Undeeterred

You make the fairly wild assumption here that people always tell the truth on social media.

I definitely don't claim to be a source - I'll just believe that he's fine when I see it. Which I sincerely hope I do!

We'll see, hh, we'll see...

I didn't realise this thread was up and about too - just posted in the Garland thread. I'd be surprised, but delighted if he played again, and completely astounded if he got up for round 1...

I'm with the Clark doubters. It kills me to say it, but when he can do more than light jogging and stationary hand balling drills, I'll start to believe he'll play again. Round 1? I'd be astounded.

She also talks loads of complete bollocks. Witness the tanking saga and her reporting on that. Absolute bollocks, most of it.

He actually did do that, in the OP.

No, you're right, I don't know him. But I do know people who know him very well, and they report nothing but good things. You're probably right too, in that I've heard some stories about his interactions with some players. Sounds to me like he misjudged how best to deal with at least a couple of them. I don't know, though, about treating them 'poorly'. He wasn't right and didn't get results, but that doesn't give people on this site the right to pretend he was Hitler or something. What does anybody gain out of going over and over and over this ground? Absolutely nothing.

You to be a complete goose, which is clearly what I've got.

I don't think Melbourne having a good season will 'stick it up' Neeld. Maybe before being a complete dick, have a think about what you would think of some ill-informed forum poster writing crap like that about your mate, or your dad or uncle or something. He's actually a really good guy, who didn't do a great job. It doesn't mean it is necessary to publicly [censored] him at every opportunity. I'd love it if we all got to watch you work all day and, when it didn't go so well, get on here and hang [censored] all over you about it. Seriously...

Seriously, you two, its incredibly boring wading through piles of your crap on every thread.

NOT ENOUGH PICS... SEND MORE!!

Haha yes, quite. But I think it is a long bow.

You're forgetting that we're substituting our top 6 with their bottom 6, effectively. Nobody is saying our best is better than their best, but it seems reasonable to say that a few of our top players are at least better than their 20-25. I don't see that as particularly unreasonable.

Ease up you t0ssers, he's a perfectly good guy. Get over it.

Maybe he just likes tennis?

Minor stuff???

But do you really blame them?

No, they're on our list because we can't physically sack 25 at once. Or else they would have.

BOOM!

Basketballers also, in the best league in the world at least, play upwards of 100 games in a six month season. They're perfectly fit enough. Edited for clarity

Oh no Clint! Don't start the debate!!

'Impecunious' means you have no money. Not sure that's quite what you mean.

We should probably all let it go now, though!

Disagree. More strongly as the days go past where he isn't putting in a preseason as an over 30s ruckman.