Jaded No More

I wouldn't be surprised if they looked at his history and said "no thank you", and rightly so. If you know anyone who knows anyone who knows what goes on behind closed doors, you would realise that Polak has significant baggage and can be a cancer at any club. Don't care how good he could be, I'm glad we stayed well clear. As for Tarrant, please he is a hot and cold forward who also has significant baggage. Besides, he wanted to get away from Melbourne. There wasn't a single player up for trade last year, who could change our fortunes either in the short, or the long term. Aker may have helped a little, but he wanted nothing to do with us.

Fair enough, but that still won't solve the fitness issue. He is coming back from a broken foot, meaning he wouldn't have been able to run or get much training done while recovering. I don't think that he'd be up to running a full game after 6 weeks off, and as I said they might only play him 60-70% of the game for the first couple of weeks back. But that's just details. I want Brock back and nothing else matters. As long as the recovery is quick and he is able to play out the rest of the year un-injured, we'll all be very happy!

Agree with that 100%. Hopefully Frawley will take care of the key defender situation. The ruck issue is one that really worries me. I was hoping Jamar would come along nicely this year, and develop into a good ruckman. I don't even care about his influence around the ground, but it's the fact that he isn't so much as breaking-even with his opponent that is a real worry. A part of me sort of hopes that we get a long term injury (to a player well outside our best 22!), and that we then promote Neaves. I know he isn't ready for AFL, not even close, but I would love to test him out just once or twice and see whether there is any future with him. Sadly, I see no future in either PJ or Jamar.

In that sense I agree with you. He went in to get the ball, it was wet and slippery and Lenny copped it. Sounds similar to the Moloney incident, doesn't it? (We should clarify that Moloney didn't even make contact!). The problem here is, the AFL has said loud and clear that they are cracking down on head-high contact. The MRP looked at the incident, took the impact into account and handed out a 3 match ban (2 with early plea). Port Adelaide went to the tribunal, who looked at it, and said "yeah look, the AFL are cracking down on head-high contact, but I guess it was wet and you didn't meant to hurt the player. Yeah you can get off". My question here is, how can two bodied in the tribunal and the MRP, who are essentially dealing with the same thing, make such different decisions? The tribunal could have given him 1 instead of 3, given it was wet and he did try to get the ball. But how can they reduce a 3 week sentence to no weeks? There is simply no cohesion between the two bodies, just like there is no cohesion between the games-rule committee and the umpires boss. Everyone does whatever the hell they like and the fans just stand there bemused.

Well quite clearly every disagree with my suggestion to bring him back via the VFL. But are we really going to risk further injury by playing him underdone? If they bring him straight back into the side, he probably won't play more than 60-70% of the game anyways. I'm all for getting him back ASAP, but not if it means he is at a higher risk.

Ah yes, that would make sense since you need to play 10 or less, not 12 which I was thinking for some reason. Serious brain-fade moment there, please disregard Carry-on.

Beamer has every right to be disgusted and furious. What an absolute disgrace his suspension was. As was the 'love slap' that got Miller suspended for 2 weeks last year. The AFL is fast becoming a joke. There are ten different bodies governing the game, and yet none of them work in unity. Pathetic.

It's how many games you played prior to the start of the season. Dunn played only 11 games in 2006 according to the MFC website (well he has played a grand total of 13 games, and 2 of them were this year), which means he is still eligable. So yes, he can be nominated and he can win (but he won't).

Surprise surprise, he got off.

Well considering I went on to nearly burn down half the testing- lab this afternoon, then yes, quite possibly. Seriously though, if we get Neita, Green and Jones back, we have to be some sort of chance. We cannot keep using injuries as an excuse, if we'll only be missing McLean, Whelan, Robbo and Bartram from our best 22 on Sunday.

Your comment literally made me laugh out loud, and now people in my class think I'm crazy! <_<

Don't think they will play him unless he is 100%, and even then, after 6 weeks out, he'll need a run at Sandy. I can see him winning the Liston medal after collecting 98 possessions and kicking 10.

