To me this is the only decision that could have been arrived at. Sport simply cannot allow ignorance to be a valid defense. Athletes have known since Sam Riley got banned for taking that headache tablet back in the mid 90s to know the legality of what goes into their bodies and being injected with an assortment of random things was more than enough to require them to say no. The only shame is that some players have retired and effectively got away with cheating. I've got no sympathy for the club, the coaches or the players. Dr Reid seems the only one who questioned it and even that wasn't strong enough. The supporters and members are the ones who deserve sympathy. Like Carlton a decade ago, they now face a long road to being able to be proud of their club again.

As for lawsuits, the players will struggle to sue Essendon unless they can show the club deceived them somehow. Port/St Kilda/Bulldogs will also have trouble unless Essendon withheld relevant information.

And I think match payments went a long time ago. Hard to properly manage a salary cap with unknown payments throughout the year.

I don't think Faulkner has been as good with the ball this series, but we've all seen the decks the bowlers have had to deal with. One of the better bowlers at the end and while I'm a fraction unconvinced of how damaging he is without the batsmen going after him, he has an excellent first class record. Either way though, his batting keeps him in that side. I also didn't realise he's only 25. Seems like he's been around a lot longer than that.

Oddly enough, I'm starting to feel pretty good about our bowling depth. Lots of talk about how many guys have been left out because of injury, retirement or to manage their workloads but the guys we've got have actually done a reasonable job I think. 4 games in a row now I've felt like India were on course for a lot more runs than they managed but we held them back and won. Doesn't mean they're as polished as our front line blokes, but for bowlers 6-10, they aren't all that bad. Would love to see India's 4th best attack. Lol.

Can't imagine any AFL footballer being resigned to waiting to replace a player in a couple of years. Especially one who has played senior footy already and was traded in. Definitely think they will be looking at full time midfield duties probably shared between Betts, Menzel and Cameron. Reckon they could all play in the forward line together too. Menzel and Betts play like mid size forwards most of the time anyway.

Reckon the answer lies partly in this being an exaggeration and the kid just miscalculating. Can't imagine Carlton are so far behind or that he would have lost so much fitness. Likely went out too hard trying to impress and blew up. Doubt there will be anyone saying in August that his season was wrecked because he couldn't run out the first time trial.

No problem with it whatsoever. The way the rule is written the batsman has to leave well before the ball is bowled, so you can't claim being "faked" out. In fact, it's got to be pretty blatant. I've always felt that getting a head start at the non striker's end was far akin to cheating and unless there is a threat of being run out, there's basically nothing you can do. No need for a warning either. That's backyard cricket. Bowlers don't get a warning for overstepping, the batsman doesn't get a warning on a stumping and a fielder doesn't get a warning for stepping over the boundary. Interesting to note that Bradman himself advocated the Mankad as a fair dismissal.

The rule change was pretty well publicised when it changed, so anyone involved who keeps an interest in these things should know. Most local cricket sides have a few blokes like that around.

So when does a ball become "live" again?

When the bowler starts his runup? When he enters his delivery stride?

Technically, the ball is live when a bowler begins his runup. This is actually why umpires signal dead ball when a bowler aborts in his runup. A bowler can attempt to run out a non striker from that point until (as noted already) his arm goes over the top.

Not good enough. Scoreboard operator will be sacked for not getting that replay up in time.

Current expert opinion suggests mental health issues are far more prevalent than the clinical diagnoses would indicate. Not sure how you can say that we're over diagnosing. History may tell us the experts are wrong and there's more to it, we all know experts have been wrong once or twice. But they are experts for a reason.

The whole ADD issue seems to be resolving in the manner that several disorders were given the same name, but that most of the time there was a genuine issue. The problem seems to be more in the solution rather than the diagnosis with a lot of kids on medication that was harmful rather than helpful.

Batsmen have no business picking the ball up. Not ever. But especially when it's just to have a look at the condition. If he has a concern, he should talk to the umpire about it.

Regardless though, what a load of nonsense being unhapy with throws bouncing. We aren't throwing it into the ground when the ball is dead. The ball is alive, it's not being scratched, picked at, bitten or anything that SHOULD constitute ball tampering. Heck, umpires over the years have let teams get away with far worse. I've got a bigger issue with doctored pitches, no balls, chucking and DRS before bouncing throws in. It was that pathetic that there were people upset attempted run outs were bouncing!

