You should have stopped with your first statement. The statistics highlight little except for those that glean their impression of the game from Monday's paper without attending.

From my position he does not provide anything more than you have established with some of other players yet is slower. I dont see what he will add to the existing list. He is an honest in and under player that has shown little to suggest IMO that he will get upgraded. Happy to leave to the coaching staff but he is fringe IMO.

He adds the ability to hit a target (Jones and Moloney can't), and less clangers. When he gets it, he does something with it. Give him more game time, and he will out-gun the others.

Nathan Carroll is contracted for 2009 and I am so glad he is.

Last year he was one of the few Demons to have a crack IMO, with little help.

He won me a couple of years ago when he stood up to a previously rampant Barry Hall and was not concerned about mixing it with him physically.

Chops will be be back, you'll see. A couple of injuries next year, or some less than ideal development from our young guns and he'll be extremely handy.

I wouldn't even write him off for games based on performance.

Fighting his way through Europe with Mclean on last year's footy trip was simply strapping testosterone on show, mate looking after mate. (well, I don't mind footballers with a bit of [censored], especially if they wear red and blue)

From my position he does not provide anything more than you have established with some of other players yet is slower. I dont see what he will add to the existing list. He is an honest in and under player that has shown little to suggest IMO that he will get upgraded. Happy to leave to the coaching staff but he is fringe IMO.

I have a tendency to agree with Rhino here......

While I really do like Valenti and can understand why others value him more highly than our more established players, but there are some things that I can't seem to get past. I honestly rate Jones much higher, and I believe that despite his poor & pressured year he is a better talent and has more upside than Valenti. Jones took the number one tagger from opposition teams in his second year of footy this season, making his life so much more difficult and much easier for those around him.

Moloney, while very similar has an enormous kick, something that I can't remember seeing from Valenti and if this can be harnessed better in the future it will prove to be, in my humble opinion, a huge asset. These two players are fairly interchangeable however and that is the biggest issue here.

You add McLean to the list and you have four very, very similar and slow mids who generally perform the same in and under function and currently not that well (and that opinion includes Valenti). We can't survive with all on the field at once, we would get run over and past and through, you get the point.

I am not saying we should cut Valenti, as he has done enough, but there are others seemingly in front of him that play the same way (better) and fill the same spots that he would fill. Therefore would it be so dreadful to leave him on the rookie list for another season, leaving another spot open on the senior list?

Just my opinion !!!

...

I understand what you're saying, but there is a big mistake that many people make here and that is that they assume we don't need player A, because we have player B. That is, instead of having three, tough strong inside midfielders (who may seem similar) I'd prefer to have four.

1) Injury problems (McLean, Moloney)

2) Creates competition within the side, Jones and co. won't be getting complacent if they know that they have to work for their spot week in week out - AKA depth.

You could get rid of Valenti, but who would replace him? He came off the rookie list, so it's not as if he cost the club anything. Would people here prefer to get rid of him and take a punt on another unproven player?

What's your source for Bode being uncontracted, and Carroll being contracted for 2009? I haven't seen anything that convinces me that either is correct.

It's correct.

Convinced now? :D

It's correct.

Convinced now? :D

Nup........

B)

Good points Queen C.

Jones has his faults but people forget at 20 he has been our No 1 midifelder since McLean went down. Its been a tough year for him.

Moloney is an interesting one. Along with the injury concerns, Moloney long kicking is as much a curse as a weapon because too often its used mindlessly and to the detriment and the team. His decision making, lack of pace and his flaky defensive game raise questions in my mind as to where he is at.

Valenti characteristics represent much of what MFC already has and I dont think it needs more. Valenti does not counter any of those issues with skills that make him better than what we already have. Keep him rookied.

Valenti's decision making skills and disposal are better than most of his peers. And his supposed lack of pace is overstated. Davey is the only player on our list who uses his pace creatively.

Not everyone on the list has to be a potential champion, and Valenti won't be, but he's definitely worth a spot on the senior list.

