Macca

You may well be right too LH but the QB clash would still bring in a substantial amount of money compared to any of our other home fixtures ... especially those home games against the interstate sides (5?) That was the crux of my 100k argument. Whilst we're making a pittance, other clubs are cleaning up

These days you'd obviously be wanting to make more than 100k from a home fixture. Collingwood would probably make at least a million from each of their home games at the MCG and we'd be probably be making at least a million from the QB clash (the Pies also make a decent dollar out of the QB clash because of their high end memberships) 100k is chicken feed

Development is an over used word in footy ... the best clubs have their fair share of busts but we don't really hear about those busts if those teams win games on a consistent basis. A top player at junior level is not automatically going to become a top player in the AFL. I don't hate the drafting system we have but do I accept it for what it is - a flawed system where there has been numerous top players drafted outside the top 10 - 15 picks and ... any number of average to poor players that have been drafted inside the top 10 - 15 picks. The numbers in both those categories are extraordinarily high if one was to examine all the drafts we've had since 1986. In my opinion, Gysberts, Morton, Tapscott, Blease & Strauss wouldn't have turned out much better if Roos, McCartney and crew had them from the word go. All decent juniors but none of them had the inner drive to take the next big step. They might have been about 10-15% better but that would still have meant them falling way short as League footballers. .

I'd say the cheque would go to Richmond but next year it's our turn (if it becomes an annual event) I believe there are now trigger points (crowd numbers) on how much money a home team receives for any home game at the MCG. It's also been stated here that we receive at least 100k for every home game that we play at the MCG (of course, 100k for a home game is a virtual loss in real terms) Let's hope there's a big crowd so that we can establish this game as a traditional annual event Not sure what they'll do with this game if ANZAC day falls on a Tuesday or Wednesday but it might solve the problem that the League has with the short rest that the Pies and Bombers can sometimes have ... just match up the Demons & Bombers (another rotating home fixture?) and the Pies & Tigers the weekend before or the weekend after (depending on which day ANZAC day actually falls) In theory that in turn can (in some years) give us 3 big drawing home fixtures in the space of 6 weeks (when we include the QB clash) A flow-on effect as such.

The Wizards won again today so there's one tip that's highly questionable The Mavs, Spurs and Portland can all win their respective series' too. It's not all that clear cut really ... wouldn't surprise me if a team just gets hot and takes the title (outside of GSW & Cleveland) Rose and Bulls might surprise in the East whilst there's a number of teams in the West with claims.

It would be no real surprise if the Clippers knock the Spurs out but the other teams in the West would be mighty thankful if that happened. A 7 game series beckons but it's a toss up. Bit late with the tips but for what it's worth ... (likely winners in dark italics) Golden State to meet Cleveland in the final, EASTERN CONFERENCE Atlanta Hawks vs. Brooklyn Nets Cleveland Cavaliers vs. Boston Celtics Chicago Bulls vs. Milwaukee Bucks Toronto Raptors vs. Washington Wizards WESTERN CONFERENCE Golden State Warriors vs. New Orleans Pelicans Houston Rockets vs. Dallas Mavericks Los Angeles Clippers vs. San Antonio Spurs Portland Trail Blazers vs. Memphis Grizzlies

Watts is a sort of prototype 4th forward. Like a half decent small forward who can get the ball periodically with good finishing skills, he's possibly just a much taller variety (who doesn't know how to use his own height to advantage) His value is when we can create a decent match-up for him (usually against the lesser-light teams) That's where he sits right now - he's never going to be the player that many want him to be and his draft pick number just clouds the issue even further. I can see his value but it's certainly not high end. He'd struggle to get a game with a lot of the best teams and equally, he struggles to to have any sort of impact against the best teams - given his actual output up until now. But we could say that about many on our list. Unless something changes in the not too distant future it will just continue to be a case of "what you see is what you get" We can largely say the same sort of thing about Dawes - again, he's not going to get much better but until we can find someone who is better, he'll continue to play and he'll continue to be the player that he is now. Our depth in tall players is negligible.

