As I understand it, the total no. of players on the list, inclusive of cat A rookies (but not inclusive of cat B rookies, which are "costless" add ons) is limited to 44 (or maybe 45?). The mix of main list and category A rookies is flexible, but the total of the two is fixed.The mid-season draft is a rookie draft. Upgrading a rookie makes a space. And I think we already had a space anyway.
We need another ruckman for depth regardless. We don't need an LTI to a ruckman to inquire about another one. Correlation does not equal causation.
What else have you heard that makes you think Draper even has an injury?
We could always cut another one of Myers' fingers off.As I understand it, the total no. of players on the list, inclusive of cat A rookies (but not inclusive of cat B rookies, which are "costless" add ons) is limited to 44 (or maybe 45?). The mix of main list and category A rookies is flexible, but the total of the two is fixed.
The MSD was introduced to enable a club to add to that number to replace a player on the LTI, or to bring them up to that no. in the event that they had less than the limit without any LTI.
So, for example, Hawthorn would get a pick to replace Mitchell (if they hadn't already done so pre season).
In our case, if McNiece had come off the cat A rookie list to replace Mutch, we would have a spot open in the MSD.
But McNiece was a category B rookie and so no spot is created by promoting him.
So, if we are talking to Knoll, another spot would have to have opened up.
Psychological? Tend to agree that being in cotton wool does somehow bring out the bad luck and that weird half games are pointless.If he is injured I can't help but wonder whether we are reaping what we sow. There is always a point that someone should be playing. We almost always wait. Injury becomes almost inevitable.
I suspect it is genuinely physiological. Players not on edge enough at a contest or trying too hard.
An example that comes to mind is the Allblacks before they started this dominant run. Wrapped up players in cotton wool in preparation for a world cup and they struggled with injury.
What exactly is the point of playing a player for a half basically telling him to save himself for an AFL match the next week?
Has Draper even looked like getting injured playing large game time on ball in his first 3 years? He rucked 90% game time in year 1.
Psychological? Tend to agree that being in cotton wool does somehow bring out the bad luck and that weird half games are pointless.
There is always a point that someone should be playing. We almost always wait.
There is the point in each player's development where they are ready for a shot. However there is the small matter of needing a best 22 that can go out and win AFL games. I love seeing young guys get games but if everyone who deserves a shot gets a shot immediately we would have 12 of our best 22 playing reserve grade each week. And I'm not just talking Myers and Baguley.
Injury becomes almost inevitable.
The injury risk is surely pretty similar at both levels. We can't promote players just so they don't get injured playing 2s.
a few weeks ago when I requested Clarke stay in for structure you scoffed saying JD was a far better choice - winning wasn't a good enough reason to stick..I'm probably using the wrong terminology but I think of the cause of the injury as physical even if it starts in the mind.
That probably makes no sense.
On the topic of the best 22, I haven't proposed a change in about 2 years that I don't think would improve us short and long term.
Getting someone who isn't a witches hat to replace Baguley, for example, both improves the team and gives a player much needed exposure to AFL.
Last week Drapar was a better option than Francis for many reasons. He's played forward more, he runs much harder for much longer, he is second efforts are the foundation of his game, he allows us to keep Daniher forward.
I'd say we're to conservative but it's a weird form of conservatism. It doesn't appear to be based in even a misguided belief in the past as much as it is a fear of the future.
a few weeks ago when I requested Clarke stay in for structure you scoffed saying JD was a far better choice - winning wasn't a good enough reason to stick..
now the structure is proved to be compromised without the 2nd ruck, allowing JD to play fwd (where he should be) and we look a little off..
I understand you want Draper in, (as do i) but he performs the same role structurally as Clarke did.
I feel like the rules change when its a player you like