Diamond_Jim

Thanks a million Macca Have been looking for a decent schedule for days. I found the Google schedule and thought I was okay only to find out just in time it was displaying US East Coast times (not Rio time). This will be a godsend......... thanks again

Peter Gordon (Bulldogs President) on ABC radio this morning mentioned that the Swiss tribunal has held (indicated) that the appeal should be decided in accordance with Australian law. If it is the usual case of a tribunal applying a foreign law that means that the law is determined as a matter of fact by competing affidavits from Australian law experts. He mentioned that the 34 have some impressive members of the Australian legal field (possibly including an ex High Court Judge) weighing in on their side. Mmmmmmmmmm........... may be interesting still as the CAS decision was not exactly what one ordinarily reads in the world of Australian jurisprudence (mainly in the links in the chain vs the strands in the cable of evidence area). Also the concept of "comfortable satisfaction" and where it sits in the Australian concepts of "balance of probabilities" and "beyond reasonable" doubt is another area of possible contention given that the case law on "comfortable satisfaction" is in the main foreign decisions of CAS itself. Ahh..... the gift that keeps on giving

Sounds like Oliver is hot to go in the seniors !

No the opposite...... would he prefer a chance at Brisbane (with a good guarantee of games) against no/few games a la Grimes this year

Would you prefer a season full of games at Brisbane against being on the Melbourne list but not getting a game and then being delisted ( as has happened to Grimes this year,)

Begs the question why we did not use the last two years of non performance to front end a 6 year deal for Hogan. The Dawes money would have come in handy for example.

My main concern Old Dee is that we will keep him for another year but that he will be on the permanent outer next year and thus the Grimes scenario will repeat. Would it be better for Jack to go now with our blessing to a club where he can reasonably guarantee a start for say 10-12 games. I cannot see him getting that start other than through injuries in the present MFC team. Of course that makes him a valuable depth player as others have pointed out but I think he deserves more. Personally I would love to see him succeed but to see three captains "delisted" is not good no matter how hard nosed a supporter one might be.

We are now six weeks plus since Jack got dropped. Would be interested to see what others think of his chance of returning this season. It seems to me that while at Casey he has been playing well but not exactly blitzing it. Perhaps they are banking on the old "strong pre-season" and then re-assess theory. Would hate to see a repeat of the Grimes scenario

Hi came across this great post on Big Footy from 2011 on the subject of the forward press. It seems to describe MFC to a tee. Have looked at Shaw of the GWS on the kick outs. He almost always takes off from the square which gives them a chance to break the press. Interestingly the writer below does not include that in his/her 3 ways to break the press From a kick out, you start with your 18 man zone from 25-75 meters from the opposition goal. This means anywhere from 25-75 meters there should be no free space for opposition players to run and present an option for the kick out. Often you will see the full back (or 'kicker inner' now the FB doesn't really do that any more) kick to a target in the pocket (say the broadcast side pocket) where a free player is because the zone only starts 25m out. Because the player is now in the pocket on one side the effective '1 kick' length means he can now no longer reach say 65m out on the non broadcast side. Because of this you can start to collapse the zone towards the side where the player with the ball is (broadcast side in this instance) this congests the space further and means he if he wants his team to keep posession of the ball he has to kick back to the full back who is now near the goal line. Now because the man on the mark is 2-3 out from the goal line (as opposed to 15 out for a kick in) you shift the zone across to cover the field equally again but you move it 10-12 meters closer to goal. now because of the shape of a footy field a zone from 15-60 (as opposed to 25-75) won't have to cover as much ground there for is tighter with even less space for an opposition player to be free and you end up with the situation where all the FB can do is kick to the player in the pocket again (or the other pocket) really close to the line, now the zone collapses to that side and tightens up a little more, then the player in the pocket kicks it back to the FB (maybe not 15 and you can pressure and tackle) and the cycle repeats with the 'inferred' pressure building each kick. Eventually the player will have to kick it to a contest and give up effective posession of the ball. At any stage of my previous scenario the player in defense with the ball could kick it long, but if the zone is working properly it will be to a contest which is the whole point. Now the attacking team either gets the ball back (turnover) or causes a stoppage (neutral contest). The 3 ways I can think of that teams can get out of their defensive half from a kick in are; 1. Pinpoint passing with perfect skills (which theoretically shouldn't be possible with a well structured zone) 2. Kick to a big pack marking target 55ish out on the boundary line (Ben McEvoy for us when he is on song, I notice Freo use Sandi for this) 3. Long kick to the contest, ball is brough to ground, win the contested ball and spread. As you can see, none of these 3 options are guaranteed to come off which is perfect for the attacking team. It's also one of the reasons you hear coaches always talking about the contested ball stat. Here's the link to the Big Footy post https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/explain-the-forward-press-to-me.839514/page-2

The kick to handball number and ratio today are roughly the same as the Bulldogs on Friday night so it is not as though the number in itself is a problem. Clearly though we are inept at using handball to release a player and in fact tend towards the opposite result of handballing to a player in a worse position. This is clearly a coaching issue which should have been rectified weeks if not months ago.

