Macca

Well his new team then went and won 3 flags but you have to wonder about the levels of real passion. Something false about all that as those who switch teams as an adult could best be described as untrustworthy types! Fast forward to now and obviously we want to win more than one flag with the current list but for me anyway, there is still a strong sense of absolute relief that we at least broke the long, 57 year drought 3 flags over a 10 year stretch would satisfy (I fully expect the club to keep reloading with talent long past the 5 year window) Other teams such as the Cats, Swans, Eagles & Hawks have reloaded so why not us? To do that we have to keep recruiting aggressively with a real, workable plan 2020 might have been the first year of our window even though we didn't (but should have) played finals. The list had been put together and it was just a matter of clicking into gear Reckon we'll win tonight to make it 1 from 5 with 4 more to knock over to win big

Stewart Dew - Hughes Menswear Salesman Alistair Clarkson - Anger Management Consultant Jeff Kennett - Hair Replacement Spruiker Eddie McGuire - Storeman & Packer Gil McLachlan - Pan-man

As to whether any KPF wants to come to our club, it's not so much whether they see the club as a destination but more so if they're available and at what price? For the player himself and the club that currently has possession of that player As an example, would we entertain the thought of trading Ben Brown or T-Mac? (or both) I doubt it, even though both players are injury prone and are entering their 30's We're looking for add-ons, better versions or replacements you'd reckon. The draft means a fair wait ... sometimes at least 3 years. Or we trade and almost certainly pay overs That's the market and it's why Hogan just got recontracted (good on him) These players are in demand We've got our fingers crossed with JVR but we need at least 1 more KPF to fill the ranks. Same goes for ruckmen but we'll need at least 2 with the departure of Majak and with Jackson (?) being on the move

Agree on the way the ball is delivered into the forward line but we only have 2 players that can create seperation as well as being competitive forwards (Brown & Fritsch but not Weideman) And there is no one else apart from Gawn on occasions So given we've got 2 small forwards (usually) we need at least 1 more forward who can present ... so I've suggested Petracca or Brayshaw (but not both at the same time) Or another KPF which we haven't got right now ... Weideman isn't the answer and JVR needs more time in the 2nds by the looks of it The addition of just one more marking option up forward can make a difference but again, the coaching directive to bomb it in is telegraphing our intentions. And being defended against to good effect ... often it works though so the tactic is sound We just over do it sometimes We need more variation with hit-up passes for forwards on the lead (or being kicked to when they've created space) We need to keep the opposition guessing and we're not panicking the opposition defenders right now T-Mac can't come back into the side quickly enough but both Tommy & Brown have got injury concerns and both are entering their 30's Only playing 1 KPF means that that player is often double or triple teamed. Brown can sometimes overcome the odds but Weideman is more of a 3rd forward (and we've already got Fritsch for that role)

Oddly enough there was very little backlash towards the umpires back then on the game day threads (the team was performing so abysmally - that was the focus) Numerous people quit the site on those game-day threads (often returning at a later date) One bloke told us he was going to barrack for Richmond! Others were predicting 10-15 goal losses half way through the first quarter. Nightmare times The shared misery was another standout feature ... at one stage there were at least 30 threads all with different topics on what was wrong with the club To this day I've no idea how the moderators kept up with it all ... it was total mayhem and the venting was at extreme levels And most are still here ... we are a stoic bunch, Col

Sam Weideman - Gigolo Dustin Martin - Meth Cook Joel Selwood - Confidence Trickster Steele Sidebottom - Sideshow Attraction Christian Petracca - Mafia Don Tom Hawkins - Fruit Picker Toby Greene - Hitman

Maybe we could go medium sized with Petracca up forward for periods or maybe even Brayshaw or a combo of either/or (as well as Fritsch) 40% game time up forward for Petracca & Brayshaw would also mean that both play in the midfield for 60% of the time Talls being Brown & Gawn until T-Mac gets himself fit. And if we've earmarked Gawn to play predominantly forward then pursuing Grundy makes sense We need forwards who can create separation and good midfielders can often play forward quite well Remembering that Petracca was our best forward in 2019 averaging about 20 disposals as a high half forward Also reckon that Brayshaw could play a forward role well ... he can create space for himself, reads the play well, is a good mark for his size, has plenty of courage and is a good kick for goal In a general sense, our midfielders should all be kicking more goals anyway ... collectively they get a stack of the ball so why not drift forward and get amongst the goals? Get a bit hungry like Fritsch!

