Undeeterred

Some of these suggested changes are nuts. Trengove is not a like for like for Dawes and no way that change gets made. Harmes/Kennedy/Kent all played really good games yesterday. Harmes was down back for a good part of the day and actually looked really good. Kent attacked the ball and provided run. He also played the role of storming off the back of the square and collecting a hand off on the way through and, when it worked, it looked really dangerous. Kennedy cracked in all day and was good. A couple of missed shots are no reason to drop him. I'd be surprised if there were many changes, really. Nobody stands out in the VFL, other than Grimes, and it will only be a question of whether they want to get in any of Brayshaw, Oliver or Lumumba. I doubt they will.

Oh, of course. I was being a little bit facetious, but agree that he will know exactly what's going on. While his form is good, they probably see him as a safe pair of hands in the event of a late change, but not really good enough to give him a game consistently, or even at all.

Not sure it is doing his confidence much good to be constantly getting 25 touches and seeing almost every other candidate for a promotion go up past him. They're holding him back just long enough for his form to tail off (because he surely can't stay in good form the entire season) then they won't have to put him in, because his 'form doesn's justify it'

The problem was that Adelaide pushed back really hard, and we didn't have anyone to kick to. So many peanuts on the MCC wing were screaming 'just kick it', then when we did, it often went straight down the Adelaide players throat because they were 5 on 3, or 4 on 2. And Jesse Hogan wasn't working hard enough to get in front. Too often when that kick came, he was sitting too far back from the kicker, on his heels, not providing that target,

I'd love Lumumba to go back to the roll Hunt is playing now (which is Lumumba's role) and for Hunt to roll through the midfield. I think he's the speed we need on the outside, that we're hoping Billy Stretch and Matt Jones would be. A nice clean handpass from Dom Tyson or Nate Jones, and he'd be off. That goal today where he took off on Jenkins and was inside 40 in a heartbeat was just sensational.

Spot on.

Well, at least we aren't Richmond.

Pretty massive article this week with extensive quotes from his manager. Still, as usual olisik drawing a long bow.

That is gold. What a bump.

Well he's not a proofreader.

Overly sarcastic and extremely short sighted. Who is suggesting giving games away? How about this scenario - the new game plan actually suits him, which is why he is cutting up the twos. What have we to lose by giving him a few games (based on form) to show us whether that's true? Or how about this scenario - the way we handled McDonald, Green and others, while playing favourites with kids, had a huge hand in creating an extremely disgruntled playing group. Look how well that went down in the aftermath. And do you seriously think they'd have told him he's not going to be there next year? Sure - just make him emergency every week and have him stew for months and months about how his career is about to be ended. You've got to be joking - that's about as sure a recipe for personnel issues as there is ever likely to be.

Hear, hear. People forget the lingering effect of trampling on Junior McDonald and others, instead of handling the situation with a bit of sensitivity. People also forget that players are human, and when players are treated harshly, they have a lot of mates in the 40 odd left behind, who in turn get shirty with the administration.

The big question is how do we know that he can't perform under the new game plan? It's being played in the VFL, and he's clearly smashing it, so why don't we ditch our preconceptions and see if he can manage it at AFL level? Who knows, he might even turn out to be the quick, hard running wingman we need quite badly. How will we know, unless we try?

His play might have been in the middle somewhere, but maybe let me say that the value he provided as against what he should have been providing was awful.

This is revisionism at best. He had two awful seasons before he left us and we got exactly what he was worth. Some would say we got overs, given his only ability is marking. He's dreadful otherwise.

Is that confirmed? They were talking last night about how important it was to get his signature

LOL. You peanut.

That's interesting - I did one and West Coast in 8th were three games clear of Port in 9th... That would be supremely boring.

The issue with most sports is that players can't block trades made by their team. NBA players get shipped all over the place up to the trade deadline, which is a couple of months out from the playoffs. They can literally play for New York one night, be on a plane, and be suiting up in LA a couple of days later. European football, for example, has transfer windows where there is a specific period in which players can be transferred, whether pre and early season or mid season. The common denominator with these other sports is that clubs effectively own the right to manage their players and the players can't stop those rights being bought and sold.

This is the kind of thread someone starts because they are bored at work and have to generate a non-existent problem to talk about.

That's a GIF, by the way.

Can't believe I'm taking time out of my day to explain this to such a simpleton. 'Black widow' is a very old, well known label to attach to a woman that is seen as spiteful or a range of other things. There is a huge negative stigma underlying calling someone that, which the person attaching the label doesn't need to repeat to get the message across. Players nicknames are usually given in a positive way with an underlying tone of mateship and admiration. If not, it's just as much bullying as calling someone a black widow. For example, if you call a mate 'fatso', and attach that label in a negative way that makes the person uncomfortable, that's bullying. If you call him the Hulk, or the Beast (which have positive connotations in a male dominated environment, it's probably not. Your ignorance is amazing.

Maybe that's where your women issues come from.

You've taken a secular, universal issue and turned it into a rant about the political Left and Islam. Such a shame, because I was in real admiration up to the end of the second paragraph. Then you went completely rogue. Weird, because I think you'll find that people who don't care about the abuses of women in Islam are from both sides of politics - it's not a Left/Right issue.

So as a society, we'd prefer to fire someone when they question someone's professionalism, but not when we advocate violence against them. Excellent. And to the second point - I think you're either being disingenous, or dumb as a brick, to suggest there is no press or publicity around violence against men, children and animals. Not seen any of the one-punch campaigning? Or cruelty to animals ads? The reason we are discussing violence against women in this instance is because there was a specific incident where violence against women was raised.