Macca

Great finish ... happy to see the Kiwis get through. The South Africans blew it again - 3 run-out blunders and missed catches. Now, let's see if the Aussies can win on Thursday - the spinners from India might prove a handful on the Sydney deck.

Fair enough ... but there are numerous other players who have been derided who never got any better after that derision. I usually don't make those calls but others have and they've been on the money. I could give you a list of the players names but most of them are gone now. However, quite a few are still on our list so what are those who are dissatisfied supposed to say? Jones is an aberration unfortunately. The good news is that Roos and co. have decided to recruit with a smarter method. I know it's been said before but this time around, we look to be on the right track. We need to continue on our path of bringing in established talent. 2 quality free agents at years end should be the goal (that's just for starters) I never liked the youth policy - footy was changing (or had changed) whilst we were in the midst of our one-way style of recruiting. The game became far more contested and we didn't adapt.

We continually hold up Nathan Jones as the benchmark 'rjay' but in reality, the benchmark is what 'normally' occurs. And we all know what that normality is (unfortunately) We need to continue to import example setters and quality players ... and I don't really care how old they are. If we had a half a dozen Cross types would that be such a bad thing? It would be great if we could hold up N Jones, Tyson, Lumumba, Cross, Vince, Salem, Hogan and 4 or 5 others as the benchmark. The truth is we're a long way short of having a dozen pro's leading the way. The key going forward will be our recruiting outside of our draft picks (17/18 year old's who may or may not become good players) Roos and his crew know this and our last 2 off seasons has seen a change in philosophy at our club - sanity prevails (that still doesn't make things automatically successful but at least we're now seeing a much smarter method of building a list) The example for our club and our sport is how things are done in other sports around the world. I can't imagine a top club in any of the other football codes placing so much stock in a bunch of kids. It just doesn't happen. Edit: added more for clarity

Yes Bossdog ... the clubs with the top end draft picks are virtually forced to pick the standout under 18 players. To not do that would be taking a huge gamble. Players like Judd, Scully, Hodge, Sylvia, Reiwoldt, Watts, Cotchin, Morton et al were therefore always going to be drafted early. Your idea of lifting the draft age by a year has real merit ... David Parkin suggested lifting the draft age to about 20 a number of years ago (however, doing that could easily give the other sports more opportunities to acquire talented sportspeople) I prefer to accept the draft for what it is ... therefore a lower placed draft pick is not necessarily an automatic goal in my eyes. There's top level talent sprinkled within every draft which is a sure indication that there's a lot of luck involved. Our luck is sure to change though - Petracca doing a knee didn't help but here's hoping he bounces back. Salem looks to have the skills set - but does he have that absolute inner drive to be a star? He's not an overly fast player but he may not have to be. His pace can improve though - lots of sprint training will help him. With Brayshaw, again, only time will tell. He's just a pup right now.

If we were talking about an exact science I'd agree with you but we're not ... we're talking about a glorified lucky dip (a lottery) Also ... Petracca, Brayshaw & Salem haven't done anything of real note yet. I do tend to agree with you with our picks outside our top end picks (picks outside 1 through 5) ... that's where recruiters can use their expertise. However, outside of our top end picks, we've had a number of wins* (relatively speaking) The stats prove to the football world that a top end draft pick will not guarantee you a top player ... there's just as much chance of drafting a bust as there is in drafting an A grader. (in terms of expectations) And if luck isn't on your side, it's entirely possible to continually draft busts ... that's how luck works sometimes. Under 18 football really does fool a lot of people ... more so the recruiters than the general public. It's not what people want it to be. A club can have all the best experts in the world but under 18 footy is filled with players who have already reached their peak (or for various reasons these players don't progress past their last under age season) - the issue will always be in figuring out which ones have reached their peak (which is another major stumbling block) And, no amount of 'top level' development will help in many cases ... these players are what they are. Eventually (and it may take another 10-20 years) people will come to terms with drafting. The other major issue is the age of those being drafted - these kids are way too young in order to be making accurate appraisals. We're stuck with the system we have though so I just accept it for what it is. In other words, roll the dice and hope like hell for a win.

