Rogue

I think Maric over McLean is a bit silly (as you've conceded). Other than that, your 22 looks about right, KS. There was an attempt - KS said 'based on performance in 2009 only'. However, you're right - setting criteria for stuff like this is important, otherwise the debate turns on the definition of 'best', rather than who was actually in the best.

I don't think poor design is ever the point. You can have a casual/fun/silly card that's designed well.

For what it's worth, Watson's strike rate was 37. Hussey's was 36 (and by the time he was batting, our chances of winning had decreased).

Fwiw, IIRC old55 and I had Miller in our 22 in one of the many 'best 22 in 2010' threads.

I think it's probably been worse than patchy - I just wanted to correct what I thought was an oft-mentioned error regarding Miller's only good game(s) in defence.

:D

I think that's a strawman.

Smorgan's comments make perfect sense - he was hoping Mission would tip in some more dosh. I don't imagine that the WBs are in a financial position to tell Mission to take some of the Club's money and give it to a player or three instead.

It's pretty simple to understand. AFL gets more interest here than soccer and we're talking about having the World Cup in Australia, not in one of the many other countries where AFL doesn't even rate a mention. I don't think many would oppose Australia hosting the World Cup if it didn't mean a disruption to AFL. In fact, I don't think many would oppose Australia hosting the World Cup if it meant a disruption to AFL of a month or so. Just like the benefits we get from the F1, but better*? *perhaps that should be 'worse'

Clearly you're not fussed. However, your opinion isn't the only one. It's a hypothetical. I wanted to gauge the poster's feelings towards a disruption longer than a few weeks.

He played a decent game against Pav at the 'G.

I'm not sure what you're saying here - some people do.

Smorgan mentioned it in an interview with James Brayshaw on MMM Radio around the time Smorgan was involved in nutting out an improved stadium deal. Brayshaw was talking up the prospects of Clubs like North and WB, but Smorgan mentioned that there were still significant inequalities, including what I've referred to as the marketing cap. Smorgan was hopeful that Mission would pony up the dosh so that the WB could take advantage of this extra payment. I can't answer the last question as I don't speak for the AFL, but they're responsible for plenty of odd rules so I don't see that it being odd is a persuasive reason for believing it doesn't exist.

That's a bizarre inference to draw from the post you quoted! How did you come to that conclusion? The post you quoted doesn't mention or refer to Luke Ball or Collingwood at all. If you check the thread you'll see it's a reply to WJ's comment on the Visy/Judd deal. As I've already said in this thread, I think the issue of access to medical information should be addressed by the AFL, and posted regarding this a few days back on Demonology. Since you're interested, I have no problem with Ball not talking to Melbourne of other Clubs (as I mentioned in a similar thread on Demonology). If every Club has a - for example - $500K marketing cap, I don't see that the AFL should be deciding on whether the sponsor is getting value for money. For example, if Carlton has Visy pay Judd $500K for six events a year, and Melbourne has our major sponsor pay their star(s) $500K for attending events every fortnight, where's the significant difference that impacts on the competition? As an aside, I think Visy has got a heap of exposure with Judd and his 'environmental role', regardless of what he's actually doing. They couldn't buy the press coverage they've received with the money they're paying him. Regardless of what the players are required to do, all clubs are allowed to supplement the ability to reward players via the sponsorship cap. As I said, I think the issue is only whether this 'sponsorship/marketing cap' is significantly more unequal than other inequalities, not whether the sponsor is getting value for money.

That didn't really answer the question. Can I assume you've decided that you/Bailey would in fact take the two year extension, as I suggested? Let me flip this around. If DB thinks that he can coach and he's building a good list, why would he be worried about coming out of contract after five years in the role? The side should be starting to show some real progress, and if that was the case it's unlikely the Club would want the upheaval associated with bringing in a new senior coach. However, if the side wasn't showing progress after five years, questions would be asked about DB's abilities as senior coach (and rightly so).

From what Smorgon has said, there's some sort of 'marketing' cap which is in addition to the salary cap. If there's a cap, does it matter what the nature of the work is? Unless you argue that because some Clubs can't find sponsors to utilise this 'marketing' payment, it will create an inequality that is different to that which enables rich teams to pay 100% of the cap, buy the best facilities, pay most for staff, and so on then I don't see the issue.

If he deviated from his and the Club's own plan he'd be throwing away his job...

That's my contention, absolutely. I think we need almost all of them to come on as we hope, stay fit and stick with the Dees. I hope so. The good thing is that just a few personnel changes can make a significant difference. PS. Yes, I was talking about ruck quality (I gave a rundown on our talls in 'CHF's thread on Demonology).

All that is along the same lines as I'm thinking, so it sounds good to me. I think Grimes might be more likely to play more of a HBF-type role as our younger midfielders develop, but for now I'm happy with him in the midfield group.

The design is pretty average (yes, I'm being diplomatic).

Yeah, if Ball had talked to us then most MFC fans would accept his decision just like they did Judd's. Oh wait...

I'm with you on this.

It might appear as though Sylvia has more talent but I imagine Stanton's contributed more to his Club that we've for from Sylvia. I'm hopeful that'll change though.

Playing the game doesn't mean you're very good at spotting talent. Coaches don't have time to get up to speed with all the draftees, and recruiting officers a) are a major source of info for journalists like Quayle and B) aren't going to tell you much.

Indeed. I posted about this on Demonology the other day. As far as I know, there are rules regarding this and there is some sort of cap/allowance. I recall Smorgan asserting that the WB were hoping to take advantage of this in future, and were hoping Mission would come to the party.