G&D

Reality is always useful

We continually kick to two on one contests. This is a clear indicator of two things. Firstly players aren't running to create options. (Lazy or slaves to the zone?) Secondly, players are still dumb enough to kick it to a two on one contest anyway.

Honestly?! And I thought our players were a laughing stock! I like the look of Terlich but he has played 2 or 3 games and you are hanging your hopes on him as a premiership component. We've seen even less of Toumpas so let's wait till he gets a kick before we pencil him in Jones and Clark are likely to be long gone by the time we have any sort of "premiership window". Sylvia - give me a break. He will be 30 and some people will still be waiting for this [censored] to realise that "potential" Frawley gets beaten more than a red headed step child McDonald ain't gonna make it Trengove if we are honest is an average toiler. Definition of constructive adjective 1having or intended to have a useful or beneficial purpose:constructive advice Fantasy is not useful or beneficial

It's a bit hard to assess whether Neeld can "coach" when we rarely get a fair dinkum effort from the players. The one time we did was against Essendon last year so he "coached" well that night. The real question is whether he can "motivate". Again it's hard to judge because we have players who refuse to be motivated to go beyond their comfort zone regardless of who coaches them. Such as James Frawley and Colin Garland who now barely ever get out of a jog (they sometimes might put in an effort if they are playing on a big name opponent but seem to think they don't need to try on the lesser names and then get towelled up), Colin Sylvia who seems totally disinterested for the 99.9% of the game when the ball isn't in his hands, Mark Jamar who seems to assess very early when a contest is over switches off and just cruises around for the remainder. We have plenty of players who aren't up to it but when players are up to it but won't go above and beyond then that isn't the coach that is all on them.

Apart from the statements gathered which will be subject to the usual questioning, the AFL investigators are trying to point to the data on our rotation numbers in the last part of that 2009 season as supporting a "vibe" of tanking. Whilst we were around average per game over the whole season, they dropped off significantly in the last few rounds. Season Avg 85 Round 17: 67 Round 18: 47 Round 19: 49 Round 20: 99 (win against Freo) Round 21: 56 Round 22: 73

The head in the sand, no way they can single us out group here amazes me. I love your optimism but we are dealing with the AFL remember so anything can happen. I am told that there is enough evidence for the Commission to lay charges if they feel like it and there is enough wriggle room if they don't want to. In the end it will come down to those people on the Commission reaching a consensus one way or the other - so it's just like a jury verdict. Plenty of innocent have been found guilty by juries and plenty of guilty have walked free. It will be close, for people to just sit back and bah humbug the whole thing is niave.

Sure does. Bailey and assistants would be looked at under that rule. That turns on its own facts and therefore would appear more open to appeal in a court. Schwab and Connolly however are likely to be looking at the generic, "bringing the game into disrepute" which is highly subjective and pretty much gives the AFL open slather with no clear definition which I'd have thought would be much harder to appeal in court. Any sanctions against the club as a whole would likely then come down to a breach of the AFLs constitution.

I agree - would have been much better to just leave players out and say we wanted to try some kids.

And what about CC in the box? Not the sharpest tool in the shed either. I think some people have their heads in the sand and will be in for a rude awakening - surely there will be sanctions. Hopefully they are limited to CC and DB. I also hope the AFL investigators are lining up interviews with the Blues coaching panel from 2007 just to be consistent in all this.

It is completely different to rest players as they are not "in any match". But when you turn up on the day - be it as coach, assistant coach or player then you are bound by the rule. Also I think you will find the teams who rest players don't do it to lose, they still usually win because they do it against weaker sides.

AFL regulation (19 A5) provides the definition. "A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever." They don't need to prove the club deliberately set out to lose, they don't need to prove the players weren't trying - in this case it will be enough to prove that the coaches were not performing on their merits based on the direction of CC. If witnesses are accepted in their evidence that CC said what has been reported that he said then at the very least he would seem to be facing a ban under this rule. And as far as I'm concerned if he was stupid enough to do it he deserves it.

I agree completely but some seem to rate him as a prospect. Can't see it myself.

If we were going to shop anyone I'd rather it be Spencer. I have never seen a less skilled AFL player in my life. He literally cannot kick the football. Not that he is a bad kick - he CAN'T kick. Amazed someone like that made it to an AFL list and has managed to stay on one for so long.

God - if our future hinges on Strauss we are doomed!

First of all he needs to earn a game and develop a second and third effort. I don't think letting him run around loose in the backline picking up easy kicks has helped in this regard and to continue with it isn't going to develop him past where he is. Towards the end of this season he was showing the "work rate" of Travis Johnston but at least Trav would kick a long running goal now and then. At the moment JW seems content moving the ball 20 - 30 mtrs and he thinks that's his job done. I don't care where he plays as long as he learns to give multiple efforts and impacts the game more than just moving the ball to the next line.

Pity for Cook he wasn't a No.1 pick - that seems to get you a bit more mollycoddling