Slartibartfast

Well I'm glad we've sorted that out.

Why did we appear to make little if any effort to keep him? I suspect there is much more to this than meets the eye. At this stage I'm backing Roos but I'm angry and disappointed.

Didn't work for me in IE but did in Chrome.

Any news on Vince Saty? I know he joined some training but just wonder if there is any other news.

Would it matter? Boyd walked after one. But I agree, and I'm starting to warm to your idea of players just being tradable commodities and that trade being at the discretion of the club. What is happening now is far too much in favour of the player, and mainly the "best" players.

I wonder if you know how pathetic you sound. Probably not.

Might be an idea to get the Richmond doc to have a look.

I blink and look away for a day or two and BB has it at 315! Impressive, I think......

The club stuffed up, they know it and have apologized. Time to move on and thanks to Jenn Watts who is a terrific person and takes her role very seriously. She'd be genuinely upset.

If you can't see the issue here than I suggest you don't start your own business.

The club makes some silly mistakes. This is one, the failure to provide any services at the intraclub at Casey was another. A third was after the Giants game last year when a Player Sponsor function was held at AAMI after the game. It was a dreadful day at the footy and the weather was bitter. We headed over to the function which was in the café next to the footy department. Everyone was disappointed with the day and to make matters worse when we got there the door to the café was locked and a couple of MFC staff were sitting at one of the tables. We knocked on the door seeking some shelter from the weather only to be told the function started in 20 minutes and we couldn't come in. Thankfully after 10 minutes or so of agitating sanity prevailed and we were let in. It was such a simple thing done so poorly. The MFC really should come on here an explain and apologize. We'll forgive them, everyone makes mistakes, but just ignoring it heightens the aggravation that I reckon is totally justified.

Thanks Jnr. Pretty damning.

Is that right? I thought that the AFL drugs policy that extends to recreational drugs and the three strikes system was "best practice". Do all other sporting bodies adhere to similar drug policies. If the AFL is best practice how does this sit with "the AFL kicking and screaming"?

I was wondering why I was reading this thread until I saw this. A very insightful comment on how you see yourself RPFC. It's one I hadn't considered.

I thought of Magner in the other thread about Michie. Vanders is a much better kick and better in the air than Magner and that sets him apart. I really like Vanders. Just seems one of those blokes that can get the ball often and do something with it. Very promising debut.

Dazzle can you see the irony in you criticizing Saty for the way he dismisses others arguments and then calling my view on Frost "laughable"? Perhaps you can't.

As I was watching the Lions v Swans game last night and thinking back to the Hawthorn Collingwood game last week I wondered at the differing philosophies of the top clubs coming into the NAB series. Hawks played a very young team, Swans hardly turned up and other top teams have played the youngsters. But Freo basically went in full strength barring injuries as did we. Did Roos and Lyon agree to this? Why would McPharlin and Pav play? Seemed odd to me and I'm just wondering if Roos asked Ross to really test us. Having said that, I'm not sure why he would.

You're passionate but you're becoming a bore Dazzle. You with every opportunity to criticize Saty and C&B with his "golden ticket" just devalue everything you both say. And for what it's worth I reckon playing Frost forward went a long way to costing us the game. It meant Garland played on Taberner where he was clearly outsized. With Frost available on the backline I doubt that would have happened. Saty might have been wrong but he was probably also right. We all get you don't like him, just move on.

This is where I get frustrated. As a result of our discussion I went and looked at a replay of the first three quarters to see if in fact I'd got it completely wrong. I tried to focus, as far as I could, on who was playing on who and how they went. It's very hard on TV but you can pick up some things. In the first Grimes seemed to play on Mayne from what I could see. Of course with rotations and the such this isn't a "24/7" thing but that's what I saw. Mayne was pretty much kickless in the first quarter as was Grimes. In the second I watch specifically for Walters and Grimes. Walters had two meaningful possessions in that quarter. One was when we turned the ball over in the centre when Pedersen dropped a regulation chest mark and Hill gathered the ball and speared a pass to Walters who goaled. The second was when Hill again had the ball in the centre well clear and kicked to Walters who was corralled by Grimes but was good enough to gather the bouncing ball and get a really good pass away to Pavlich. It was really good play by Walters and I'd imagine Roos would suggest Grimes did the right thing in staying goal side of Walters and not letting the ball go over the back with Walters running into space and goal. Stinga really good forwards to this sort of thing. Rioli, Wingard, Gray, Ballantyne and Gartlett amongst others do it for a living. They do it on all opponents from time to time because they are exceptional footballers. I get Grimes is the new DL whipping boy and I'm not arguing that he's flying and isn't under pressure for his spot. My belief is that people have predetermined ideas on players and when they watch a game they let these ideas frame how they see their performance. Grimes did nothing wrong in either of those pieces of play. Pedersen did and I'd imagine Cross did because again from what I could see he was tagging Hill. And in the second piece of play nobody mentioned that Pav's opponent didn't cover him and was instrumental to us losing the game. Another classic example is McKenzie's game. He basically didn't make a mistake. He kept his opponent goalless and didn't make a disposal mistake. He had one free kick awarded against him when someone handballed to his feet and he was tackled in gathering the ball and pinged. But if you read the comments after the game day thread you'd think he'd committed murder. He's not a creative player and never will be. We all know this and Roos knows it. Roos wants McKenzie to play his role which he did to perfection but he got no credit from the DL critics. Again I'm not arguing McKenzie is a first 22 player, I don't think he is but he does deserve credit for playing well. What we got was all the McKenzie haters using the game to say he's no good. That isn't what happened on the day. With favourites and villains which we all have it's very hard to see their games in an unbiased way. Mo64 dislikes players and focuses on their mistakes to prove his point. He never mentions or perhaps sees the good things they do. I reckon Dunn is a very overrated player and I thought he was terrible but I didn't say so and when I watched the game again he did basically what Grimes and McKenzie did. He stopped his opponent and did little else. The only comfort we all have is it matters diddly squat what we think and those with much more knowledge than us will make the decisions. We'll see what happens with Grimes. If he's as bad as you say there is no way Roos will pick him. Anyway whilst you think I ignore the evidence in front of me I'd suggest you are guilty of exactly that. But it doesn't actually matter a damn.

