[killawatts]

Mark Stevens will chat live today at 11am about Melbourne List.

http://www.heraldsun...from=public_rss

Here is his review article as well.

http://www.heraldsun...x-1225838881541

[Satan]

Stevo's best 22:
Backs: Matthew Warnock, James Frawley, Colin Garland
Joel Macdonald, Jared Rivers, Cameron Bruce
Midfield: Cale Morton, Brent Moloney, Brad Green
Mark Jamar (ruckman), James McDonald, Jack Grimes
Forwards: Colin Sylvia, Brad Miller, Aaron Davey
Matthew Bate, Liam Jurrah, Austin Wonaeamirri
Int: Tom Scully, Jack Trengove, Stefan Martin, Jamie Bennell
Emg: Nathan Jones, Lynden Dunn, Ricky Petterd


best 22 , great in theory but not very realistic to discuss, maybe nominate a team for rnd 1

Jurrah and morton out for a while, bring in jones on the wing , petterd in forward line

garland and Wona coming back from LTI so will they be match ready?

[stranga]

Satan, on 10 March 2010 - 10:13 AM, said:

Stevo's best 22:
Backs: Matthew Warnock, James Frawley, Colin Garland
Joel Macdonald, Jared Rivers, Cameron Bruce
Midfield: Cale Morton, Brent Moloney, Brad Green
Mark Jamar (ruckman), James McDonald, Jack Grimes
Forwards: Colin Sylvia, Brad Miller, Aaron Davey
Matthew Bate, Liam Jurrah, Austin Wonaeamirri
Int: Tom Scully, Jack Trengove, Stefan Martin, Jamie Bennell
Emg: Nathan Jones, Lynden Dunn, Ricky Petterd


best 22 , great in theory but not very realistic to discuss, maybe nominate a team for rnd 1

Jurrah and morton out for a while, bring in jones on the wing , petterd in forward line

garland and Wona coming back from LTI so will they be match ready?

I agree i find discussing a "best 22" pointless given our injury situation. More value debating a round 1 22 now that we have some pre season form to work with. Mine would be:

Cheney, Warnock, Frawley

Macdonald, rivers, Bennell

Jones, Mcdonald, Trengove

Sylvia, Bate, Miller(unfortunately)

Green, Petterd, Bruce

Jamar, Moloney, Grimes

Int: Scully, Strauss, Mckenzie, Martin

Garland, Wona, Watts to come in in the next few rounds.

[Dee Dee]

I really do wonder about Mark Stevens.

Ricky Petterd is (or could be) a 3 to 4 goal a match forward and yet Stevens has him as an emergency.
Also I must reiterate what I've said before - Jordy McKenzie must be brought off the rookie list asap, from what I've seen he has a bit of the devil in him. I'd certainly have Jordy in my starting 22.

[Demon Den]

Gee that forward line looks ok.....mmmm just have to wait I suppose.

[High Tower]

killawatts, on 10 March 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

Here is his review article as well.

http://www.heraldsun...x-1225838881541

From M.Stevens article: -

Quote

You can only bottom out for so long. You can can use Hawthorn, the Western Bulldogs and St Kilda as examples of clubs to go to the bottom and bounce up, but none of those three spent as long in the cellar as the Demons.

Remember, Melbourne has won 12 games in the past three seasons - seven fewer than the next worst club.

You couldn't blame Demon supporters for not turning up in that period, but with the kids stockpiled, there are no more excuses (even if early injuries don't help Bailey's cause).

Star forwards or not, the Dees need to start by getting it inside 50 more often. For three years in a row, they have ranked last for inside-50s - the most basic of all stats.

Too often, the Dees turn it over through the midfield, and they are desperately in need of line-breakers who can take risks and use it well.

Brent Moloney, Nathan Jones and James McDonald are blue-collar, so much rests with Scully, Jack Trengove and Jack Grimes, who some are going as far as saying is a future captain.

One wonders if M.Stevens will be the first of the journo's to put the heat on DB ? That is, if he can ever leave the brilliant surrounds of the kennel.

"but with the kids stockpiled, there are no more excuses" - So Stevo if we fall over in 2010 the team will cop it because the kids (underdeveloped) didn't help the cause ?

"(even if early injuries don't help Bailey's cause)" - ooh yes, you've definitely started sharpening your knives now.

As for your statement that the Hawks, Bulldogs and Saints "but none of those spent as long in the cellar as the Demons."

Get your facts right !

