Rogue

Is there? I just hear deafening silence. Far from being the usual suspect of e-bashing, Maric is the forgotten man.

We're far enough away that a young kid can still play a role when we're a contender. We're not close enough to top up.

The Herald Sun has run with a sensationalist angle? NO WAY! That said, I think some are underestimating the impact of these massive salary cap, recruitment and draft concessions.

At the start of the year - just like last year - I said I was more interested in wins than percentage. Our percentage is pretty healthy. Clearly the optimism on Demonland has waned somewhat, but it was built on unrealistic expectations of what we'd achieve (just like the pre-season pessimism was unfounded). The yo-yo comment is pretty apt. I admit I'm finding the losses a bit more disappointing this year, but I'm still enjoying the ride. Who's our next Gysberts? PS. Losing Jurrah and Petterd to long-term injuries was a massive blow to an already weak forward line. RR/H_T have alluded to the opportunities this gives others, but if we talk about performance I think it's been a pretty clear-cut negative.

ZING.

Everyone heard you the first time. They just missed the part where it was decreed that you were the football Oracle

Interesting stat. I find it weird that peolple are suggesting stats 'prove' something...they don't, but there's value if you can put them into some sort of context. Like others have said, given that we're up there on finals appearances, the stat shows how inconsistent we've been.

There were a higher percentage of Melbournians at the MCG today than there were for the Port v Melb game, which is one of Darwin's two games of the year. I'm sure those who went to the Darwin game enjoyed it though.

If Riewoldt could kick straight I'd be more interested in this discussion As for Frawley getting beaten by him, wasn't there a rumour he might be a late withdrawl due to sickness?

I think it's pretty clear we need to create a better forward structure (or get guys who will do what the coaches ask of them). It's not about this game - it's been an issue for [literally] years. When people at the ground are yelling 'just kick it' and those watching on TV throw their remotes at the screen, we're so often stuffing around with the ball because there's no one* in the forward line to 'just kick it' to. *sometimes there's a 1v3

Sure, it wasn't a good day for talls. However, he's looked slow all year. You don't learn much when you're playing out of your depth, and at the moment Watts is struggling, so I won't be surprised if he goes back to Casey for a spell. IMO it's a bit silly to write him off for the season though. PS. Many bemoan those who 'attack' Watts, but just as bad are those posters that attack anyone who make a critique that isn't as upbeat a a player review in the Casey VFL Coaches report.

Whichever way you look at it, I think it's hard to see that he is. First, any athlete that has that much time off is unlikely, at this point in recovery/come back, to be as fit as they were pre-injury. Players constantly talk about not being at their physical peak after an interrupted pre-season, and Garland's had what - an interrupted 18+ months? Most people take quite a while to get back to 100%. Second, as I think you're suggesting in the rest of the post, missing that much sport means you're probably not as 'match fit' as you were previously. Anyway, it seems like he might miss a couple. I'd still take it (I feared something much worse), although he's a handy defender to have against the forwards of Carlton and Collingwood. Still, it gives someone else an opportunity. Cheney must be hoping for a call-up, after pretty solid form in the VFL over a number of weeks.

You think he's looked as quick as he did pre-injury? I don't.

That's about as good as we could have hoped for. I agree with sylvinator when he says that it's likely to be next year when Garland really starts playing some good footy again - he missed a heap of football with his foot injury.

I like your post, bb...mostly because I would have written a pretty similar thing +1 to this bit.

Jetta might not think it, but that's the scenario we face [whether it's Jetta or someone else] in choosing a pinch-hit over a bona fide ruckman. You either pick a second ruck or someone else gets their chance. At the moment there are other guys who we'd like to get games into, and are in better form, than Spencer, PJ and co. Creating a strawman doesn't help your argument I think it's pretty clear that there are plenty of posters who are not desperate for wins! Fair enough.

In a few years would you think we would beat our current self by say two goals a quarter? If we develop like we all hope, the answer is a definite yes. Given that, i don't see that losing to Geelong at Geelong by about that margin is anything to get too disappointed about. I was more interested in how we played, and there were some decent signs. We certainly didn't look completely outclassed, as we have at times in the past couple of years.

So, six out of six losses in the week after playing a match at Darwin. The sample's too small to draw any conclusions from the stats alone, but put the results together with the theory that playing at Darwin's going to take a heavy toll and you've got a reasonable argument for hoping you're not playing games there when you care about winning. I'll be honest and say I don't know a great deal about the off-field history of Hawthorn, and how they found themselves in merger talks in '96. However, even if I agreed Hawthorn was an exception it wouldn't invalidate my point As an aside, it's a little late to debate the idea that they're one of the most powerful clubs in the land right now but I'm sure someone will challenge this assertion before I get back to this thread. I'm thinking they might challenge this idea on a number of fronts, including the accuracy of the membership numbers, the breakdown of those members by membership type, and that even the idea they're one of the most powerful clubs in Victoria, let alone in the competition (perhaps citing the membership waiting lists at some of the interstate sides with [relatively] small home grounds).

I thought it was a pretty exciting debut. It'll be interesting to see how we juggle the midfielders if we don't have any injuries.

Come on. If an argument for having Spencer in the team is that Jamar can pay attention to what Spencer is doing while the Russian's having a breather and then give him tips this Club - and the match committee - is in all sorts of trouble. When Spencer is smashing it at VFL level you'll have a point, but by all reports he's not. It seems like Spencer has plenty to learn about rucking and footy, and I think getting plenty of game time at Casey - despite not having the brilliant observations that would come while Jamar was having a rest - is a good place to do that for now. I'm sure it'll be an easier place to develop a second string to his bow, which he'll need if he's not going to overtake Jamar for a numero uno ruck role.

You're right in that the AFL didn't create the inequalities - there wasn't even an 'AFL' when this occurred. However, the AFL's policy creates a vicious cycle whereby the rich get richer, and the poor need to do far better than the rich just to get even. It's akin to determining income based on wealth.

It's funny that the Advertiser is having a pot shot at the Dees resting players, given Geelong played approximately 2 of their best 22 against Brisbane at the Gabba the other year.

One, how much 'market value' is there in Darwin, and how are we placed to get it? What's the population and what can be converted into money for us? How many people can we win over? Is playing there much less than Port, and the same amount as Richmond and the WB, leaving us well placed to tap into that market? Two, how important is that revenue/access to Darwin worth? Can other revenue make up for the $500K (plus whatever else you think we're gaining) we get for putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage on-field (Port will play there much more often, despite us being the 'home' team, and there are significant impacts on the players)? How do you weigh the two? Is trying to gain a foothold in Darwin (and note that two other teams are playing there as much, while one is playing there triple the amount) worth more than giving ourselves the best shot at a flag? PS. All those advocating that the problem's solved by having the game before the break seem to be ignoring two things. First, there's another game in Darwin that I assume would like the same rest, wouldn't they? Second, that's not the only competitive disadvantage - we're also losing a real home ground advantage to play Port at a ground they'll play much more than us.

With the trend towards a pinch-hitter playing the second ruck role it's even more odd that people are advocating for a second ruck who can't do much else other than ruck (...and not ruck well enough to be your number one ruck!).

I still remember speaking to a guy who claimed he wasn't renewing his membership because we had traded TJ. Fast forward to now and he's in and out of the Brisbane team.