Undeeterred

1 hour ago, DaveyJones'sLocker said:

Loved the tackle in the second half I think it was on Byrne-jones or Powell-pepper he smashed him over the boundary 

Also loved the way ANB followed it up and gave it to PP as he was getting up. Seriously good stuff from them both.

Are people seriously suggesting Trengove will be brought back in just to captain the side?

30 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Still a long way to go...

Way to bring down a positive thread as usual

3 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

Yes it is certainly getting harder. I think they should seriously consider Tenners as a replacement for jones. On the website, they confirm Jones 4-6 weeks, and recovering Hunt, Watts and Jetta, all of whom they expect to be fit. 

With Jones out, it does leave a hole in the onfield  leadership. I don't feel Viney is as yet mature enough to provide that by himself, particularly when we need cool heads in a crisis. Everything you hear about Tenners is he has outstanding leadership abilities, and it will be really up to the likes of Lewis, Vince, Watts and Max together with Viney and hopefully Tenners to step up in that direction. It is not as if Jones is all that nippy himself. It his intensity at the ball which is elite, and in that Tenners could almost match him.

The news has certainly made Saturday that much harder, and leadership will be critical. So for me, I'd have the changes:

In:  Gawn Trengove

Out: Jones.  Neal-Bullen

 

 

Not sure if serious. The only reason ANB would be dropped this week is if his leg fell off on the way to training.

Deadset the most cringeworthy thing about this site...

7 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Thought he was faultless today-he did his time at Casey last year-why should he step aside.He's ready.

Completely agree.

They'll find someone to manage for a week, but nobody is getting dropped off the back of the last two weeks.

This is a terrible game of footy. Long chains of under pressure handballs then bombs to nobody. Awful stuff.

On ‎29‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 5:43 PM, Diamond_Jim said:

The basket ball in the US is interesting

I think they need one year in College. In the past drafting was done at the end of college. In recent years starting with Carmelo Anthony (IIRC) the stars have been disappearing to the NBA after year 1. (Money and risk of injury are the main drivers).

On the other hand NFL requires that you have been out of high school for three years

(Just looked up NBA... they require one year post high school and a minimum age of 19 years.)

Not so worried about them being pinched by other sports. If anything it might improve our cricket stocks but that is only a very few players. Soccer... the kids start at under ten at the latest. Hard to see an Australian Rules player changing to the round ball code

If that's the case, it has changed. Kids have been drafted straight out of high school for years (Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant are the best known examples that jump to mind)

On ‎30‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 6:53 PM, monoccular said:

It certainly irks me that the totally uncommitted HL - uncommitted to footy that is though maybe he should be committed - is taking a list spot that anyone could take - I would prefer Grimes, even Terlich who at least gave his best to this narcissistic headless chook. 

That is a very, very good point.

3 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Hardly "extraordinary" and hardly an "error of judgement". Well documented that Micky wasn't on board, won the flag then showed the Pies the forks before matching off to the Blues and enjoyed Buckley dropping further down the ladder every year... I.e. Micky didn't leave Bucks a list or club with which he'd succeed...

PJ was spot on and good on him for saying it.

Bucks playing for his career in 2017.

Well sure, assuming Goodwin works out. Won't look so smooth if we win 6 games next year.

7 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

 

I reckon I could find a way to describe it...

I probably should have resisted and not given it the oxygen it so richly does not deserve...

21 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Sorry ladiez not going anywhere, nice to see a thread about me again.......

You have an indescribable knack for making them about you, so stop complaining when it happens.

I think if this were brought in, we'd see even more of a change towards athletes rather than footballers. The way the game has changed since the 1980s and 1990s makes comparisons with those eras a bit redundant in my view.

On 6 September 2016 at 7:42 AM, faultydet said:

It. Isn't. So Stop. Whining. About. It

Sorry, you're right. I should stop expressing opinions on a forum, then spelling out my argument for other posters who respond as if they can't read.

Well done.

On 2 September 2016 at 1:16 PM, M_9 said:

With the B&F next Tuesday, and I would think de-listings will occur before then, is it going to be today, tomorrow or Monday? Apologies if this has been mentioned.

Why would they do that the day before the B&F? They'd have to have rocks in their heads.

On 8/28/2016 at 5:34 PM, leave it to deever said:

Seriously....you calling someone else boring......... I hate to be the bearer of bad news but  having just returned from Canberra on a grey cold Sunday arvo.............you give it a bloody good run for its money. Sorry Canberra residents.

Go on mate, let go of the restraint you edited out and tell me what you really think.

17 minutes ago, america de cali said:

We all know  what happened with Wayne Carey and  his captain.  A couple of big C's, and one played for us.

