You need to stop dreaming, as there is no possible way the Eagles can trade up high enough to get Deven. Their first pick this year is 46, followed by 91. They have traded away their first pick for next year (so they can’t trade away any of their 2020 later round picks), so no amount of hard work will get them a pick in the top 15.

What a mean-spirited comment. We get it – you don’t like women’s sport. How about you follow the oft-quoted advice “if you haven’t got anything nice to say, don’t say anything”.
Congratulations Maddie (and Mary for the article). Ignore the petty, small-minded naysayers like IAP. Keep up the hard work, both on and off the field, and success will find you.

a) did a club’s objectives match what I think is the right strategy for them: Whether you think the strategy is right for the club is at best subjective and, in reality, irrelevant.
1. Carlton had one main objective at the start of trade period, acknowledged by all and sundry as the most pressing need – small forwards. They brought in one of the best small forwards in the game at very little cost. Whether he’s “too old” or “past it” can only really be judged next year, but he obviously has an excellent relationship with the new coach, so that’s a positive.
Missing out on Papley was disappointing. However if, as reported, pick 9 was offered, then I think Carlton can say they made a generous (ie, better than fair) offer and it was really due to other factors that the deal wasn’t made.
Missing out on Martin was also disappointing. However while the Bulldogs are being praised for holding on to their first pick, then so should the Blues (this year’s or next year’s). And if they do snare Martin in the PSD, then that will be a massive win.
2. Having delisted Lobbe and with Phillips looking unlikely to sign the one-year offer in front of him, a backup ruckman became a second objective. Pittonet had a good year in the VFL and will hopefully continue to develop. Remember, at this stage he is only a backup ruckman.
So overall, I can’t see how the Blues get an F. They achieved 2 objectives out of 2, paid very little, and held onto their top 10 pick. Yes, they didn’t land 2 of their targets, but one of them wasn’t really their fault, and the other they might still get for free. At this stage they are sitting on a C; if they get Martin (for free) then they go up to a B, and if they miss out then they go down to a D.

The pick used by Geelong to get Kelly is irrelevant. It has absolutely no bearing on the value of Kelly as a player.
I would say that any deal for Kelly would have to involve at least one top 10 pick. Think of the Dylan Shiel trade last year (pick 9 + Ess 2019 first round pick for Shiel and GWS 2019 2nd round pick). Kelly is better than Shiel.

You need to have nominated for the draft to be able to be picked up in the pre-season supplementary selection period.
How about this for a sneaky suggestion:
1. Nominates for the draft, gets picked up by Adelaide.
2. WCE passes on their final draft pick, leaving a spot open on their roster.
3. Kelly quits from Adelaide (citing homesickness), moves to Perth and signs up with South Freo (I think that’s his original club)
4. WCE signs Kelly in the pre-season to fill the last spot on their roster.
Thoughts?

Jack, I understand you are a proud and passionate WC supporter, but you really weaken your argument when you say “Cats swiped him from the Eagles”. As has been pointed out many times on this page, WC had multiple chances to draft Kelly, but they either rated other players higher, or they thought they could get him with a later pick. Either way, that’s how the draft system works. For example, in 2013, Collingwood really wanted to draft Bontempelli and traded picks with WC to get an earlier pick (from pick 11 to pick 6). However the Bont was taken at pick 4. Despite all the work and research the Pies had done, you (rightfully) don’t hear them complaining that the Bont was “swiped” from them, ’cause that’s not how it works (the irony of the above situation is that Sheed was taken at pick 11, Collingwood’s original pick).
Also (and this has been pointed out to you a number of times), the cases of Dangerfield and Kelly are quite different:
1. Danger was a restricted free agent. He had already given Adelaide 8 years of service, and it was possible that Geelong could offer him a contract that Adelaide couldn’t match, and the Crows would see him leave with just one compensatory pick. This strengthens Geelong’s hand (as the buyer) when it comes to negotiations. So the fact that they traded instead of going through free agency was a courteous action on Geelong’s behalf.
2. Kelly is not a free agent. So his only option of moving to another club is via trade or draft. He knows that if he goes into the draft, there is a very good chance he won’t get to the club of his choice. Again, this strengthens Geelong’s hand (this time as the seller).
3. Both players wanted to go “home”. However, there is only one AFL team near Mogg’s Creek, but there are 2 AFL teams in Perth. This seems to be the main sticking point. Kelly wants to get back to Perth to be closer to family. If that truly was the only reason for moving, then the club he plays for shouldn’t really matter. I’m not against him nominating a preference
Having said all that, Kelly will get to WC. Geelong are renowned for being very fair to deal with, and I would take anything that Scott says with a grain of salt as he won’t be involved in the negotiations. As long as WC make a fair offer (not just your idea of fair), the deal will get done, and don’t be surprised if it’s done early next week.

I thought Castagna had a terrible game. He ran around like a headless chook most of the match and many of his kicks were the wrong option. Remember the old saying – bad kicking is bad football. I would have given him a 3.

You’re absolutely right, the best side for the year gets the title of premier. But there’s no such title for the best team of the last three years. So in order to assess whether a team has been the best over the last three years, you can only look at wins, ladder positions and finals success on a cumulative and comparative level. And by those measures, the best team over the last three years is unquestionably Richmond.

Your argument would make sense if there was a 3-year cup, but there isn’t.
Over the last 3 years Richmond has won more games than anyone else, finished 1st, 3rd and either 2nd or 1st. They have contested 3 prelim finals, winning 2. No other team can match that, let alone beat it. Ergo, they ARE the best team over the last 3 years.
Which would make it kinda sad for them if they only end up with one premiership to show for it.