Yep, certain subject matter is always going to divide opinion ... however, most here generally agree on many matters - for example ... the Roos appointment, the PJ appointment, the AFL stepping in in early 2013, the move away from the Junction oval to AAMI, our recruiting in the last 2 off seasons, getting Hogan in the mini draft and many other such decisions were all accepted quite readily by the large majority. Most of the conflict here wouldn't even exist if we were to have consistent winning seasons. Losing constantly is never going to make any supporter happy - look at the reaction to Friday night? We're so hungry for wins that even the practice games are carrying too much weight. Does anyone even remember if we won our practice games during the Northey or Daniher era's? I certainly don't remember nor do I care whether we won those scratch matches or not. The season proper is what matters most. I'm big on having enough top players on our list so we can win games of football - we've got to find a way to bring in quality free agents ... and, we need Roos to develop our young players into top liners. Do both and we'll be winning again. By the way CBF, all [censored] talk should be banned from this site so the likes of myself can't comment any further on the matter

Thanks Utah I actually have high ambition for our players ... and our players need to have high ambition for themselves. Rather than writing anyone off, I'd much rather see any player be the best player they can be. As an example, Nathan Jones should set himself a target of 30+ goals for the season. That's 1 or 2 goals a game and he is quite capable of achieving that goal. He should back himself in to becoming an absolute elite footballer. A lot of the best midfielders have a goal kicking attribute to their footy. He's a nice kick for goal so he just needs to work his way within range a lot more. What would be ideal is us having 10-12 good footballers driving the standards. Top players are never satisfied - that's what makes them top players (as long as they've got the skills of course) We bring in or developing 2 or 3 top players every season and before you know it, we'll have those 10-12 top players.

I've always rated Lumumba highly and if he stays injury free, he's a real chance to finish at least in our top 3 in the B&F And what that does is highlight how poor our list is when Lumumba, Cross and Vince almost automatically become our best players as soon as they come into the club (Tyson is another import who has already become one of our best) Doesn't say much for the rest of the list unfortunately ... good recruiting aside, we've got to start seeing some real improvement in those who have been on the list for 4+ years (or players who have played for at least that amount of time) Of course, we've been saying that every year for quite some time now ... If we were to rate our list on actual output, it's a sorry tale. Grimes, Dunn, Garland, Watts, Gawn, Dawes, McKenzie, Pedersen, Fitzpatrick, Howe, Jetta, Spencer, Bail, M Jones & Terlich all need to step it up this season. One decent year from a lot of them just doesn't cut it. Jetta & Dunn were much better last season whilst Pedersen & Howe were reasonable ... but, by league standards, most, if not all, have had below average careers so far. Jamar and T-Mac are another 2 who need to get better. In fact, all our players need to improve but many need to improve a lot. The younger blokes and recent draftees should be left to develop without too much undue pressure. I reckon the match committee will be giving games to as many of the new players as is possible. I'm expecting Michie, vandenBerg, Frost, Newton and maybe Riley to be given every chance to establish themselves in the seniors ... maybe not so much the recent draftees but if we draw a line through last season, Salem & JKH both played about half the games (albeit as subs a fair bit of the time) Stretch, ANB, Brayshaw, O-Mac & Hunt could all get called up sooner than Roos would ideally like.

Yep, and having X amount of star players (or very good+ players) is directly related to wins. It's a very simplistic way of viewing a list but 'potential' doesn't win games. The top quality players can carry others but average players (or worse) are always going to be more concerned about their own form. Also, the best players bring others into the game and that's an area where we're sadly lacking. The Hawks have a stack of top players (14+) whilst we've got less than a handful. Until we've got at least another 6 players who are as good (or better) than N Jones or Tyson, we can't hope to win 10 games or more. That is an obvious summation but it's a tried and true method of how our game works. 5 or 6 of our players have the capacity to step it up but at this moment in time they're all still at the potential stage. Edit: grammar