Valenti's decision making skills and disposal are better than most of his peers. And his supposed lack of pace is overstated. Davey is the only player on our list who uses his pace creatively.

Not everyone on the list has to be a potential champion, and Valenti won't be, but he's definitely worth a spot on the senior list.

It's certainly up there with "a Ryan O'Keefe type player" and "he bleeds red and blue".

I see Valenti as an ideal replacement for McDonald when he hangs up the boots.

It's certainly up there with "a Ryan O'Keefe type player" and "he bleeds red and blue".

I see Valenti as an ideal replacement for McDonald when he hangs up the boots.

Are you saying that Valenti is "a James McDonald type player"? B)

I am not saying we should cut Valenti, as he has done enough, but there are others seemingly in front of him that play the same way (better) and fill the same spots that he would fill. Therefore would it be so dreadful to leave him on the rookie list for another season, leaving another spot open on the senior list?

Just my opinion !!!

Much like I have said previously, leaving him on the rookie list for another season would be a good move, leaving another spot open on the senior list. He has done enough to suggest MFC don't cut him.

I dont see the point in leaving Shane on the rookie list, we've seem him dominate VFL for several years already, we wont have any better impression of where he is at at the end of 2009 if he's played another 14 games for Sandy and 8 games for MFC at 60% game time. We need to make a call on him one way or the other, let him show what he's got in the seniors, another rookie list year is a cop out and avoids making the tough call.

I questioned Moloney's spot on the list the second he got injured, he's injury prone and his injuries have completely robbed him of any run whatsoever and seriously diminished the impact he can have in the modern game. I'd take Valenti over Moloney in a hearbeat.

I questioned Moloney's spot on the list the second he got injured, he's injury prone and his injuries have completely robbed him of any run whatsoever and seriously diminished the impact he can have in the modern game. I'd take Valenti over Moloney in a hearbeat.

Well then if you're talking about Moloney in that regard, make a hard decision and cut Moloney, promote Valenti. There is nothing worse than a list "clogger", we need to look at youth. The club and supporters keep harping on about it bringing kids in. My suggestion was to keep Valenti on the Rookie List - it's not a cop out, its still giving him an opportunity if there is a long term injury. Some footballers remain on the rookie list for sometime. Putting him there gives the opportunity to fill a spot with a young draftee.

It's correct.

Convinced now? :D

Wouldn't Bode have got a minimum 2 year deal that is required for a first contract? Meaning that he's contracted until 2009

If you had a look at Moloneys performances early in the year before he popped his shoulder- particularly the hawthorn game up to 4th qtr when he did do his shoulder, he was in some great form- this wasnt his groin or OP.he is well over that, his shoulder is almost back to good- solid pre season under his belt and he'll be ok.

Trading Bruce would not be very clever from an economic point of view. He has two years left on his contract. I don't think we have that sort of money to throw around.

Nathan Carroll is contracted for 2009 and I am so glad he is.

Last year he was one of the few Demons to have a crack IMO, with little help.

He won me a couple of years ago when he stood up to a previously rampant Barry Hall and was not concerned about mixing it with him physically.

Chops will be be back, you'll see. A couple of injuries next year, or some less than ideal development from our young guns and he'll be extremely handy.

I wouldn't even write him off for games based on performance.

Fighting his way through Europe with Mclean on last year's footy trip was simply strapping testosterone on show, mate looking after mate. (well, I don't mind footballers with a bit of [censored], especially if they wear red and blue)

I agree with that, just not the constabulary getting in on the act, thats messy.

Trading Bruce would not be very clever from an economic point of view. He has two years left on his contract. I don't think we have that sort of money to throw around.

I think he has been the best performed footballer in the second half of the season by the length of the Flemington straight and would not be suprised in the slightest if he got up and won the B&F from Green, McLean and Wheatley..

I would not of thought Bruce will be traded based on his form and secondly with 2 years of his contract to run.