John Crow Batty

Both great players. But I'd go for Ablett. Judd's greatness during his heyday at WC is somewhat diluted by having the likes of Kerr, Cousins etc around him essentially doing the same job. Since going to Carlton Judd's just been a standout in an ordinary team but hasn't really had the same influence in raising Carlton's stocks. Ablett looks like an awesome dynamo and IMO it appears many teammates feed off his energy and play above themselves. Judd was marked as a superstar when he first started playing and appears he peaked at WC. Ablett was a slow starter who seems to get better and better and has been at his peak for 4 seasons now.

A great idea. Adding heat to the surface will certainly help but it will still need a lot of light also. Golf course greens do not get the same amount of abuse as football pitches. Heat alone will not help damaged grass recover quickly enough but combined with adequate light it could be possibly the best solution for the the pitch. As fot cost I don't see it being in the long term more expensive than relaying the turf as often as they are currently doing now. The owners should be thinking of its long term survival and viability. If someone does take legal action for an injury acquired there it could make the stadium unusable for future football use. There is no way the stadium could survive on concerts alone. They'll have to sell it to someone like Hillsong church for a bargain price.

Yes I agree but it is too late now unless they pull the whole stadium down and rebuild it again that way. This will also be far more challenging as most of these sliding pitch stadiums are much smaller and consequently easier to build. Docklands was an ambitious project that tested the limits of engineering and also mother nature. Now they are going to have to get ambitious with solutions to solve the mother nature problem.

Hi all, I know one of the architects who worked on this stadium and I had several debates with her on why grass would never grow there when they were building it. I used to get the standard political spin on how they had everything worked out and it would not be a problem. How wrong they were in trying to think they were better than god and shortcutting mother nature. Grass will never ever grow there without sufficient light and they will have keep on replacing it at great expense which no doubt will be funded by the fans. Artificial turf is not the answer and will likely be more dangerous than the current situation. The surface will be rock hard, unforgiving and too abrasive for a punishing rough and tumble game like AFL. Players will need to wear knee, elbow and possibly facial guards or else have their skin ripped off. Knee and other joint injuries would also likely increase. In the US many artificial turf stadiums have been returned to grass where possible for these reasons. The only answers are to continue forever with the current unsatisfactory situation, bulldoze it or get in some extra light to help the grass and root system grow properly. They could do this by placing hydroponic lighting suspended a couple of metres above the ground during the week. Power costs could be offset by adding solar panels which could be positioned on the vast acreage of land around the stadium or on the roof. They could even place mirrors or prisms on the roof to redirect sunlight to the turf on sunny days. Not cheap to set up but in the long run it will be worth it. This has likely a better chance of working than all the ostrich like head in the sand approaches so far.

I agree, Bennell's dashing run and kick to the square in the first seconds of the the game set the tone for how the game was going to be played out.

Hi all, the cynic in me finds it hard to believe that this is only Storms problem. I'm sure it happens to a degree at many if not most rugby clubs and the AFL. Sydney hates the Storm and this kind of punishment is meant to destroy them. Similar allegations have been made against Gold Coast Titans but there doesn't seem to be the same enthusiasm in pursuing them. When Carlton and others got caught they were fixed up but not in a way that will destroy them. I think the rugby officials have gone mad.

Hi all, I doubt that we would ever find good players there. They can't even get out a decent soccer team or player despite investing sqillions of Yuan in develloping the round ball game. There are relatively very few sports grounds in China and even fewer suited to play Aussie Rules and the aggression of the game does not suit Chinese cultural sensibilities IMO. Perhaps the best Asian to play the game was Les Fong in the 70/80's. Played and captained West Perth in the WAFL and played quite a few State of Origin games for the Sandgropers.

I'll take it as comes. One win at a time. I've been a supporter for 46 years and every time we've been rated as something we've always come down with a thud. The year that eats my craw the most is 1990 when Collingwood won the flag. The Dee's were widely regarded as favourites before the finals. The draw between Collingwood and West Coast gave us another week off to high five and congratulate each other before the Dee's blew it in a shocker against West Coast. The only reason Collingwood won was because Melbourne wasn't in the GF.