Spot on Cards ... and often it's far better for justice to be served. Cycling is far better off in the long term because Armstrong was outed. There's no longer a cloud covering the sport for those who love cycling ... those who don't love cycling don't count nor do they matter - the sport is still ridiculously popular and cycling's testing standards, procedures and penalties are just about as good as it gets. I read today that the NBA intend to do blood tests for hgh - it's about time and they will start to catch cheats because of this new action. I believe Essendon will get their just deserts in the long run. New evidence (or old evidence) will surface and they'll be cooked. The Hunter case may hold the key but the key could come about in any number of ways. Those who have been burnt will end up talking - everyone has their price. And a number of people have been burnt - including numerous players no longer on Essendon's list (all watching the Hunter case with anticipation) Then there's worksafe if they're fair dinkum. And of course, ASADA and/or WADA might still appeal and win. It ain't over till it's over.

If WADA do appeal I'm expecting the AFL to attempt to put up a roadblock. Maybe not so much breaking ranks but maybe in part. They could release a statement indicating that the current agreement is too cut & dried or has too much grey area attached. Nothing would surprise me. If WADA can somehow get Dank on side it would help as the CAS doesn't have to have a cynical view with regards to Dank. They could and can take him on face value. But the AFL may not want punishments handed down on the back of the word of someone who they have banned for life (if he is banned for life) Is anyone else going to cooperate with WADA? I believe WADA needs to appeal even if they know they have very little chance of getting a desired result. To walk away now after going so hard wouldn't make a lot of sense. They can at least make Essendon & the AFL uncomfortable for another 6 months or so. However, WADA's funding is only in the region of 20-30 million per year so cost might be a factor. ASADA might still appeal but more likely it will be WADA.

I've always been in favour of lifting the draft age but didn't think the AFL would address what is an obvious issue ... however, just lifting the age by 1 year means they'll need to possibly re-structure the next tier down. Perhaps the newly named (if it happens) under 19 or under 20 championships could involve a lot more games - all the states and territories could play for the one championship title (each team would then play 7-8 games, plus finals) Also, the AFL might decide to incorporate a transitional period (allow clubs to still draft 1 or 2 eighteen year old's for a couple/few years) Raising the draft age by 2 years should fix a lot of the problems but 1 year would do for starters. Lifting the draft age by 2 years to age 20 carries with it the unknown risk of young sportsmen possibly choosing other sports. Maybe the AFL could introduce a rookie wage to offset that obstacle ... for the better players perhaps - a scholarship type scheme or such like.

There were other issues that came out of the game but many of those issues were caused by our inability to win enough clearances (for instance, our forward line became largely dysfunctional as the game wore on) Other clubs would be fully aware of our reliance on Jones & Tyson (before Tyson it was just Jones for a time) so that's why we need others to step up. Viney, Vince, Brayshaw, Cross, vandenBerg, Newton, Lumumba and others need to increase their numbers with regards to contested possessions and clearances. Even just 1 extra clearance per game, per pertinent player would make a big difference. And of course we need a quick return to form for Jones & Tyson.

Tyson & Jones collected 4 clearances out of a total of 86. That is an aberration and the chances of it happening again are minimal. Both those 2 normally average over 11 clearances between them per game and what also should be remembered is the high clearance figure for the game (86 - about 10 over the average) To me, that's the main reason why we lost the game. Our 2 best players (both midfielders) couldn't win anywhere near enough clearances (otherwise known as winning the ball out of the middle or winning the ball at the 'other' ball-ups or the throw-ins) Clearances 2014 Jones 138 (season) 6.3 (average) Tyson 108 (season) 4.9 (average)

The new rules of free agency created a situation where players see themselves as commodities. What many couldn't have foreseen is that that type of thinking would extend itself to out of contract or even contracted players. Unintended consequences (although other sports around the world have these sorts of patterns) It's no real surprise to me what has happened with regards to player movement so I'd rather look at how it all works from a more practical viewpoint. In other words, we need to make our club a club of destination and if a player still wants to go, get the best deal done. There's nothing to stop our club from becoming one of the main players in securing talent. We just need to be ahead of the game and resourceful. Roos is good at spotting talented players who are looking for opportunities elsewhere ... he now needs to go after a few free agents as well (A grade midfielders if possible ) Drafting as we all know by now is hit and miss.

