Deetective Sgt. Taggert

I was looking at the photos from China on the AFL website and I noticed several of the players not listed including Rivers, McNamara (pretty sure it was him), MacDonald, Tapscott and Petterd. Jones is there as well so not sure If that means they are not playing and have just gone for the trip, although I'm sure I saw Petterd running.

If Geelong had beaten Hawthorn I seriously doubt they would have beaten St Kilda in 2009, that was St Kilda's falg to lose. I think the pain of losing the previous year is what got them over the line in the end...almost worked the same for St Kilda this year too. Thus 2 flags is probably about right if you ask me.

I think you are spot on here, the AFL has and will do everything it can to ensure on field success for the new franchise clubs (just wait to see the easy draw they will probably be gifted with) because they know that without success it will reflect badly on the AFL and the clubs would struggle to gain traction into traditionally non-AFL territories. However, at the end of the day they still have to do all the hard yards and in such a competitive and professional sport there is only so much that separates the top teams (drawn grand final a perfect example although Geelong of 2007 is an obvious exception but that was at least 5 years in the making) and strategies and game plans (and their execution) count for just as much as quality players.

It took seven years for the baby bombers to win another flag... I agree, it looks a little ominous with the young age of their list. But there's no need to get too concerned yet, other teams have dominated the competition then fallen on their own sword. And the complexion of the competition will change over the next two years with GFC and GWS and new challengers will emerge...Lets hope they are of the Red and Blue variety B)

I miss McDonald already..Gunna be some tough shoes to fill but I'm sure the next selected will step up to the task

Interesting approach. Based on that system the team finishing 18th after round 17 could still make the final 8 if it wins all post round 17 games. Not sure if this is a good thing or not but means there is always a "mathematical chance of making the eight" regardless of where you finish after the end of round 17

But.. if they come out in the first quarter and kick inaccurately and don't get all the luck running their way like they did against the cats (e.g. that ridiculous goal from Leigh Brown, and many free kicks not paid for the cats in the 1st QTR) then they might start to get nervous and the more experience Saint might be in with a chance. But having said that I still think the Pies will win

I thought the cats were a rabble last night, and the Captain Ling's punch on Leigh Brown was a disgrace, even if it was soft hit, very poor leadership

I thought the FD had been comparing him to Corey Enright?

Ablett and Chapmans selection in those position seems at odds with where they played this year...

Haha, gotta love Jurrah, said he hopes to take a better mark next year

I didn't realise he was only 26 so I think he's definately worth a crack

He's a good choice for a date, from memory he doesn't drink so no chance of him doing a fevola

Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing myself this week. I have little interest in the outcomes of these games unless by some suprise sydney or Fremantle get close to winning. Last year wa a biot more interesting with Adelaide giving collingwood a real run for their money but yeah who cares reall what happens its all about the prelims. I guess there are benefits for the teams tha win the elimination finals in that the get some more finals experience that woukld be some preparation for future top four berths.

I think the process of evolution is little more complex than that... besides you'll find that welfare recipients receive a pittance in comparison to middle class welfare recipients and tax systems that favour the wealthy which seems to prop up plenty of useless people with limited life skills...but this is neither the time of place to debate such things. Good luck for 2011 Sam Blease

I think I should have made the thread topic: Current finals system: Does it need changing I see where people are coming from and I definately think the current model is better than the awful McIntyre system - never forgot us flogging eventual premiers Adelaide... Was just meant to be a speculative discussion topic and not necessarily an attack on the current system which for the most part works pretty well I think. I would also think that a final 9 could be okay once there are 18 teams (minor premiers getting a week off) but have no idea how it would function. 5 weeks? and only one team eliminated in teh first road? Sounds cimplicated to me...

