Slartibartfast

I don't revere Flanagan as many do here. I like him but he's as capable of ordinary articles as most. He rarely tackles difficult issues and most of his features are feel good topics. Pretty easy stuff and he does it well. I also like Caro regardless of her critical attitude to us during the tanking investigation. Murphy provides an insight into the life of a footballer and intelligent one at that. I'll probably learn more from Murph and Caro than Flanagan. Each to their own. It takes all kinds Binman!

Does anyone have the address of The Oval? Thanks

Bob Murphy is easily my favourite player outside the MFC. He has a lot of the qualities of Robbie Flower. He's also a fantastic journalist up the in the class of Flanagan. He's written a great article in the Age today about the incident with JKH which is well worth a read. It will be a sad day when Murph hangs up the boots.

The discussions on Jetta and Bail are interesting. Pedersen is in the same catagory. In the past they haven't been sure of their role, they haven't had confidence in their place in the team, they have never been allowed to settle in one position (role) and because they are in the last half dozen picked every week they have been in and out of the team based on a week or perhaps two's performance. For the first time in some time we have a FD that is giving guidance and confidence to the players and ones who were once unsure are now confident that if they do what they are asked they will retain their spot. OD says Bail is not AFL quality. FM. In a team that has been mostly competitive this year he's not missed a game, performed well in most and as the article on the AFL website points out is doing all the "team" things. Bail is not the player you build a team around but he is a player that will play his role in a good team which we are slowly becoming. He has courage, he plays hard, he runs all day and he does his job. He'd get a game at a lot more clubs than you think OD. The other thing about Roos is he is strong on character. It puts Bail in a good position to retain his spot in the team and on the list. Personally rather than harp on about players being NQR I'd celebrate the reward for hard work and persistence Bail is getting. For a bloke that nearly had to give the game away because his courage saw him concussed regularly he's been fantastic. Same thing for Jetta and Petersen who have both had their issues.

Look I just don't believe Watts didn't lead because he is a good for nothing lazy footballer, it just doesn't make sense. And if he was lazy then I'd expect him to be dropped this week because Roos won't put up with that. It also doesn't sit comfortably with the rest of his game which contained two memorable run down tackles that saved goals and a load of off the ball running. I've only watched the first half again and if the incident is the one with about 7min 50 to run in the second quarter I think Watts knew that to kick it to him one out was the wrong play. The MFC player was a long way from Watts, perhaps 65 metres and the chances of hitting Watts was small Watts was one out and the cost of a turnover was high. I think Watts knew it was the wrong option. The reality is that neither you or I know why he didn't lead. Your proposition is it was because he is lazy. Mine is that it's likely to be something else. I just found it disappointing that in an otherwise positive post you spent so much time and effort criticising DL's favourite kicking boy when there was a lot in his game to like.

I read your post and remember the incident clearly. Here are some explanations. 1. Watts was covered, the player had the ball and was moving backwards from the mark when Watts pointed to the space between him and the boundary. If he'd led early the space would have been taken before the player could kick the ball. Watts was indicating where he wanted the ball and was waiting for the kick so he could lead into it. 2. Watts was leaving the space for JKH to lead into and not taking it from him as JKH had separation on his opponent and Watts didn't. Watts could then lead into the space behind JKH. 3. Watts is a lazy good for nothing footballer who couldn't be bothered running the 25 metres to make a lead and just thought FU. Out of those three explanations I'd take the third one as least likely as it wasn't in keeping with the rest of his game and doesn't make sense. But you highlighted it as the only negative in your whole post. You must really dislike Watts

Your argument was that McKenzie was in the same category as Magner and Couch. You were stupid to say so and have failed to back up that statement. Nobody is arguing that McKenzie is the "complete" footballer, just that he's much better than the two you mentioned. Nobody has said he'll stay on the list or make a career of AFL footy from this point. But don't be stupid enough to ignore his achievements.

My point, which you've still missed, is that Jordie is a much much better performed footballer than Magner and Couch. Beyond that his career is uncertain.

Maybe so. That's not what the discussion is about. I'm not surprised you missed it.

Your point?

The people championing Bail's demotion are showing their football knowledge.

McKenzie kicked a running goal in Round 5 2010 in his eighth game. You said he never kicked one. You were wrong. I can't be bothered going further.You dope. Read the last sentence.

Hmmm. Lucky man!

1. McKenzie in 2011 received two best on ground Brownlow credits, against Freo and Essendon. Can you show me Valenti and Magers BOG Brownlow achievements. 2. McKenzie kicked a running goal in Round 5 2010 in his eighth game. You said he never kicked one. You were wrong. I can't be bothered going further. 3. McKenzie finished 9th in the 2011 Best and Fairest playing just 15 games. On a pro rata basis if he'd played the full 22 games he'd have finished 3rd. 4. McKenzie won the coaches award on three occasions, can you show me Magner and Couch's similar achievements? 5. McKenzie has played a series of lock down roles including Ablett, Griffen and Dangerfield in three of the last four games last year. This forum was full of "I was wrong" posts. 6. In the fateful game against Geelong in 2011 McKenzie had 25 possessions, 8 tackles to be MFC leading possession winner. Nathan Jones was next with 19 possessions. In 2012 came along and Neeld's mantra of "defence" cruelled the team and McKenzie, like Trengove, embraced the change. My post asserted that McKenzie was in a different class to Magner and Couch. I conceded that he would struggle to regain and maintain a place in the seniors from here on. Please analytically present Magner and Couch's career highlights to show they are as good or can even be compared equally to McKenzie. I've taken the emotion out of this Steve so you can "debate" me and Saty on the facts. I'm waiting. I don't want opinions I want facts to back up your assertion. Go to it.

