Bombay Airconditioning

I'm sick of needing someone's passing/milestone game/some other bloody reason for the players to have a crack, and what happens if we lose, then it's the whole we let him down thing. I'd go with "we will always remember you" rather than "for you".

Remembering we now have an 18 team competition. For a coupe of years the talent pool will thin out. Clubs look to mature players from the SANFL, WAFL ect. Some work out some don't. More than anything I hope last year marked the end of delisting 11 players every 12 months. As we try to put together our best 22 some players aren't guaranteed walk up starts anymore. We are starting to build some depth, finally.

Whats wrong with BBO'S ??

My understanding is that the mods aren't getting paid by the hour....plus there's nothing wrong with the odd citizens arrest. Some of the derailments are just an extension of the topic, I'd rather that then a new topic started every five minutes. When that is the case it's easy enough to follow.

JETTA FROST DUNNGARLAND MCDONALD TOUMPAS H JONES WATTS KENT PEDO VINCE GARLETT HOGAN HOWE JAMAR TYSON CROSS VINEY SALEM MICHIE PETRACCA Bit of a reshuffle, dropped Newton and brought in Garland. I've argued my points for and against to death. This is what I think we might look like as opposed to what I would do.

Cross is a gun, his ability to win the ball at stoppages is crucial for us. Yes we've drafted well but they're not there yet. This might be his last year but if fit he must play, I'd have him ahead of Viney at the centre bounces, most likely a different story next year.

I did, but might have to do another one after hearing the H interview.

It was but he will undoubtedly deliver some gold during the year ala his Collingwood best and fairest speech.

Yes R-Jay he is/was 34. But still a very skilful player. He was pushed aside because he played a mid/hf role and they had a combination of experienced players who could do the the same job better plus younger players with the potential to be elite knocking the door down. Every team is different we have Cross who is 30/31 years old but because we don't have Sydney's midfield depth his experience/ability becomes valuable to us considering where our list currently sits. We have a number of young mids who have yet to play a game/ just been drafted but have played at other AFL clubs/ been injured/ made the most of their limited opportunities but probably don't warrant replacing Cross plus there are more mids positional wise so they will get their opportunities . Grimes plays the role of a small/medium defender with average skills who has been reasonably consistent, good at times without being great or elite. I would like to see as would some others our back and forward flanks be dual position players being also able to run through the guts and be elite users of the footy. This would make us a versatile and dangerous team with the skills to use the corridor when needed. Was Grimes an elite user of the footy below being given the captaincy? For mine Grimes shouldn't be an automatic selection we have other options which I believe have the potential to surpass what he brings to the team.

Ryan Okeefe had runs on the board at Sydney and look what happened there. Are we going to hold back playing young players who have the potential to become elite players for us because someone is a good bloke, or considered a clubman or has been consistently good/average in the past?

Any takers for 10 x 100 metre sprints.

I would be happy with a trial but let's not get locked in. Maybe two games against Melbourne based clubs during school holidays.

You would think clubs would have done their homework with regards to Monday nights. Sunday twilight games got low crowd numbers I could only imagine Monday nights would be worse.

It begs the question raised when Grimes first relinquished the captaincy. Was he pushed? Being captain or not should have nothing to do with it. Can he play the role that is asked of him? Is there someone on the list that could do that role better?

Frawley searched for the best deal....not privy to any details but if speculation is to be believed Freo offered the better financial deal, Hawks offered less cash but a chance at the ultimate.

Id give that title to Dunn at the moment.

Coopers pale ale from the tap. Jimmy Squire golden ale from the tap. Carlton draught from the tap.

Great story but it brought back memory's off the Tyson story when he did some off his own training and nearly came unstuck.

I went without Garland, I had Dunn as my third tall, I think he is quite versatile. Jetta in a back pocket.....flank? I left Garland out purely because if H is on one flank, and with Frost and McDonald are the two talls he becomes surplus to needs. With all this supposed talent coming through, and being a couple years off being a serious threat we need to use this time to blood a youngster/s with elite disposal by foot. De we go a good player who we know what we will get or put game time into someone who has the potential to become elite. Play Salem of a back flank this year and use Toumpas as the sub. Then next year give Salem more time in the midfield and play Toumpas off half back. Kent and Petracca can play forward/mid. Viney, Brayshaw, Tyson, Michie might be better suited to purely a midfield role. Suddenly we have a very versatile/dangerous line up. We won't improve by staying the same, yes I'm aware of who we've drafted and that Hogan is raring to go but there is room for improvement everywhere. I also left Grimes out, I've noticed a few teams have him on the bench. Is he suddenly a midfielder? I would rather Michie or Newton given an opportunity before him.

But with the rolling draw the idea is that we're not always a penciled in win. As for ghe Friday night games I can only assume it's to do with supporter base.

Yes it is always granted, but "the argument" will be in a lot of cases North, Dogs, us ect it's our highest earner for the year. As mentioned earlier we need to improve on a consistent basis before they will listen to us.

To be fair every nearly every Victorian club requests to play the Pies at the G even if it isn't their home ground.

I like the idea, wasn't this years draw based on that from 2013 results?

The only fair draw for mine is - Year 1 - play all teams once, then play 1-5 a second time. Year 2 - play all teams once , then play 6-10 a second time. Year 3 - " ", then play 11-15 a second time. Year 4 - " ", then 16,17, 1, 2 , 3 a second time. And so on. It constantly evolves. 1 being Adelaide and 17 being the Eagles, not ladder positions. This purely dictates how many times teams play each other in any given year. This doesn't have to dictate the order in which you play them. Armed with the knowledge that everyone plays each other once you could start by marking in Anzac Day, Queens Birthday, grand final replay then slot everything else around it.

Players able to lay an effective tackle.