That was crafted expertly. I reckon you spent a while getting that one right!

12 hours ago, ManDee said:

In the players work contact they have agreed to testing. They did not have to. Given that they have all signed contracts agreeing to the testing what is the problem with them being tested? Other workplaces have testing, perhaps more should. The point is once tested and being found to have broken the law what do you do? Surely this was a consideration of the players prior to signing.

PS:- I did not say players should be tested. But given it is a condition of employment they have agreed to why not. I do think there should be more testing in society generally, like doctors, nurses, taxi drivers users of heavy equipment etc. personally I would have no problem with being tested.  I have no problem with testing of drivers, do you?

 

It. Should. Be. Private.

On 31 August 2016 at 1:12 PM, ManDee said:

Breaking the law is breaking the law. And you say that is complete nonsense!

Hopefully you can see the flaw in your reasoning.

Mate, you've lost track of what you are arguing about.

The original point that DG made was that footballers shouldn't be being tested for illicit drugs, because it is none of their employers' business whether they take them. Mine was slightly different, in that I said if they were, the results shouldn't be in the public domain.

You said 'breaking the law is breaking the law'. 

I then asked what makes footballers different to everybody else, in that they should be actively drug tested because 'breaking the law is breaking the law'. If you go down that path, why aren't we all subject to drug testing every day, to make sure that we are not breaking the law. Because breaking the law is breaking the law, after all.

Your argument is absolute nonsense. You say that footballers should be tested for illegal drugs, because they shouldn't be allowed to get away with breaking the law. But you only pin this on footballers, not everybody else. What makes them different to you and me? I'm subject to complying with laws in exactly the same way as they are. As are you. 

I'm going to stop here, because there is clearly no point debating this further with you.

On 31 August 2016 at 1:01 PM, jnrmac said:

About being in the papers or the stupidity of taking drugs?

Being in the papers. I don't take drugs, for the record, but it is still a private matter. 

51 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Yes I can. Breaking the law is breaking the law. No one should break the law, and that is the logical endpoint. The extension is if the law is wrong you change the law, you don't simply break the law.

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The logical endpoint to your argument is making everybody line up as they get off trains at Flinders St to get drug tested. Hopefully you can see the flaw in your reasoning.

3 minutes ago, Choke said:

Who cares about the AFL being able to implement and administer their own policies?

I would have thought pretty much every footy fan?

Not sure. I certainly don't care if they administer this one or not! That's separate to my more overarching argument that it shouldn't be in their policies at all, but that's another story.

And I should make clear, of course PEDs are different. I'm just talking here about your routine weekend party drugs, which I assume is all we're talking about in Whitfield's case.

3 minutes ago, ManDee said:

DG, are you seriously suggesting that breaking the law is not a problem?

Historically PED's have been found in illegal drugs, who knows what ends up in them? As professional athletes covered by the WADA code they should be very careful with everything that they consume. In avoiding testing they break the rules of the competition and the WADA code. If being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to play sport and be looked up to as a hero is not enough, then give up sport and disappear in a drug infused fog, otherwise play by the rules.

No more than any other employee who is subject to private, confidential drug testing, where it is reasonable.

You can't draw a line and say footballers shouldn't be permitted to break the law, because the logical endpoint of that argument is that so should everybody. And that is clearly non-sensical.

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

What if a politician failed or refused a drug test, or a journalist, or a bus driver, or a school teacher?

AFL footballers rightly or wrongly are seen as role models. If you refuse a drug/alcohol test while driving you are deemed guilty. This has become public because nothing has happened in over a year since the whistle blower raised concerns. I think it appropriate that it is now in the public domain. I hope that it is not swept under the carpet by the AFL, sigh!

This, perhaps, is the problem. What they really are is young kids paid buckets of money and given lots of spare time and adulation.

The sooner we all see this, the quicker stories like this will become nothing!

2 minutes ago, Choke said:

Another thought on the public vs private thing - I agree with posters saying illicit drug testing and results should be private. However, given the example we have here, do we trust the AFL to actually follow through on their own policies without the public bringing pressure?

I guess what I'm saying is that if the AFL were actually run properly, there'd be no need for the debate. We could trust that the AFL were testing and punishing/helping players based on results.

What we can clearly see here is the AFL trying to bury their own (and GWS's) failure to properly implement their own drugs policy. Without the leak and subsequent public interest, nothing happens. It's a pretty sad day when the general public has to be a check and balance on the game's administrators who can't act in the game's (and players') own best interest.

And then you get the reaction we've just seen against the leaker (in this case, the ex-girfriend), all because some big shots didn't do the right thing.

The whole thing is so arse-about it makes me question why I follow this game at all.

The point is, though, who cares?