binman

well good they have admitted they were wrong but cad you quite rightly say big game changers. The bail goal came at a crucial time in terms of the bulldogs getting momentum, obviously cost us that goal but also another when dunn elected not to run it over in the last. The Murphy one followed on the heels of the bullies getting a holding the ball call in the middle of the ground and if paid Barry would have had a shot from 50. The dunn one was probably less important as I think we got the ball but there was only 90 seconds left and it would have allowed us to set up properly. In a six point game appealing. To be balanced however it must be said the free that gifted jamar a goal was very sticky touch wood and should not have been paid

yep he was calling me sweetheart which I found very amusing. Watch the footy sweetheart was one of his phrases along with a few other creative ways to use it. Also said something about who my puppet was. Couldn't work that one out. As my mate said (my puppet?) isn't waiting for the evidence the right time to make a call? I made the error of engaging with a moron. No winners there

here

fair enough

Rf I obviously have not made myself clear. I have never said we didn't make a mistake taking the toump. I have said we will not know for years. Is he a better player than wines ATM? No? Will he be in future? Maybe. Simply put history tells us that is folly to make definitive statements so early in player's careers and is a sure way to look silly.

RF, this is what i don't get. When you say the sooner 'we' accept we made a blunder drafting the toump the sooner 'we' can move on who is 'we'? DL posters, the MFC, Roos? What do you mean 'move on'? The irony of course is you and some others clearly believe we made a blunder yet it is the same posters who seemingly find it impossible to 'move on'. How about you accept nothing can change history so 'moving on' is the only logical conclusion. What's done is done. Or do you feel the need for a chorus of DL folk to agree with you that we made an error? Which by the by will to be possible to answer for some years. Case in point you could swap the names Watts and Natanui a few years back on DL and exactly the same discussion was being had. Except there were even more people saying we made an obvious blunder (and some who were so strident in their views they simply could not countenance alternative views). I guess there are still quite a few on DL who still think we made a blunder but i'd be guessing the numbers would look pretty different today.

Spot on hardtack. The bullies are at least a year ahead of us in terms of development, a point made a number of times by Roos this year. They have a much better mid field and are a terrific clearance team. The're so strong in the middle that they could afford to let Cross go - one of our best mids this year. The dogs are a better side as was evidenced by the fact that despite the same number of wins the bookies had them as clear favorites. Lets not forget the week we beat Essendon (a bottom 8 feeder at best) they beat the Maggies who are every chance of making top 4. Do we have a top 4 scalp? No. So despite a very poor first half a 6 point loss to a better side is no cause for cliff jumping.

AS Roos has said we need more quality mids - particularly big, strong ones. Its crazy really, if you look at the top sides they have up to 10 players who play through the mid field and most of them are strong clearance winners. We have the 3 you have mentioned and Cross. We need 6 more. Some we already have (Trenners, the toump, Salem, Riley, Michie) but still we probably need at least 3 big bodied mids at he next draft period and ideally, if we can engineer it through trades, a plug and play one in the Tyson mould

That's funny, that's what the bloke near me yelled after saying the rule had been in place for years. He also said it happens all the time when i doubt there's been more than 4-5 paid in the last 3 years. Funnily prior tot the call he was yelling for holding the ball which seems to suggest that in his view Bail was under some sort of pressure

Spot on Nasher. Some pretty sertious over reaction in this thread - but each to their own. My take? Negatives: Apart from a bright first 5-6 minutes (which we failed to convert into goals) we were woeful in the first half, on a par with how poor we were against the bombers. Poor decision making, rubbish kicks and poor set ups and stoppages I was surprised to red during the week that we were 18th in clearances. Not for long though. They smashed us at stoppages in the first half which is a real worry. It was obvious watching it and i saw the stats and half time and they reflected how badly we got beaten in this area (can't remember the numbers but is was a huge differential) I thought Roos was out coached in the first half and the the doggies had it on their terms The forward line took a while to adjust to no Frawley If Dawes was a keeper he would be called iron gloves The bail decision was the worst decision i have seen this year. No small feat given the standard of umpiring this year. Made more annoying by the fat that when i bellowed my disgust two even louder bulldogs fan yelled i didn't know what i was talking about and that had been a rule for years. Morons. The same two btw who screamed at the throwing decision (a t the far end of the ground) in front of our goals. A decision that was subsequently proven correct by a crystal clear replay on the score board - and when i pointed that out the response was along the lines of 'nothing like waiting for the evidence to make a call'. Moron The bail decision got into the head of Dunn who cost us a goal for not rushing it through When we got the lead we should have moved heaven and earth to ensure they couldn't clear the ball from the next bounce. They cleared it and that goal was the real winner Positives: I'll give more positives later but one that stuck out for me was that we were 37 points down in stoppage time of the 2nd quarter. 37. And we headed them and should have won. In the last 5-10 years year that would have translated to a 10 goal loss. Like the game against Essendon we showed terrific resilience to force our way back. The loss is gutting but that is progress. The losses will sit in the bank and can be drawn on in the future as can the fact that we can fight and get back on terms. We lost that game in the second quarter not the last.

who is trying to justify picking toumpas? Is that the point of rabbiting on about toumpas in a post match discussion thread? OK I get in now. How about those who are annoyed we chose the toump start a thread, call it echo chamber and complain to each other

I could have picked any number of ridiculous posts to make my point that there is serious amount of rubbish in this thread and for that matter dl . So many stupid, illogical definitive statements that it makes my head spin. Cannot stay composed and pinch a win? Except for a game 2 weeks back where we did precisely that. And for gods sake what has toumpas got to do with anything. Those who seemingly acannot accept the fact that the toump is a demon rather than wines etc what point are you trying to make? Or have I missed something and you can go back in time? Is the critism for the toump, the recruiters or the club? What relevance does it have in a post math thread? I'm with nasher on this - such rubbish makes DL hard work

Good review kc. The dees can't afford a stand alone team so the only realistic option is to as you say invest in Casey and make it work. Kc would it work for the dees to take more control and the scorps becoming the Casey demons? It seems to box hill hawks are more integrated with hawthorn. Is that right?

