Rogue

I commented on Grimes' kicking from day dot; not in a particularly negative manner - I did and still do think he'll be a good player for us - but I noted it. That said, I think the last couple of games are an abberation and those writing him off are going way too far. While I'm not sure he's the ideal guy for kicking out, I think a bigger issue is the fact that we're so static. It's not just from kick-outs either - it's the same when we have the ball further down the field. Watts was actually leading a few times, which was nice to see. Jones, whatever his other faults, also tries to lead too. (Which, in case our players don't realise, is quite different to a fast walkto nowhere in particular with your hand half-heartedly waving). I disagree. I don't want to name names, but some of the players we've cut in the past few years would be as much a liability in their 28th match as they were in their 1st (if they even played a first game). By the way, a guy on 25 career games says hi.

Same.

I think that unless there's a particular player that should be dropped regardless of quality of replacement it's pretty dependant on who is coming in, and I'm often relying on Demonland to tell me who is playing well for Casey. I don't rate Jetta, so he would be out for me. Furthermore, I watched him a fair bit and after evey involvement he looked knackered, unable to present again or man up a player etc. If Wona is playing good footy at Casey then I'd make that change in a heartbeat. Maric is getting unfairly smashed on Demonland. I'm not sure what people expected from an opportunist small forward who only got a run in the last quarter of a game that was over. Gysberts is a player I'd like to get into the team. Long-term I'd be trying to replace Jones with a better player, and I can see why people are putting his name up, but I doubt we'll bite the bullet on him now. (Perhaps when Scully and McKenzie are fit). I also think we could be well-served changing our balance so we added an extra runner anyway. I'd like to give Morton match time, so if we were to play him as our sub - probably only giving him one quarter unless there was an early injury - then I'd rather he get a full game at Casey. Did you really need to make yet another post making a stab at Newton? I mean you'd already made the same point a few posts back. Your view is clear, but I think it overlooks the fact that Newton was playing consistently good football at VFL last year - good enough to have earned a spot in the seniors, only to be thwarted by an injury the week before he was scheduled to return to AFL level. In his games at AFL level he didn't set the stage alight, but he did provide a better work-rate and attack on the footy, while also competing well as a back-up ruck. That said, I thought Martin played pretty well in round 1 and doesn't warrant getting dropped for punitive reasons after round 2, so if Newton were to return we'd have to change the balance of the side. If we were to go taller we'd want a running player as a sub we could use to provide legs to the team later in the game, in a similar vein to Hawthorn's tactics yesterday. PS. With regards Watts, I agree with the suggestion that some games coming up could provide some confidence for him. I also think that Watts is competing far better this season and, while he's a work in progress, getting games into players like him is the development path that most Demonlanders were happy with (emphasis on were; until we start losing).

Just as an aside, I'm pretty sure Petterd wouldn't have come on and had a big impact this week if he was the sub for the Hawks game - pretty hard to have a big influence, given where the game was at.

Cricket rules change all the time, don't they? Maybe you're talking about Test cricket, but there's still UDRS(?), the rule change regarding non-strikers backing up, etc.

Good for him - the Hawks had been getting smashed and needed to come out and kick some goals. After a long run he ended up kicking it (despite a terrible handball to the ankles of a teammate), and I would have been excited too.

Every single fan forum explodes after a bad loss and is far too exuberant after a good win. No thread will change that. (Of course, it doesn't mean you're wrong to try).

Pretty melodramatic too, by the sounds of it.

It's enough for now. In an ideal world you'd have a guy with the skills he possesses and some excellent offensive skill, but you don't need an ideal team to win a premiership.

To those talking about the sorts of precedent an approved claim might set, and how much others might be entitled to should the claim be approved, the rules are clear on the scope of any entitlement. 'Hazyshade...' has pasted the rules in an earlier post in this thread; in short, 50% of the base pay of your final contract if the injury occurs in the final year of your contract and is likely to prevent you playing football again. As for Ange's letter, I think the less I comment on that the better.

Wow, that's sad to hear. I can't recall the details, but I'm pretty sure that when players receive a career-ending injury that means they can't continue to play football they are entitled to a payment, subject to various conditions. (EDIT: Refer to Hazyshadeofgrinter's post). I thought this was why you didn't see guys who were coming out of contract and going to be delisted, fronting up for the VFL teams in finals unless they signed a waiver.

