attempt to lay a tackle, rather than go that extra 1% and make the play himself? As for your sarcastic 'well done', I didn't argue that his OP hasn't (or has) held him back. For the record, I have no doubt it has. However, that doesn't change the other issues with his play so far (including some I mentioned but you conveniently ignored - 'well done'). All of those guys have received their fair share of criticism - maybe you missed those threads. Sylvia's probably caused more discussion on these boards, but only because there are guys like you who are seduced by the odd glimpse of 'something' amongst lots of 'nothing'. If true it says more about our list than Sylvia. It probably says we're bad enough to finish near bottom two years in a row. Oh, wait! Btw, a fact is that he finished ~19th in the best and fairest last year after playing more games than most. What you gave was an opinion (and one that I - and others - don't share).

No, what's rubbish is misrepresenting someone's opinion so that you can more easily dismiss it. Unfortunately you've failed to mention fitness, 'footy smarts' (particularly positioning and attack on the contest), decision making, foot skills, hand skills (particularly when under pressure in close), etc. This seems one of the more bizarre points made in a while. First, it was a half. Second, it wasn't a great half (Bailey even commented on Sylvia's disposal by foot). Third, he may have showed more than me in that half but that's also little to crow about. You've picked out four fringe players, and none have been given more opportunities than Sylvia. Only one is significantly older than Sylvia, and I speak of our friendly neigbourhood 'Russian' - a ruckman who has only secured a spot in the team when White was sent to Sandringham. We reportedly tried to trade Jamar but no one was interested, and this is a type of player that can net you a 30's pick for an unproven player like Moran or Meesen. Congratulations, Colin. Of course, some might argue that Jamar, despite being a limited footballer, has done more for the team on a couple of occassions, but he's never been as flashy as Sylvia. Daniel Bell's around the same age and I'd argue that Bell's game v Welsh was better than Sylvia's *half* yesterday, but backman are rarely given plaudits so i'll concede the point. Even if we accept your assertion, Bell's a fringe player who was only saved from being dropped on a number of occassions last year - and this is in the bottom side - due to our injury toll. Newton's a fringe player who is a couple of years younger than Sylvia. Newton's also a KPP, which it's accepted take longer to develop. If I were Sylvia I wouldn't be taking your comparison as a great compliment. Bartram's also a couple of years younger and lost a year of footy to a serious injury. He's no certainty for a best-18 spot but while he's not the most talented player he's looked more likely to carve out a particular role in the side than Sylvia has (and certainly if you compare his progress at 19 or 21 to where Sylvia was at).

I agree.

Richmond are clearly a better side than us right now but I think that's comparing apples with oranges, as others have said. As I've said before, we'll be in a far better shape than they are when our list is at the same point in the 'cycle'.

It certainly won't be when Cousins is playing good footy (if he's playing any footy at all). It's the same rationale we used for the TJ trade - we're (very) unlikely to be in the 'window' while he (or Cousins) were playing good footy, if at all, so electing to go with younger players gives us the best chance of us having a crack within the I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in hanging onto or recruiting guys with only a few years to go - at best - just so we can make up the numbers. We've done enough of that of late.

That's a fair assessment IMO. He made more than a handful of bad mistakes, whether it was kicking in hope to no one in particular, handballing straight to the opposition, etc. He also did enough nice things to warm the hearts of those who love Colin. Open the other eye please That's a strawman argument if ever there was one. My feelings exactly.