St.Kilda 2000 - 16th (2.5 wins)
St.Kilda 2001 - 15th (5.5 wins)
St.Kilda 2002 - 15th (4 wins)

That amounts to 11 wins and two draws. Yes, effectively the same amount of "wins" as the Dees in 2007-08-09. Nothing to be proud of, sure, but it puts your statement to shame Stevo.

As you go on to say, so much rests on Scully, Trengove & Grimes within the midfield. Well, it's good to know you've identified our potential future, and there is nothing better in this world, believe me, than some "journo" putting some added pressure on three players who have played just 12 AFL games in total (thanks to Grimes); on top of the club losing three of it's players to long term impact injuries on the cusp of the season proper.

Thanks Stevo, you're an absolute champ !

[Jarka]

I thought his comments were generally fair and reasonable.

[armstrong35]

what a shame we didnt play darren jolly much which forced him to leave!
would have been a good ruckman too tap it on too the mids

[High Tower]

Jarka, on 10 March 2010 - 12:51 PM, said:

I thought his comments were generally fair and reasonable.

In the main, yes. I'll admit when it comes to some journo's views, I like to defend the club on certain points I guess. You'll note that some journo's in partcular have picked up on Jimmy's statement recently, and that they are starting to write there are "no more excuses", in the next breath they will acknowledge we have many a young and inexperienced list that needs time and games. I don't find this reasonable. I find it most inconsistent. In a way it's a contradiction of sorts.

[Bay Riffin]

Jarka, on 10 March 2010 - 12:51 PM, said:

I thought his comments were generally fair and reasonable.

when asked about Gysberts, he said he hasn't seen him play.

Not the most riveting read.

[Curry & Beer]

Bay Riffin, on 10 March 2010 - 01:20 PM, said:

when asked about Gysberts, he said he hasn't seen him play.

Not the most riveting read.

He doesn't pretend to be expert on junior footy/the draft... ask Emma Q!

[Bay Riffin]

Curry & Beer, on 10 March 2010 - 01:48 PM, said:

He doesn't pretend to be expert on junior footy/the draft... ask Emma Q!

Well it would be handy if he knew a little as the best players are in the under 20s bracket for us.

everything he said was obvious, and hardly insightful.

His one saving grace is he appeared to know about the older players, something that makes you stand out in journalism today.

[Jarka]

To be fair to MArk Stevens (can't believe I'm typing this but here goes) Gysberts best game for us was against Adelaide on a little piss-pot ground in the middle of trailer trash land, so I doubt that many people saw his performance. I guess he can't really comment on something he hasn't seen.

[High Tower]

Bay Riffin, on 10 March 2010 - 02:11 PM, said:

His one saving grace is he appeared to know about the older players, something that makes you stand out in journalism today.

No doubt. He'd have a plethora of information on older players. (References from past articles)
Can't question his knowledge on past Bulldog players either; much like his colleague who lives out at Windy Hill.

[old55]

High Tower, on 10 March 2010 - 11:46 AM, said:

As for your statement that the Hawks, Bulldogs and Saints "but none of those spent as long in the cellar as the Demons."

Get your facts right !

St.Kilda 2000 - 16th (2.5 wins)
St.Kilda 2001 - 15th (5.5 wins)
St.Kilda 2002 - 15th (4 wins)

That amounts to 11 wins and two draws. Yes, effectively the same amount of "wins" as the Dees in 2007-08-09. Nothing to be proud of, sure, but it puts your statement to shame Stevo.

Agreed, or when Carlton start to challenge in the next few years ...
2005 - 4 wins 15th
2004 - 3.5 wins 16th
2003 - 4.5 wins 16th
That's 11 wins and 2 draws also

This post has been edited by old55: 10 March 2010 - 01:34 PM

[Curry & Beer]

old55, on 10 March 2010 - 02:32 PM, said:

Agreed, or when Carlton start to challenge in the next few years ...
2005 - 4 wins 15th
2004 - 3.5 wins 16th
2003 - 4.5 wins 16th
That's 11 wins and 2 draws also

also Carlton spent NINE years in the bottom 8 before last year

so we can miss another six before being on par with them

even the Bombers missed 5 in a row recently

[Deelirium]

High Tower, on 10 March 2010 - 01:06 PM, said:

In the main, yes. I'll admit when it comes to some journo's views, I like to defend the club on certain points I guess. You'll note that some journo's in partcular have picked up on Jimmy's statement recently, and that they are starting to write there are "no more excuses", in the next breath they will acknowledge we have many a young and inexperienced list that needs time and games. I don't find this reasonable. I find it most inconsistent. In a way it's a contradiction of sorts.

