Hannabal

That's all great, but I've proven that it can't.

I'm not rapt in the jumper change either. I love the cause and it's not the colour that concerns me, I'd just rather we never change the jumper. I hate the away strip too. I know the blue has changed a lot over the years, due to the advent of colour television, but now that we're trying to go back to the origins of the famous jumper (at least similar to our halcyon days) I'd like us to keep the jumper sacrosanct. I'm sure that other things can be done without the need to change the jumper. I can't imagine Collingwood agreeing to such a promotion. And whether you like them or not I agree with their manic view of their jumper.

There must have been a late change as Hargrave didn't play. Interestingly, almost half of our side will be different, whilst the named line-up above for the Dogs will only vary by about 3 or 4.

Try 15.

My understanding is that the MFC have been in regular contact for years and that Jack has accepted that his career lies at Melbourne. If the photo hasn't been altered it's just another reinforcement that that will be the case.

As did I and I agree with your synopsis. What many supporters are forgetting, or not realising, is that Rivers was a very promising player in a different era. Whilst it may seem odd to say that a relatively young player played in a different era, the reality is he did. He was at his best when he used his excellent reading of the play and zoned off his direct opponent to either spoil, or take a very good overhead mark. But the game today is nothing like the game of 5 years ago - just ask Brock McLean. Teams now virtually never kick to the same contests that allowed Rivers to shine, he isn't quick enough to match leads, he's not strong enough for the bigger full forwards and he can't play on the plethora of smalls in the competition. He's a victim of a changed and far quicker game. The average number of interchanges 5 years ago were 30 a match, they're now over 100. The game has changed more in the last 3 years than the combined previous 30 years. Unfortunately for Rivers, Garland is a much better option for a host of reasons. The "third tall" is a thing of the past.

In your opinion.

Did you read what I wrote ? One can only be sexist in their treatment of others, ergo my passive tastes, or armchair preferences aren't "sexist". If I was in charge of network 10 and wouldn't promote a deserving football caller based on their gender alone then that could be argued to be sexist, i.e. my treatment would be having an effect on her career. You need to be able to understand the distinction. I'm sure that I could come up with plenty of instances where my tastes preferred female involvement as opposed to men. Sexist too ? Give me a break.

I agree with you and have often argued this line, which is why I want to see some tangible steps forward from Watts in his second year as a 19 year old. History's greatest young key forwards have usually shown really good signs by their second year. Watts may become a good key forward, but he was picked at no.1 to become a 'great'. Let's hope that in the second half of the year we see some of those signs.

Fair enough. I thought you were coming from a different angle. I'm actually sick of hearing the name "Jack Watts".

I don't like women's tennis because the quality is inferior to men's tennis. Therefore I don't watch it because females are playing. According to the munching mule that's ok, because I'm purely making a decision based on their physical prowess. I'm not sure on your take. If my subtle discernment in matters of "taste" means that I'm gently disriminating against females in one small walk of life then I'll consider putting my hand up. But first... One of the definitions given to the word "discrimination" in the Collins English Dictionary is: "the ability to see fine distinctions and differences" - tick. Another variation talks of "unfair treatment of a person, or group based on prejudice". I suppose this gets back to the key word here - "treatment". To think that my decision to mute the replay could be considered unfair "treatment" to a none the wiser subject and be labelled "discriminatory" ? I get it - "virtual treatment". Hmm. Or that such a personal taste regarding female callers could be labelled "sexist" ? Yeah, right. You're very much part of a politically correct world gone mad even though you feign understanding of such extremities.

No, that's not the reason. The coaching staff made it clear that it was to develop some match fitness. Have you been down to Casey this year ? He doesn't work that hard and is rotated off the ground more than most.

I can't talk for anyone else, or in this case the other poster you're referring to, but my position is very simple: I don't like female callers. Whilst I also find Underwood to be a terrible caller and I won't add to the obvious, I wouldn't go as far to say that all female callers would be terrible. Just that I don't warm to them. As I stated earlier, it's called a "preference". I don't need any more "reasons" than that.

Joel MacDonald aint no "star" mate.

Any concerns I have are from him attempting to mark when in the forward line, not so much when he's been picking up cheap possessions on the wing. Like you, I'd like to see him selected and play a game as a leading/presenting tall in the forward line. I understand that he's been gaining fitness further up the ground. I also understand that the MFC don't have complete control over where he plays, but at 196cms+ with a now stronger body, surely he can start playing a bit deeper towards goal.

Have you just eaves dropped on my telephone conversation of 1 hour ago ? There's not one word with which I disagree. Other supporters must look up the stats column after the game and say "gee Brucey had a good game today". I cringe when the ball is in his hands.

It's funny. North's Scott Thompson was probably running around the VFL when Rivers won his Rising Star. Now he shows Rivers up for the better player he is. Another one for the late maturers I guess.

That's all well and good, but that's not to say that there can't be worrying signs early on. There seems to be only two schools of thought on this forum. It's either the 'sky is falling' brigade, or the 'I'll back the club 100%' brigade. I'd be very surprised if the club doesn't share some of the concerns on Watts progress. And I don't think anyone expects him to be an AFL star at this early stage, but at the same time I hardly expect him to be an "ordinary player", as you put it. I'm not suggesting he is, btw. My only concerns at present is his complete lack of any physicality. I'm not concerned by a kick into the man on the mark, or the odd skill error, as I know he has skill in bucketloads, but I am concerned by his complete lack of physical presence on the footy field - at least when I've seen him.

It's difficult to remember discussions from so long ago with complete clarity, however I reckon that when I made the declaration to consider trading him we weren't fully aware of how much time he'd subsequently spend on the sidelines. He's actually got on the park every year before breaking down. I doubt I'd recommend a trade if there was no hope of any suitors, or that we'd receive said "cold pie" in return. So I'm assuming that the thought was he'd have some currency given his NAB Rising star performance and age at the time.

I wanted to trade him 2 years ago when he had some currency. If I could be bothered I'd dredge up a few old posts - and I don't mean the ones from late last year. Unfortunately, you wouldn't get a cold pie for him now. He's too slow and not athletic enough for the way the game is now played. A good ordinary footballer.

I don't like female commentators. Sexist ? I don't know, nor do I care - well, a little bit. There are some things that I prefer men doing and calling footy is one of them. It's such a politically correct world we've become that one can't even dare point out something as innocuous as this without being labelled "sexist". Ever heard of a "preference" ? My Mother doesn't like female aeroplane pilots and doesn't warm to the notion of female funeral directors. I'll let her know that she's either wrong or "sexist".

No,it's not. Bruce's disposal is woeful. I cringe with nervous anticipation every time the ball is in his hands. His intensity levels are virtually non existant. But more importantly, the mistakes he makes as a 200 game footballer is unforvivable. I can forgive mistakes from a sub 60 game player, but I run out of patience with a passenger like Bruce. And you're right about Martin. He's a soft gumby. Joel MacDonald is just a player. Won't be in our next preiership.

Bruce was disgusting today. His disposal and decision making was the pits.

I suppose it's somewhat admirable that you have your expectations in check when it comes to Watts and his career. My view varies from yours. I've seen his talent, I know what our club has invested in him and I do expect him to be a superstar. The club needs him to be a superstar and I believe he has the ability to be. I'll be exceedingly disappointed if he doesn't become the player many of us had hoped. Having said that, I've got no doubt he will be, as he's a very rare talent. And unlike some others, I want him to really earn his AFL call up. I appreciate the benefits of getting games into players, but this time around I want Watts to earn it. He and the club will be far better off if he's not gifted a game.

Filth.