If we're worried about this then let's also get upset about Wagner bowling with a 7-2 leg side field and just digging them in. Personally, I thought it was great. The rules about fielders behind square make it a fair contest (to differentiate with the bodyline tactics) so I thought it was great to try something new. Not sure if he tried it, but Warner should have just switched to bat right handed if they set up that way. If the field changes, swap back.

Bowling wise, was great that Bird showed his ability. Reckon he was trying too hard in his first 3 innings. Understandable when it seems is a long way down the pecking order, but I think he's world class. Would have far less of a problem playing with 5 batters if it meant we could play Hazlewood, Starc, Pattinson, Bird and Lyon in the same test. I just don't think M. Marsh will be more than a #8 calibre batsman and he's not in that class of bowler.

Batting wise, if I'm not mistaken then we currently have a top 5 who all average 50+. Would love to end the test with that intact, because I can't imagine it happening many times.

I'm always very sceptical about financial projections that involve footy clubs. There are so many unknowns with regards to income and costs for even the next 6 months and they aren't necessarily correlated like a lot of regular businesses.

Richard Hadlee might have been the champion of New Zealand cricket, but Martin Crowe was their heart and soul. I think in many ways the current side still has his fingerprints all over it. New Zealand cricket has lost a lot more than an ex captain.

Looked like a massive dive to me as well. Played for quite some time and never once did I feel the need to swan dive to avoid a tackle. Always far more effective to hurdle the leg.

I don't mind the intent being shown. It's how we've played all year and if you go into a 5 day game thinking about nothing more than a draw then you'll lose more often than not.

Just lost our 6th wicket but with nearly 300 on the board it is, thus far, a positive day for SA. Would be brilliant if we posted 400 for our bowlers to play with because I don't think Victoria are quite so potent with the bat, Cameron White the standout IMHO.

Not sure I agree that 150 goals from 3 players puts you in the top 4. Definitely doesn't hurt (and there's always Lynch in the mix up there doing a good job too) but that's something like 8 goals a game. Getting goals from mids and defenders is a must and I'm not entirely sure our mids hit the scoreboard enough at the moment.

Reckon your lads have done enough damage to themselves and the club thumbing their noses at WADA. Perhaps they should accept responsibility for their actions for once and let everyone move on.

I think if a guy is good enough to keep getting teams into grand finals then he must be pretty darn good. On that day, it's always two darn good sides going at it and the result largely is just up to the players. Malcolm Blight had a reputation for not being good enough to win grand finals at one point. If his sides regularly coughed up finals where they finished higher I'd say there might be something in it.

Ultimately, Fremantle have Nat Fyfe. He's probably not yet reached his peak. Give a coach a midfielder like that to build around and there's always hope.

The more I see it and the more I think about it, the stronger the penalty I think May needs. I think 8 weeks as a minimum, but I'd be giving him 10. Those hits are so far in the past, in an era when blokes jogged and weighed 75 kilos. The danger seems to be constantly underestimated amongst football pundits and it needs to end.

Reckon it's a shame. The fairest way to split two teams that are level after 120 minutes is to have another full 120 minutes. 5 each way makes it awfully flukey. Loads of benefits from that extra match. All the media must have loved it. The MCG and AFL would have gotten more money and loads of fans got to go to a game they wouldn't have been able to. Maybe a bit rough on St Kilda fans paying twice and not winning, but if you can't afford to go you can always stay home. In the future, the AFL could have taken the chance to play the grand final elsewhere the second week if there was a non Vic side playing.

There was definitely something between Campbell and Skipworth in a game at Woody Oval a few weeks before, in a game that had a bit of spite in general. Campbell lined up in defence on Skipworth (thought he played mainly in attack that year?), who got a free and maybe goal before the ball was bounced and a couple others before quarter time when we'd blown out the game. A couple of times the TV footage only picks up Skipworth being uncharacteristically agitated at Campbell, but doesn't actually capture any incidents.
What Skipworth did a few weeks later was ordinary, all I'm saying is there was some previous animosity between the two.

To somehow try to explain or qualify Skipworth's actions that day just makes you sound like an apologist. It was worse than ordinary it was disgusting. No matter what circumstances there might have been or what actions Campbell took beforehand, a bloke has the right to expect his opponent won't take the weak way out and try to injure him when he's in a prone position having gotten there by just playing the game as it's meant to be played.

I think Menzel is a seriously talented kid. Needs some time to get hit fitness and strength up and also to get the Carlton rubbish out of his system. Will probably find his way into the senior side at one point, but I'd be more than happy just to get a really solid 12 months into him.

