Jaded No More

Ha. That is just brilliant. I've had the pleasure of sitting in the middle of the Port Adelaide cheer-squad at AAMI Stadium a few years ago (not by choice may I add). I'm still traumatized by the experience!

Despite the disgraceful amount of uni work I haven't done yet, I too will be there (such a brilliant excuse to procrastinate). At least we get to see Petterd in the flesh, if nothing else.

You sum up our situation perfectly Ash. Getting into the finals but making no impact yet again, does nothing for us. We're forever stuck with middle of the road picks, and no premierships. That is a sure way of never getting anywhere. If we have a complete implosion this year, finish bottom 4, do some serious trading and drafting around the core players we believe can win us a flag (and there are a fair few), then we'll be a big chance next year. Whatever happens, a premiership is out of the question in 2007. I'm sure the club has accepted that, and it will be interesting to see what they do from here on in.

Really? When was the last time that a team who finished 7th or 8th won a premiership? The old argument of "you have to be in it to win it" is a load of crap. Positions 5-8 play finals purely to make up numbers and extend the length of finals action. You could win a flag from say 5th IF the top 4 sides were Victorian and you got to play at home both weeks, but even then, not having the double chance or the week off, makes your chances slim. You can't win a flag from outside the top 4, especially not when the top 4 is occupied mostly by interstate teams. It's very simple really.

Go read Choko's thread about the club function tonight... Ferguson is too slow and too weak. At least Godfrey isn't weak

Well, if nothing else, at least the coach is realistic about some of his players. Not that it takes a genius to realise Ferguson's flaws. I love his courage, but his negatives far outweigh his courage. I'm hoping that Juice hasn't missed the boat with the return of Neita this week. Would be keen to see them drop the extra ruckman (probably Jamar going by what you said), and bring in Newton. The output won't decrease much, that's for sure. <_<

Thanks for the info. Any word on whether Newton might be a chance this week?

So we can keep holding onto our coach, until something better comes along, or we can bite the bullet (hardly though, as it has been 10 years), and give someone else a go. Remember, all great coaches were once just assistants. There a couple of really good candidates in my mind, and a few slightly inexperienced ex-players who I would love to get as assistants at the club. I hope that when Daniher does leave, that he takes his assistants with him. We need a completely new coaching department, hand-picked by our new coach. There is a risk in letting go someone who you know and trust and who has been around for 10 years with a certain level of success. It is better the devil you know, but then again, how long is the club prepared to sit on the fence and say "one more year" or "maybe next year". Replacing Daniher comes down to one question; does the club believe he can win us a premiership? If the answer is no, then what are we waiting for?

Finishing 7th or 8th, and making zero impact on the finals once more (you can't win a flag from 7th), will do nothing for our future. I will never support the club tanking, but finishing 14th or 13th and getting a good draft pick, might be more useful to the club in the long term. I'd love to make the finals, and win a couple, but that is my selfish desire to see us play in September but I don't think it will necessarily do much for the club.

It is a very sensible article, but it won't help Daniher's career. The board will look at his coaching over the past 10 years. They will most likely disregard the first 8 or so weeks of 2007 (as they should), and they will still be left with a 10 year coach who hasn't won a premiership. IMHO, he is gone regardless of how well or poorly we play in the second half of the year.

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!