Or incorporate him into the existing thread .. The No T$ No M€ No B$ Thread ... we can just keep adding players when applicable Quite seriously, we should move on with regards to Clark - he wanted a fresh start and we didn't stand in his way ... we picked up Lumumba in the trade and to my way of thinking, that puts us ahead. I don't wish the bloke any ill will either - we've had at least a half a dozen players leave the club for one reason or another in the last few years and I just put him in with the others. That's the new age of footy - you win some, you lose some (more frequently) .

Also, the ruck position is like no other - quite often potential ruckmen needs to be given the main role to see how good they are. Some respond and relish the role - others don't. We've seen 2nd stringers go to other clubs and become very good 1st choice ruckmen. Opportunity is everything for a number of would-be ruckmen, It should be noted that we had all 3 of White, Jolly & Jamar on our list at the same time (2 years) I'm not sure that too many were making too many predictions with regards to Jolly & Jamar back then. If so, it wouldn't have been very many.

Jamar may go on for another year regardless ... he's not the worst and in fact, he played very well last week. Lowered his colours yesterday but many of us thought that might happen against Mumford - it's a pity our midfield didn't step it up to counter what happened in the ruck. As a collective, we were outplayed. Next week we encounter Jacobs and another decent midfield on their patch. It's going to be quite a challenge but I don't mind that. Comfort zones are not what this team needs.

You're mostly right but I put Spencer ahead of Gawn mainly because he can at least use his height better in the ruck (none of them are much chop around the ground) Fitzy to the backline (for Casey) is a good move for his sake and he might surprise (as a backman) King is very young. It should always be remembered that a ruckman nearly always needs to be the main man - opportunity is everything. For that reason, I don't like to rule a line through a back-up ruckman. Same as I won't necessarily rule a line through an older 'good player' because they can sometimes or often have a 2nd wind and ... I often won't rule a line through a young player unless the match committee does. Other players that have been in the system for 4-5+ years - different story. There's plenty of them playing in the 2's for us right now. The solution is that we might be able to trade for a decent ruckman who isn't getting an opportunity elsewhere. Edit: added more to the Fitzy evaluation

Dawes for Frost made more sense but then who 2nd rucks? Or Frost to the backline and drop one of the back 6? (I'm talking about the selected team for yesterday - next week is another story) There's a few reasons why we lost badly in the end ... the main reason was the clearances/midfield/Mumford. Our forward line can't be expected to function well if we can't get the ball in there enough times with quickness and efficiently. The backline ended up being under siege like we've seen before. They used the ball better when they had it too. Jones & Tyson had 4 clearances between them when we ordinarily could have expected 12-14 clearances from them out of the 86 total clearances. Give us 10 more clearances and 10 less for them and the count is 46-40 in our favour (instead of 50-36 in their favour) With those numbers we see a different type of outcome (not necessarily a win for us) Edit: Mumford is a great example of how much influence an A grade ruckman can have - Jamar wasn't disgraced either - he just met his match yesterday (and some) .

I wasn't one to place scorn on Dawes as many others are even though I wouldn't have necessarily selected him. I'd rather blame the selectors for picking an extra tall forward when we didn't need one. Our first quarter and a bit when at one one stage we led the clearances 13-4 was terrific so we can at least say we're capable of better ... Jones & Tyson had awful days and if both had played well, the result could have been far different. We're reliant on them to play well and both are normally good enough to deliver - 4 clearances between them when they were in there all day was a telling blow. They need help though so we need Vince, Cross, Viney, Brayshaw, Lumumba, Toumpas, Salem, Newton & vandenBerg (4 x Clr yesterday) to play their part. It's a trial and error thing with those that I've mentioned. We can't just give up on them - give them an opportunity I say. Our clearance work and midfield remains our greatest concern all the same - adding 2 classy inside/outside midfielders would change things dramatically ... easier said than done of course. It's a concern that it's Adelaide in Adelaide next week but maybe we need a really stern test straight away to sort out the men from the boys. Let's see how we bounce back against a very good team away from home.