Comparing McKenzie to Magner, Couch and Valenti is like comparing the crack in your granny's dining room wall to the Grand Canyon. McKenzie has won Brownlow votes for BOG on two occasions, he's played fantastic lock down roles that have been crucial to us winning games and he is a leader within the club. Why do you think he won the Coaches award for 3 years in a row? I acknowledge that with the introduction of Vince, Tyson, Cross, Michie, Riley and Salem his place in the team is far from certain and I acknowledge that under Neeld where his focus was purely on defence his game has surely suffered. Roos has sent him to Casey to rediscover his attacking attributes and he is regularly getting high numbers to the stage that two weeks ago he was tagged. The comments on his disposal being poor are overstated and fit in the Tom McDonald "lets wait until he makes a mistake so we can sledge him" catagory. McKenzie may not now be a regular AFL footballer but don't depreciate his past performances because in the past when the rest of the team has thrown in the towel and gone home he's still there putting in. At least recognize his contribution rather than a totally insulting and inappropriate comparison.

My position is recorded earlier so there is no point revisiting it but I'll be happy when those that oversaw and instigated this disaster are punished. If in fact the AFL end up issuing infraction notices to 40 players the law suits will really start flying I would have thought. In the first instance you have players making claims against the club for loss of earnings which may well go beyond the (anticipated) 2 year ban. Secondly will be any claims for damages by the players no longer on AFL lists. Heavens knows but the legal profession will dine out on this for years. At least it's good for someone. Who pays for it all? While the tribal nature of supporters will rejoice in the pain inflicted on the Essendon football club the costs may well have a significant impact on the AFL and the trickle down effect to the MFC and other smaller clubs may be significant. IMO this is not good news. It's shocking for football, it's terrible for the players injected and it's devastating for the thousands of normal Essendon supporters who are as angry about this as us although I know that notion will fall on barren ground here. A sad sad day for footy.

Really? Liam Jones had not the slightest influence on the game. I don't understand the angst with Tom here. It's like people are just waiting for a fumble or miss kick so they can make a (poor) point. He's been terrific this year and allowed Frawley to go forward.

In retrospect I think we lost this at selection. If we were going to tag Griffen we should have brought in McKenzie, used him to tag Griffen and left Grimes in the backline. Grimes was terrific last week in Adelaide in the back half and McKenzie has done good jobs on Griffen before. Easy to be wise after the event.

Unlike many, and while I'm grateful for David Grace's representation, I think his job was pretty easy. I'm not sure that he presented anything new and if I'm to believe what almost everyone here has been saying he had a remarkably strong case which he won. Money for jam I reckon. I'm more grateful to the appeals tribunal who had the good sense to overturn what was a surprising decision by the initial tribunal. It was a risky strategy taken by the MFC if it's correct that Jack could have had his sentence increased but thankfully the system found him not guilty. I'm particularly relieved as I reckon that Jack is really starting to find his feet in AFL football and to consolidate that he needs to play each week. I'm also pleased because it will have been a very good learning curve for him in what he can do and can't do. Jack plays really aggressive footy and he needs to be continuously aware that he treads close to the line. Whilst I don't want him to stop that he will have had an insight into what it's like to be suspended and that can't do him any harm. On Saturday we beat a team on their home patch which contained a midfield of Dangerfield, Sloane and Thompson. Three top notch players by any measure. We are as good or better than the Dogs everywhere except the midfield but with Viney playing we are a very good chance to add another midfield notch to our belt.

I was wrong! Sensational result.

I agree to an extent. Sadly those who ran the initial case saw it differently. If they did with their football background I have little confidence the next group will have a different view. Just for the record, I find it an astoundingly stupid decision.

I understand your dilemma, but if Demonland closes it's ruined for all of us. Hence a sustainable business model is needed in the first instance.

You dunce. Does my subversive seed planting include going over to Adelaide to support the team? My view is that Viney was found guilty because if you follow the letter of the law of the game he was guilty. It's a badly drafted law and Viney is clearly caught by an unintended consequence. Now it seems to me that it's contradictory to find him guilty and then downgrade the penalty based on "moderate" contact. It clearly wasn't but in applying correct formula the tribunal saw that the "prescribed" penalty was excessive in the circumstances. There seems a good chance to me that the same guilty outcome will happen in the appeals tribunal because it's conducted by those with a legal background who will apply the "law". That's why I think he'll fail. If they also apply the proper penalty he may well get a greater sentence. Hence my question. I wouldn't have appealed because of this likelihood. I well remember Jack Trengove's situation. I don't want Viney's sentence extended and there is a significant risk of that. I'd have had no hesitation appealing if the appeals tribunal was run by sensible people able to use common sense but it's run by those with legal backgrounds and I've no confidence in their ability to think at all independently. Equity is not being applied here, the law is. So how about you put away your silly digs and use what limited brain power you possess. You might learn something. Edit: and yes it was a great win. It's the first I've seen in Adelaide since the 90's when David Neitz ripped them another one.

I took out lifetime membership the very first time this situation arose. I'd have no problem with that "lifetime" membership finishing at (say) the end of June next year and then everyone who wants to view the site having to pay a (say) $15 annual membership. Without the details of costs I don't know if this would work but a regular annual income seems so much more sensible than a "once" off membership that provides nothing in future. Also is there some way of limiting access to the site for "guests"? Anyway, food for thought.

Sat if you see Josh Mahoney can you ask him how much consideration they gave to the likelihood of an increased sentence for Jack in deciding to appeal. He won't get off.