Yeah, I noted that - didn't want to pot the guy in the OP, though. (I was also wondering what the other bouts of concussion were caused by).

'The Age' reports that Daniel Bell has suffered concussion-related brain damage. It means that Bell is unable to continue his football career at a lower level, as further concussion could lead to serious issues later in life. Fortunately it seems Bell is improving, but his condition sounds reasonably serious: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/former-afl-player-seeks-compensation-20110330-1cgf7.html Bell has lodged a compensation claim with the AFLPA that, if approved, would see us make a payment to Bell: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/former-afl-player-seeks-compensation-20110330-1cgf7.html It's a shame that Bell can't continue playing football, but I imagine that's a relatively small concern for him in the grand scheme of things. Hopefully he recovers. I'm not surprised that the league has made changes regarding concussion, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more changes in future. EDIT: MFC have stated that Bell has not applied for compensation: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/110495/default.aspx

I think this is a fair call. I reckon the whole 'love for the Club' thing could be a little over-rated at times; you probably love the Club but I don't think you deserve a game on that basis

Yeah - I'm not a massive fan. Anyway, the squad to Bangladesh has been announced. The squad is one smaller than for the World Cup, and D Hussey is squeezed out*. while Tait has been replaced by Pattinson and Kreza by Doherty. Shane Watson Brad Haddin Michael Clarke Mike Hussey Callum Ferguson Ricky Ponting Cameron White Mitchell Johnson Brett Lee Xavier Doherty //for Kreza James Pattinson //for Tait Steve Smith Tim Paine John Hastings I don't think it's surprising that there haven't been massive changes. I'm most interested to see what happens later in the year. *Imminent birth of a child, so who knows whether he would have gone otherwise. Perhaps White has been saved.

Ouch.

If I was him I'd do the same. He clearly doesn't love cricket, and T20 is far easier on the body etc. There's also less scrutiny, at least in one sense. Given he can make decent moolah as a T20 player, and is less likely to get injured, it's a smart career move.

Indeed.

As you say, I don't see why they would know. I don't know that there's much wrong with it, but perception can be important and the perception - as you're suggesting - isn't that flash. To 'score points' I'd need to have a contention, and I haven't argued for or against the loan in this thread. What I did post is my view that the posts of Ned and Demon Hill was more reasonable than was suggested by RobbieF, though. I don't think I've misrepresented anyone's position or resorted to name calling either, so I'm not sure what you're suggesting. For the record, I probably share the view RobbieF has put forward. To elaborate, I think the important concerns for me would be the corporate governance type questions and the financial ones. It seems the former has been addressed - signed off by Board, MCC, AFL, etc. With regards the latter concern, if we would have just banked/invested that money, earning a rate equal or less than what we're gaining from Schwab's repayments, I don't see that there's much wrong. However, if Louie is right we may have been at some financial disadvantage. On the flip side, there's the argument that it's an investment in a 'Club KPP', as H_T put it. Regardless, I don't see that there's a problem in members, like Ned, enquiring about the arrangement. As Demon Hill might have been implying, I see it as similar manner to that in which shareholders might ask about renumeration and so forth of CEOs in a public company.

I said that I hoped you were not trying to score points because, to me, you seem to be representing a point of view in a way that makes it seem less reasonable than my reading, and it happens that the argument you're representing in this way is the one that has got your temper up. If you weren't being facetious regarding ignorance of 'point scoring' - something I find hard to believe, given you used to be a Demonology regular - I'm happy to explain it via PM. (To continue this line of discussion in the thread will simply derail it). If this site is becoming like Demonology it's - at least in part - because of strawman arguments and personal attacks.

Interesting perspective. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/508563.html Hah. Hilditch has said he won't walk, but he will probably get bumped by the assertion that we need a full-time chief of selectors.

I'll be surprised if Jones makes it as a tagger. I think he'll probably eventually get squeezed out if we become as good as I hope.

That's not how I read the comment (again, I don't think your example is analogous). I hope you're not deliberately misrepresenting the contention in order to score points.

Chapman doesn't play in defence, and Roost It - at least in his recent posts - was talking about the viability of Tapscott as a defender.