binman

Are you kidding? Do you think we should drop one? Who would come in? Do you think they will? Of course not. so why would anyone suggest it?

As per that article, back in May we had lost 89 games of best 22 players. GWS were in second, but way back on 65. That is a huge difference. Since that time they have had best 22 players come back. Of our outs only May (but only 2 games ago) and Hannan (whi has struggled, as replayers returning from long lay offs usually do) have come back and we have added Hibberd, Garlett and Lewis to that list. Make no mistake this been a disaster injury and pre season preparation wise. The worst run in my time following the club. I don't care how much depth you have you don't cover the sort of losses we've had - and you're right we don't have great depth.

Ok let's leave Smith out of the discussion. I forgot about jetts. An absolute key player for us as evidenced by the fact that small and medium forwards have destroyed us this year. When he did play was clearly injured and has been out now for what 7-8 weeks. So if you do count Smith in our best 22 we had 6 of our best 22 out against the lions, nearly a third (and 3 of them are easliy in our top 10). The lions had ALL of their best players, indeed they had almost a complete list of 44 players to choose from. So no surprise we lost.

Jury is definitely still out about Twiggy Lever.

Lever is not a star ? Jeez i hope you are wrong as we certainly paid a far bit for him and recruited him because he was star. If you believe some posters on DL (one in particular) you'd have thought we'd recruited a lock for multiple AAs and future all time great defender.

No, not in terms of where they are at as players but as i say Smith is an important out. Not as big an out as Andrews would be but we cannot mark the ball or bring it ground in our forward line and Smith was 100% locked in out best 22 and looked terrific in the preseason before his injury. And who knows might have a had a break out season and been a total gun. But how about comparing Lever to Andrews? That works does it not?

You're right that 5 beat the 5 we have out. At the moment I should have picked 5 different players. My point is we have 5 of our best 22 out. And if you took 5 of their best 5 out they would struggle.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-afl-injury-ladder-just-how-healthy-is-your-team-20190527-p51rpl.html&ved=2ahUKEwibo8brmZPjAhW07nMBHR6aBvkQFjAAegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw1BvKB5uRSVF6K2X9hmBCD5&ampcf=1

Sure. Melksham is in our best 5 as is lever (well should be). So they are the way a l of zorko and neale (who are top 5 for lions). The melk is massively important given our struggles kicking inside 50. Jeffy not near Cameron but important given we have no other small forwards Vanders easily the equal of Robinson for importance. And given our forward woes Smith a big out. So not far of the relative game of Andrews.

No it was total games lost to the nominal best 22. We have also had a shocking run with players who are not in our best 22. We had 15 players have post season surgery. I5. Must have been like an episode of MASH.

One thing we can't lose is players who can be relied on to hit a target by foot. We literally only have 4-5 In our best 25 players who can so it would be insane to voluntarily get rid of one of them.

I knew someone would reference the tigers, pies and saints. Yes they have had injuries but nothing even close to what we have experienced, as evidenced by that table that was commented on at length a few weeks ago with games of best 22 lost. And since then we lost Hibbard and jeffy for stretches. In addition the tigers and pies had a good pre seasons. The saints not as good but again nothing even close to the horror show that was our preseason. And it is a cold hard fact acknowledged by no one at club land at the start of the season but everyone after it that clubs who have too many players not completing a high percentage of pre season sessions struggle all season to get their list fully fit. Agree we were smashed in the contest yesterday but the fact remains they have their whole list, barring 2 players, fit and firing and we still have 5 of our best 22 out and any number of players playing not at full fitness. Facts are facts. Take zorko, neale, Andrews, Robinson and Cameron out of that side and and add 4 or 5 players coming back from lay offs and we probably win that game.

A dud tree?

Agree. He has been good in that role the last couple of weeks. A tad slow but has been reliable hitting targets which is just so critical, particularly when other defenders so regularly turn it over. He s also good in in congestion and traffic as is often the case down back and the HB role also plays to his ability to win contested ball (whereas the wing position doesn't and also exposes his lack of pace more). I know Hibberd is coming back from injury but i have to say i'm a bit worried about where he is at. If he does drop away Jones can take his spot, if and when Jetts come back in.

