binman

Yep. Never a truer word spoken.

Well he better get used to it as he will be tagged next year at the dees. And given that likelihood we should temper our expectations. But so there is no confusion i am not potting Lever. A terrific young player and i'm rapt he will be at the dees.

Of course he will. And he's coming. But as i have pointed out many times about our defence - it will always struggle if we don't match the opposition's pressure just as the crow's much vaunted defence struggled today

And from afl.com (Ben Guthrie) those same players: Luke Brown – 3 Dubbed 'The Glove' by teammates, the small defender was under the pump throughout the afternoon. Out-bodied by Dustin Martin late in the second term in a one-on-one contest that he had no chance of winning. Will learn plenty from it. Kyle Hartigan – 3 Often played as Adelaide's deepest defender and spent some time on Dustin Martin when he went forward. Did not necessarily have a suitable matchup among Richmond's small forward line and often found himself tracking one of Dan Butler or Jason Castagna. Not his go. Jake Kelly – 4 Came off in the second term and appeared to be limited by a hamstring complaint. Got back out onto the ground but was part of a back line that struggled to contain the Tigers' forwards. Was at least strong in the air on a few occasions. Jake Lever – 4 The out-of-contract star took a couple of customary intercept marks in the first half and had Jacob Townsend for company for most of the afternoon. Lever had 15 disposals but, with the ball often on the deck in Richmond's forward line, he could not chop off kicks as effectively as he usually does. Could be his final game for the Crows, with speculation mounting he will join Melbourne in the upcoming trade period. Daniel Talia – 3 The miserly full back has made a reputation for not allowing his opponent to get off the chain. But this was not one of his better days. Opponent Jack Riewoldt was too athletic for Talia and there were a number of times where he trailed the Tigers spearhead into the contest. Rory Laird – 7 The All Australian defender was superb for the Crows across half-back in the first half, gathering 19 disposals. Was allowed the freedom to roam and he flourished. However, Laird couldn't exert the same influence in the second half as the Tigers ran away with victory.

For what its worth here is the crows defender's rating and comments from news.com (yes i know). Ratings out of ten in brackets 6. Jake Lever (4) — Unsuited to playing against the dynamic, small Tigers forward line. Exposed for pace at times and didn’t kick the ball particularly well. 8. Jake Kelly (4) — Appeared to be hampered by a hamstring issue and never made a mark on the game. 12. Daniel Talia (5) — Can’t really fault the key defender — unless you want to compare him to his opposite number in Rance? 15. Kyle Hartigan (3) — Filled his personal blooper reel at a furious rate early in the game before recovering slightly. 16. Luke Brown (5) — Did his job like he always does apart from one marking contest where he was left one-out on Martin. 29. Rory Laird (6) — In Adelaide’s best, but that wasn’t saying a lot in this game.

Their best defender today, by a country mile, was Laird.

And further to this point we don't know the amount of money we have offered him so using rumours of offers of 900k as proof of his ability - or that of the the existing dees defenders for that matter - is just plain silly. In any case rumors of 900k are likely to be codswobble. Jay Clark's stab of 750k x 5 sounds much more likely

Give it up steve. You have lost this argument. Quite sad really. How about you take my bet? It is a good one for you i would have thought. As 55 says he will do very well to make the top 10 in the bluey as there are at least 10 other players in the team who will poll well. By the by it must have burnt you bacon to see Tmac's younger brother get a brownlow vote. Difficult thing to achieve for a back man, especially one with no strengths and not up to AFL standard. Perhaps they liked his haircut?

But you didn't steve. Which is no hanging offence but you are so routinely condescending and rude (eg 'He made the squad you peanut') and think so highly of your football acumen and so lowly of others that such errors are likely to be commented on. I don't understand why you think this 'place would have exploded' if Tmac's younger brother had made the AA squad. No one has ever said he is a star, least of all me.

No i wasn't. I was using that as an example that man on man, one on one play is not his strength (ie not his go - an assessment i arrived at from watching him over his short career and one that few would argue with), which was a follow up from DeeSpencer making that same point a few posts earlier (a point that i agreed with in a post quoting that comment). I thought the fact that i used the word highlighting (as opposed to saying for instance that the danger example proved man on man is not his strength), which ironically you highlighted, would make it clear i was using the danger fail as an example. But there you go. By the way i didn't say he was hopeless man on man, just that it wasn't his strength.

Yep. A more revealing example was how Dangerfield out marked him at the start of the Crows cats game. No shame in getting out marked by danger but it was a pure one one contest rather than the more common zoning off Lever employs. Leverr tried to spoil without taking the body (like say Dunn or talia would have) and missed it, gifting Danger an easy mark (which he even had time to juggle). Don't get me wrong i'm not having a shot at him merely highlighting that man on man is not his go.