Thanks guys, I didn't think about the potential thuggery element. But very valid. Reducing the bench to 2 and having subs is a great idea. Another idea but extreme is to have it like Gridiron where the entire roster of players 49 I think can be played and rotated in one game. Will do away with reserves and allow the game to be played at its most intense and fullest whilst spreading out the work rate and ensuring individual players are not flogged. Every player gets a chance to get some game time on a regular basis. But perhaps too radical a thought for the game at this stage of its development.

Hi all, I like to hear others thoughts on allowing up to 3 substitutes for injured players. I like the idea but am concerned that it may be exploited for the wrong reasons by coaches. Some thoughts. Players could be rotated and flogged to an inch of their endurance then substituted. Coaches could pull off 3 players at 3/4 time and put on fresh runners. This will just up the ante in speeding up the game. Without stricter rules on rotations I don't think it will work as intended. Perhaps players that are substituted as "injured" may be forced to miss the next week. Also I wonder how this would apply to taking players off on a stretcher. In the old days if a player was taken off on a stretcher you could be sure he was quite bad and almost certainly did not appear the following week. These days it happens in nearly every game and often the stretchered player returns with no apparent sign of injury later in the game. It appears to me that coaches are exploiting this situation to give their players a break and time to regroup from the constant pressure. Smells like the fake injuries and time wasting seen is soccer. It could be made mandatory that a player taken off on a stretcher must be substituted.

I am glad to hear that. Wish he was playing for us.

I like McKenzie but at this stage Sylvia or Morton are guns, are near their prime and must be played if fit. The kid is still learning. He'll be back.

The whole point of my argument is that given the speed and intensity of the game, players are now at risk to forces which are on the limits that a human being can withstand. Having 3 players apply a ferocious tackle at the intensity of the modern game is kamikaze stuff. I don't think they mean't it either, it just happened but it has to be policed. Yes Rhino, I've been around and had a few broken bones on the way. Knees are a little tender also and so 's the ticker. Used to love the drop kick too. If I got on to one right I could get 70 metres plus. Very accurate kick but not great percentage in getting it off right. Phil Rhoden from our beloved Dee's was one of the best at it. Used to kick out from full back and always put it on the wing at the MCG. Not suitable for the modern game I admit. Though I'm surprised it's little brother version is not still around. The stab kick, low, fast and accurate and easily kicked on the run would be perfect for spliting zones in the modern game. Well done on your forthcoming 10,000 but have something nice to say to mark the memorable occasion.

Hi Rhino, as you also say the game is speeding up. Players are getting to the contest quicker, with greater ferocity and in greater numbers too. In this hyper aggressive and furious environment players with the ball have to be protected more so than in the past. Pinning the arms is not illegal and a players head hitting the ground in a tackle could be incidental. Forcing Dangerfield down with numbers and weight like that is just as dangerous as a spear tackle. As to the Watts relevance. I know the players were giving him a friendly welcome but they went a bit too far. I saw it and it was brutal. He could have easily ended up like Dangerfied or worse. I know comparisons with other sports may not be appropriate but in Gridiron they used to have a move called the "flying wedge" where two or more backfield players locked arms with the ball carrier and charged at the linemen. This was banned because the momentum generated by the moving mass colliding with stationary players caused very serious injuries and killed many players though nothing illegal was done under their rules. The ferocity and mass of the Dangerfield tackle is comparable in force. These kind of gang tackles did not seem to be around in the old days and I've been around a while. Things used to happen a lot slower then. The AFL game is developing too fast, the rules on player safety have to keep up too.

The Dangerfield tackle was applied within the rules IMO. On Watts no because he did not have the ball and one player came in late. Both incidents are similar because of overwhelming force applied by 3 players. A good player could break 2 tacklers but has virtually no chance with 3. Serious injuries will certainly occur with 2 or even 1 tackler but much more likely IMO with 3 which is overkill. The weight element combined with momentum can cause serious injury with something like 300kg or more falling on you. Thats why there has been so many crippled rugby players who had scrums fall on top of them. Rugby is acting on these kind of gang tackles and scum tactics. So should the AFL.

I'd prefer if you stuck to the topic and refrain from using personal comments. If you have to use words like stupid, hyperventilate, hyperbole directed at others who have differing opinions then you are not worth considering. As I said in a previous thread. They(Colingwood) ambushed and mugged Watts. Dangerfield was road kill. One incident was deliberate aggression the other was an accident. But both dangerous because of overwhelming force used.

