Rogue

Looks like he may be able to play quite soon: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/109506/default.aspx

We've had a pretty poor pre-season and missed out on finals last year. Bruce and McDonald, our former captain, have departed. Even if you think we will play finals, I think it's pretty easy to see why the captains may have chosen other sides.

As I said, I can't speak for the match, but I'll just note that Burgan also said exactly the same thing about guys who I've heard didn't play well, and certainly weren't playing forward.

I rhink Maric and Wona are different types of players - you could fit them both in, with Wona playing more of a pocket-type close to goal and Maric playing more of a flank, kicking into the 50.

It's not like this is new to Melbourne. After sitting on the pine for much of the game Godfrey used to run the tan.

I might be wrong - I didn't watch the game - but I took it that Burgan's 'hasn't had much of the ball' (or something similar) was code for 'not playing so well', since it was the response given to questions about how every player who didn't play well was doing. Fair enough too, since he naturally doesn't want to be potting blokes on the MFC site.

Hawthorn didn't 'get rid of Campbell' because 'he's a dud', he chose to be retire, given their situation (finding it tough to keep their side together, in line for a flag tilt). As far as I know, they were keen to pick him up in the most recent draft but got beaten by us. I doubt he'll play as a sub - it'll either be in the team or not. You either choose him as the back-up ruck or don't play him. There's no value in playing that type of player as a sub IMO.

I agree.

Why do we get these sorts of articles? First, it's [sadly] important that the Club manages supporter expectations. Second, the footy world would be fairly boring if everyone dealt in the here and now.

I get that some people are sick of being told about rebuilds and so forth, but all you need to do is look at our list demographic and realise our form trend is still heading upwards. I know I've mentioned it multiple times, but just take a look at who we're going to lose to 'attrition' in the next few years. We don't have many older players, and Green is the type that could play until he is quite old [in footy terms]. On the flip side, most of our better players have plenty of age/experience-related development to come. Most teams are battling a rapidly closing window, based on losing key players to retirement, but we won't have that problem for quite a while (and even then, we won't be losing too much).

I disagree that Campbell would have been a monty - with Jamar as #1 ruck would we really have played Campbell in the same side? If not, he would have only received a game if Jamar became injured. Interesting tactic

It seems like you're trying to infer something from the stats that simply isn't there. No one suggests that when your teams is at X games p/player and so forth you win a flag, they suggest that when your team is at X games p/player and so forth you have an opportunity to do so. If you're waiting to hear something that convinces you we're going to be winning the flag in X year you'll be waiting a long time. Four years ago I didn't hear that Collingwood was going to win the flag in 2010, and seven years ago I wasn't convinced Geelong were going to three-peat, etc.

I read this on Cricinfo: http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/zaltzman/archives/2011/03/twenty_utterly_crazy_minutes.php I also liked this (although RR may not):

I think Newton would have been a fair chance if he had not been involved in that training mishap. Thanks for the link. It seems to be a good argument on the face of it.

It's fair to say he's lucky, that's for sure. Great last 16 balls though. Pakistan are a worry. By the way, NZ batted first. PS. Let's not revive a tired old personal argument.

I think the Casey/Melb issue is, IMO, far bigger than a NAB Challenge result. With regards recruiting Fev, Casey are looking after themselves. I argue that this is as it should be - they are a Club with their own interests. Obviously the benefits of having Fevola need to be weighed against the downsides (both in relation to Fevola and the MFC/Casey partnership), but they've clearly come to the decision - right or wrong - that their interests are best served by recruiting Fevola. However, in making a decision based on their own self-interest - as they should - I think they could easily have come to the decision that aligning with the wishes of the MFC was the best decision (as other aligned clubs apparently have, ie. Williamstown). What I wonder is whether we been playing our role in assisting their ambitions (for example, did we support their finals ambitions last season?) in a way which might have caused them to have confidence we will do so in 2011. If we haven't, it's understandable that they chose to recruit Fevola. As for the concept of a stand-alone team, I've always that thought having one would be what you'd want in an ideal world. Surely it's better to have complete control over what strategey/tactics the team employ, what role your players take on and how much they play. However, as has been said, I'm interested in how the logistics of this would work. If the $500K figure is correct, how much is $200-250K in terms of the footy budget? Would a stand-alone team give us more ability to make money (in terms of sponsors, functions, etc). If so, does this reduce that cost? There's also the whole Casey community side of things, and playing in the region would be helpful IMO. Perhaps it would be even better to have our own side down there though, although whether that could happen if we split with Casey is another thing. Could we play games at Casey Fields or would we definitely need to find a different ground? Is Casey viable stand-alone?

On the other hand, I think it means we should finish top of the table, which is helpful.

I agreed - up until you excluded the Board. I'm sure they'd agree.

Does anyone actually disagree with the following? It's also worth noting that Robertson said this:

I disagree - there are so many players that would be cut before Blease and Morton.

It was a shame the Aus v SL game was washed out, but perhaps fortunate for us. How about those South Africans, hey? EDIT: Ooh -

I agree with 45 and t_u on the division proposal. I'm not a fan, but I do think there needs to be an overhaul of the FTP. (The first thing off the table - 7-game ODI series').

That's a bit rich.

Nice call.

Ablett's team mates said the same thing early on.