pitchfork

Matthews: Initial reaction has so much to do with the jumper the player is wearing. Jed Anderson was apparently a superstar after a pretty limited showing in a hand full of games this year. Hogan already touches the ball 4 more times a game than the much-lauded J.Cameron (that's taking this years career best avg). Matthews is just lazy - remember the comments re: Clark? He's not providing a comment on the players quality, but analysis that has no basis in any reality.

Is Tyson really ready? He's looked hobbled by that knee in recent weeks – been good on the ball, but can't get the work rate high enough when it isn't i his hands. Would like to get him to whatever his best level of fitness can be. If he isn't there this week, let him pile 40 touches on the filth. That's pretty much a three week break, or leave him till after the bye and he gets 5 weeks to get right.

If Toumpas can make that a baseline game – I don't mean so much the goals, but the 20 touches – he is a must select. Provides much needed skills and footy smarts. Feel like he just starts to overcompensate when he's not getting near it. Yesterday the usual Toumpas deer in headlights mode was replaced by calm. Seemed to never stand still. He played a restrained AFL game yesterday... more please.

So, I'm not suggesting John Burns should be prosecuted, and there's no doubt that the story lacks the weight of evidence. However, regarding the whole private conversation, public place issue – whether you think it's right or not – the law is quite clear on this. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group. Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it: (a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or (b) is done in a public place; or © is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place. (3) In this section: "public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place. source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

was afraid to click on this thread...seems I was justified. To debate whether this is offensive, should be tolerated, or constitutes vilification is totally moronic and suggests of those that argue such that they have never been vilified for who they are, and cannot empathise with those who experience it. Look, if someone says this at the footy, the appropriate course of action is to tell them to shut it. Most often they'll be extremely embarrassed. Not totally clear if the media ideally would have been made involved from the get go, but given the incident happened in an area teeming with media, and that the Richmond official was shaken (see AFL360), it's unsurprising that there was not a water-tight process of dealing with it.

17 guys name themselves Backs: McDonald, Garland, Dunn, Howe, Jetta, Salem Fwds: Hogan, Dawes, Watts, Garlett Mids: Jones, Tyson, Viney, Vince, Lumumba, Cross R: Jamar You've got the following fighting over 5 spots: Frost, Newton, VanderBERG, JKH, Bray, Gawn, Toumpas, Kent, Grimes, M.Jones That's ten guys for five spots and fit is of vital importance (sorry, but toump played, so he gets incl in 10). I Think it will be: Frost: backup ruck + fwd JKH: forward line is too big with Frost, so he has to be included Vander: if his engine is enough to play through the middle (potential vest) Newton: (potential vest) Bray: 9 tackles, should be in (potential vest) Kent and Toump make way for Vince and Dawes. Forward line is top heavy and a bit static, but I imagine Roos has determined to never move Watts seeing as how that has affected him in the past.

There's a real quandary, though it's one they knew was coming: What happens with the second ruck when Dawes is available rnd 2? We are too tall with the same fwd line + Dawes, and that suggest Frost shuffles out - - - but he is the back up ruck. NFI

Robbo - haha

It's two seasons up forward under Neeld, one down back under Roos. It seems like Roos is keen to move him forward, and I'll trust that he'll get the best out of him. To be honest, apart from the marking, IMO Howe is a pretty conventional player (i.e. not outside the box, rather than avg) - he often provides a hard leading target from up forward. The player who replaces Jeremy in our backline will do a comparable job. I'm not sure if anyone has quite the ability to do the same in the fwd line. Guys who kick goals are just very valuable - kicked 30 goals in one of the most depressing sides to play since 1859.