We'll we wait and see. When someone is crippled or worse in an incident which could have been prevented, [censored] will hit the fan. Remember last year Jack Watts in the first 30 seconds of his career was viciously gang tackled by 3 Collingwood opponents in much the same way. He got a free for being tackled without the ball. Lucky he wasn't injured. Happened 30 metres in front of me. If he was hurt like Dangerfield or worse imagine what would have happened. I still don't think there's nothing wrong with banning the third tackler for this reason alone as no player can protect himself even without any malice intended by the tacklers. As an aside it may help clear some of the ugly packs too. As for forcing players to continue with injuries, someone will eventually test the OH&S laws and it will cost some clubs plenty when they do. These laws are very strict in the workplace for most of us. There will be also past players coming in to collect for retrospective injuries. They would say I can't walk now because so and so made me play with a dicky knee. Granted the game was slower in the old days. Makes it more of a questionable issue to play players with injuries in the modern game. I'm all for the substitute rule. Will stop this kind of dangerous tactic by coaches.

He said he had to keep injured players on the field. Not fatigued ones. Thats the difference. In the old days I recall, teams playing with 16-17 players and still beating the odds and winning. And you shouldn't brush of serious injuries as unfortunate outcomes, not when they are happening nearly every round for a variety of reasons. One day it will be an issue. Someone will sue and the vulture lawyers will kill the game. No one has to work under the same risky conditions as footballers do. Nannyism will pounce and take its opportunity if let so. Only in the military do persons have to take more serious physical risks but they are afforded all the protection that they need to survive.

hi Enforcer, I agree with you about the inherent risks and that one tackler can do as much damage. But I believe as the game is getting more dangerous, unnecessary risks should be minimised. Three tacklers is overkill. The way football is developing there will be an unsustainable number of injuries in the future. And if it gets to that stage then the game will be killed off by lawyers and replaced by something like netball. Another point, I thought Neil Craig's comments were a bit cheeky when making his point about substitutes. He said he was forced to keep players on the field with injuries because he couldn't rotate them. Spoke about the occupational health and safety issues. If he really cared about their welfare he would have taken them off anyway. His actions were the OH&C issue. In the old days teams always played short when they had too many injuries. The game was played like that for over a 100 years.

i think the AFL should seriously look at how tackles are executed. The three Melbourne players each individually did nothing wrong. Their weight of numbers overwhelmed him. Perhaps there should be the two man rule for tackling. Third man in gets pinched. The way the game is going there will be serious injuries from gang tackling in the future. The tackled player has no chance to protect himself. Players don't have time to think. They pounce on conditioning and instinct. If they dare reflect or back off from their efforts to the contest they risk fury as seen at Bennell's treatment after his one bad effort against the Pies. This is an issue that can be more easily resolved than the heavy collision problem that also occurs in the ultra fast modern game.

Watt's didn't even have the ball. He was ambushed and mugged. Dangerfield was road kill. Seriously though I'm glad he appears OK.

I agree there was nothing wrong with the tackle under the current rules. It was weight of numbers in forward motion that forced Dangerfield down. Not one of the three Melbourne players did anything wrong. They even pushed him backwards from front on. They didn't lift him leg up. Never been an issue in the game before. If they pushed him from the back then it may be an issue. If they want to make it like rugby then only allow two tacklers in to take a player down. Three tacklers are dangerous and even Johnathon Brown, Barry Hall, Locket or Leigh Mathews would have been squashed in the same scenario.

Agree, pressure and tackling has been great. Amongst the best in the game currently but still no enough reward for effort at this stage with poor disposal.

Martin can't kick the ball. Is a symptom of poor execution which is still Melbourne biggest blight especially when going forward. He and Newton are 50/50 at this stage and neither will make a difference in ball use for the club this early in the season. Martin is still under development and needs to work on his disposal. If he doesn't improve he would be in Newton's boots at the end of the season. Newton is on his last legs so give him the final chance to prove himself with a few consecutive games.

The big problem with Jones IMO that he never seems to look where's he kicking. Always head down and blasts away.