bing181

Good input as always on Garlett PSD. I suspect we already have someone lined up for 40, perhaps in the Matt Jones/Terlich vein. If not, feel that we're more likely to go with mids. With Kent and Blease you'd think we already have the speculative small forward role covered for the moment, and i just don't know that Garlett figures particularly highly in our draft plans.

Yes and no. There are the same questions as to his footballing shortcomings as there are with Sam Blease and a few of the other younger players around the club: work rate and defence. No point getting on the scoreboard if your man runs off you all day. There's also the questions as to where you'd take him. Pick 40? Not sure that even that's not too high given the questions. But then, for pick 57, we may as well wait. There's an expectation that most clubs won't be particularly active outside the first 2 rounds, and as such, there will be a lot of players slip through to the rookie draft. So that's where I'd be looking, if at all.

Watters and Neeld aren't the first high-credentialed assistants who have failed when elevated to the top job - and I'm not just referring to football coaching. Being the manager brings a whole different set of skills and responsibilities, and exposes even the slightest shortcoming so ruthlessly. With the best will in the world, it can be difficult to predict who will and who will won't make the grade until they're actually put in the line of fire.

From Jones through to Dawes, a number of the players have commented that no matter how bad things were this season, the group never splintered, there was no finger-pointing, and the group as a whole stayed solid. I know you've listened to the Bernie Vince interview. Without going through it again to find the exact quote, he said that something that struck him was that Melbourne came across as a real team-oriented club, and commented that he'd received welcome messages from almost all the players. So, if Darwin was about building team spirit and bonds, you'd have to say that it worked.

The protocol you're referring to is the reverse of that, it's live high, train low. By living at altitude but training at sea level, you get the benefits that come with adaption to having less oxygen (e.g., increased re blood cells), without the constraints that having less oxygen puts on performance. One of the reason a number of cycling teams train in Tenerife is that they can live up the mountain, but then train at sea level. The main use - in fact the only use - for hyperbaric tents is to sleep in them. This Wiki entry perhaps best sums it up: "Sleeping in a simulated altitude environment allows the body to achieve some of the positive adaptations to altitude while still permitting the athlete to perform workouts at an oxygen-rich lower altitude where muscles can perform at their normal work level."

Worth a listen. If anyone wanted evidence that we're doing things differently (and professionally) a few gems in that, from the presentation by Viney/Roos to the fact that Roos took the trouble to call his mum and dad. That he didn't even want to talk to us, but ended up signing, speaks volumes. Forgot also that Viney was his midfield coach in the year he won his B&F.

Jay Clark (Hun) had him at 25 (Lions), and Emma Quayle had him at either 20 to Freemantle or 23 to Geelong. Not sure where your "most phantom drafts" comes from, as most (credible) drafts I saw had him mid-late first round as the next tall off the rank after Gorringe.

I don't see the point of these exercises in prediction. No-one last year saw Port rising and WC and Adelaide falling. While the whole pack of cards isn't going to be thrown in the air, there will be clubs that do better (or worse) than expected - and no reason we couldn't be one of them. Decent draw apart, I would have thought though that just the addition of Hogan, Clark and hopefully Dawes, plus a few midfielders who have shown that they know how to find the footy, plus a few of the younger brigade stepping up, plus a few players getting in a full pre-season for a change, plus a first-rate coach and coaching team, should all combine to give us reasonable grounds for optimism.

Armstrong (Lance) has never been formally interviewed by USADA.

If he was good enough, other clubs will come calling. Let's see shall we? Not forgetting that both Craig and Roos also chose not to play him.

Not sure that that's the case (though not saying it isn't either). Watters isn't the only one to leave and I doubt that Laidley etc. would have left if Watters was the only problem - given that Watters must have been close to being pushed in any case. Brereten is pointing the finger at Pelchin, and you'd have to wonder whether or not that's not more where the fault lies. Watters had a very good record at Subiaco, and OK, it's "only" the WAFL, but he'd certainly done as well as Basset at Norwood in terms of success. Watters was also appointed from within at Subiaco, so he must have been a known commodity. Hard to see that you'd be winning premierships and getting contract extensions if you didn't know how to get on with players (and club admin for that matter). One of the interesting parallels with Neeld and Watters is that they were both sacked from clubs with disfunctional admin and footy dept. From the Board and CEO etc. down, if it's not working, hard for coaches, especially first-time coaches, to get the support they need or have the structures around them that will help, not hinder.

This is Demonland WJ.

Let's see if any of the other 17 clubs share your opinion. Or his for that matter.

Speaking of listings/delistings, anyone know what the story is with Maia Westrupp? Quick Google showed him recently being picked for a representative schoolboy volleyball side in NZ, so presumably back there. Done and dusted?

The science that's out there contradicts your assertions. Whether or not it's worth the time, effort, disruption and money is another story. Clubs have been successful with altitude/heat/you-name-it camps, clubs have been successful without.

Michie won B&F at his WAFL club, though he only played 15 full games (injured and subbed off in round 21). Ave 26 disposals across those 16 games, and had more than 30 disposals in 6 of them. Managed quite a bit more than Taggert, and also did all that coming off 2 years where he hardly played because of injury.

It's not wasted, it's the nature of the beast. Why are people presuming that every draftee we take should turn out to be an AFL player? A third of all draftees taken never play a single game. Another third (higher actually, around 43%) play less than 50 games. The total there is 3/4, 75%. At the other end, only 13% get to play more than 100 games, and only 3% more than 200. So, across the history of the draft and across all clubs, around 1 player in every 6 plays more than 100 games - and most of those would be in/close to the first round. That a pick 36 didn't make the grade at AFL level is more to be expected than to be unexpected.

Yes, but not with us. Perhaps a couple of years in the SANFL would sort him out. FWIW, from reports on some of the North boards, his fitness/attitude issues centre on weight-training.

Not exactly first dibs, we'd have equal dibs with the Dogs. Player to choose one or either. Or neither if he'd fancy his chances in the draft.

Some great stories here. To which I can't really contribute anything. A handful of U14 and U16 games for Girgarre, of which my only recollections are the orange quarters at 3/4 time.

Surely he can just put himself into the regular draft as well. If so, good for one of our low picks?

Put Morton in the same basket as the rest - did his shoulder (or hand?) when he fell while climbing over the back fence because he'd forgotten his keys. Knowing that would happen, we should never have drafted him.

That might have been the case in the past, but given PJ's emphasis on clearly defined roles and chains of responsibility, I wonder if that's actually the case here.

"Peter McFarlane, a respected journalist from the Herald Sun went into raptures about Collingwood's efforts despite losing two of their top 10 players." Overlooked everywhere, including by Pies' fans. If a top-8 side trades out two of their top-10 players, no surprises that they're going to get top picks or trades in return. Bemused.

Can anyone explain the difference between: - Andrew Nichol - Player Development Manager and - Brett Allison - Head of Development Interesting aside in all this, the three assistants to the assistants from the last two years have now found new positions: Nichol with us (promotion?) Satterley to De La Salle as head coach, and Greaves has been announced as Development coach at Port Adelaide, responsible for ruck coaching. On the other hand, Leigh Brown and Royal still without new homes.