Slartibartfast

No. Do you think that the club would say "player x is missing 3 weeks due to a Jack Viney tackle"? I don't. We didn't hear that Rohan Bail missed 4 weeks when Dunny hit him at training when he was wearing the yellow "injured" vest. There is sensible tackling and aggression and then it just gets silly. As you've pointed out, the coaches think Viney gets silly. I hope he winds it back.

I don't know, do you?

I that case let's also hope he doesn't cause a player to miss a year.

I suppose it depends on whether your only interest is Melbourne or whether you're interested in the competition as a whole. Those that take a more simplistic and "theatre going" attitude to footy will find little if any interest in the NAB series but those who think more deeply about the game will eat the series up and learn as much as they can from it.

You said it was "purely for the sponsors and to get footy back on the calendar". It's not.

Your understanding of things is very blinkered. Kevin Sheedy back in the '80 started to arrange practice matches against other clubs when there was no preseason comp. He wanted genuine practice, not some "dancing with your sister" experience you get in intraclub matches. The preseason comp holds many purposes for the clubs as it does for the AFL, sponsors and fans. It's very simple really. If you don't like it don't watch it. If you do you can. Personally I love it as it gives the first indications of the season to come and a chance to see the younger players in adult company. You need to broaden your thinking.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-season-2016-debt-down-but-losses-mount-for-afl-clubs-20160206-gmnb1h.html An article in The Age today gives a summary of the gross income and debt position of all the Victorian clubs. Hawthorn top the charts with just over $70 million and the poor old Saints the bottom at around $32 million. We sit at about $44 million and have made a modest profit and we have a debt of about $5 million. The profit and debt positions can be a little misleading because not shown are the assets of the club (Bentleigh more than offsets our debt) and of course profits can be fudged at year end and can include such things as depreciation and write off of assets which can distort the true position of a club. But in essence the Hawks have more than twice the income of the Saints and you just wonder where all the money goes. Once you've adjusted for profits and interest on debt there is a profound difference. I just wonder where all the money goes. FD spending? Admin? I don't know. Pokies and the staff to run the facilities? Does anyone know? On face value the AFL desperately needs to even up the have and the have nots or we will fast become like the EPL. I'm glad to see Newbold go, he struck me as an arrogant [censored] who peached equality and then did everything in his power to frustrate AFL attempts to introduce it. Edit: And the other thing is our profit is marginal at best. A couple of hundred thousand dollars in $44.5 million is break even at best. Fine judgement that, but it makes you wonder about the window dressing that may go on. Not that this administration would be the only ones to dress the result, it's been done for years. Even with Hawthorns income they still manage to make a profit of about 5% on turnover.

That's exactly what I said. Imagine what would happen to Demonland if all those things that "go without saying" went unsaid.

Yes I agree. We were consistent last year. We lost very regularly. The Geelong and second Collingwood game were, as you say, a glimpse into the future.

I think that rather than the Geelong game highlighting our inconsistency it highlighted our potential. We'd been beaten by the Power, the Pies and the Saints in the previous three weeks and then we jump out of the box and beat the Cats. That was a mighty effort. We then lost the next few. I'd say the Cats game was an anomaly rather than highlighting our inconsistency because we won only one game out of the about 7 or 8 only beating the Lions in a terrible game during that period. We were consistently awful really. I'm just not quite sure why you are highlighting a negative out of our best win. Unnecessarily critical I would have thought. Each to their own. So Kev you're disagreeing with Jack who says it's the coaches that must overcome our inconsistent play and that we are doing it through list management. Actually you're probably saying it's both which I agree with.

Of course we have to address it. I'm with you, it just seemed pretty self evident. I also think we need to address our skills, our game plan, our fitness, our recovery, our training loads, our development, our competitiveness, our resilience, our list management, our leadership, our medical management and our rotation policy just to name a few. But I think that's self evident also. But you picked inconsistency out especially and I'm wondering why. Do you think the coaches aren't addressing it?

Yes, that's what I thought he was saying, in fact it's pretty much what he said. Perhaps there's more to it though. Saying unless we improve we won't get better is pretty self evident. Jack usually has some substance to his posts so I thought I'd missed something.

That's what surprises me. Jack usually makes pertinent comments and if this is one I've missed it. What do you think he was saying?

How would you do that? Are you suggesting we are not addressing them? Surely suggesting that unless we overcome our inconsistency things will not be as rosy as the result of the Geelong game might indicate is self evident. It's like saying unless we improve we'll be no better. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Wiseblood said he also wanted to see how he went in the coaches box. BA if the players fail in the areas above is that Roos or Goodwin's responsibility. And how do you assess the line coaches and the development team. I'm interested in people's views because I think it virtually impossible from the outside to attribute success and failures to specific coaches.

How will you judge Goodwin's performance? What specifically will you look for?

Have you ever considered that Trengove wanted to go to Richmond?

Who knows? My view if he is not yet sprinting flat out then his return is a long way away. My reading of the situation is he is unlikely to play until mid season. He has a one year contract and I doubt the club is expecting anything much from him this season and anything he does produce will be a bonus. I think they will give him the best possible to stabilize his foot and play fully fit and to the best of his ability. We will then know what he can produce and we can assess his future. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

I share an email thread with an astute observer and he was at training on Monday. This was his comment on Trengove: Trengove moving extremely well, looks fit. Also looks incredibly slow. Still a long uphill climb for him. Hope he makes it he's a ripping bloke.

I don't think this is right. Dawes was terrific against the Cats and also very good against Collingwood in our win this year. When he plays well as he did in these games (as well as the win in Adelaide against the Crows) we are a much better team. Why you're bothering to argue the marginal merits of two players who are both inconsistent and over the journey have been unreliable I don't know. They are much of a muchness and you'd be no more confident with one or the other. Edit: Sorry to barge in on your conversation Stu, but it is a forum you know.

We are starting to do it. Vince, Frost and Melksham are all picks around 20. Tyson and Salem for pick 3 and 20 (from memory) as well. There was a lot of angst on DL when these trades were made and although Melksham and Frost are unproven most are happy with the others. I think we are miles ahead doing these sort of deals and our list management is now A grade. It's the only thing that gives us a chance of moving up the ladder really. I agree about top 10 picks. It's got to be an exceptional deal to trade those out.

Petracca off and running after broken toe

Lets not overdo the free agency and Hawks: Burgoyne: Pick 12 Frawley: Free agent Gibson: Pick 25 Gunston: Pick 24 Hale: Pick 27 Lake: Pick 21 McEvoy: Pick 18 O'Rourke: Pick 19 Frawley is the only free agent on their list and in all other cases they have been willing to part with relatively high picks. In most cases above they also traded a later pick or a player. Hawks are ahead of the pack with doing this - perhaps they learned from Paul Roos who did it with Sydney. Draft picks are overvalued and the Hawks are willing to trade them for known quantities.

Yeh, and you're debating Stu.

Have you got any idea how boring you are with this stuff?