I don't ... never have, never will. And there's plenty that think the same way. Let's face it, who ever has conversations with other people about training? (outside of the internet) I prefer to wait until the real stuff starts before being too judgmental Roos does see "practice' games very differently ... even when the Swans were flying they never won these encounters - 1 win only? Most here have us winning 8 games max this season and that is a mediocre year ... so, we're almost certainly going to see a mediocre team struggle our way to 8 wins (perhaps) Our list doesn't contain enough good players - last year we had 2 above average players (N Jones & Tyson) Dunn, Vince & Cross were reasonably good (Cross missed a 3rd of the season so he misses out on the 'above average' category) Lumumba, Hogan & Salem have the best chance of becoming very good for us but after that, who knows? It's going to take a fair whack of time to fix the club ... free agency has cruelled us as well. In 3 off seasons we've been unable to bring in any top quality free agents because we've been concerned about our compo being watered down due to losing free agents. In theory, we could have brought in 4-6 top free agents in the last 3 off seasons. In actuality, we haven't even brought in one. And if you're not in the game, you're out of the loop.

*Spoiler alert* haha This song featured on the latest episode of 'Better Call Saul' ... Chris Joss with 'Tune Down' (from his album 'Sticks')

Winning a clearance often leads to a score and any turnover can do the same. If we get a lot better in both those areas we'll win games. Easier said than done of course. The game has always been won out of the middle and with the 'keepings off' nature of footy these days, turnovers need to be kept to a minimum. Obviously, a player will often be forced to kick to a contest or perhaps kick the ball long into the forward line but missing a target who is only 15-30 metres away is just not on. Unfortunately, given the state of our list, we're going to be playing blokes who will still commit these cardinal errors. The question for Roos is how many of these types will he be prepared to play in the one team. Some of our players are best suited to kicking the ball long to position - that might partly alleviate the problem. The above is not necessarily a reflection on today's game ... it's been an ongoing issue that we need to fix. Edit: grammar

But what if strong penalties leads to a cleaner AFL? How do we know that what Essendon has done hasn't been done before (or at least in a similar vein) What if this wake up call makes the AFL sit up and take notice and therefore becomes the world leader in terms of driving out drug cheats. Right now, to my way of thinking, the 5 biggest sports in terms of drug cheats are soccer, basketball, ice hockey, American football and baseball. And as far as I'm concerned, none of those 5 sports are doing anywhere near enough in terms of catching drug cheats in their respective sports. They all have a 'soft' agreement with WADA which leads to negligent testing standards and procedures and as for the penalties involved for drug cheats that are caught in those sports, soft again. If anyone cares to do their own research, they'll find I'm right. Right across the board, all sports need to do weekly blood tests if those sports are serious about weeding out the drug cheats. To a large extent, cycling and the olympic sports are doing this (plus, those sports have tough penalties) Their transparency comes at a price though (unfortunately) This Essendon saga does offer the opportunity for the AFL to lead the way (going forward)

When we needed to play well, we did ... and when it didn't matter anywhere near as much, we didn't play well. We showed glimpses of what we were capable of in the first half. The kicking to position was quite good and our attack on the ball was excellent. We took our foot off the pedal in the 2nd half and to me it looked like the coaching dept. wanted to get the players out of the match without any major injuries. It's just a practice match - nothing more, nothing less. The standout positive for me was our distribution off half back - amongst others, Salem, Lumumba & Toumpas all did some nice work (all 3 are new to that area of the ground for us) The usual suspects again made the same type of errors but we're going to have to wear that until the list improves. We can't turf them out now as their replacements right now aren't any better. I do believe that there will be less of that type of player getting a guernsey this year though - Roos is almost certainly working out which ones to keep in the side.