Well mine were JL solo

I agree. A working class mid is something to be

Look, all I am saying is give trenners a chance

if Barry or nicho come in they will get him. Grimes needs to stay at HB and bail needs to be able run up and down the ground and link up

To be honest BB, i'm not sure you've got a handle on all of this. This is not a court of law and the process is relatively clear. ASADA do not need to provide the players with any evidence and in fact it is not even ASADA who will/might hand out penalties. At this point the players have the opportunity to "show cause" why their names should not be placed on the Register of Findings after which infraction notices can be issued. If the players have compelling proof of not having used prohibited drugs ie they can show cause then there is where it ends. If they don't and Infraction Notices are issued then the AFL's drug tribunal takes over and that is where they have the chance of pleading their case. This is where they would require ASDA's evidence in order to effectively mount their case. If the players can't show cause, they can't show cause it has nothing to do with ASADA's evidence. If they can't show cause then it appears ASADA are offering them a chance to have ASADA recommend reduced sentences based on their cooperation to i am assuming nail Hird, Dank (who interestingly has received a show cause notice some time ago but nothing has subsequently happened) and perhaps others. Similar scenario to how they nailed Armstrong. Why would they show their hand at this stage? ASADA are trying to penalize a club and players they believed cheated. Sad but too bad for the players (who i really feel for). And in nay case the process is one all clubs have signed up to by signing up to the WADA code.

Yes. But it appears, embarrassingly ASADA gave them the wrong advice. Which just tells me their only concern at Essendon was if it was on some list of prohibited drugs not how safe it was to give to their players. Shameful.

I can't see the point in debating the Frawley situation. Stay or go? Keep or let go? Are we better of keeping him or getting another top 10 pick? It's all a moot point as it is (almost) completely up to Chipper. I say almost as if we assume he has not already signed with another club the terms of our offer (length of contract, $s) will influence his choice. Whilst i think the dees will offer a decent contract (3-4, perhaps even 5 years at $650K?) we won't go crazy and other clubs closer to a premierships might go harder. So it is Chippers call. It's actually a good position for the dees for once. If he chooses to say it will be a great fillup for the club, fans and players as he is experienced and a well liked player. If he leaves we are almost certain to snag another first round draft pick, which you could argue would be overs for Chip. Nice dillema

I agree with this. I would argue that the rule should be similar to that for drink driving in Victoria, whereby if you refuse a breath test you are penalized for the refusal and as i understand it for all intents and purposes considered to have failed a breath test. Leaving aside the smoke screen of the legal challenge to the legality of the investigation ASADA believes it has evidence that on the balance of probabilities Essendon players were administered a prohibited drug. If Essendon are unable to prove they weren't because they failed to keep proper records (or put their faith in Dank who was an employee) then bad luck in my book. And i agree a failure to keep such records (if indeed they did they fail to keep such records) borders on criminal. While i'm discussing this subject, it frustrates me no end that some people (eg Yobbo) imply that that the decision not to charge the players for use of AOD 964 is some sort of vindication for the Essendon. Prohibited or not the club still administered a drug that has not been tested for human use (and was sufficiently borderline to seek clarification from ASADA) and did so gain an edge on its competitors.

Good points. Howe did make a couple of big errors and the one where he was one of 3 dees players flying for the ball leaving their opponents free (and goal side) was terrible and came at a bad time as the resulting goal helped the roos steal the momentum

He could work up forward, for sure - though that won't help him gel down back i guess. He is agile enough to play on one of those play making half backs (eg Harry O) so perhaps as defensive forward? Perhaps they could have tried that last week rather than swapping Dunn and Frawley (ie swap Garland and Frawley instead). Roos likes big mids - he could try him in the centre.

Nor do i, but there is no doubt he is out of form and if his form does not improve at some point i think he will be dropped. Of course he had an interrupted pre season but its not as if he was rushed back in. He played 3 games at Casey didn't he? And he's played, what 4 games in the seniors. Fitness isn't the issue - or at least not the main issue. Perhaps as someone suggested, having missed the early games he has struggled to adapt to the Roos plan or to gel with the back half players. Perhaps also Dunn is playing the role he was playing last year (intercept marks, run it out etc). Maybe he is down on confidence - it looks that way. Whatever the case he is a long way off his best form and of most concern he is turning the ball over and making bad decisions. It's a concern because good foot skills and decision making are two of his strengths and our current back line already has T Mac, Terlich and to a lesser extent Grimes who can sometimes butcher the ball so we need him to display those strengths. I'm not suggesting dropping him and i'm sure he'll come good but if he does not it will be interesting to see how many games he gets before going back, particularly given we have Terlich and Gergiou who could come in for him (and perhaps even the Toump or Blease, both of whom have played off the half back flank at Casey)

Got my free tix a few days ago. A good deal. Saves me $50.nice