Big Phil wrote:

goalieboy82 wrote:what is there club theme song?

The State League side share the sane song as the AFL side...

"We're the Pride of South Australia...

We're the Mighty Adelaide Crows"

etc etc..

Why do you ask?

Don't spoil the dig off with a serious answer, Phil.

So Petrie plays his 300th next week.
Now before you go off Spargo and im not trying to disrespect Drew as playing 300 games is a massive achievement and you need to be talented to do it, BUT if there is a worse player to play 300 games iv not seen it.
Any nominations of the top of the head that would compete for that title?

K. Cornes.

Saw Richmond for really the first time. Wow they're bad. Hampson with perhaps the worst 10 seconds of footy in history. Somehow managed to turn it over about 4 times. Surely they are some sort of practical joke the league are playing.

Overall, one rather strange round of footy IMHO.

Just in case someone in Australia was yet to see that graph? All it tells me if you're good at scoring and good at defending you're a good team. Fairly obvious I'd have thought.

A full 5 matches. All on Saturday too.

Port v Glenelg
West v Central
South v North
WWT v Norwood
Sturt v Adelaide

I dare say West v Central is the only certain result there.

No way, Hose !!!

The stats don't lie, the Dogs struggle at Richmond...


All Recent Encounters:
West have won last 3

Recent @ City Mazda Stadium, Richmond
West have won last last 2 and 5 of past 6

Not sure why you would be calling anyone a hose.

Young has had a great first half to the year but can he consistently play at the level he is producing ?

I hope he can but no one at the club apart from him, Gray and Wingard can play more than one good game in row, so I'm not confident at all he will continue this form.

To many average players that won't get any better; Broadbent, Jonas, O'Shea, Stewart, Amon, Ah Chee, Neade, S.Gray, Lobbe, White, Westhoff, Carlile, Toumpas, Mitchell and Butcher, couldn't give stuff if we lost any of those players above.

Figjam Hartlett and figjam Ebert, two players who had the potential to become one of the better midfielders in the game, are just embarrassing at the moment, should of just gave North Melboune Hartlett and Ebert should of stayed at WCE .

Only one or two genuine stars on the list Gray and Wingard, but even then Gray cracks the sads when things are tough and Wingard can be inconsistent.

I can't see us making the finals anytime soon in the next few years, 13/14 gave great hope the club was finally improving and on the way up but that's all it was, hope, now we are playing the "Port Adelaide way", we are shlt again!

Isn't Rucci due to revive the Dangerfield v Ebert argument again?

One of my pet peeves there. Bloke hadn't gone anywhere and as he tries to dispose of the ball it's knocked out of his hands. Should be 25 each and every time. You can smother AFTER he disposes of it but not before. Shaping to handball or kick isn't the same as playing on.

One of my pet peeves there. Bloke hadn't gone anywhere and as he tries to dispose of the ball it's knocked out of his hands. Should be 25 each and every time. You can smother AFTER he disposes of it but not before. Shaping to handball or kick isn't the same as playing on.
Yes, agree completely. See it in every match. The player hasn't moved off his line to be called play on....just because you are shaping towards a particular disposal isn't a green light....

Heck, if it was Sam Mitchell would get called play on every time he takes a mark.

Looking at the AEC website, libs 67 and labor 71 seats at the moment. 6 undecided at this point. Good chance it could be 72 - 72.

Don't rely on anything the AEC spruiks, they wouldn't know if their arse was on fire.

Anthony Green saying

Coalition 70
Labor 67
Greens 1
NXT 1
Other 3
Undecided 8

Of those 8, looks like 3 SHOULD go to each of the ALP and coalition with the other two down to the wire. Of the last two, Forde is 50.1 to Labor and I think it'll turn blue. Hindmarsh is the other and could be a coin flip. If I had to put money on it, I'd say Liberals, but it's hard to imagine more than a few dozen votes in it. Could even be single digits.

I'm starting to get really bugged by the constant complaining about umpires by the media. Just call it. Don't anticipate for one and don't comment about whether a free is right or not without seeing a replay. The number of times you hear them going on about a free kick paid or missed only to see a replay and start backtracking is mind boggling. Especially when they then try to justify their original position. "I guess it was there but" seems to be the new catch phrase in footy.

