Rogue

Thanks guys. That makes it even less of a 'home ground' advantage for us. It also gives us even less of a foothold in Darwin, relative to the other four sides involved. While we'll be playing two games there every three years, so will Richmond and the WB. Trumping us all, Port will be playing six games in the next three years, triple the amount we are. Apparently there will also be two games per year for 2013 and 2014, but who plays there is still up in the air. If we're coming into a premiership 'window' then, we might be happy to give Darwin a miss.

Haha.

That's why if you're mid-20's or older and not in the best team you're in trouble, particularly in a developing side.

I'm going to go against the grain a bit here. For now, I agree selling home games is good. We need money and wins aren't particularly important right now. However, I think that soon we'll find on-field negatives start outweighing the benefits. First, we're playing just one game a year at Darwin so it's hardly a 'home ground'. In fact, IIRC we'll be playing Port there every year, and they will be playing two games a year there (away matches versus us and WB each year). [Edit: In fact, we're only playing there in 2 of the next 3 years, while Port plays six games in that period]. Second, it seems playing at Darwin is much more taxing on the players than other interstate trips, which compounds the competitive disadvantage of selling away home games. You might think that the on-field disadvtantage, if there is one, is outweighed by the prospect of building a supporter base in Darwin. However, we'll be playing there [edit: much] less than Port, and [edit: the same amount as both the WB and Richmond]. Regardless, is the chance of gaining a foothold in Darwin worth more than wins as we push towards what many of us think will be our best chance of being a legitimate flag contender in years? It's only going to get harder to win a flag with 18 sides in the competition...

Dappa Dan, I seem to have a couple of problems with your argument. First, you state that we should be playing a second ruck 'because it's a development year', and you seem to be making the argument that we should thus get games into rucks. However, if we play a second ruckman, who will that ruck be taking a spot from? It's likely to be someone else we'd also like to get games into (ie. Jetta). The other point is that playing a few minutes a quarter in the ruck isn't, IMO, particularly good for development. In fact, my contention is that a guy like Spencer is going to learn more playing number one ruck for Casey than he is benchwarming for us and only playing say 20% game time in the ruck. I think the idea that Spencer is going to learn more from Jamar by playing with him is odd, given that your own conception of the ruck duo is that it would allow Jamar to rest. That means that Jamar is going to be getting a leg massage on the boundary while Spencer is on the field, doesn't it? Even if Jamar was also on the ground, how is he going to help Spencer? This seems a bit odd to me. Second, you state that Jamar is likely to get injured because of over-work. Implicit in this seems to be the idea that if we don't play a second ruckman, Jamar rucks 100% of the time. That's clearly not true. Either a second ruckman takes some of the ruck (probably more than we/Jamar would like just because we have a second ruck and feel the need to utilise him as a ruck) or that 20% or so of ruck time will be taken by a pinch-hit ruckman (ie. Newton, Dunn, etc). Furthermore, as your own figured show, it's not 'overwork' in a game time sense that leads to injuries - you've mentioned midfielders, and they are rotated heavily these days. I contend that unless we're playing Jamar when he's not fit enough to play, he's at no greater risk of injury by rucking alone than he would be otherwise (if we ignore common sense understandings that playing more does increase risk - ie. if you play 88% of the game you are exposing yourself to double the chance of an injury just by being out there etc). As an aside, I think the idea that you do need a ruck 'duo' made up of two bona fide ruckman is something that can be challenged. I don't think it's necessarily the case that one decent pinch-hit plus one number one ruck is the way to go, but a reasonable case can be mounted for this approach.

Thanks, H_T bb, given the rest of my post it should have been obvious.

Ticketmaster is ticketing agent for Etihad Stadium and Skilled Stadium (as well as AAMI, Subiaco, the Gabba, etc). Ticketek now has the contract for the MCG.

Indeed. Last years finals appearances have seemed to serve Brisbane and Essendon well this year.

Dappa Dan, your central point seems to be that Jamar is more likely to get injured playing as sole ruck. Do you have any evidence to support this contention? As for 'On the Couch' and us losing with two rucks, I have two quick points. One, someone's mentioned Martin and the Brisbane win and North loss, so the theory seems to immediately have less weight. Two, if we had a decent second ruck at the moment we could reasonably decide whether that was helpful for our game plan. However, our second rucks have given us nothing, so I wouldn't be making any sweeping generalisations.

I don't see why people get so uptight about the game being slightly delayed. Just pretend the game starts at 3:30 or whatever...big deal. There's no material difference.

Even if we win all the games we 'should' and 'might' we're still behind. We'd need to win all of those AND some games against pretty fancied teams (and some of those would be road trips).

With the glove, I thought he looked a bit like PJ at times. I can't see him playing permanently in the backline, and think it's likely he'll be a linkman who can push forward.

JCB's kiss of death!

A comment doesn't need to be intentionally ironic to be ironic.

The answer is a negative.

Ahm, you know rpfc was talking about on-field leadership, right? Leading by example - things like courage and work-rate - is one of the main leadership indicators on-field. I think The other would be the type of 'coaching/directing' during play.

You started talking about how he was given an 'unfamiliar role' v WCE. I was pointing out that these concerns have been aired over not just one game, or even one season. He hasn't played every week. He came back into the team after McKenzie was withdrawn from the side and I won't be surprised if he's omitted at some point either.

Gysberts is playing better footy than Bail.

Concerns over Rivers' long-term viability in our backline aren't based on one game. It's not even just based on this one season. I think he might have struggled a little in pre-season, but I agree - he's been a great 'find' for us.

You couldn't figure out how to enter the barcodes, or you entered the barcodes and they weren't accepted? If it's the former, you need to ensure you select the right event when you click 'find tickets'. If it's the latter, are you sure they cover this match? I'm pretty sure the '16-game membership' includes our 14 games at the 'G and the two matches at Etihad.

I don't know what the deal is with the sugar-coated second sentence. First, plenty of people don't particularly care about the fate of players who they think aren't good enough, let alone when they're at another Club. Second, what is there to suggest that he's 'genuinely devoted' to the Demons? Is it any different from most other guys who fall out of favour or are delisted every year? I want Rivers to 'adapt and refresh', as you put it, because I want our team to be the best it can. The better our list is, the better we'll perform. It's not because of some love for Rivers though. I can understand those who are supportive of current players, but if Rivers doesn't make it someone else will take his spot (and there's no reason to think they won't be as 'genuinely deovted', however you measure that).

Zing!

He played around half-back a fair bit over the last couple of years and the courageous marks that see Grimes get plenty of positive attention were a feature of his game. He'd still be taking them when we were 10 goals down, which I think exhibits some sort of 'do as I do' on-field leadership.

As others have said, tickets for the general public are pretty limited, and those that are available are typically pretty pricey. Gen admission means standing, unless you get there exceptionally early (ie. when the gates open, or not long after).

Haha :>