The big issue is that they (the AFL) don't practice what they preach "If you choose to bump and contact is made to your opponents head, you will be reported and sidelined" Except that doesn't happen but sometimes it does. It's pot luck on outcomes They've got all the time in the world to get these decisions right and also, to end up with consistent outcomes ... but it's still a crapshoot

Incidental contact to the head where a bump is involved is always going to be impossible to adjudicate properly anyway (with the ball being in the vicinity) So unless the tribunal or the appeals tribunal is instructed to find a guilty verdict for incidental contact to the head from a bump, they are likely to arrive at a not guilty verdict as absolute guilt is very difficult to prove. Again, with the ball being in the vicinity So the language from the AFL doesn't match the language of the bodies that they have in place to adjudicate on these matters If they are going to have rules, they need to make sure that everyone associated with those rules are all on the same page Highly doubt that that will happen though

Is that related to our dreams being the answers to tomorrow's questions?

Fantasy sports? Leave me out of that stuff, Gonzo! Did not even cross my mind but I can see how those thoughts might enter the minds of the fantasy types Bit I firmly believe in the concept of 2 proper ruckmen in the same team (in the 18) ... with the proviso that both ruckmen can do a lot more than just tap the ball to advantage (who doesn't want first use of the ball?) Play forward, play back, be a link player and be an extra midfielder. As well as a general out on the field Both Gawn & Grundy qualify so go for it I say Also, what can happen with 2 proper ruckmen is that one rucks in 60% of the ground whilst the other rucks in 40% of the ground. With roles reversed when applicable Called a couple of Collingwood 'acquaintances' yesterday and both said that Grundy can play forward reasonably well as long as he is not the sole focal point And splitting the field in terms of who rucks where keeps both players relatively fresh as they are saving the legs

Play the rules then ... and stretch it to the limit Our players should not be too concerned with contact to the head of an opposition player on Saturday night (apart from striking with a fist) Get reported for high contact via a bump, go to the tribunal then take it further to the appeals tribunal then go even further like we've seen in GF week. For fringe players as well. Put the league to the test Striking offences aside, all contact to the head via the bump could now be argued as incidental or 'In the contest' ... as long as the ball is in the vicinity

We now have to look at the parameters of what can be deemed legal looking ahead (re the bump) It's a case of have-to, we don't get a choice nor do we have a voice The head is now not sacracanct so if a player goes in to bump or braces for contact and then subsequently makes contact to the head, there's a very good chance that that player either won't be cited but even if cited, there's a better than even money chance that the player won't be suspended (especially if using the appeals system) It's quite clear in a lot of ways. Appeal any decision so that you only have to answer to the appeals tribunal (who have just let Cripps walk free) Our players can now use the bump with impunity. The players no longer have to walk on eggshells And right now the players have been granted a licence. Incidental contact to the head can be argued against easily but the ball now only has to be in the vicinity for a bump to the head to not even be cited

Contesting and bumping can happen at the same time ... Jeff Gleeson has got it wrong by saying that it's one and not the other (especially in this instance) And because it's both and whilst contesting (and bumping) Cripps also has eyes for the player only and then takes that player out, he's liable The ball being in the vicinity is just a convenient excuse Except he's not liable because for some obtuse reason, he walks free Cripps should have got 4-6 weeks if the AFL are serious about head trauma