There's a reason for the 15 minute rule and Port ignored that. No excuses and to be honest they've gotten off lightly. If the main doctor was too busy then why wouldn't they wait? They knew he had a head knock. If the person who looked at Hartlett was suitably qualified then he should know darn well what the protocol is. Worst thing was Port kept trying to pull the old "nothing to see here" line when surely they knew they'd messed this up. Mistakes happen, for sure. Usually those mistakes don't involved head injuries though but ultimately, the best thing Port could have done come Monday was to admit the error.

So frustrating to see players with the ball tackled, just illegally dispose of the ball and suffer no consequences

Gotten far too lax on this one of late. Hands move fast these days but you can still pick most of them by eye. Could just be because I've noticed it more, but the last month has resembled rugby with a lot of these handballs. Probably fair enough to give some leeway when you're so hot on prior opportunity and making an effort, but it's gone way too far. Reckon a lot of those "taps" are closer to open handed pushes and scoops. Those used to get pinged nearly every time.

Probably didn't talk enough about Hawthorn.

I think the most important thing in cricket is there needs to be a contest between bat and ball from the first over to the last. Nobody wants to see a game with conditions where it's far too good for batting or far too good for bowling. The NZ game I thought was actually ok. It was on the bowler friendly side, but we didn't see sides struggling to get to 100 in an innings.

I think we'll see this fixed just with improvements in the ball. I doubt someone made a red ball and had it perfected in a couple of years. But the idea of shifting how quickly the ball gets changed does make a lot of sense. But I think the bigger problem we have with cricket balls is stopping them going out of shape so darn fast.

So how has Hartlett kept his spot all year?

Marsh is just a liability at 6. He's never done enough at any level of cricket to justify that spot. 25 with the bat in tests isn't good enough for number 7, let along number 6. And the worst thing is that's about right for a bloke with a first class average of 30. If his bowling is so important, then he earns number 8 and he plays ahead of a specialist bowler. But he bowled 9 overs last game. 9 overs where we lost one bowler during the game. Until we have a number 6 who contributes regularly enough we're always going to be far more susceptible to a batting collapse. Lucky at the moment we have a top 5 who average 46, 50, 47, 60 and 87 which hides Marsh's awful contribution in most circumstances. But then something like this happens, you need a middle order and out walks the tail.

A Maxwell type would absolutely be a far better option. Right now he doesn't seem to be in great form, so they can't go there at the moment but even as a hit and miss kind of guy, in tough conditions he could prove to be exactly the right sort of bloke.

The idea that we need a back up bowler to me is really only something they felt was important because of Shane Watson. Watson really got picked because he was a batsman, but his bowling became handy. But before him, it was always a pure batting slot. Even with Gilchrist's numbers equal to a genuine batsman, we kept playing a batsman there. I think it's a myth and now they have no confidence to go away from it. But Hazlewood seems robust, Lyon just went past 200 wickets and gets better all the time. I don't think with those two in the side you need to worry too much about bowlers breaking down or giving quicks a rest.

Lol. No doubt Days already has it worked out how Hawthorn get Mitchell, Crouch, O'Meara, Hibberd and Hurley for blokes they didn't want anyway or in the preseason draft.

Without doubt Brayshaw has done a good job at North. I don't even get the criticism about his media work either, but that's a separate issue. As far as his tenure as president has gone, would be impossible to point to someone who had a better result. He also did it without stomping over the rest of the comp like Eddie did with Collingwood.

We lost each game because of our batting. Our bowling was fine at times and superb at other times. Starc was superb and will man of the series with worse performances. He looks more and more like a bowler who might just be our greatest ever. Hazlewood did fine IMHO, in conditions that don't suit him while Lyon gets a pass in my book. He's a spinner who relies on bounce, not turn, so the low slow decks of Asia will always prove a challenge.

But the batting. We started the series with 5 batsmen and when they weren't scoring enough we went to 4. Nevill will soon find himself batting behind Starc and the sooner M. Marsh gets out the better. He was hidden behind a dominant top 5 in good form, but once things got tough (as they always do) he was exposed. One good innings and a few starts just tells me he's at his best. It's not good enough. When his form drops off, he'll be about as good as a number 10. It wasn't even like his bowling was even useful. Hazlewood was under used, what good is Marsh going to be if Hazlewood is right to bowl, but just not as effective as Starc or Lyon, or a part timer? Then they pick Henriques. Good lad, probably will be a solid one day player for a bit too for Australia. But he's 29 with a first class average of 31.