Yes. Sort of. In so far as has he has pointed out himself his poor form is confidence related which i suspect is directly related to having had an interrupted pre season and carrying an injury. And interrupted preseasons and injuries is not an excuse for poor form. It is a reason. The same reason the Tigers are struggling this year.

Yesterday was the perfect illustration of the impact of injury and big numbers of players having had interrupted preseasons. The lions are a good team that deserves to be in the mix for a top 4 ladder finish at year's end. But a big factor is that they have had a dream run with preparation and injury. They had a great preseason with few players not completing all sessions (which is a huge predictor of player form and team success as per misso's strategically leaked presentation to the board about our preseason woes). And they have had almost no injuries this season, with only 2 players currently on their injury list. Take say 8 of their best 22 out for most of the season and they are not making finals. We have had precisely the opposite experience in terms of preparation and injury. So no surprise we lost. And our situation makes any meaningful assessment of either goody's performance or our game plan difficult. Personally I'm not concerned about either. But what I am concerned about is how many players we have on our list who are terrible kicks. It is a huge issue for us and one that has no clear fix. It was on full display yesterday. I could pick any number of players but three that come to mind are three of our best players - Viney, Oliver and Brayshaw. All wasted chances going forward and all helicopter the ball making it dead easy for defenders. A huge problem given they are our starting mid field.

I'm not being facetious but he needs to find a way to get himself involved

Joeboy: bit too verbose

Go dees. See you all after the game. I am pretty confident.

And on the 7th day God created the ignore function #dontquoteMB

I think you would have to keep the touched rule as there were be knock on issues (pardon the pun) and grey areas with removing it. For example might a player be allowed to punch or deflect a ball for a goal and if not how do you to distinguish between a touch and deliberate hit. But I'd just leave it up to the goal and field umpires to decide, they way it happened for 150 years and still does in every comp but the AFL. The rule then defaults to just the obvious touched, just as is tbe case in marking contests. On marking contests no-one talks about them but players are awarded marks all the time where other players have got a touch on it in the contest. That has a far bigger potential bearing on a match than the occasional touched goal. But it wouldn't be feasible to review every marking contest. Thankfully. And everyone accepts it.

I have simple fix for the issue of having to use use technology (replays and stupid things like sensors - i mean what will happen when a player cannons into the post at exactly the same time as the ball passes it?) to determine if the the ball touches the post It is free, and would NEVER result in an error. Not one. It would make no material difference to the game, does not waste any time and it eliminates unnecessary controversy. And it can be implemented at all levels of the game - from the under 8s to the AFL. And it is dead simple. Change the rule so that it is a goal if it goes through the space between the goal posts EVEN IF IT HITS THE POST. If it hits the post and stays in the field of play it is a point.

I have to say I had similar thoughts. My son play rep basketball tonIf it. If he he plays crap I might him do a beep test when we get home at 11. Unlike Andrew though I won't join in

Indeed. What the article does show is, as i previously noted, this issue has nothing to do with ethnicity or the fact some (i stress some) of the security guards might be international students and everything to do with a lack of training and a poorly regulated industry full of cowboys and rogue operators. Who cares where a security guard is from or whether they are a student (international or otherwise) or not? The only relevant issue is whether they have the required capabilities, training and support to do the job. And i would suggest most don't. Making this about race just suits the dog whistling agenda of people who can't see past their own xenophobia and rank nationalism. The same people, who without a hint of irony, feel they are the voice of the silent majority pushing back against some mythological leftist , liberal, PC conspiracy. (On that last point if there is indeed a conspiracy that cabal are doing an appalling job of it given the worlds democracies are lurching to the right, nationalism is on the rise, persecution and demonizing of the press is rampant and the most powerful media company in the world - and in Australia - by a country mile openly pushes a hard right agenda.Perhaps they are playing a very, very, very long game. )

Speak8ng through my kick but jeez the bombers got some dubious frees and the giants got nada. Why wasn't that a mark to Tomlinson?