rjay

Yep, agree...the sub rule should be scrapped. There's no reason we can't go back to 4 but of course the AFL we go to 5 which to my mind is stupid. Yep, I'm sick of the creep here as well...you can just see the push for an injury sub again in a few years can't you. The answer is cut rotations way back... I think he could see it and this whole thing is a bit of a smoke screen...of course the sub was there to be used for Cameron but he chose to sub out Stanley. 'old dee' I think he and Stanley were probably on a par as far as contribution goes. Yep, it wasn't a good look and not the first time. I like this... I think so...it was a big risk but with big risk comes big reward. Being able to hold Neale on the bench as a sub for half a game was a huge advantage when they let him lose in the 2nd half. They knew he didn't have a full game in him but gambled he did have half a game and it paid off. 17 disposals and 7 clearances after HT at that rate he would have romped in the Norm... If they had an injury in the first Q then it would have been seen as a bust perhaps. ...but they didn't and he broke the game open. I reckon this is what Scott was really pointing too but the media were too dumb to pick up on.

Not a knock on Scott - more the AFL but lets come back to him & the media later.... The Sub (that's what this is about). In my time we started with 19th & 20th men. Very rigid & unless there was an injury you were lucky to get a few minutes junk time at the end of a game. The idea of interchange came into football in 1978, 2 interchange players replaced the 19th & 20th men. This was a great idea I think & added some flexibility. Particularly in local footy as a young kid going from U17's to senior footy I found myself on the bench for just a few minutes of game time in the senior side a number of times. In 1994 the introduction of the blood rule saw interchange go to 3 Then in 1998 they thought 4 would be a good number...now we are running into problems as we move into flood territory with too many fit players with unlimited interchanges. 2011 we bring in the sub...3 interchanges 1 sub. This was due to coaches whinging about the advantage the opposing have if one of their players get injured. The idea of 21 fit men v 22....now smart people would have said this wasn't going to work. How about we cut heavily on the rotations then the effect of losing one won't be as great. ...but no we went with the sub. Then the coaches started whinging about the sub, Roos called it the worst rule change ever invented. Anyway I could go on with the history...the point is they got rid of the sub then brought it back & now it looks like it's going again but we keep 5 on the bench. Why? They have reduced rotations but should cut them further & reduce the bench to 4 max. this will even it out if you get an injury plus open the game out. Back to Scott, he made some point about Cameron & not being able to decide what to do around the sub...but, when he introduced his sub he subbed out Stanley & left Cameron on. Thanks to a limp media we are none the wiser. Was this more about how Brisbane used Neale? It seemed a strange thing to bring up.

No, I was meaning the "Norm", I know it's not voted by the umpires by the way but just making a point. ...after all the whinging in the media, when they get their chance they still vote a mid. I thought Andrews deserved more votes and probably should have won it. At least Kate McCarthy thought so too. Interesting to see just reading now that there was a lot of negative comment on her being on the panel. Well I think she stood up well & didn't just go with the flow. Well done Kate.. Without looking at the stats I don't know how Luke Hodge gave McLuggage a vote...I just looked at the stats and see why. He looked at the stats. In the first half when it was on the line he did a couple of nice things but was quiet. I'm a big fan of McLuggage by the way but I think a lot of his stats were from when the game was broken open.

It's not about who we miss out on...it's just time to close this loophole down. If it's a serious competition then it needs to be done properly. Seeing as we want to change everything else that made this game unique, then this one is a no brainer.

No, if you want a fair draft it's time for F/S to go....

It's a midfielders medal. Can't let the umpires vote on it anymore ...lol

Good effort though from a wingman...kid can play.

Smith just made a d...k of himself. ...yet again.

Bailey just added his name to the list...been good all day.

I might go with Andrews because he has been so steady to date. ...but still a Q to go.

They're evening it up now 'BDA'

Here comes the even up...

Absolutely but they're going to leave it to half time so It covers his 20mins.... No time missed.

Shocking free kick..

A great addition to the club...

I hope it's a bit closer but wouldn't surprise me. Playing Neale is a big risk, wouldn't be surprised if he's pulled out before the game.

Happy Birthday 'DeeZone'...looks like your having a good one.

Keep it coming’BDA’, I’m stuck shopping…

Good operator, who would really know? He had ultimate success with us and has our thanks for a job well done. Is there a fair bit of hype that goes along with the position? Are other fitness guru's as good? They seem to go in and out of fashion over the years... What is his overall record like? Seems to move around a lot.

I would have Yeo (at his best) top 3 in this draft...

Something about a silk purse...

He's really not...great player, annoying player and plays for the wrong club.

6 votes to all the vote givers...I'm terrible at it so refrain but they all look around the mark to me.

Yes, it seems she comes in for centre bounces and then drops back. I think this is a good move by Mick to give her more exposure in the midfield as with Purcell out it gives us a bit more strength at centre bounces. Well worth persisting with.

It was reported a while ago that Hill wants to go back to WA. I guess we watch this space.