Taken from today's Herald Sun, this injury list seems to have quite a few players in the 'test' category: Matthew Bate (ankle) - test James Frawley (foot) - test Brad Green (hamstring) - test Ben Holland (groin) - test Nathan Jones (ankle) - test David Neitz (knee) - test Daniel Ward (elbow) - test Brock McLean (foot) - 1-2 weeks Paul Wheatley (shoulder) - 1-2 weeks Matthew Whelan (hamstring) - 1-2 weeks Russell Robertson (knee) - 3-4 weeks Clint Bartram (knee) 4-5 weeks Isaac Weetra (wrist) - 6 weeks Good news for Neita, Green, Jones and Bate. They probably will give Bate the week off, but if we can get the other 3 in, we're a chance. Also great news about Frawley. Hopefully he'll be right to debut after a couple of weeks at Sandy. McLean still 2 weeks away!

He'll get off. They'll bring up the Stenglein bump from this week, and that will be it.

Stop interrupting with facts. Gees!

They'll appeal the ban. Nothing surer.

That is some crazy correlation you found there. I don't see how supporters affect the team's ability to kick, run, chase, man-up, handball etc etc... We are also not responsible for the injury curse that has his the club.

Warnock is untried as far as I'm concerned. I'd play him ahead of Ferguson, as we still don't know enough about him at senior level. Don't care if his disposal is poor, if he can shut-down an opponent, he should get a gig. We need to find out whether he's worth keeping on the list next year. We already know where Ferguson stands. Whoever the third tall is this week, they are short-term solutions until hopefully Frawley is up and running. Poor kid's injury timing is woeful!

We do have leaders in the backline. Whelan, when fit, is a bloody good leader and sets a brilliant example for the others. Rivers isn't too bad either. He works so hard, and is such a smart and composed player. I hope he gets a gig in the leadership group next year. I agree that we have some flaws in our leadership and leadership group. However, Neita and McLean will change that when they come back into the side. At least now we have a seriously good contender to take over from Neita when he retires. 2 years ago, we were looking down an empty barrel.

I agree with everything you said (except I think that Miller and Dunn are completely different players and Dunn is not developed enough to play CHF in the short term), but weren't you the one who stood firm and said that Newton should not be played as he is not yet ready? That is a pretty huge backflip you have done over the last 48 hours, and all because we've lost another game and he kicked 6 today?? DD will be mighty happy to hear you say that!

I never said they are in the same class. That is not what I was trying to demonstrate. Don't attack me based on claims I never made. The idea was to show people that he is coming along nicely, and that he is comparing favourably against some of the best medium defenders in the competition in terms of his involvement in the game. Unfortunately, I can't find a statistic for clangers, but I'm sure Belly is nowhere near our worst player in that department. Dee'viator, I am pretty sure Bell started and finished the game on O'Keefe. I thought Brown played on Davis, then Petterd when he moved onto the wing? Btw, Davis only had 15 disposals last night, so I don't know when exactly he toweled us up. He did very little IMO.

Bate has the right skill set to be a really great player. He is tall, athletic, has reasonable pace, is a good mark, a good long kick... he is similar to Goodes in a lot of ways. Yes, he's struggled as of late, playing in a team that is struggling very badly. We cannot and should not expect him to rise above and carry the side, not when he is out there all alone. I think that now that he's injured, some time on the sidelines will help. People are so quick to forget that the kid has played all of 19 games.

Perfect. I completely agree with that selection, and I would actually like the club to be extra careful with Neita. The season is gone, and there is no point risking him and causing further injury. We still want him around next year when we might be a chance again.

Bate's injury doesn't sound too bad. Might do him some good to miss a game anyways. I just want Brock McLean back!

I agree with that. I think Newton would actually benefit from Neita's presence (who doesn't?). It will take a lot of the heat and pressure off him and he'll get to watch first hand one of the better forwards going around. If there is one forward that Newton should model his work ethic on, Neita is it. The only question is, can we fit Neita, Dunn, Miller and Newton up forward?