Rogue

Given there have been three Demons games since you posted that 22, it's no surprise you've not made many changes... Anyway, is MacDonald just taking Bruce's spot on the bench or has someone else come in to your 22?

The Grimes errors that stick in my mind aren't risky kicks that set up attacking moves, as I said in the post you just quoted. Instead, they are the errors he makes while under relatively little pressure. For a guy that I think uses the ball well most of the time, I find it curious that he tends to make unpressured errors in the way that he does.

Mine would be pretty similar, but I'd probably have Bartram in place of Rivers (as surprised as I am to have Bartram in the mix for my best 22!). The major concern is the lack of a second ruck, and not sure who from that team would be the pinch-hit ruckman. I'm also not sure whether Bennell gives us more than Wona would, but Wona hasn't played for a while and both have pros and cons. Watts probably doesn't deserve to be in the side at the moment, but I see where you're coming from. What I really like about pretty much all the best 22's is the fact that we're not going to lose much in the way of attrition. McDonald and Bruce are nearing the end, but I think Green is the type who could play on for a long time. The guy I'd most like to see come into contention is Blease. I think his type would be really helpful to us.

Is that really when Grimes tends to make his errors? From what I've seen, I don't think his errors are caused by pressure or risk. Note that I'm not talking about Friday specifically - it was a couple of hours in the wet with a greasy ball, and I didn't notice him using it particularly badly, given the conditions. It's interesting you think he's generally a brilliant kick under pressure, because I think most of the glaring mistakes I see him make are not caused by pressure or trying to take a 'risky' option, but when he's under relatively little pressure - it's AFL, after all - and simply fails to execute. I'm not going to go through vision of old games but more than once he's been in a situation where he's by himself on a back flank, kicking a 20-30m pass to a teammate by himself, and fails to hit a target because he simply mis-kicks it. (I think there was a game last year that was discussed on Demonland (v Essendon?) because scenarios like the above caused a few turnovers that resulted in opposition scoring shots, but I'm not going to hunt it down. Pretty sure 45HG also posted in it.) I find it interesting because he looks like a decent kick and often uses the ball really well, but tends to let himself down more than you'd expect under little pressure.

This might help: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fanboism Think of those who won't hear a bad word said about their choice of car (Holden/Ford), computer operating software manufacturer (Microsoft/Mac), etc. ...or you could think of those that won't hear a bad word about their newest 'next captain/300-gamer' MFC player

I agree. Has anyone said otherwise? Most certainly haven't, and no one - apart from you - has even mentioned the possibility of dropping him because of his disposal! Sure, potting players is poor form, but so is the horribly hyperbolic fanboism that goes on at times. Why is it okay to crap on about how many hundred games every second kid that debuts for Melbourne will play, or how soon until he'll be captain, but objectionable to - rationally - discuss potential/perceived weaknesses? The idea that it's 'too early' to discuss potential weaknesses is bizarre...that time was passed long before these guys were drafted.

Who's that bloke in your sig go for? Has he converted already?

I think that was the worst umpiring display I've ever seen.

I agree. As Jaded pointed out, he had a fair few marks and I thought that reflected his effort. He kept presenting and also did some good work when the ball was in his area.

First, most kids that get drafted will have either played midfield (or forward if tall) as a kid simply because they're talented, and those are the roles talented kids are given. The other kids play the roles that require less creativity etc. Second, I'm pretty sure Grimes spent at least some of his rep time off a HBF. I'm also not convinced that he'll end up as a midfielder, but won't be surprised either way. I bet most of the people on Demonland like Grimes as a player too, but It doesn't mean that perceived weaknesses shouldn't be discussed. In an earlier post in the thread you sarcastically suggested that perhaps Grimes should be dropped, despite the fact that no one's even hinted at that...and it's not like anyone's attacking the guy either. I'm a fan, but it hasn't stopped me posting previously about the tendency to make some glaring kicking mistakes that stand out because he looks like a good user most of the time. I'm pretty sure you approached a discussion of a perceived weakness in another young player you liked with a similar response, so when do you think it is okay to talk about a perceived weakness? (As an aside, I might be wrong, but I don't seem to recall you having a problem with pointing out weaknesses in players you're not so keen on, even if young.) Isn't it a bit boring if posters can only be 'Monday experts', experts after the fact? I don't think that's correct at all - certainly not in general, anyway. The only trend I've noticed is that many of his kicking errors are made under relatively little pressure, which I find interesting. I don't think it's a decision-making issue - he normally makes okay decisions but just fails to execute. Is it a concentration thing? That would tie in with the idea someone floated that he isn't a naturally brilliant kick. If that was the case it might explain why he tended to make errors more often than you'd expect when under relatively little pressure.