Why do we continually not get real benefits from ruck dominance? It is not a new failing.... perhaps ruckmen really are the dinosaurs of the modern AFL game

Not sure if posted earlier but in interview of the Bulldogs coach on 3AW tonight they mentioned the the CAS decision is due in the next two weeks. The comment was made in the context of the possibility of Crameri playing for the Bulldogs in the remaining rounds. Will be interested to read the decision when handed down. The last one did not exactly reflect the norm in Australian jurisprudence no matter how many might agree with the outcome. But the players have to understand that in this area they are "no longer in Kansas Toto".

Love him .... hate him or even secretly jealous that he does not play for the MFC, as a football supporter I must say well done to Boomer Harvey for breaking the all time playing record. This is an achievement that we may never see repeated who knows. My admiration is for a player who has managed to maintain a spot among the game's elite during a time of great change in tempo, playing style and tactics. Well done Boomer !

I see there has been talk of scrapping the development league. The VFL comp structure certainly needs some work if it is to remain viable http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/localfooty/sandringham-gm-calls-for-afl-vic-to-keep-development-league/news-story/253b72167eba31709ed9c6b8310a58d4

Have now moved past any form of emotional investment in individual members of the playing group. Clubs do not show loyalty so I cannot expect it in return from players. (Just like the workplace.) Hopefully we can make it a good place to work and thus keep some but as in any workplace the high flyers will always be interested in the next upwards move. In my world all players would be paid a base salary (a good one and there could be some flexibilty) and then there would be a bonus system that distributes the pool. Businesses have had such pools for years and while not perfect you would not for example have the Dawes situation. The onus is then on the players to perform. If they do they will be rewarded very well. Of course some player managers may not like that system but it is the fairest if not the best for some

Nothing but a publicity stunt and what is unfortunate... a two way stunt

My mistake.... Rod Keogh you are right a solid player who never quite got to the heights From Wikipedia: " Keogh usually played in the midfield or at half forward and was recruited to Melbourne from Castlemaine.[1] He made his league debut in 1990 but spent most of the season with the reserves where he won a Gardiner Medal. In 1993 he won another Gardiner Medal[2] after failing to play a senior game that year. He moved to St Kilda in 1994[3] and was a member of their 1997 grand final losing side. Keogh was delisted at the end of the 1998 season "

There was a saying about winning the B&F medal for the VFL Reserves as they were: It went: Good to win one but you do not want to win two ! We had a guy.... Brian Keogh who won two. Eventually he left the Dees and went to St Kilda where if I recall he had an okay career TBH... hard to get excited by Casey unless the win/loss is relevant to the development of the younger players and/or maintaining form in the older players. Years ago I liked the VFA as a separate comp. (Followed the Preston Bullants) but the AFL have just sucked the air/interest out of the lower level comp.

Actually some were clubs (unincorporated associations)... some were companies albeit limited by guarantee As clubs the committee members faced liability much the same as company directors. Legally it was a mess And of course North Melbourne floated its shares on, if I remember correctly the Hobart Stock Exchange

Gordon Lewis was Commisioner for Corporate Affairs in the early/mid 80's He tells the story of how he called the VFL (as it was) into its office and said they had 14 days (I think) or perhaps a few months to fix up their finances or he would close football. The licence fee paid by the Brisbane Bears (Christopher Skase) saved the VFL. Those days many of the clubs were basket cases. Collingwood went almost bust a few times. Clubs mortgaged grand stands to banks. ( God knows how the bank would ever take possession.) Delayed player payments were not unusual. And of course it was payment by matches so no payment in the off season for training etc. The modern AFL under the AFL Commission is an altogether different corporate structure than the old VFL.

I will not be excited by a win. Will be more interested in how and who played well in the hope that it gives me a glimpse of a winning future for the MFC. If we lose it will be just more of the "hopeless feeling" that many of us. By the way I don't want to hear the "it's been a long season...young bodies mantra." Winning well is what this game should be about.

GWS now sitting second on the ladder While we do not love them... beating Port in Adelaide is not an easily dismissed victory

We may not like playing at the Docklands but after watching a few minutes of what should have been a good game between Port and GWS the wind and rain sure plays havoc with the skills and the consequential spectacle

You should be able to google the Demonland archives for a good discussion but if I remember correctly it focused mainly on the MFC wanting Sandringham to be more cognisant of Melbourne's game plan and the development of our junior players. As an example we had a young full forward who was going to be our next star (he never made it) but because Sandy had one of the best old forwards in the game our would be star got few chances to learn his craft

the usual hollow feeling I don't want to hear that we are getting better........... WCE played badly....... we should have won by five goals