autocol

This thread is his intention. He deliberately takes the controversial side of every topic to stir up debate and make himself the centre of it... and you're all lapping it up! Stop feeding the troll.

Pick 20 is not overs for Chris Dawes. You have to go back to 2009 to find a pick between 20-25 that is clearly superior to Dawes - and that's Fyfe, who is one of those "unpredictable freaks". People consistently overrate draft picks that will find a kid with promise who'll play 3 seasons, 50 games, and then get delisted. 20 for Dawes was a good deal.

I reckon it might be a bit of a case of "beginner's luck", also called "a change is as good as a holiday". Sometimes, you try something new and it comes to you really quickly and easily. You persist and decide to get better, learn more about it, try more strategies.... but now you're thinking too much about it and not just doing your natural thing - which is what worked to start with. I reckon Chip is probably trying to think like a forward now, and it's not something he's done a lot of, so it doesn't come naturally. For the first couple of games, he probably just felt free and under no pressure, because everybody knew he was out of position. Now they've seen he can do it, he feels more pressure to do it regularly. And, for what it's worth, I'd imagine he'll be taking Brian Lake's role next year. Hopefully our compensation is good.

thanks mate.

Can anyone tell me where the ignore poster button is? I'm absolutely itching to use it.

Horrible skills and poor decision making would result in poor disposal efficiency, yes? His D.E. is over 80% for the year. You're talking straight out of your arse.

Correct. The technical term for it is the availability heuristic. It's one of the most frequently noticeable cognitive biases.

I don't feel like I can't express my own opinion. I simply can't be bothered reading 14 pages of utter tosh just to find a single piece of enlightening information about the Dees. I think this forum is fairly poorly moderated.

It would be nice if some of the threads weren't filled with the constant ramblings of the five or six blokes who spend their whole lives here. I would visit more often if I was more confident of reading about football. Sometimes I open a thread, read two or three posts, skip four or five, think "screw it, even my downtime is worth more than this" and head off to reddit, a website filled with 18-24 year olds... The AFL subreddit has a fair bit more quality football discussion than this joint, most of the time, and the tone of the posts is a lot less childish. Make of that what you will.

May I propose a different theory? It applies to all backmen who are regularly maligned by both the media and their own fans. When a defender kicks and makes a mistake, the result is regularly a turnover which provides a shot on goal for the opposition. This is a highly memorable event. When they kick well, it results in a mark and another kick. This is not particularly memorable. When an attacker kicks and makes a mistake, the result is usually either a behind or a turnover that results in a mark to the opposition and another kick. Not a particularly memorable event. When they kick well, it results in either goal, or a mark with a shot on goal. This is a highly memorable event. As a result, human observers (who are scientifically proven to be absolutely terrible at "gut feel" statistics, and also scientifically proven to overestimate their ability to judge "gut feel" statistics) are massively prone to recalling defenders mistakes, and attackers successes. As a result, Tom McDonald, Jack Grimes, Dean Terlich and Lynden Dunn are constantly overly criticised for their disposal quality, when it's simply the location on the ground their disposal takes place that is the problem (and is outside of their control). Every single team has "whipping boy" defenders who are statistically no worse than their teammates, but are constantly unfairly criticised thanks to the ease of recall fallacy. Grimes is one.

Pedo was playing a running midfield role along with second ruck against Sydney, and did a fantastic job. Garland to defence, Pedo to the wing, Watts to Casey. Job done.

I'm all aboard the Spencil train.

Surely you've heard the saying "Money can buy happiness". Or... wait, is that how it goes...?

Oh great. You're ripping out all the big guns now. Some of the anzacs sat in the trenches and cried like children. Some of them ran headfirst into their certain death. Some of them killed as many enemies as they could. Some of them never fired their weapon. You don't get to decide what the anzacs thought, because each of them was an individual that had their own motivations and aspirations, and you trotting them out here is nearly as shameful as politicians purporting to represent their wishes in support of one (usually racist) policy or another. Now that you've brought them up, however, it might be worth mentioning that thousands of the poor buggers succumbed to mental illness thanks to their experiences in the war and lived the rest of their lives as hollow, empty shells, not a shadow of their former selves. I wonder indeed, what they would think of you belittling others - like Mitch - battling mental demons.

Angry, I invite you to pretend for a moment that Mitch has lung cancer instead of depression. Ask yourself whether your attitude to his predicament would be different. Would you still be reacting in this way? My guess is that the answer is no... and you would do well to contemplate the reasons why.

TSFKA, I wholeheartedly agree. Our society does not yet collectively understand mental illness. When someone's lungs fail and they get cancer, they receive universal support and compassion. When someone's blood-pump fails and they have a heart attack, they receive universal support and compassion. When their brain malfunctions and they fall into depression, they receive... derision. It's a terrible shame. I've personally supported a dear friend through a deep, deep depression and it is incredibly difficult for all involved. I can't speak for how it would feel personally - thankfully - but from the outside looking in, trying to help, I can say with certainty that it looks like hell. Well done Mitch, for being a role-model that others having trouble with depression can look to for inspiration. I'm sure many others will seek professional help, with the help of their friends and family, thanks to Mitch's bravery in making this declaration. He could easily have lied and pretended his foot was never going to be right to play again, but he's made a conscious decision to do it this way, which I'm sure is for the benefit of others rather than himself. Truly a team player, and a fabulous human being. I'll miss him, and wish him all the best.

Congratulations on displaying a complete and utter lack of empathy.

