chookrat

A 4 - 5 year deal at $650-700k.would be fair value IMO. He is an excellent key defender entering his prime over the next few years and has demonstrated he is very capable as a key forward. Look at what Essendon paid for Ben McKay. The $800k that Adelaide are supposedly offering includes a premium to entice him out of an environment he is happy in - Roos once said it costs 20% more to trade in a player than to retain one. On a side note I like that Tom Morris is reporting Petty's lure to his boarding school 'home'. The whole idea of boarding school is somewere to stay while you study away from home. As some have pointed out here he is not from Adelaide but South Australia.

Looks lively. Based on this footage he doesn't miss a single goal as well!!

Haynes would be great, would free up Riv to play a bit more midfield.

What player do we get from GWS attached to their salary dump?

I disagree, if the Tribunal suspended Maynard then the suspension would have been squashed on appeal. The AFL had already tested this re the Van Rooyen spoil, which while different in that it was a spoil in a contest compared to a smother, is the same principal that players are allowed to spoil, smother, etc and these actions are not deemed rough conduct. There is a specific rough conduct provision for bumps and tackles but not for spoils, smothers, kicks etc. Maynard argued that he left the ground for a legitimate spoil, which he is allowed to do, and once in the air the high contact was unavoidable - there was no argument the Tribunal could have made that would be upheld on appeal. I believe the AFL will make a change in the off season where players will have a duty of care towards each other for any action, e.g. if a player leaves the ground to spoil and they collect a player high the AFL will argue that the player chose to leave the ground and bears some responsibility for the outcome. The same as if a player attempts to spoil and collects an opposition player high, such as in Van Rooyen's case.

I don't agree that Collingwood were lucky to win the GF. For two years they have consistently won close games through winning critical contests and plays, or as Goody puts it 'moments'. This year I think there were 5 sides that could genuinely have won it being Collingwood, Brisbane, Melbourne, Carlton and GWS. Many of the games were genuine 50 / 50 matches separated by a couple of missed shots at goal, critical contests, or a bit of luck, and if the finals series were played in a simulation 10 times over each if these 5 teams would probably win at least once. Where it hurts is that we had two chances and despite some excellent football we fell short both times. Losing Melksham on the eve of finals and Brayshaw in the qualifying were costly given their importance to our structure and delivery in our forward half.

I'd rather keep T-Mac. Reportedly his body is feeling good again and when fit and in form he is a very good player. We already have Schache for depth so I don't see why we would want to bring in Lobb.

I especially like it when journo's quote each other as 'sources'. I reckon there would be merit in a blog that scrutinises AFL journo's, kind of like the media watch program.

I suspect we will draft a quick, classy mid or half back with pick 5 as well as McAdams. If Harmes goes then we will need another mid for depth and depending on whether Gus retires we may need a total of 4 players to play midfield, half back or half forward.

Redleg, if Melksham wants to play on next year I reckon we would be mad to not keep him on the list. He is exactly the sort of bloke to have driving his team mates in rehab, is a strong leader both on and off the field, and will create competition for spots in our 22 in the second half of the season. If word re McAdam's willingness to work hard are true then I cannot think of someone better than Melksham to encourage him to make the most if his short career is ideal - the bloke who missed years in his prime due to the Essendon doping program, didn't play in our premiership and did his ACL on the eve of this years finals campaign.

Is this thread still going? Suggest it probably should be locked or renamed to focus on Angus's health and whether he decides to play on next year.

With those numbers he would be a certain starter for us 🤗

I don't mind it noting you can dress up and go out drinking without being too silly about it. Most of the players are pretty good about it and understand how anything they do in public is likely to be filmed.

The salary cap relief is also important, we'd be freeing up 400-500k that could be put towards a classy mid/forward or we could draft a young kid with a net saving if $350k+ and back in our up coming brigade of players like Laurie and Taj to fill the gap that Harmes leaves over the next couple of seasons.

I'm not one for blaming the umpires for a result but there were some absolute shockers in there especially against the Giants. The problem with not calling frees when they are there in order to keep the game 'flowing' is that the teams get bolder with how they infringe on players near the ball and it becomes impossible to get clear od the contest to score.

Jennings is behind the GWS game plan that could well win them the flag this year after. After a slow first half they have been one of the form teams in the second half of the season and I reckon will beat the Filth tonight.

Per earlier posts I don't think we need a KPF but rather a ruck that can rest forward. With Petty, JVR and J Smith as our key forwards and T-Mac and Schache as backups, along with Melksham recovering late in the season if we were to bring in a KPF then we would expect one of Petty, JVR or Smith to be running around in the twos which I don't think is a good thing. For our forward line I'd be targeting pace, class and goal kicking small forward who can rotate through the middle.

I feel pretty filthy about the result last night and from the week before and it feels like a wasted season where we had a genuine shot at our second flag in 3 years but squandered. The consistent theme in both finals and during our home and away losses comes down to kicking goals. Simply put we don't have the star power up forward to kick goals when things aren't going our way. For me that comes down to bringing in a KPF that takes ownership in key moments and allows our other forwards to play their role. I'm bullish on Petty, Fritch will be back to his best when not injured, Kozzy will benefit from another year of maturity and composure, and with Joel Smith playing well having put together more than a half dozen games. All of these players and our forward line would benefit from a Larkey, Charlie Curnow, Jeremy Cameron, one of the King brothers, Jessie Hogan or even an Aarom Naughton. Anyway the footy season is dead to me now and I'm going to have a bit of a break from footy.

I tend to agree with this also noting that I think we are more likely to play GWS in GF than Collingwood. I don't think Port are up to it and expect GWS to win comfortably abd reckon GWS defend the corridor so well and will be too strong for Collingwood on transition.

I can't see Grundy playing as the sub. Usually the sub is to provide cover for injuries to key positions or inject some run into the side and Grundy does neither. I think we either have Gawn and Grundy playing together for the full game or Grundy doesn't play. I also don't like Gawn playing predominantly forward as he is the most damaging player in the comp in the middle of the ground and doesn't offer anywhere near as much as a dedicated forward. If Turner doesn't start then I'd say he will probably be the sub or otherwise we would probably use the sub to provide fresh legs between the arcs, e.g. JJ.

When we played Collingwood on QB we physically bullied them all over the ground. No doubt their first quarter in the QF was a statement and we got caught out. We need to focus one week at a time and then smash GWS in the GF. How good was it to see Gus running laps today?

For me this was the point of the joint referral by Kane and Christiansen. Under the current rules a player does not owe a duty of care to another player, which was tested in the Van Rooyen / Ballard report. I think the AFL knew the report would not be upheld but needed to put it through the process and will change the rules going into next season.

I'd be concerned if the Tribunal were focussed on Brayshaw and the match result for Friday night given their job is to deliberate on Maynards action and whether a suspension is warranted.

Again this is sensationalist journalism at its best. Can I suggest that any reluctance Christensen had to grade the incident would be to do with whether the incident could be graded as careless under the rules as they stand. It was only earlier this year when the MRO and Tribunal suspended Van Rooyen for his spoil on Ballard and the Appeals Board overturned the suspension on the basis that the careless grading was not within the rules. I can see this case going the same way.

Diamond Jim, re whether Brayshaw will be available to return to the side after the 12 day protocol, misses the prelim or GF (assuming we win upcoming games), and assuming he is medically cleared to play will be a decision for Gus and his family supported by medical advice. As supporters we do not have the medical expertise nor access to his medical records and expert advice to have any valid opinion on whether or when Brayshaw should play. Nor do we have any real insight into his personal circumstances or motivations to gauge whether any medical risks (which we no knowledge) are worth taking.