True, but the Cripps incident is still going to brought up by those representing a player who has contacted an opponents head (in incidents where the ball is in the 'vicinity') Probably every time. They'll try their luck and why wouldn't they Outcomes? Who knows? Will depend on all sorts of reasons but you're right, we'll never get consistent rulings That's not how the AFL rolls I viewed the incident as a shirt-front. Cripps played the man and not the ball Ah Chee has to sit it out this weekend. He'd feel cheated. Illegally taken out of a game and the perpetrator walks A complete joke but again, that's the AFL for you. They are like a mini version of FIFA

Maybe tl_nl (too long _ not listening) Can you imagine one of the Tribunal members putting up his hand (like a stop sign) and saying that? 10 or 15 minutes you could understand but an hour would put some of our pollies to shame

If he gets off it's going to set a very big precedent The ball would only have to be in the vicinity and then it could be carte blanche

An hour! Bloomin' hell! That's longer than it takes to read one of my longer-type posts! Forget tl_dr, more like tl_dl

A number of the good horses return on Saturday ... 4 Stakes races at Caulfield with the highlight race being the G2 PB Lawrence Stakes (R8) A decent betting race for a small field too - any of the 9 runners can win the race

The plan might be a 70/30 split (Grundy70%/Gawn 30%) for on ball ruckwork with Max doing all the ruck work in the forward line pushing up to high half forward Grundy then drops back or hovers around the middle with that split And vice-versa when it's roles reversed. The only sticking point might be if Grundy provides any value in the forward line but that could be off-set somewhat if we go back to playing 2 big-bodied KPF's along with Fritsch as the 3rd forward Remembering that we went into the finals last year with Ben Brown, T-Mac & Fritsch as the mainstays with Gawn or Jackson floating forward as another marking target. A flag resulted with that forward line set-up So in that instance, Grundy would become a dangerous forward with the opposition endeavouring to match up our talls. And he's a big, imposing lad The club will want to develop JVR but I'd be surprised if we don't pursue a decent KF (with some experience) in the off-season Getting Grundy across might just be the 1st or 2nd part of the puzzle (as we may well know what we are getting for LJ and that trade value for LJ might be already earmarked) List management would have started quite a while ago

Except when you don't have a ruckman that can play the position properly Without Max & Jackson this week we'd be back to Weideman (in a must-win game) That's already happened this season as well So Jackson looks like he's on the move and Max will be 31 going in to next season. And Max has the odd injury concern I can see why we would pursue Grundy as he's a bona-fide ruckman who has been an All-Australian twice with 2 Copeland Trophies to his name. Going into next season as a 28yo with about 5 years left He won't cost much in trade value (a swap of late round picks), the Pies would be paying a fair slice of his salary (in a salary that we might have been paying LJ) and we need another ruckman who can play the main role (not just a back-up) We can also draft or trade for a couple of ruckmen who can act as reserve ruckman (Weideman could be one of those 2) Fact is that we would be bringing in at least 2 ruckmen in the off-season to replace LJ (if he's gone) and Majak Daw anyway So why not a ready made, plug in and play ruckman like Grundy? I'm not concerned about the money as we would have had the money put aside for LJ anyway (all-up, probably about the same amount) And you'd have to say that right now, Grundy is a big upgrade on LJ in terms of pure rucking ability

Demons 1-39 seems likely too (can see the Blues scoring a few goals in junk time)

Lions, Demons, Swans all winning 'go-to-whoa' is returning about 14-1 (with a boost)

Werridee could put a team together at the rate that these names are being recalled, Redleg Michael Reynolds could go a bit from memory The present day ... Melksham, May, Viney, Hibberd (and Fritsch likes a scrap apparently) ... we could bring back Majak (I wouldn't get him riled up)

Big Carl, Biffin, O'Dwyer, Coles, Hughes & Grinter say hello And I saw Teddy Fidge rough up Millane once ... might have been at Waverley in the mid 80's Neitz used to throw his weight around when needed. Even Tiger Crosswell & Zantuck We've had a few, old dee