Whilst I agree with your post, OP, if you do this on nearly any team's list you'll find you're making similar judgements. I don't know the Hawks list intimately, but let's just quickly scan down it to see who's a certain "Y" and who is a question mark... 2. Jarryd Roughead Y 3 Jordan Lewis Y 4 Matthew Suckling Y 5 Sam Mitchell Y 6 Josh Gibson Y 7 Ben McEvoy Y 8 Taylor Duryea ? 9 Shaun Burgoyne Y 10 Bradley Hill ? 11 Brendan Whitecross ? 12 Brad Sewell Y 13 Kyle Cheney ? 14 Grant Birchall Y 15 Luke Hodge Y 16 Isaac Smith Y 17 Brian Lake Y 18 Jonathon Ceglar ? 19 Jack Gunston Y 20 David Hale Y 22 Luke Breust Y 23 Tim O'Brien ? 24 Ben Stratton ? 25 Ryan Schoenmakers Y 26 Liam Shiels ? 27 Matt Spangher ? 28 Paul Puopolo ? 29 Will Langford ? 30 Luke Lowden ? 31 Angus Litherland ? 32 Jonathan Simpkin ? 33 Cyril Rioli Y 34 Jordan Kelly ? 35 Sam Grimley ? 37 Jed Anderson ? 38 Mitch Hallahan ? 39 Alex Woodward ? 40 Billy Hartung ? 41 James Sicily ? 42 Kaiden Brand ? 44 Dayle Garlett N So yeah, there's a few extra "Y"s, but there's plenty of guys who you'd seriously have to wonder would get picked up by any other team. I think the majority of the underperformance of the Melbourne list is between the ears. Frawley being a prime example of someone outputting much less than their best. (edit - Given that only 22 players per team can take the field, and the list is ~40 players long, roughly half the players on ANY team's list is likely to be considered "below AFL standard" because that standard is, by definition, the standard at which one can get a regular spot in a 22).

Posts about Dunn which were "liked" by Machsy: "His niggle never puts the opposition off, it's just for his own inflated ego and is crap." "in the mean time he should focus on actually playing football." (suggesting he stop niggling). "Someone has finally tried to rid him of his false bravado" And a quote from Machsy himself: "But his senior influence on the side saps a lot of our drive." Now you're saying you want more of our players to do it?

YOU PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN DUNN [censored] FOR THIS SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL! NOW YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T DO IT ENOUGH!? I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS! PS: Check my post history. I've been Lynden Dunn's biggest fan since day dot.

It's simple statistics, really. Each year, between one and three draft picks play like a senior player in their first year. Let's say there's an average of two. Each team takes an average of about 4 new players per draft, I guess? This means that in any given year you've got about a 12.5% chance of snagging a "first year gun". The probability that you will not get a "first year gun" in seven years of trying is a not inconsiderable 39.3%. So it's perfectly easy to explain why we haven't had one through that method alone. Further, however, I put it to you that we have had a first year gun in that time... three, in fact. Cale Morton, Tom Scully, and Jack Trengove. All three played top quality football in their first year. At the end of year one Scully looked like the best draft pick anyone had seen for ages. He signed a six million dollar contract off the back of that year. By the end of year two Trengove looked like Jimmy Bartel reborn. Morton was inconsistent, sure, but he played some unbelievable games in his first year or two and other clubs were kicking themselves that he was with us. So, in short, you're revising history to suit your sob story. Sorry, but it doesn't stack up.

Exactly right Stuie. It's manufactured codswallop, their 'rivalry'. You'll notice Caro doesn't have major fights with anyone actually in football. All her 'enemies' are media people. Hutchy, Brayshaw... people for whom being embroiled in a shitfight is just as beneficial as it is for Caro.

You're right, though for my money Hodge isn't in the same league as Judd. Hawks would have an additional flag to their names if they'd had Judd throughout his prime. Hodge is a great, Judd is... better than great. (Though Hodge certainly strikes me as a better person, but judged solely on footballing ability and overall impact across their respective careers, Judd is streets ahead). I think the reason we're all so devastated about Wines is that in the weeks preceding the draft it was considered a done deal that we would be taking Wines. Whitfield was set to go pick 1, Toump 2, Grundy 3, and we'd take Wines. I remember the Dees fans around the world spending a good couple of weeks dreaming of the Sellar Dawes, with Wines from the Vine(y)s (okay, so maybe not many people were particularly keen on the Sellar part, but still...). That's why it's harder to get over the fact that the kid is a monster. (Fortunately, I drafted him in my ultimate footy league so that was a welcome 136 points this week!).

I reckon Pedo might be a good foil for Fitzy with Howe and Byrnes playing third up and crumber (I'll bet Roosy goes with Byrnes rather than JKH for round one, much as I love the youngster). Pedo runs hard, makes space, is a great mark for a middling sized KPP, and is good enough to take a defender with him. Fitzy, as we know, is lightning fast, which combined with another smart player making space for him can be really dangerous. I'd be quite comfortable going into the Saints game with Fitzy, Pedo, Howe and JKH/Byrnes (here's hoping for the former) as our permanent forwards, with two resting mids filling the flanks. Dunn and Pedo can switch roles if Pedo is struggling up forward or it works from a match-up perspective.

I don't think the AFL needs a CEO in the Kennett mould, right this minute. Demetriou has been a fairly visible character (certainly not at the Kennett level, but still), but his actions have been very bold. The expansion, adjustment to rules, I think the game has seen some fast but largely positive progress in the decade of his reign. I think we're ready for someone to basically manage the game for five years or so. Maintain stability, ensure the expansion is a success, and that's about it. We don't need any bold, visionary activity in the coming half-decade, in my opinion. That being the case, Kennett isn't the man for the job, because he simply couldn't sit on his hands while in a position of authority like that. He's a very proactive manager, and I just don't think that's what the game needs right now. I have no idea who it should be, but I would think the main concern would be someone with an astute understanding of money, which is likely to be the primary topic of discussion in the coming years (ie, who has it, and how much more than the rest do they have).