Lost Highway

He's come a long way and could go further; sometimes even seems strangely well-coordinated in disposing of the ball. But if Gawn's knee holds out he'll probably overtake Spencer in all aspectsof usefulness by the end of next season. Nevertheless, Spencer must be retained for now as Jamar is fossilising and not likely to play more han about 8 matches, and Jolly if he's brought back is almost over the hill. And there's Gawn's knee... I wouldn't want to see Clark or Fitz in the ruck except as pinch-hitters or deep forward throw-in rucks.

Very well said. It's hard to think of a really tall player with equal foot speed. For someone of his height he appears to have quite a low centre of gravity, perhaps the corollary of a long neck? . He can pinch-hit in the ruck, too, if injury strikes the other three. Probably a bit more than pinch-hit.

You're posting about depth, but have made no mention at all of the other Jones - I'd put him in for round 1 ahead of Trengove or even McKenzie; the former hasn't played a game yet and the latter has very little to offer. And why name Kent in a pocket, when he clearly can run and has a great long left-foot kick?

Should be 4: Ruckman who can ruck, is not a forward, is not unco, has good knees, at least 200cm and not more than 24yo. Will be needed, make no mistake.

You left out the other Jones and Sylvia. But this midfield is still two sparkling young draftee mid-fielders short. Some of those listed don't have the sparkle. Mind you, they're better than Maric for a start.

I've stuck to the position that the 'tanking' by MFC was no exception to the pattern established over a decade at least. In terms of 'justice' the isolation of the MFC, the apparent discrimination against it, is the very crux of the matter. Regardless of whatever McLean said, or Bailey, or anyone else (and numerous people are supposed to have said more than they should during all those many years, about several clubs), the AFL should have acted to resolve this as a 'generic' problem, terminating or changing sufficiently the system it created which led to this, and acknowledging its own part in it. No club, not MFC or Carlton or anyone else, should have been investigated in bringing the 'tanking' era to a close. Radio discussions like the one linked, reveal nothing more than terribly inferior commentators or 'journalists' kicking a dog while it's down (something that few Australians will acknowledge is at least of equal power to the myth of the underdog); they are inherently biased, and 'personalities' like these, especially in tandem, are incapable of rising above their prejudices to look at the proverbial 'big picture' instead of the localised gossip. The truly terrible thing is that the AFL for some reason - A. Anderson, perhaps, falling under the influence of someone who shouldn't have that much influence? - went for a ride with this idiotic approach, possibly this very radio program, and lost sight of the big picture in which the AFL itself is the main subject. Why on earth was this thread started?

Here's the article, and I wouldn't say it's definite yet, not from what Sanderson says. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/sanderson-confident-bailey-will-be-cleared-of-tanking-20130214-2ef7s.html

You're agreeing with something which is almost the opposite of what you say in the second sentence. The original argument of Grapeviney's was that there is no, and there has never been any, obligation to publish a reply to an opinion piece, but you're implying that obligations mean nothing to The Age anyway. The real question was, SHOULD The Age have published DM's rebuttal? It's a question of whether CW's article contained factual content, and whether The Age is a 'newspaper of record'. I agree with what you say about the paper, but I don't think you should be agreeing with Grapeviney.

You're absolutely right. When accusations or predictions are made about an individual or an organisation, based on or including purported factual content, it is the normal course in a newspaper with any integrity to publish the rebuttal by the accused party. When DM said CW was 'entitled to her opinion' he was in fact disputing what she implied to be facts; he was not recognising simply that this was a mere opinion piece. He put forward factual statements - setting the record straight - to refute her words, and these should have been published. All this goes to the heart of the issue re CW: she confabulates; fact and fiction are blended in her vicious mind.

Those apologists for CW, grounding their comments on 'just doing her job... selling papers... getting a reaction... ' arguments, are wrong; there's much more to her pieces, as has been pointed out often enough. There's real malice, a malice combined with wishful thinking, an intrusion of very personal emotions, in her diatribes against the MFC, which goes far beyond what the apologists are now saying in this thread. CW's 'journalism' is extremely shoddy, and making the argument that this is the age of 'social media', 'sound bytes' and instant gratification in no way explains or excuses the plummeting standards of CW or The Age - its online version is 'disgusting', to quote one of CW's own epithets for the alleged actions of the MFC, and the paper edition is little better. One only has to read again her various articles to sense the intense and malicious nature of her feelings about the MFC and certain individuals within it; CS is the case in point. Here, there is obviously a very personal vendetta being pursued, regardless of CS's ability, performance or ethics. It's likely this goes back to a rivalry or falling-out between CW's father and CS's, in the history of the Richmond FC. If CW were a decent or proper journalist, she would have researched as well as possible the evidence of so called 'tanking' for picks over the last 13 years, and analysed the degree to which this can be attributed to, and even sanctioned by, the AFL itself. Let's call it the 'big picture'. That there's a clear dearth of such investigative and analytical journalism in Melbourne speaks volumes for the very low quality of the people writing or speaking about 'sport' in our mass media; like those who are supposed to write seriously about politics, they content themselves with rumours, gossip, tweets, the bleeding obvious, polls, personalities, tedious repetition: group-think in other words. Note how Pierik's articles kept repeating ad nauseum 'facts' which had indeed been inferred from CW's wishful thinking. We perhaps can't expect any better of a woman who has so much at stake personally in this affair. I don't think for one moment that she is capable of the smallest degree of detachment and irony which would mark the work of someone simply stirring up a storm.