Mate, GWS could finish the regular season 22-0 and you still wouldn’t think they were one of the best 4 teams. You have a dark, sinister dislike of the Giants, which fits in comfortably with the narrow-minded, Victoria-centric world you inhabit.

I think you’re using the benefit of hindsight, and also aren’t applying the same logic to the Aussies that you have applied to the Poms.
1. There were just as many players “without any red ball cricket for ages and in ultra aggressive one day mode” for Australia as there were for England.
2. “if you looked at the Aussie bowling line up” – there were huge questions about the Aussie bowling line up: Starc’s effectiveness in England (historically poor), Pattinson’s and Hazlewood’s injuries (would they be fit and would they remain fit?), Neser’s inexperience, Siddle’s age and lack of penetration. The only bowlers that you could be confident with were Cummins and Lyons. Compared to Anderson, Broad, Woakes, Ali and Stokes, you’d have to say the advantage seemed to lie with England.
3. “plus Smith” – he hadn’t played red-ball cricket for 18 months. There was no way to know how well he would play.
Prior to the series, England were the favourites. They were at home, against a team they hadn’t lost to at home for 22 years, with a seemingly superior bowling attack. They had recently beaten India 4-1, the same India that beat the Aussies 3-1 in Australia. To suggest England weren’t favourites, you are kidding yourself.

Voss? He’s already in SA.

Pierro, no matter how many times you say it (and you’ve said it a LOT over the past couple of weeks), walking in to bat at the early fall of the first and/or second wicket is NOT the same as opening. And given the number of times you have asserted this recently, it’s a bit rich for you to accuse others of “overcooking” their comments.

Joe Burns, that’s what now.

It’s the classic case of what I call footy’s inverse law of logic. Team A (Kangas) beat team B (Hawks), and team B beat team C (Cats), so logically team A should beat team C. But far more often than it should happen, team C gets the win.

Geelong really needs to win this one too. If they lose this week and next week (v Lions at the Gabba), it’s possible that they miss out on the top 4.

Correct. Runners are no longer allowed at all.

GWS cannot and will not win a final in Melbourne.
Just because something hasn’t happened in the past, doesn’t mean it can’t happen in the future. It’s like saying if Team A beats Team B, and Team B beats Team C, then Team A will definitely beat Team C. More often than should be the case, the reverse happens. GWS can, and one day will, win a final in Melbourne (they would have won one last year v Collingwood but for some awfully one-sided umpiring). Whether it’s this year remains to be seen.
Richmond just won’t make it. Their hurdles are getting bigger and they will be playing real contenders.
I can see no reason why Richmond won’t make it. They are starting to come into form, most of their injured players are returning / have returned, and they have the experience of 2017 to draw on. If they make the top 4 before finals, then I’d have them as premiership favourites.
GWS v Richmond for the GF
I’ll admit this is unlikely, but it’s what I thought at the start of the year and I’m going to stick with it.

Brisbane and GWS the real smokeys.
I agree. GWS v Richmond for the GF.

Your arguments lack any sort of consistency. Not a single one of the players you have selected have played well every week, so to exclude Cripps (as well as many others) on that basis is contradictory.
I think it’s great that you have thought a bit outside the box to select your team, but you seem to have used different measures to select some players, but then not applied those same measures to other players. Selecting B Crouch at HFF, when he has been named there only twice this year, is a real stretch.
For what it’s worth, the team named by DingoGray below is pretty close to what I’d select. I’d have Boak on the field in place of Zorko, and Billings would be on the bench (also instead of Zorko). I’d also try to have Sicily in the starting 18 at CHF and drop Laird to the bench.

The big 3 all do charity but only one of them
– bounces the ball for a minute before he serves it
This is nothing compared to Rafa’s carry-on before serving. Rafa also regularly takes longer than allotted before stepping up to serve (25 secs) and has had umpires stood down if they’ve had the temerity to warn him.
– wanted to strike because the squillions he makes are not enough for him
As president of the player’s council, he was looking out for all players, not just himself. This should be seen as a positive. Worth noting that both Djokovic and Nadal were critical of Federer’s time as president.
– carries on court when he loses a point
This is baseless. Many players carry on after losing a point, including Rafa. Murray, Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Safin and countless others carried on far worse than Novak, but they were still popular.
There may be reasons why people prefer Roger and Rafa (I prefer Roger myself), but they aren’t the reasons you have listed. And I would suggest that there are some reasons, but none of them are particularly “good”.

Your comment will go down as one of the most stupid ever, and that’s saying something given the quality of most of your other posts.
If you honestly think that the winner of 20 grand slams doesn’t have a “champion mentality”, then you are beyond help.

Not a fact. You might think it’s going to happen, it might even happen. Even if it does happen, doesn’t make it a fact. It’s still just an opinion.

I’d like this comment, but then you ruined it with the last sentence.

Ryder, Westhoff, SPP and Rockliff all played in the twos, so they weren’t “out”, they just weren’t selected.

The other thing to add to this is that it is an extremely long-term project. It took the Swans 20-25 years to start to pull decent crowds and decent membership numbers, and this was when they were a one-town team based close to the city/eastern suburbs (where all the money and corporate support is). In all likelihood it will take GWS longer than that, and anyone claiming the venture is a failure is a short-sighted fool at best.
It might not be as simple as to say “if you build it they will come”, but the opposite is most certainly true – “if you don’t build it, they certainly won’t come”.