Rogue

His pace and skills are helpful up forward at the moment. As for whether he's answered the critics, I imagine the jury's still out for them. It can take one moment to lose respect, and quite a bit longer to earn it.

We should refer to him as Dale Karma.

I'm not sure queries over his kicking aren't limited to field-kicking. I'm actually really surprised to see you write that he's a reliable set shot at goal - I think that's one of the major question marks over his game at the moment. There's plenty to like, in particular his ability to find the footy when playing forward. However, as our forward line develops I think it's likely he'll be less of a target, and converting his chances will be crucial.

It's his best 22 and he said 100% fit. I assume that also means they've played some footy, not that they're suddenly 100% fit after being out for x months.

I think we've had our fair share of that.

Given our approach to wins and losses the last couple of years, it's understandable he's still referring to the 13-16 bracket as a 'top 4' finish

I think you're creating a strawman - you're misrepresenting the views of others. The criticism of Bruce isn't that he is not perfect, it's a criticism of his performance relative to the standard set by other players who play AFL football. Note that this isn't a comparison between a player under pressure in a match situation versus someone at home under no pressure, it's a comparision between a player under pressure in a match situation and the performance of other players under pressure in match situations. Zing! First, by 'officially' I assume you mean in terms of the statistics are gathered by Champion Data and the like. Regardless, you're just pointing out that these 'official' statistics need to be interpreted along with other factors to provide any meaningful insight. Second, my point still stands - even if it's 'officially' an effective pass, handballs that only 'hit the target' in a technical sense of the word are nothing to be boasted about when you're under no pressure. I've quite liked Bruce as a player over the years, but - like most of our players - he has some reasonably significant faults that some fans seem keen to overlook in their attempts to deny a middle ground view.

'D'oh!'

You're right about one thing - it's a media stunt that's cheap...extremely cost-effective, just the way I like it. However, I can't see that it's a disgrace! The jumper is given over to anyone who's earned - through means good or otherwise - the $100-odd bucks it costs to buy one. People already run out on the ground with the players, toss the coin, etc. The other stuff's just fluff (fun fluff, sure). PS. Do you post on another forum as Bluey?

Only plays T20 and we hardly play any of those.

Is handballing to someone's feet when you're under no pressure 'hitting the target'? I guess it depends how you define target, but I wouldn't be talking it up.

That reminds me of Fraser's great play in the 2006 final where he had the ball a little outside 50, near the flank, and tried to 'run' around the mark but instead 'pulled' something and got pantsed by Carroll. That was a good moment.

No.

I agree...but that doesn't mean this is 'further compromising' the integrity of the draw. There's an extra team, and sides play an extra game. Status quo ahoy.

I wouldn't have made a thread defending Brock's honour, but I do think you have a point. Personally, I'd like every player who leaves us to pop $10K into Debt Demolition first.

How does it 'further compromise the integrity of the draw'? It seems quite similar to me.

Why doesn't percentage means teams will keep fighting even if a game's over, etc? It's based on the same idea as bonus points for winning quarters, but doesn't discriminate based on when you score. You mention fairness, but I'd like to point out that bonus points for winning quarters is less fair than percentage - why should winning a quarter by 10 points be worth the same as winning a quarter by 10 goals? Percentage doesn't have this problem, and if you were to try and vary the amount of bonus points per quarter won based on margin your system would get pretty complex pretty quick.

It seems like Clarke may bat at #4 from now on: I think it's a good move. I also think it's over-due, and I bet our obsession with having a left-hand batsman followed by a right, and so on, has meant Hussey has batted higher than he should have.

Our small defensive options look pretty thin, so I wouldn't be surprised if we brought in Bartram (for Dunn?).

Plenty of guys did poorly, but some have runs on the board. Dunn is the first one I'd drop - I thought his intensity was really poor at times. Bennell and Spencer also looked ordinary. Given it was Strauss' debut I'd be tempted to keep him, and Bate will probably be better for the run. If we keep Miller he should play as a push-up forward. Sylvia's the easy in, providing he's fit, while Martin gives us more as a second-string ruckman than Spencer. Cheney is an obvious replacement for Bennell, although we might want to go with Bartram instead. Given our forward line, Newton and Hughes should be considered, and as Newton apparently played okay I'd bring him in. PS. Dropping McKenzie is crazy!

How many years ago was that?

Same. I'm a fan.

I think it's clear that Miller's current role isn't ideal. However, given our lack of forward options it's probably forced upon us a little. I'd still prefer to see him playing the push-up role - he looks best giving us a rebound target while on a long lead up the ground.

I think train ticket prices are pretty reasonable (especially on a Sunday), particularly when you compare it to parking + petrol + car costs. I can't remember the last time I bought a drink at the footy, nor the AFL Record. As someone said, you could always print a team list if you were that keen on identifying the opposition's lesser players.

I disagree. However, I think that while he probably isn't as neat with the footy as CJ I'd back him to provide more of a contest, and he reads the ball well in the air.