My outlook is full of cynicism with regards to players switching clubs ... not sure that can or should be envied C&B. I'd rather look at things from a broader perspective though ... let's look at how many of our players have finished at our club in a dissatisfied way ... it's a long list and in my opinion, we set ourselves up for what has happened (in terms of players wanting out) We supporters are merely onlookers too - it's not like we have any say in things. Losing Clark may end up being a blessing in disguise - time will tell. Besides that, we may have ended up giving up a lot more to get Lumumba if Clark didn't come out of "retirement" Anyway, in the meantime, another player gets the chance to fill a role in our forward line. Who's to say that any of vandenBerg, Watts, Frost, O-Mac, Pedersen or someone else may not fullfil that role? (Petracca might have even been given that sort of role this year before he did his knee) If Dawes & Hogan fire, the 3rd forward spot can become a great opportunity for someone.

We were so poor in 2012 that anyone playing 'ok' looked better than they actually were. I notice that he gets caught playing from behind too much and he's not a 'creative' forward like a lot of the top forwards are ... he's basically an old fashioned forward who has his limitations. He'd probably make a much better ruckman if given the opportunity ... I could care less about all the rest of it - we really aren't sure about all the details and besides, he's not the only player to do what he's done. There are hundreds that have switched clubs for all sorts of reasons ... in the end, it all amounts to the same thing. He's not playing for our team and that's all there is to it ... there's no point being concerned about stuff we have no control over. The solution is to make our club a club of destination (easier said than done of course)

As far as we know, none of Rivers, Martin, Frawley, Sylvia, Moloney or Clark wanted to play for the club anymore - they all wanted out. And there are others. There is a chance that both Garland & Howe might be gone at years end. Previously, we were trading out or dispensing with loyal servants/veteran players all because of an insane youth policy (that youth policy was never going to work - especially when one considers how footy was changing to a more contested style from about 2004 onwards ) We inadvertently built a siege mentality amongst the players (appointing a rookie, 'faux' hard man as a coach only exacerbated the problem) In many ways it became an every man for himself situation ... and free agency was just beginning - thus providing the ideal vehicle (free agency was always going open up other ways for players to move clubs) Clark was just a symptom of a much larger problem. The residual effects lingered and those effects may still linger (albeit in a small way) I neither wish him well or nor wish him bad luck either - he's not our player anymore so we need to move on whether we want to or not. There's nothing we can do about it anyway - apart from having faith in those who now run the club. If we're going to point the finger at Clark, we also need to point the finger in all sorts of directions. That's if we want to be brutally honest of course. Regardless, I also don't believe he's that good a player anyway (and, he's injury prone)

England are out of the world cup! Good on Bangladesh - they won the game fair and square and they're now in the QF's.

And the last thing the AFL would have been expecting was for a whole club to go down the path that Essendon has chosen (in fact, was anyone even remotely expecting what has happened?) Once they signed up with WADA, the AFL were probably crossing their fingers that there would only be the odd player transgressing the rules (and even then they'd be hoping it wasn't a high profile player) They've been in damage control right from the word go ... I'm not at all surprised though - there's a lot at stake. There's plenty of Essendon representation on the commission, the influential people at Essendon have many friends and the media have generally protected Essendon (and therefore the brand) The general footy public have generally given the Bombers the benefit of the doubt too (as compared to how overseas drug cheats are viewed) The word 'IF' gets bandied around too often when one looks at the issue from an overall perspective. Edit: grammar

Yeah, but if I did that I'd be obliged to put pressure on them about a myriad of other sports. It would be a rather long email HH - reams of pages long - book length in fact ... I've long moved past Essendon and am looking at things from a much broader perspective. That doesn't mean I'm soft on the Bombers either. Actually, given their resources and power, Wada do about as well as they can do. Are they there to set the standards on how certain sports catch their drug cheats? Or, are they there to deal with the ones that do get caught? It's a mighty big ask either way ... and, Wada are often ridiculed unfairly (mainly because they can be seen as a sitting duck)

