binman

In my opinion it is unlikely.

As a kid I loved mark Browning's (of the swans) kicking style

Huh? Of course an opinion can be wrong. For example yours about the impact of injuries on 2019. Facts are facts. Are you aware that there are a growing number of people who have an opinion tbat the earth is flat and others who believe the CIA replaced all birds with robots? And millions of americans have a very strong opinion that God created the earth in 7 days. They truly believe that to be the case. In these example the opinions are wrong. People have every right to have these opinions, as of course you do, but be that as it may they are wrong.

On Corey you're probably right. But I reckon he has got something and could be one of those players who goes up a level in a good team. I'm keeping an open mind on him as I like his intensity. I'd be happy to wrong but I think his his bro has found his level and is likely to struggle to get a game this year.

That's extraordinary really. I have been saying for years that the biggest determinant for success in the AFL is a strong preseason preparing the whole team properly in terms of the required fitness and injury (which includes factors such as who is injured, when they are injured, how long they are out how long to get back to fitness etc etc). This has never been more the case than now. The silly soldier out, soldier in, never blame injury mantra is a weird cultural thing where real men are stoic and teams overcome injury with sheer mental strength. Stupid. The bombers are having a horror run this preseason with many players rehabbing from surgery and injury. Watch them struggle. When they do It is worth noting that their numbers in rehab and missing sessions is not even in the same ball park numbers wise as what we experienced in the 2019 preseason.

For all the reasons bb lists this comment is palpable nonsense, on two levels. One being that it is an incontrovertible fact most players were not physically ready to go round one. Indeed arguably most never reached optimal fitness levels. Two it is supposition on your part that most players were not mentally ready. It may well be true of some players and there have been some comments from mfc people implying that (e.g. lewis), but nonetheless it is supposition. I am assuming you keep repeating this nonsense to create some drama. But perhaps not. Maybe you actually believe it to be true, in spite of all the contrary evidence and the statements from the club. I'm not sure which of these two scenarios is stranger to be honest. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

Agree. And i'd add tmac. He is critical I reckon. I also think melksham is super important.

I've gotta hang up, can't communicate.

The mary jane providing those murmurs?

But probably the biggest factor is which game is more enjoyable to play, rather than wanting to play internationally (which basketballers rarely do in any case). Our very own Luke Jackson was Australia's best player at the under 17 bball world cup and with his height, skill and athleticism would have 100% played college ball and had a real shot at playing NBA. But he said he enjoyed playing footy more and chose to head down that path. By the by Pendles would be the same height as Mills. Or perhaps a touch taller.

If your only metric is money then sure mills might be happier. But it is unlikely pendles only metric is money or else he would have picked bball . He's playing the game he loves. In front of massive crowds. Who love him. He gets to live in Australia, in his home town. And sleep most of the year in his own bed. Occasional trips to Perth but otherwise short plane rides and max one night in a hotel. Plays one game a week. On the money front would be a multi millionaire by the time his career finishes. Would have opportunities to go into media post career (unlike patty, probably). And how much money do you need? Is there a sliding scale of happiness the more millions you have? I reckon both would be equally happy with their choices.

Agree. And it is exactly the sort of interesting, diverse content the club should be producing. Not expensive either.

I still will

Totally agree on that. One hopes he will be back in tbe middle doing what ge does best. One thing we really missed last year was his ability to extract the ball from a contest and get metres gained.

We're at completely cross purposes her LN. Agree he was not in form. And having a bad back would go a long way to explain that. But surely you agree the FD would have had a considered, logical rationale for deciding to play him. Just as they would have when they dropped him the previous year. I hear that you would have not played him but at the risk of flogging a dead horse i simply can't understand how you can suggest the club might erred without knowing all the facts. Bit like the impeachment vote I don't think we will reach a consensus on this one, so happy to move on.

I thought the same thing. But was worried about his consulting fees.

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say. I cant see how you can be definitive that playing him all season didn't work when your metrics are likely different to that of both gus himself and the club. And you don't know what the clubs metrics were. I don't either. So I can't say, for example, it was good player management. And haven't. But as I have said there are a number of logical possible benefits of playing gus, even if down on form and/or injured. For example the mental benefits of playing through adversity OR providing an example to his team mates (who would know what is going on) OR simply getting as many AFL games under his belt as each game provides unique learning opportunities OR learning a new position so he becomes more versatile OR playing at Casey would not help his development OR they thought playing would be the best thing for his aerobic fitness and were worried not playing would impact on his fitness base and likelihood of being in optimal shape day one of preseason etc etc. But again i don't know the club's rationale for their decision to play him. I just know they did. And i presume tbey had a considered rationale. Just as they did when they gave omac some time out to get stronger and dropped weed. And personally I trust the club to make the right call. I'll also bet london to a brick that gus wanted to play. Most players are desperate to play seniors and hate sitting out. You use the fact our season was so horrid and we were out of contention for finals as reason why they might have been better not play him. Well the opposite is possible. They might well have thought we are not making finals and gus is desperate to play seniors, his injury is not going to get worse so hell why not play him. Where's the harm?

On the first point my understanding is op is a chronic injury and that smith playing out that game would not have exacerbated it. But happy to be corrected by someone with medical expertise. If I am correct then no the assumptions of some posters have not been proved correct. But probably a poor analogy as it distracts from my point about the management of Brayshaw.

On bennels kicking one of those yweets from McGowan with the videos had 50 odd seconds of him kicking 49 metre kicks. Beautiful of both sides. Such a smooth, natural action. The coach barely had to move. Watching that clip reminded me of how few trult elite kicks we have had at the club in the last decade.

LN, my point is you and I do not have any real information about what was happening for his. Other than the fact he was out of form and played out of position.And to my eye he looked hampered and unfit. But why I don't know. The club, on the other hand had ALL the information, including what gus wanted. And they decided, with gus no doubt, having all tbe facts at their disposal, the best option was in fact to keep playing. Let's say he was only 70-80% fit and playing with an injury (and again I'm very confident he was). Without knowing all the information that provides the full context for the decision to play him I maintain it is completely unreasonable to suggest the club, if the above scenario occurred (ie gus was carrying an injury) of 'incredibly poor management'. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. But personally I trust goody, the fd and misso to make the right call and certainly do nothing to negatively impact a player. An analogous situation is the decision to bring Smith back on the ground in the preseason game against the lions when he was clearly injured. The optics looked really bad and they stuffed up nor having more players on the bench. But plenty of posters were adamant doing so exacerbated his injury, without knowing the real situation. Turns out he had OP.

And even if not at his best (which was evident) he is going to learn a lot more about playing AFL football by actually playing it. As opposed to being put on ice. Fitness wise playing is probably a better option for him then sitting out. And potentially better for his mental health. And if he was injured (which I have little doubt about) and playing was not going to exacerbate that injury gus at 70 - 80% fitness is a much better option than any alternative we could have mustered up.

Maybe not, but perhaps good for morale

Wanted to like this post but you have exactly 666 likes. And i like the synergy with your posting name.

Webber do you have an opinion on the likelihood of an elite athlete recovering from that procedure (assuming they do the necessary rehab and work of course)?

Snap. I was just going to post exactly the same thing (jokes)