binman

Retraction accepted. But in future it is your honor. Never mr

With all due respect Hemmingay the term Watts bashing is not hyberbole. It is reality here on DL and has been since the beginning of his career.

I'm another who agrees. For context Watts had 3 tackles against the crows (all good strong tackles by the way). That's more than 8 other players including McDonald, Howe, Kent and Hogan (who had 0 tackles).

Just saw that footage again. He didn't duck his head. He just dropped an easy mark (albeit a wet ball). Yes it cost us a goal at a goal. As did Kent who made a bone headed error in trying to kick the ball off the ground rather than pick it up or dive on it. Cost a goal at a critical time (3rd q). Game over

Tabasco?

Didn't know where to put this as i forgot to post it after our round one win. Figured this as good a place as any. Watts was rightfully praised for his tap down to Gartlett to set up a goal but there was an even better bit of play that also set up another goal for Gartlett, the one he got after getting the ball in the middle of the ground and kicking from outside 50. At the ground i couldn't work out how the ball had got out to Gartlett. I thought Frost might have knocked it out but thought it was just a lucky bobble of the ball. So i looked for it when i watched the replay. I had to watch it a few times to work out it was Watts who flipped the ball out of the pack to a running Gartlett. Brilliant stuff and so deft i don't recall a single comment about it on DL or in the press (or indeed the commentator, Anthony Hudson). Interestingly he took what some might say was the soft option as he could have elected to attack the ball and grab it, but would have been immediately tackled and was heading away from goals. Anyway brilliant bit of work. 1.33 of the following clip: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2015-04-05/rd-1-watch-all-the-goals

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/talking-point-do-we-overreact-when-it-comes-to-afl-players-ducking-20150421-1mplnf.html

This perfectly sums up for me the dichotomy of views on jack and the tendency for confirmation bias from his critics. Luckily handed it off? Please. It was a brilliant bit of play that resulted in a GOAL, one of only a handful on the day. Yet some dees fans would have preffered he out muscle his opponent and cleanly snag the greasy wet ball. And if he had failed to do so would have used it as yet another example of his weaknesses.

Yes fair points. But i'd much rather have Watts than Dawes, even with Dawes greater intensity and pack crashing ability. Dawes had a great pre season. His best for years he reckons. He had his game back to get into the swing of things. Yes the weather didn't suit but he took no pack marks at all and as far as i can recall not one goal assist or score involvement. And i bet Watts had more contested possessions and tackles (i hope im right). He also gets up and down the ground whereas Dawes lumbers and has a turning circle of the QE. I reckon Watts ticks more of your boxes than Dawes, indeed i reckon he ticks them all

I do too. And whilst Deespicables post is well reasoned'i think it is wrong on at least one count - and a crucial one at that. From dees post: 'It has everything to do with the fact that once the errors were made (and every player makes errors) that he didn't get mega-aggressive and try to make amends. He internalised and went back into his shell even more' I disagree. I thought he def came out after quarter time fiercer. He laid a couple of really god tackles and committed to the ball. This is reflected in the stats that Bossdog posted that showed many of his possessions were contested. As is his norm he also was involved in a number of our goals and in a low scoring game this involvement was crucial. Roos said as much (though people tend to disregard his positive comments about Watts - what would he know?) Yes his dropped mark costs us a goal and momentum but i don't reckon he dropped it because he was worried about getting hit. He just dropped it. I'll concede there was another two marking contests where he didn't go when he should have. I reckon it is an instinct thing and related to basketball, where he is looking for the ball to spill. Anyway not great but as i say he he was pretty aggressive in other contests and without looking at the stats is suspect he had more hard ball gets and tackles than a few of his less scrutinised team mates.

Agreed. I would love to have the sound off but find it funny without the crowd and game noise. Wouldn't it be great to have a crowd/game noise on, commentator noise off function

Lets see if the big bad WADA wolf has any thirst for a fight and if does any teeth. By the by love that Dank is threatening to appeal after not cooperating at all in the process thus far, including not bothering to give evidence to the tribunal. I assume he would have to do so (ie go on stand, cooperate etc) in order to appeal. Too funny. Also made me laugh he is threatening to sue the people who told lies about him to the tribunal. Speaking of teeth, if he was a tiger he'd be a pretty toothless one.

Sorry did i miss something above. I'm not sure why the baove info puts the AFL tribunal in any context. If i read it correctly the Royale Ligue vélocipédique Belge will argue Van Avermaet was treated with Diprophos, with the evidence being the email exchange. What was the outcome? Was Van Avermaet found guilty?

Walking down the bleachers looking at the pleaches

Good idea. The second tier comps would be strengthed by having the best kids in them. Afl clubs would also have an incentive to assist these clubs to enhance their development programs. The product would be more attractive to TV stations. Also like the idea of a national under 23 state of origin carnival which would showcase the best 18-19 year olds and give those overlooked in a draft or late developers to show their wares. The best Under 23 year olds (excluding afl players) playing proper matches with something on the line would be great to watch and probably of interest to TV (whereas under 18s probably isn't). It might revive state of origin as well

The good thing about this win is that hopefully it will scotch the rubbish about 25 odd players missing the NAB cup games being disastrous or their fitness, which seems to have become an accepted fact based on getting smashed late against the Swans. It of course suits the narrative the AFL, Channel 7 and EFC are keen to dive, ie the heroic players overcoming adversity, come watch them live and on telly! That Hamish [censored] was saying with 10 mins o go that a comeback was impossible and that a win would be their greatest in two decades. Please. Seems they had sufficient fitness after all, though the AFL, Channel 7 and EFC narrative will probably be thye won it pure mental fortitude and grit alone ANZAC day will make me puke

Great post. Best I've read in a while

What drills are PJ and Bartlett doing?

If trenners come back near his best and petracca also returns in good nick that's two pretty handy recruits to to go with the 18th pick in the next draft

Two articles that reflect many of my thoughts on this issue: http://www.smh.com.au/afl/greens-senator-richard-di-natale-warns-afl-drug-reform-may-endanger-player-health-20150408-1mgweb.html http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/why-sports-war-on-recreational-drugs-is-pointless-20150408-1mgsvq.html

1. Completely irrelevant 2. He was punished for breaking team rules. 3. Protecting players from themselves? Seriously? Does your employer do the same thing? Again protecting the players from themselves, punishment etc is not the purpose of the testing. But perhaps if you think they should protect themselves from themselves then I guess you'd support random breath testing of players and testing for legal prescription pills

Could not agree more PRB. It infuriates me. I love Paul Roos but he is way off base with this. Forget the moral element for a second (and it seems to be impossible for many to do so - the amount of shrill commentary i have heard from mostly 50 year old plus ex players) and focus on the reason for the testing. Under the WADA code players are under no obligation to a have out of comp testing for illicit drugs. No obligation. The AFLPA agreed, in 2005 to improve the capacity to help players who developed an issue. It was never intended to be process to punish players I said at the time they were insane to do so (and even more insane to agree to hair testing) because as some point the self interest of the clubs and AFL would become trump that of the welfare of the players. That time is now. And there is no doubt that time has come because coke is being cut with PEDs and suddenly clubs are in danger of losing valuable assets for 2 or more years. The players should simply say stuff it we don't want to be tested out of comp for illicit drugs because we are compliant with the WADA code and it doesn't require it. Then set up their own treatment programs (eg an AFLPA EAP). Roos is right about one thing. It is a legal issue. Leave it to the cops to bust drug users not football clubs.

Stupid comment

Just about your best post H_H, mainly because i 100% agree

Don't agree. Technically poor. Decision making ok