I instinctively agreed. But if you take a look into the stats, comparing 2014 to Howe's 2012, 2013: 2012: 16 disposals avg, 5.5 mks, 19 goals 25 behinds 2013: 13.5 disposalvs avg, 5.71 mks, 28 goals 16 behinds 2014: 17 disposals avg, 6.05, 5 goals 5 behinds Now that's pretty basic stuff, but I'd argue that this probably suggests that Jeremy actually gets involved a lot when he's up forward and that's probably more valuable. 44 shots apiece in 2012 and 2013 will increase in a better side.

Neeld was sacked in June 2014 (this isn't a post to bash Neeld). You'd be right to describe the dees as a basket case. By October 2015, Melbourne would have to rank in the top half of the league in regards to stability. It's quite some achievement by PJ, first on board, and Roosy. There's a real plan and the adults are in charge.

We'll all get over the disappointment of not receiving the quick yet empty satisfaction of paying overs for a player with a huge name. Get another crack at Danger in 15', don't need to sell the farm for him either.

Massive period, improved the club. 2013+2014 Shows that good faith negotiating strategy is the only way to do business. More or less added pick 40, Jeff, frost and stretch for 23 and 42 Started with: Frawley, Clark, 2, 23, 42, 61, 79, 97 Ended with: Stretch, Lumumba, Jeff, Frost. 2, 3, 40, 53, 83 and 97 Sure the frost one in itself looks a bit odd, but if there was someone they thought would fall I'd imagine they would have kept the pick. Get someone in PSD + two bites of the apple in the middle of the draft (good players have been picked up there before).

The market has overshifted in regards to draft pick value, Stanley for 21 is downright mad but in this climate seems to have been greeted with little shock.

Yes there is. Adding ready-made best-22 players will always give some bump - Vince, Tyson...Garlett, Lumumba. But more important is incremental improvement. Buddy, Hodge, Roughead, Lewis, Mitchell etc. all played in some mediocre sides early in the piece. I honestly don't know if there's a powerhouse dormant in this list, but the improvement needs to come from within. It's not possible to build a great team entirely from trades and free agency. Expect improvement, expect some new faces, and there's a chance there are four worse teams than us next year.

No idea about something happening, but the negative tone of our trade period so far is kind of surprising. Given up assets of essentially no value to us for two players that are in our best-22...quite chuffed.

asking a bit much, but is there any evidence this is more than hearsay?

So does Selwood. They're all able to make an impact despite their lack of pace, not because they're slow. Trenners best work has been half-forward marks, not much else.

dee-luded...

once a player is on a list it makes no difference where he was picked. If club sees potential it makes no difference if you're $cully or Rockliff

Do it if his fitness is doubtful. Has looked like the second coming of late-dees Brock the past few seasons. If he can get his body right this is silly. I'd trust the club if they pulled the trigger.

Pick 3 would be way overs for Dalhaus. http://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/L/Luke_Dahlhaus.html He's a good player, but he's small (178, 77) and in his 4th year in the system avg disp: 22, scoring shots: 2, tackles: 4. If he was 185 and 85 kg it'd be a different story, but he's just not worth skipping on whoever will fall at no. 3. Would be asking for Macrae or Bont (no way they trade them), or two players inc. Dalhaus.

This had nothing to do with whether McCartney played or not. Footscray seemed to fully buy into McCartney and his team. It's unclear what happened, but surely given the very recent belief the club should either fire him or refuse his resignation. If it was that bad he should be gone, if it wasn't you stay with the plan.

we'll be laughed at. Looks a certain star and, even though he was pick 4 last year, the degree of confidence in that assessment along with his age would suggest he's worth more.

I'd be really surprised if in the event St Kilda decided they were taking one of Petracca/Brayshaw that we kept both picks. Roosy has stated that there's too much uncertainty picking a TAC tall. We know Roosy doesn't gift games and, assuming the scouting report says they're guns, in a perfect world he would take both. I think the determination will be, can we take both and ensure a really competitive environment to develop these guys to the max. If the answer is no, they'll try and move one of those, but it's hard to see a trade that (touch wood) is as lucrative as the Tyson deal coming our way again.