I reckon Roos picked Dawes because he believes he was best 22 for this particular game (as of last Thursday night) I also believe that "best 22" is a changeable dynamic. For instance, Roos may or may not believe Dawes is best 22 next week. He might also have that opinion with up to a dozen different players currently in our 22 (let's face it, there's not too many consistent top performers there) The problem we've had and we've got is our 2nd ruck - at the moment it's Frost but Frost is probably more suited to the backline than as a forward. But 2nd rucks normally play forward which creates an issue for Dawes because Watts and Hogan are already being used in the forward line. 4 talls and 2 smaller forwards as opposed to 3/3 or even 2/4. I didn't have Dawes in my side for this week purely because I didn't think we needed another tall forward (not because I can't see Dawes' value) Sometimes you just have to sit out. I reckon Roos went in trying to exploit our advantage in height - it didn't work. GWS in fact exploited the lack of depth we had with our mids. We rolled the dice and lost out.

Well, the Magpies sell 18 game memberships and premium memberships which seems to include reserve seating for their away fixtures at the MCG... plus, there's 'other' reserve seating sales in that Western stand for away games at the MCG too (for Collingwood at least) It would amount to a great deal of money in terms of total revenue but when divided up, the money derived from the revenue obtained from that Western stand could be much the same for home and away games. It probably amounts to more than 500k per game (when everything is factored in) but it could be a lot more. We just assume that the home team makes all the money at the MCG but it's different for the Pies at least. These 4 Collingwood membership packages includes all the Collingwood games at the MCG (home & away) It's a little cloudy but I'm fairly sure these memberships includes a reserved seat for their away fixtures at the MCG. The membership packages cost between $756 & $999 (and they sell a stack of them) ,

Yeah, but they were doing it far too easily at the centre bounce downs and at the stoppages ... Jones had a shocker and Tyson was ineffectual Jamar & Frost had 35 hit-outs between them as against Mumford's 38. Mumfords hit-outs were more effective but our midfield was woeful, all the same. Clearances ... Jamar 6, vandenBerg 4, various others 2 or 3 For them ... Shiel 9, Ward 8, Mumford 5, Griffen 5, Coniglio 4, Treloar 4 Our clearance numbers and contested footy has been an issue since the Daniher days. A top midfielder will rove to the opposition ruckman if that opposition ruckman is on top. Jones is usually capable of doing that but he had an off day - no one else put their hand up.

We started well and played some terrific footy to get 5 goals ahead. Then it all went pear shaped. It's quite baffling to try and work out why too ... you'd think the team would want to go in for the kill but we did the opposite. We were too top heavy as it turned out and their midfield ended up having a field day. Our lack of purpose, effort & leadership was alarming. The other concern was changing our centre clearance personnel. It was obvious that Jones & Tyson were having very little impact out of the middle but they were both persevered with. They just wanted it more and our heads dropped far too quickly. At one stage we were up 13-4 in the clearances and the figure ended up being 50-36 in their favour. Many here thought it was our strongest team but it always looked to me that we were 1 or 2 mids short (so much so that I thought we might have to rotate our talls through the interchange) The positive is that we did play very well in the first quarter and a bit (we have previously seen the team not turn up at all) Reality check today.

Not a good quarter but we're still nearly 5 goals up ... (they won the clearances 13-8 in that quarter) We kick the first couple after half time and it's over.

We're getting a fair bit of clean disposal whilst being tackled ... sometimes the numbers don't tell the true story. The other numbers in our favour do tell a story (especially the clearances) What stands out is our teamwork and attack on the ball (amongst other positives) Our disposal skills have improved dramatically (without having the need to wax the ball in the backline) We need to put them away by half time.