What was instrumental in turning the game for Freo was our inability in the second quarter to apply pressure through the centre of the ground and out of our forward line which gave talented forwards the opportunity to ply their trade. Grimes, McKenzie, Dunn and Garland were a substantial part of a defense that contained Freo very well on the day. On the TV none of those guys appeared to play well but if they hadn't we'd have been smashed. Just on another issue, I had real difficulty with the umpiring and as you might expect I thought we were on the wrong end of it. Frees in front of goal to them were paid where similar incidents to us weren't. But perhaps I'm bias.

Thanks Ungarieboy for a pretty fair assessment. Dunn, Grimes, McKenzie and Garland have come in for some severe criticism from many, particularly in the match day thread. But Walters, Ballantyne and Mayne played no major part in the game. I know Walters got a bit of it in the second but once was from a terrible turnover up the field that led to a situation where no defender could stop. That was his only goal. As the commentators said, Ballantyne and Walters are close to the two best small forwards in the game and those players of ours that are being maligned did the job. I suppose many would prefer to see those four get multiple possessions but not stop their opponents. I'll probably never be able to judge how they went tonight because I'll never really know who they were on or what their role was but I'm betting Roos thinks they did a lot better than most here. I was disappointed that we played so many big forwards in the first half and reckon this just about cost us the game (and I realize that is not really important). In the second quarter when the big forwards tired and the ball became slippery we were inept in applying any defensive pressure in the forward 50. Roos tactics seemed very strange to me. I get that he might have been wanting to look at the talls but he stated his primary goal was to practice the game plan which revolves around contests. And for all those lamenting the skill errors you should listen to what Roos said before the game. If they are still happening in R5 then get worried. It's hard to think of a player who didn't butcher the ball once or twice, except perhaps Jordie who ran at 100%!

For anyone who was at the game. Who played on Walters and Ballantyne. Hardly sighted by their standards. Mayne either. I reckon it had to be Dunn, McKenzie, Jetta, Grimes, Toumpas, Salem, Garland and Jones M in combination. Glad to see we attacked more and did ok against a very good defensive unit. It's only a practice match I know but thought Roos cruelled us with such a tall forward line that was unable to apply defensive pressure in the first half. Much better second half. As far as I could see Freo were without 2 of their top players while we missed Watts, Vince, Howe and Viney. Pretty happy with the result, some good signs in trying conditions by a team short of experience compared to the opposition playing interstate. The next two match will tell us much.

Yes, but not 285 times since 12 December when the topic was started!! I'm up to 3 now, that's enough!!

I'm interested in the outcome of the Essendon drug probe, it is indeed a huge story. But with nothing new happening for ages I reckon there is little else to say. I've had my say in the previous thread and my view, to say the least, wasn't supported. As for the NoT$ no B$ thread - I haven't opened it for months. Nash I wish I'd known that before I'd counted them!! My position on this is different to many. I don't have a hatred of any particular club and I reckon that we've been less than perfect corporate citizens in the past. The supporters make up a footy club, without them the team is nothing. Coaches, players and administrators are a passing parade of paid servants of the club who represent it somewhere between excellently and poorly. Supporters don't select those that represent them really, we can pretend we elect Boards and the such but when was the last time we selected a representative? 2003 if my memory is correct. No supporter bases are better or worse than the others. All clubs have passionate and great supporters and all clubs have ratbags. Essendon find themselves on the end of vile management and individuals at the moment and I feel for their supporters. By being naïve and supporting their club they are doing nothing different to those who refused to concede we did anything wrong in the tanking fiasco (I'm comparing behavior here not gravity of crimes). My initial position was that I thought the players were completely duped. Now I'm not so sure but I do think Little and Hird should never see the inside of an AFL ground again. As for the supporters I think they have been through enough and they have done nothing to bring this upon themselves (as a group). I hope this is over soon. I hope Essendon survive as a club. I refuse to engage in the schadenfreude going on in the wider footballing community. We nearly had Dank, you and I would never have had any input into it and we could have been where Essendon are now. And I'd hate to see us dead and buried as a result.

I feel a bit left out having not contributed to this thread but I probably speak for the vast majority of football supporters who just want this over. That there are 10 people who have 75 or more posts on this thread since it started less than 3 months ago and BB who has over 250 I'd suggest two things: You must be on drugs yourselves to post that much You've invested way too much energy into something over which you have no control and impacts another club. Me, I'm not going to spend my time obsessing over the rules of WADA, ASADA, EFC, AFL or any other relevant body, I'll just look at the result and move on. But I suspect the major contributors to this thread are like the legal profession itself. They'll be involved and luxuriating in this topic long after the result is handed down and I'm guessing there will be a lot of disappointed people spending a lot of time explaining why experts in the area got it so wrong. There could also be the sniff of a conspiracy theory. I'll come back in a week or so time to see if anything has happened! 279 posts in one topic in less than 3 months! FMD. Oh, and for the record of the very little of the thread I've read it's a credit to those involved. Well researched, well argued and without personal rancour. I just can't believe you care enough or have so much energy!