If you are not very familiar with drugs law in Victoria and Australia the I would suggest you take a closer look as they are very draconian, grossly unfair and should be changed. For example, if your housemate was selling/trafficking drugs from his bedroom and you had no idea about it you can still be charged and face several years imprisonment for trafficking drugs if the drugs are found at your house and a number of people have been jailed for this. Can you imagine being jailed because your housemate was a dealer but kept his trade well hidden from you?! In order to get escape a conviction you basically have to hope you housemate confessed otherwise you would be up [censored] creek. I know its way off topic but I have very little faith in much of our legal system and don't like it when people base their opinions on 'the law'

Strongly agree with this statement. While we do have an exciting list at present with the potential to go all the way, actually getting there requires a whole lot of discplined and consistant effort over an extended period of time. Not just in sporadic bursts. We've mostly just show the latter to date.

I think there was an article in the Age recently about the lack of reward in the current finals system for teams that win the minor premiership and/or finish second. Following on from St Kilda's upset over Geelong last night I was thinking that Geelong would hate to be facing Hawthorn next week if they beat the Dockers and that they have gained no real advantage by finishing 2nd. I think one possible solution could be to not have a set pathway through the final systems, rather that the highest ranking team will get to choose their finals opponents. This could work in a number of different ways, e.g. the minor premier can choose to play either 3rd or 4th in the qualifying final, while second placed faces the other side. Then in the semi final, the highest ranking loser of the qualifying final (in the case of 2010, Geelong) would then get to choose their opponent for the semi-final after all elimination finals are completed. This could also apply to the preliminary final where the highest ranked team (let's assume Collingwood for this year) would get to choose their opponent. You would imagine Collingwood would not be choosing to play Geelong, which is the most likely situation this year. I guess the only issue would be that teams could end up playing each other twice, so perhaps its rule that would only apply to the semi-final round.

While we are on the topic of Jack Viney. I’m just trying to put myself in his shoes and wonder what would attract him to the option of playing with the MFC. Obvious there would be some allure of playing for the same club as you father, but this might be dampened a little by his father’s more recent involvement with other clubs (I understand Jack actually follows Hawthorn). I would imagine the idea of playing alongside some highly rate young players would be exciting as well as playing for a club that has become highly respected off the filed with new facilities and heading towards a stronger financial position. What do others think? Would he have consider a range of factors or leave it up to his manager?

Does this also fuel the stereotype that Melbourne supporter are too busy skiing in winter to attend the games?

I agree, a totally speculative article and smacks of total desperation on behalf of the Crows if they are trying to formulate such ridiculous strategies to secure a 16 year old. I don't see what could possibly be benficial in this deal for GWS, and if Adelaide is so desperate to secure him (assuming its because he's supposed to be an elite talent and not just so he can possibly play under his father) then why would GWS participate when they would be the first ones in line to draft him if he chose not to come to MFC? Pathetic, and remember it was Adelaide's recruiter that was whinging earlier in the year about all the concessions given to gold coast and GWS when they realised they were caught with their pants down with too many veterans on their list...

I personally think they should hone their trade in the forward line first before experimenting too much in the midfield(i.e. the opposite of what they did with Dunn). But I agree that they both have the potential to have Forays in ther midfield (esp Jurrah) an this could be a great weapon in the future to throw up something different, or to bring them into the game if they are struggling in the forwards but I hope that rarely happens

When you read about players who formerly had some issues with off-field misdemeanors and attitude but who have now taken it open themselves to perform acts of community service i.e. Slyvia taking time to visit children in hospital then you can be pretty confident things have improved. Not too mention that young guys like Scully, who I understand never touches alcohol (I assume for professional/ health reasons) then you indeed will be fostering an environment that encourages self-discipline. I have no doubt that Jim Stynes would also be a factor here, I can't imagined how ashamed I would feel for doing something stupid if I had to face up to the media or have Jimmy be forced to defend my actions.

I think Gooner needs to lay off the Goon. Almost rates as bad as the other thread suggesting we swap pick 12 to Brisbane to get TJ back...