For a number of years many of us were saying that we didn't want sport to become "A battle of the chemists" (or suchlike) We're already at that point in my opinion. For instance ... Peptides (or 'secretagogues' as is the supposed correct term) quickly became the new wonder PED's but ... they were already in widespread use before the public generally knew about them. Again, just an opinion but who's to say they weren't? Peptides (secretagogues) have been on the banned Wada list since at least 2008. There isn't a major sport that hasn't been touched by PED's - those sports that don't readily catch drug cheats usually have at least a couple of things in common ... a 'soft' agreement with Wada and negligent testing standards. Or, they've cleaned up their act. Again, the AFL sits somewhere in the middle - tough penalties because of the agreement with Wada but the testing standards are poor (in my opinion) As for recreational drugs (which can also be performance enhancing) - the testing standards are again poor and the penalty systems in place are highly questionable. Edit: clarification re peptides/secretagogues

And it's been that way for a long time ... for instance, cycling was out of control and the measures that are now in place are in many ways fixing the sport - they had to act though. It's my belief that other sports are also 'out of control' but because we can't readily see things clearly, those sports get off the hook. I prefer to label sports clean (ish) if those sports are doing their best to catch the cheats ... therefore I see soccer as a very questionable sport with regards PED's (closely followed by the NBA & the NHL) I also therefore see cycling and the olympic sports as the cleanest because of their efforts to catch the cheats. Most see things from an opposite perspective. The AFL sits somewhere in the middle I'm not arguing your points Dees2014 ... in fact, I mostly agree with what you've got to say about Essendon. I'm simply broadening the argument and adding some context to the whole subject. Worldwide, PED use in sport is at an all time high (in my opinion) Essendon are more a symptom of a larger problem rather than being one of the root causes - that doesn't mean they're any less guilty of course. There's a lot we don't know and that's because of the lack of transparency - I'm specifically talking about PED use on a worldwide basis. Re the NFL ... PED use is almost certainly completely out of control in that sport - there are a lot of players who slip through the net - the 38 who got caught is probably just the tip of the iceberg. And 4 weeks? Not much of a deterrent is it? Also, the testing standards are low in the NFL yet they still catch numerous cheats. Across a lot of sports, it's just a mess. By the way, I take a keen interest in the NFL and watch a lot of the games - go figure. .

Forgot to add that even though the AFL's agreement with Wada/Asada carries the same sort of penalties as cycling and track & field (and the rest of the olympic sports (?), the testing standards are vastly different. Where as the olympic sports and cycling can do blood tests on their athletes on a weekly basis, in the AFL, it's still quite possible for a player to go through a whole year (or years) and not be tested. Most are just urine tests as well. "Blood passports" seems to be the current 'World's best practice' but the AFL are a long, long way away from that ... they'll rattle off the 700 or 1500 tests a year bit but it sounds a lot more impressive than it actually is.

It should also be remembered that certain sports (and their governing bodies) have a much, much watered down agreement with WADA ... soccer (FIFA), NFL, NHL, MLB & the NBA have varying degrees of testing procedures and none of them come close to the agreement that the AFL has with ASASA/WADA. Why? Because they don't have too ... the aforementioned sporting bodies and sports don't get pushed around easily and it's in their own best interests to not be at all transparent. We never hear much about soccer players do we? This leads people to believe that the sport is clean - which is nonsense. NHL & the NBA fly under the radar too but it's because the governing bodies of those sports aren't really trying to catch drug cheats (in my opinion they're not trying much at all as their testing standards are virtually negligent) We all now know about the steroid era in baseball but it's still quite easy for a baseball player to take PED'S and get away with it. In the NFL, 38 players got done for drug use last season alone (the suspensions averaged out at about 4 games) You'd think this would be big news but the Americans just turn a blind eye when it suits them (we do this too when it suits us) Suspensions for drug use in the NFL (both recreational & PED'S - some drugs are both of course) Oddly enough, cycling and track & field are seen as the dirtiest sports yet in those sports, the testing procedures are the harshest - what does that tell people? It tells me that athletes cheat the whole world over but whether they get caught or not depends on whether the sporting bodies want to catch them. As always, big money is at stake.

Something different ... Jazz24.org plays jazz 24/7