I dispute that. I'd say he's got Rioli more than covered for speed. If you watched the GF carefully, you'd see Jetta sprinting down the southern wing (can't remember the quarter, but it was towards the Punt Rd end - either first or third) with the ball for a good distance, pursued by Rioli. Rioli made no ground at all, despite Jetta's bouncing the ball, and gave up the chase. He looked embarrassed as he turned back towards the centre of the ground.

Agree about The Age, but not the ABC - it follows sheep-like wherever The (tory) Australian goes, adopting slavishly the 'Abbott says' framing of most political news; it also has a very 'tabloid' ordering of its stories. Its web site is only marginally better than the Age's, which is a national disgrace. The only decent mainstream news site in this country is SBS, but don't expect wads of AFL 'news', which is mainly gossip and speculation after all. As for Watts, if he doesn't 'make it' this year, he'll go to another club where he'll inevitably find another arm and leg, and become the next Goddard.

The ironic point has been missed. It's the AFL which tampers with the draft. As it has done with 'the draw'. Which is now a 'fixture', with the emphasis on the first syllable. The 'draft' is something which the AFL has orgainsed to manipulate for the attainment of its own ends. It doesn't like it when other entities try to achieve their own ends.

Yes, this article is the usual disgrace; thick-headed, loose in language, and typically malicious. Pierik says about CC and CS, that they have to 'prove why they should not be charged'. But they don't have to 'prove' anything at all; it is well nigh impossible to 'prove' one's innocence, which is why innocence is presumed and the onus of proof is on the prosecution in our legal system. Surely the MFC needs only provide reasonable explanations or refutations in order to persuade whoever sits in judgment. This loose language reminds me of the ignorant use of 'forfeiting' by both Pierik and Wilson. Later he writes: 'Connolly has argued he is the victim of a conspiracy theory despite an overwhelming number of witness statements detailing the now infamous ''vault meeting'' after a win over Port Adelaide where he allegedly made it clear the Demons were harming their hopes of securing a coveted extra pick.' First, Pierik gives us the implied opinion ('despite') that Connolly has no right or justification in his argument because there is 'overwhelming' (another opinion) evidence against him. Next, he applies a veneer of historicity in the pejorative words 'now infamous', when it is he (among others) who has both created a sense of 'infamy' and reported his own creation. Finally, he retreats behind the word 'allegedly' and fails, as usual, to provide the analysis which could lead any reasonable person to imagine quite easily a scenario in which CS said (allegedly, of course) with jocularity and irony, something along the lines of, 'You realise you're harming our chances of the priority pick!'

The whole question of whether or not the MFC 'tanked' is almost completely irrelevant to what is happening in the public arena, which is simply a blatant case of victimisation. The AFL is bringing vague 'disrepute' clauses into play, when the present witch-hunt and media coverage is clearly bringing the MFC into disrepute. Some supporters argue that MFC is to blame for its own predicament and seem to infer from the present situation that we would deserve any 'punishment' meted out. They're foolish to think like this, and are doing the club a disservice. The whole issue IS that of singling out one club, after years of numerous clubs inevitably playing out a scenario implied, tacitly approved - even DEMANDED - by the creation of the Priority Pick. The AFL created the moral vacuum, and only they should close it in an honest and confessional fashion. Were this investigation to go to a court, the counsel for the Defence would surely call Mr Demetriou - he who denied, when and if the occasion demanded, that 'tanking' was occurring - as its first witness. There can only be a just end to the era of 'tanking' when the AFL fesses up to its own mistakes and misjudgments. There can be no other satisfactory conclusion to the matter. Further, it should be demanded that the AFL run a football competition that is not deliberately biased by fiddling with the fixture, the draft, the salary cap, kow-towing to TV stations and so on. Individual clubs should do their own soul-searching about ethics - what they are and if they should apply to succeeding in Football; the AFL cannot sit in judgment.