Please note, whilst you may know lots there is to know about the MFC, and probably a bit about other teams, he has to know just as much about 1 team as the others. His head would be full of players like maric and mckenzie, people who are yet to prove anything in afl level.

HT my point is, as much as i do like you defending the team, and bringing stats in for your argument, and being generally hostile to journalists, you have to remember, that it is their job to get people discussing things, and saying things like Newton is a good player is unlikely to raise any eyebrows in the media world.

You also have to remember like everyone on here, he is his own person with his own opinions, and while i generally agreed with most things he said about the MFC, personally you can't get all bent out of shape if he says something that you don't like because you have invested interested in the team and he doesn't.

And coming back to my point of media, they have to talk about something, weather it be correct, incorrect, positive, negative, a fluff piece, or something more serious, it is their job to put doubt in peoples minds or talk something up.

Oh and wanting the media to be consistent is a complete waste of time. They tell the story they want to tell

[old55]

Deelirium, on 10 March 2010 - 03:17 PM, said:

Please note, whilst you may know lots there is to know about the MFC, and probably a bit about other teams, he has to know just as much about 1 team as the others. His head would be full of players like maric and mckenzie, people who are yet to prove anything in afl level.

It's his full-time job - how hard is it to know 700 players?
And he's got all sorts of resources like the AFL Yearbook etc at his disposal.
The article is not a shocker on knowledge of players level and is better than many.
But it's inexcusable to misrepresent easy to check facts.

[High Tower]

Deelirium, on 10 March 2010 - 03:17 PM, said:

Please note, whilst you may know lots there is to know about the MFC, and probably a bit about other teams, he has to know just as much about 1 team as the others. His head would be full of players like maric and mckenzie, people who are yet to prove anything in afl level.

HT my point is, as much as i do like you defending the team, and bringing stats in for your argument, and being generally hostile to journalists, you have to remember, that it is their job to get people discussing things, and saying things like Newton is a good player is unlikely to raise any eyebrows in the media world.

You also have to remember like everyone on here, he is his own person with his own opinions, and while i generally agreed with most things he said about the MFC, personally you can't get all bent out of shape if he says something that you don't like because you have invested interested in the team and he doesn't.

And coming back to my point of media, they have to talk about something, weather it be correct, incorrect, positive, negative, a fluff piece, or something more serious, it is their job to put doubt in peoples minds or talk something up.

Oh and wanting the media to be consistent is a complete waste of time. They tell the story they want to tell

Deelirium, I appreciate your concern.

If it is their job to get people discussing things, surely they can do it all the same, by putting in print accurate information. I don't mind them talking about something, as long as it's accurate. Information such as where the Hawks, Bulldogs & Saints have finished their respective seasons in any particular year is easily accessible.

It's poor form as far as I'm concerned. It's not the first time and if track record is anything to go by, it won't be his last.

[Deelirium]

High Tower, on 10 March 2010 - 04:26 PM, said:

Deelirium, I appreciate your concern.

If it is their job to get people discussing things, surely they can do it all the same, by putting in print accurate information. I don't mind them talking about something, as long as it's accurate. Information such as where the Hawks, Bulldogs & Saints have finished their respective seasons in any particular year is easily accessible.

It's poor form as far as I'm concerned. It's not the first time and if track record is anything to go by, it won't be his last.

HT, i think you misinterpreted me. I am not concerned.

but if you are talking about finishing places, st kilda finished 16,15,15

melbourne so far has finished 16,16, dont you think as an outsider he has a little bit of a point?

But also, to be fair, i am basing most of my knowledge of mark stevens on this one little snippit, as this is all i can really remember him writing about. But for me he wasn't too far off the mark

[High Tower]

Deelirium, on 10 March 2010 - 04:57 PM, said:

HT, i think you misinterpreted me. I am not concerned.

but if you are talking about finishing places, st kilda finished 16,15,15

melbourne so far has finished 16,16, dont you think as an outsider he has a little bit of a point?

But also, to be fair, i am basing most of my knowledge of mark stevens on this one little snippit, as this is all i can really remember him writing about. But for me he wasn't too far off the mark

No, I didn't misinterpret you.

Read my first post, but be sure to read what I originally quoted from Stevens article (first two lines). He has simply failed to recognise that St.kilda has spent as long as the Demons have in the cellar. To make it easier, it is the bit underlined...

