Webber

He dominated. Good sign. The only one in fact.

Not sure this is true. We didn't find a way to lose today, we never looked like winning it. Those blaming the kicking are not seeing the truth. They read the game, used the ball better, and began playing for each other in a way we never do. Like the St.Kilda loss, we never deserved to win. People forget that the Saints had the ball camped in their forward line for most of the last quarter. It would have been very unjust if they'd lost. How have we improved since last year? There's simply no evidence at the moment.

I presume you're kidding about Gawn, otherwise that's the most ignorant assessment of a player's game I've ever seen.

With this sparkling form, we'll get the no.1 pick again.

We are just a terrible football team, all things taken together. In the space of the three weeks since Geelong we are at this moment the worst team in the AFL...... AGAIN.

3 very winnable games, a shrinking injury list, a decent first half of the season. Hmmmmmm, we'll lose all 3 by that form. Very very nervous.

The pies contested ball work and pressure is very consistent and very disciplined. They don't drop out of games like we do. They're significantly better than us because of this alone.

Roos was one of the best readers of the game I've ever seen, with decision making and disposal to boot. He had the knack of seeing the best option, which seemed like the most creative also because it set up attacking plays. A very smart and very reliable footballer. Sort of a taller and faster Brett Lovett, and that's no slight on the great BL. When he and Gary Pert were at Fitzroy together at CHB and FB, they were great to watch. Glen Jakovich was a monster who had complete confidence in his physical superiority and sound skills to match. He played in a time when you could still get away with being a defender who lacked the complete game. What he did, he did brilliantly, but wasn't the all round talent that Roos was.

For how long and how frequently has he been 'in' form?

We're unwatchable once again. Wow, we are rubbish.

This is just not true. We are lucky to be within 8 goals of them. 2 different standards out there. I admire your glasses, but one lens is rose coloured, the other covered in black.

A cascade of errors matched only by some woeful umpiring. Not pretty.

We are but soft butter, being run through like we're not there. It's gonna be an almighty thumping.

Too tragic. How do any players, AFL wide, play this weekend after that? This is going to hit very hard, and well it may. Perspective can be very sudden.

We know Jabberwocky, that young men are neuropsychologically predisposed to risk taking behaviour, as witnessed in increased drug deaths as you say, and otherwise most notably car deaths. Sadly, I think you're on a hiding to nothing trying to modify that behaviour intrinsically, barring chemical therapy! There are otherwise so many parts to this problem, such as loss of community, diminished physicality, absence of relatable models, and intangible others. I agree entirely with your last sentence, except the consequence of illegality. As others have written on here, once you get past the stupid and dangerous bit, illegality is irrelevant. In fact taking heroin is a victimless crime. That criminality is associated with it produces all manner of criminal consequence of course, but on its own it doesn't hurt anyone but the user, and those in distress at seeing a wasted existence. Horrible stuff, but criminalising it doesn't make it less so.

Well put, Nasher. The legal system is still prone to punishing the victimless crime too often, and people see the illogic of it, thus are prepared to 'flaunt' the law. A soft example is jaywalking. Most police persons will use discretion, but I have known of some ludicrous arbitrary enforcement. Also, it wasn't that long ago that homosexual 'behaviour' was being legally punished.

Careful WWS, wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good dose of ignorant moral outrage.

You can keep talking about non-usage being a consequence of illegality, but that is just not supported by facts. Decriminalisation does NOT increase usage in non users. Put another way, it DOESN'T make people take up drugs. I'm not suggesting that ice is not the most evil of all the reacreational drugs. It is. In a certain percentage of users it creates psychotic episodes which can end in horrific violence. Criminalisation doesn't change that, doesn't make it less available, doesn't stop people using it or taking it up. I wish it did. Decriminalise, regulate, tax, educate, rehabilitate.

Yep. Isolated studies back this up. Reduction in crime is the first social consequence of decriminalisation.

That's the kind of reaction I was talking about. There have been numerous studies into legalisation done, whereby certain geographically determined communities have had drugs decriminalised for periods of time. Mostly in Europe, notably in Scandinavia. The knee jerk fears of increased uptake in usage are unfounded. None of them showed increased drug usage. The two findings common to each example were dramatic decreases in crime, and drug related hospitalisation. My opinion is not based your presumptuous notions of political bias, but on practical evidence. It's unarguable no matter how anathema it seem.

Clubs have the ability to set standards of behaviour and have excellent compliance from their players on all manner of issues. Look back to the 60's and 70's and smoking and drinking footballers were not uncommon. I think it was Brent Crosswell who had a tete a tete with Ron Barassi over his mandatory halftime smoke. Gold Coast clearly don't have inside tabs on what their players are doing off the field, but a huge part of this problem is the criminality of the substances they've taken (cocaine, as K.Hunt is spilling the beans over). They're already underground, and thus an industry of concealment already exists. In this way, I think football clubs show something of society in general. Some people want to take drugs, then do and continue, or stop completely, or with certain drugs become casual users. No drug is exceptional to this. They will ALWAYS be available, and there will ALWAYS be a market for them. Prohibition DOES NOT work, and never will. De-criminalise all drugs, and the problem is approached in a whole new, more realistic, and constructive way. It seems a radical idea only because drugs are associated with criminality/moral breakdown, and none of us have known anything else. The idea provokes such wild reactions of horror from some that it's yet to be seriously discussed in this country. There is a very smart and growing list of people advocating for it now, so it will happen, but not for a while methinks. Most importantly, for young moneyed footballers, drugs will lose the lure of the illicit, the dangers of criminal association, and introduce an acceptance of the reality which clubs can address more openly, such as with alcohol.

He is a much better and more important player than most on Demonland think. Thankfully the club opinion is somewhat better informed. He's def a keeper, and I can't see the club letting him go, or him wanting to go.

Perfect solution, and works in other sports.

Those imagining that Col Garland will not be picked this week are delusional. Next to Nathan Jones, this year he would be the second name inked on the team sheet.

He's a coaches dream, as you know exactly what you're going to get. Even if he starts to tail off in the next couple of years, he's precisely the kind of player you want setting standards for the young'uns, AFL or VFL, and worth the place on the list. Exactly what we should've done with Junior McDonald, but stuffed up royally. My guess is though that he'll still be getting a senior gig in 2016, and 2017.