Agree with all your points. I suspect he will always play the zone off, intercept marking role rance has perfected. I reckon in time TMacs younger brother will be bigger than than Lever and maybe the go to one on one player when required (goody favours a heavy zone but flexibility is important). Technically lever is not the best kick in the world but he is pretty effective. As you say he moves the ball quickly and he also makes really good decisions (the two are linked obviously). As for the money i really can't see him getting 900k from the dees. Terrific player but a big part of his success at the crows, particularly this season, is, their incredible all field pressure which result in so many bombed, sloppy kicks (easy picking for a player of his ability) and how effective the rest of the backline is, particularly Talia. Both the Crows and the tigers have very similar approaches and it is no surprise both are in the granny. It is an approach we are clearly aiming to emulate and my concern for Lever is that if we don't apply the same level of pressure he won't be able to have the same impact as he does at the crows. So the worry is not that Lever does not have the ability but that us getting value from him depends factors outside his control.

Yes he is. As if Steve would get that wrong. It clearly says AA player on the poster he has of Lever over his bed. Maybe he is an emergency. Or maybe steve has confused lever with laird - who is an AA. Easy mistake to make. Same jumper after all. A tip for all recruiters - if keen on player jot down his number. its on the back of his jumper. But seriously, of course steve means he will be an AA at some stage. For sure. Then we will have 4 AA defenders. Not too shabby.

The blues are cappuccino's (sic)?

^Oath

A little birdy told me Barry Prendergast is a regular poster on DL. Thinks Lever is perhaps the greatest footballer ever, thinks Tmac's younger brother isn't up to AFL standard and more than happy for Weids to ply his trade in the maggos until 2019. Yet to pick a smokey though. Oh and doesn't mind the odd condescending post or two hundred.

Nah wasn't being smart. I assumed from your comment that Kelly was a cricketer also. I was of course talking about keath who was a star cricketer. Looked ok when he played for the crows and i agree that they will miss Lever but have the cattle to cover him.

And they have that other cricketer

Not a great comparion i don't think in terms of the point DV8 is making. You'd take Rance in a heartbeat but JW isn't really the classic key forward. Don't get me wrong a terrific player but he is relatively small and so less remarkable from that perspective. A better comparison might be Rance v Kennedy. That would be more of a conundrum. But to be honest i'd still go with Rance. He is one of the best defenders i've ever seen, no doubt. And his ability is proven over many seasons Rance v Buddy? That gets more tricky and i'd take Buddy. What about Lever v Patton? Or for that matter Lever v Hogan? For what its worth i'd take Patton and Hogan, no question.

A professional courtesy to agree to a trade that you are not keen on? You're kidding aren't you. He doesn't owe us anything. He is professional footballer. Would you leave your job and go to another workplace, one you didn't like and for no more pay as 'professional courtesy'? Players rarely say no trades? Give some examples where a contracted player who is not keen to leave the club agrees to a trade? It is an entirely different scenario for out of contract players. They are much more likely to go to clubs they are not keen on going to To be honest i can't recall if Trengrove was still under contract when we were going to trade him to Richmond. If he was then it is a good example actually. But not of the point you are making. Contracted players leave for more opportunity and clubs trade such players to get a good outcome for them. If contracted he could have said no to a trade but in his case there were good reason to go. The tigers are a strong side who were playing finals and we were the opposite. He was struggling to get senior time at the dees, the writing was on the wall in terms of how the club saw his future (and no doubt this was made clear to) and they needed inside mids and wanted him. We were going to get pick 10 for that deal (and use it for Lever). A win win win. Watts on the other hand is very unlikely to play much VFL footy at the dees. The only reason he would is because of insufficient application. If he was traded and showed insufficient application at his new club he would also be playing in the magoos. So where's the advantage for him in moving clubs if it is not for more opportunity at senior level?

No worries. He might want to leave that is true. But there is no evidence is he is unhappy at the club. And i maintain that he will have zero interest in going to a club in the bottom half of the ladder. Why would he? He's had more than his fair share of being in crap teams

Who is assuming that?

No. No. No A million times no. Why on earth would watts agree to a trade to the blues? The crows maybe (and he would slot in beaitifully in that side). But not the blued. AND WATTS NEEDS TO AGREE TO ANY TRADE AS HE IS A CONTRACTED PLAYER!!!!

A bit like the lions king's circle of life

Oh i thought it referred to the year judd won the norm smith medal....