[vincehotboy]

Deelirium, on 10 March 2010 - 04:57 PM, said:

HT, i think you misinterpreted me. I am not concerned.

but if you are talking about finishing places, st kilda finished 16,15,15

melbourne so far has finished 16,16, dont you think as an outsider he has a little bit of a point?

But also, to be fair, i am basing most of my knowledge of mark stevens on this one little snippit, as this is all i can really remember him writing about. But for me he wasn't too far off the mark

I have no problem with it except the part of STK, hawks, bulldogs not being down as long as, hawks spent from 2002 to 2006 in the bottom four until 2007 they came 6th then in 2008 flag, so yes he has a lot of teams to look at in the AFL, his article is alright, but just that part of the article made him look like a fool, because all three of them spent a lot of time in the bottom 4.

[volders]

I thought it was actually a pretty solid article considering it's Mark Stevens. Best 22 was as close as I've seen from any journo, only obviously bad (IMO) was bennell in for Jones. (Also pettard/miller could be debated) His comments weren't particularly insightful but were pretty fair imo.

Also if you spend 30mins a day looking at MFC related things (articles/forums/etc.) assuming a normal working week (40hrs) you spend more time on the MFC than Mark Stevens.

[steveheals]

Well done Mark Stevens, leaving Petterd and Jones out of our top 22 really makes heaps of sense

[old55]

volders, on 10 March 2010 - 06:42 PM, said:

I thought it was actually a pretty solid article considering it's Mark Stevens. Best 22 was as close as I've seen from any journo, only obviously bad (IMO) was bennell in for Jones. (Also pettard/miller could be debated) His comments weren't particularly insightful but were pretty fair imo.

Also if you spend 30mins a day looking at MFC related things (articles/forums/etc.) assuming a normal working week (40hrs) you spend more time on the MFC than Mark Stevens.

30 minutes per day per team is a lot of looking when you multiply it by 100 working days in a season and that's a conservative number of days.
I reckon I could write an article of comparable quality on all of the 16 teams with just one week's TOTAL research and get my facts right.
The quality and superficiality of football journalism is appaling.

[volders]

old55, on 10 March 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

30 minutes per day per team is a lot of looking when you multiply it by 100 working days in a season and that's a conservative number of days.
I reckon I could write an article of comparable quality on all of the 16 teams with just one week's TOTAL research and get my facts right.
The quality and superficiality of football journalism is appaling.

true

[Satan]

old55, on 10 March 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

30 minutes per day per team is a lot of looking when you multiply it by 100 working days in a season and that's a conservative number of days.
I reckon I could write an article of comparable quality on all of the 16 teams with just one week's TOTAL research and get my facts right.
The quality and superficiality of football journalism is appaling.

Footy Journalism died when Alf Brown retired

[why you little]

Satan, on 10 March 2010 - 10:36 PM, said:

Footy Journalism died when Alf Brown retired

yes along with Percy Beames.

[2014-Flag]

Deelirium, on 10 March 2010 - 03:17 PM, said:

Please note, whilst you may know lots there is to know about the MFC, and probably a bit about other teams, he has to know just as much about 1 team as the others. His head would be full of players like maric and mckenzie, people who are yet to prove anything in afl level.

HT my point is, as much as i do like you defending the team, and bringing stats in for your argument, and being generally hostile to journalists, you have to remember, that it is their job to get people discussing things, and saying things like Newton is a good player is unlikely to raise any eyebrows in the media world.

You also have to remember like everyone on here, he is his own person with his own opinions, and while i generally agreed with most things he said about the MFC, personally you can't get all bent out of shape if he says something that you don't like because you have invested interested in the team and he doesn't.

And coming back to my point of media, they have to talk about something, weather it be correct, incorrect, positive, negative, a fluff piece, or something more serious, it is their job to put doubt in peoples minds or talk something up.

Oh and wanting the media to be consistent is a complete waste of time. They tell the story they want to tell

The other point about this is that all teams compete for the time and attention of the media. The Demons gets relatively little media attention compared to Collingwoods and Carltons of this world, so having a prominant journalist whoat least has sufficient knowledge of our list and club to be able to produce a reasonably coherant article is surely a plus. Probably now only Martin Flanagan and Mike Sheahan (both prominant Demon supporters as well as journalists) has more knowledge of the club than Stevens. this can surely be only a good thing for the club's future and coverage will become more extensive as our success builds.