The solution was simple. We didn't have a clear second spin option once O'Keefe went down so why force one? Use part timers for the 4th bowler if you need to give Lyon, Starc and Hazlewood a break and have 7 batsmen and Nevill. All rounders in test cricket have always been over rated. The great all rounders in history have all been capable of holding their spots with bat or ball alone. Sobers and Kallis were the best bats in the team. Hadlee, Khan, Dev, Akram, Miller, Botham - all great bowlers. Lehmann has many qualities as a coach, but gee he's been exposed badly here.

I've yet to come across someone winning one of these awards without having a great year. Sure, some have been average in previous or subsequent years, but that's completely irrelevant.

Woewoedin obviously didn't have the standout career many expected but I think you'll find he had an excellent year when he won it.

While she is getting what she deserves I do cringe that the media have found out where she has lives, named her and chucked cameras in her face as she tried to leave home in a car.

I think its been handled really well right up to now, and the last thing anyone would want is to tip her over the edge with all the pressure she is getting. I think the media have a role to play here and step back a touch.

The media in this country are disgusting. They smell blood in the water and they all go in for the kill and then dance on the victim's grave. If you ever call them out on it though they have this appalled reaction and hide behind this "public interest" nonsense.

Leave the girl alone. She's copped her whack and will be dealt with through official channels. Certainly no need to harass someone in the name of a story.

He's completely correct. He wouldn't be surprised. Everyone else would, but not him.

Players are always going to see more currency in going to a top team than a bottom team. It's also a smart move long term as having "premiership player" in your bio opens up coaching and media opportunities plus I imagine it tends to give people an extra year on the end of their career or a new club is more likely to take a chance on them.

Easiest way to avoid that is to stop this nonsense that players can always say no to a trade, then when they're a free agent the club has no rights. If a player isn't a free agent, they go where the club sends them. Then we'll see a more equitable system of player movement.

Not the Crows' fault the SANFL is dying. They didn't vote. Point all you like at 5AA, MMM, Riccuito and anyone whose primary focus is the AFL, but the real villains are the ones whose primary focus was meant to be the SANFL. Glenelg, North, West, Woodville-West Torrens, Sturt and Norwood are the right targets for the anger.

Would love to know whether Tripodi is still proud of the concessions he got in exchange for his vote.

Reckon there's exactly zero chance of Maric coming back to Adelaide. One of the stranger thoughts I've heard lately.

Dutchy wrote:He wanted to know where he stood, the club respected his wishes and not to bullshit a club legend, told him....if you don't do this you get the circus that is Scott Thompson situation currently.

Lol. If this is a circus then you must get a lot of entertainment value from North.

Some people are embarassing themselves by highlighting how little they know of the case and how little they know of mental illness. The judge in this case has more experience, education and knowledge. If they come up with a different opinion to you, then I strongly suggest getting more information before disagreeing.

Not all judges get it right, but they do far better than the average forum junkie.

Wouldn't mind a free kick being paid when someone's legs are taken out!!! :roll:

LOL. Get rid of that altogether. Has there ever been a greater knee jerk change in rules over one injury?

Go lower/harder...

PS Hannebery did get absolutely rogered in the GF.

Disagree. Think it's a very responsible and fair rule. But I don't think it should be carte blanche that if there is any collision it's a free to the player standing. I've seen instances where the player has gone in with the legs and won a free. To me it's fairly simple. If you go past the ball, including taking the ball and continuing on, and make contact below the knees with an opponent it's a free. If you stop at the ball or before then no issue. The dangerous one is where a bloke is standing there and gets his legs taken out. If the contact is all his own momentum then it's far less dangerous.

List not improved one bit, lost Lyons...

You know that trading isn't the only way clubs improve, right? Trades can be great, but you don't just go around sending blokes and picks to clubs just to satisfy those who want to see action. If Adelaide wasn't able to get any players at a price that made us a winner in that trade, then so be it. Sometimes the best decision a list manager can make is to say no.

Comes out that because of the tie we actually only needed to beat Tas to make finals, didn't need a bonus point. Nobody including CA realised until after the game was concluded :shock: :shock:

Did CA not know? Or just not their place to explain the rules? Amazing no media person picked it up, but big oversight by SA. Lesson to learn, but never a good sign if at that level you make that sort of mistake to start with.

Would have made sense for the umpires to give both teams an extra half hour last night and finish the game surely?
It's up to the batting captain to make a call. Unless they are 9 down then it's the fielding captain's call.

Unlikely to have got the runs in just 1/2 an hour longer batting normally. Would look even sillier if there were still 10 to go and they called stumps.