Absolutely.

$20 says two teams in the GWS group will proceed to the next stage.

We might not move all offices into AAMI Park, but it's not because we don't want to lose our presence at the 'G. Check out the recent comments by Schwab re: the mooted Docklands development - he says that having all departments under one roof is an attractive proposition.

First, I'm pretty sure they didn't suddenly become big news when they moved into what was the Lexus Centre. Second, I reckon the big interest Collingwood attracts - from their huge supporter base and from the attitude fans of other teams have towards them - plays a big part in their media coverage. How's that? I've been down there a few times and it was extremely open. I hope this isn't relying on the idea that footy people are too lazy to drive out to Casey Don't players with decent facilities still hit the beach the next day? I might be wrong on this though. Nice idea - I like it. One man's trash...

Ahm, aren't we changing our colours for this game? Anyway, this thread is IMO much ado about nothing. 'Playing for the jumper' doesn't refer to the colour or design that's currently in fashion. The jumper is used as a symbol of the Club and everything that the Club entails. We're also long past the days - if they ever existed - where the jumper was 'sacrilegious'. Regardless, the pink jumper is closer to our normal jumper than some of the clash strips we wear. Furthermore, if the issue is with the colour pink and the comments this might attract, the problems lie with the individual who feels aggreived, not the Club.

Indeed. Except I got a mention, and I don't know why:

He got dropped. MacDonald has mentioned that he felt he was missing out on finals because of queries over his back, but realised later that he'd actually been dropped. I think the realisation may have been around the time he realised Brisbane were offloading him. It sounded like he took it pretty hard, and this was some time this year IIRC.

I also think train from Southern Cross will be easiest. The following website is pretty handy for planning your journey: http://jp.metlinkmelbourne.com.au/

If we had a bunch of old hacks that were almost finished, sure. However, apart from a couple of veterans, I imagine we think everyone else in the 22 is going to be around when we're a contender, or we need to see them at AFL level to decide (ie. Bartram and Dunn). EDIT: As for those who feel the Club's annoyed about Watts' attitude, Connolly's pretty clear about their views on him as a person, at least publically:

Newspaper circulations are falling and many magazines are struggling. Any perceived benefits wouldn't be worth a loss-making venture. If anything, keep putting resources into online communication and put the rest into outreach programs targetted at specific populations (ie. universities).

I'm more positive about our win tally now than I was pre-season, but I still don't think we'll make finals. I had a quick look at the fixture and divided games up into those we should win, get beaten, those we're probably a better than even chance at winning but could quite plausably lose, and vice versa. By my reckoning (which is similar to stakka's, if you've read the relevant Demonology thread) we'll get 10 wins, which sounds like RR's prediction. To get to 12 we'd need to win every single game I think we should or are a better than money chance to, and sneak another two on top of that.

The main difference is that Bartram, while not using the footy very well at times, seemed better suited to a defensive role, whether it was tagging or in the backline. On the other hand, Buckley seemed like an offensive type who, while quick, was Ward-like in his use of the footy - harder to carry poor disposal if that's a big part of your game. Oh, and he once ate some chips. Maybe a hot dog too, I'm not sure. Either way, he had to go.

For structure alone I like Martin in the side. Bail will get more opportunities.

One of the problems with the less expensive membership options is that a heap of people who buy an 11 or 16-game membership now don't go to that many games - it's essentially a donation. You need to balance any increases in revenue derived from new sign-ups for a limited membership versus lost revenue from people who downgrade.

As for #3, trade, PSD or national draft (in that order). Isn't ST a mid?