bing181

Hmm. 6 this week. After what, 5 (or 7) last week. PSD and rookie draft to come. Could get interesting ...

Ah, perceptions are everything. As per the post higher up the page, it's closer to a third (37%). Or to put it another way, 2/3 of these top 10 players will not make it to 150 games - astute selection or not.

From what I've read and understood, it wasn't Flash or Neeld, but came from the same snake in the grass who was also one of the famous four involved in fuelling the tanking issue. Some people just don't like being sacked.

Reports (from reading the press etc.) are that we're not particularly interested in Aish, as we're after inside players. One of the reasons we were prepared to drop from 2 to 9, and why there are starting to be mutterings that Aish could fall to Collingwood.

Would need a miracle. Being talked about later first round, hard to see him getting all the way to 40.

Going by the phantoms published today (Paige and HUN), looks like it's Freeman or Salem if Collingwood don't take him.

You and me both RF, but it only goes to show what charmed and to some extent sheltered lives we lead.

Every footballer is one injury away from retirement. (BTW, there's an apostrophe in there … Clark's. e.g. "MJT's one obnoxious post away from being banned" is very different from "MJTS one obnoxious post from being banned".)

Wonder if there were any AFL scouts watching. Not too shabby given his lack of match practice and condition.

Jurrah did get what he deserved, and has served his penalty. While he was in gaol, a few Melbourne players went up to Alice Springs to visit him. In other words, to support him. Wrong in your opinion?

Suspect that all this happened because a) Vince would be FA next year, so worth nothing for them if they waited and b) they were desperate to get into the draft, and Vince was one of the few non-core players they could let go who has any currency. As you said, good deal for us, and if he can continue to average 20+ possessions a game for the next couple of years, will have proved a handy addition.

That's the point he was making. The "cheap possessions" remark refers to Garlett. Would have thought it was pretty clear, but there you go.

Careful ...

Not entirely correct, he tested positive for steroids in 1999, and his doctors issued a back-dated authorisation for use of a cream that contained cortisone. But yes, you don't need to test positive to be banned. In fact, none of the riders who were banned as part of the Armstrong case ever tested positive, though that's not the first time: none of the riders banned through being part of the Puerto blood doping affair (Basso, Valverde etc.) tested positive, same story for those involved in the Festina affair (Virenque etc.) and even well-known banned dopers such as David Millar and Michael Rasmussen never tested positive. Sorry, a digression. Essendon/Dank. Their time will come.

I think that was fairly obvious. Unfortunately. Good luck to Liam, hope he finds some kind of peace, whatever he chooses to do with his life.

Fitz is also a backup for Dawes I would imagine. Though I'd like to see Fitzpatrick get more game time, he impressed in the latter part of the year, and at his age, is only going to improve.

All well and good, but rates of improvement in fitness aren't linear, nor are they the same for every individual. FWIW, Matt Jones played every game this season, but this time last year, as opposed to trying to keep up in 300m sprints, he was working as an electrician. He started pre-season late, and off a low(er) base, but still managed to get to where he needed to be by Round 1. They have time.

What sort of logic is that? If I killed my wife it would really highlight the fact that I was a duplicitous murderer. etc. BTW, you've got your negatives in a bit of a tangle there. "It would really highlight Gary's inability to …. run away". Suspect you meant the opposite. Also, it's Garry. Two r's.

You're on fire today WJ.

To say nothing of hunting pheasants. Or plucking them afterwards.

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."