Who would get a game at Geelong or Hawthorn?

[jabberwocky 2,301]

It is an interesting excercise to assess the holes in our list.

For mine it would be Green, Davey and Mclean.

I think that Garland and PJ could also break in. Miller might get a gig at Geelong.

I struggle to see anyone else who could currently break into thier 22. Others of course will have thier ideas.

Hopefully by the end of next year we will have added a few more names to this list.

[mo64 5,230]

It is an interesting excercise to assess the holes in our list.

For mine it would be Green, Davey and Mclean.

I think that Garland and PJ could also break in. Miller might get a gig at Geelong.

I struggle to see anyone else who could currently break into thier 22. Others of course will have thier ideas.

Hopefully by the end of next year we will have added a few more names to this list.

It's a ridiculous question.

Rono on Demonologist raised a good point last week about Geelong's forward line. Steve Johnson aside, which of the remaining Geelong forwards would make a difference to our side?

Good teams are made up of 1-6 top liners, and the rest are foot soldiers, who play a role. At least 2 thirds of the Melbourne list could be foot soldiers in a good side.

[titan_uranus 22,638]

Rono on Demonologist raised a good point last week about Geelong's forward line. Steve Johnson aside, which of the remaining Geelong forwards would make a difference to our side?

Well I'd include Chapman as one of Geelong's forwards, so he'd make it in Melbourne too. And I wouldn't be unhappy if Lonergan was on our list. He kicked 35 or so goals in 15 games.

It's not just Geelong and Hawthorn's absolute elite players. It's also their depth, and the fact that they usually get something from 22 players. Their bottom 6 are streets in front of our bottom 6.

[LeBron James 41]

Rivers and Garland would get a gig in the Hawks backline.

[pantaloons 2,019]

Any one of 38 players in Travis Varcoe's position. Would have become the next Clay Sampson had they won yesterday.

[Mono 454]

I think Geelong would love to have Green. A skilled, long kicking left-footer who can play back/forward/mid, and with a degree of toughness.

I reckon they will identify a few weaknesses and try to fix them. Blake was a disaster yesterday, so they could well be after a new tall (bet they wished they still had King).

Would we give up Green for pick 15?

I wouldn't - I want him to stay.

[LeBron James 41]

I think Geelong would love to have Green. A skilled, long kicking left-footer who can play back/forward/mid, and with a degree of toughness.

I reckon they will identify a few weaknesses and try to fix them. Blake was a disaster yesterday, so they could well be after a new tall (bet they wished they still had King).

Would we give up Green for pick 15?

I wouldn't - I want him to stay.

YES.

Picks 1, 15, 17, 19

[jabberwocky 2,301]

It's a ridiculous question.

Rono on Demonologist raised a good point last week about Geelong's forward line. Steve Johnson aside, which of the remaining Geelong forwards would make a difference to our side?

Good teams are made up of 1-6 top liners, and the rest are foot soldiers, who play a role. At least 2 thirds of the Melbourne list could be foot soldiers in a good side.

No that's a ridiculous post. It is a good excercise to examine who on our list would be picked in a premiership team. The more players we can add to that list the closer we will be.

If by foot soldiers you mean good reliable consistent performers who can withstand pressure then I would say that most of our players haven't developed the consistency to make it as "foot soldiers" yet.

Good finals teams have few weaknesses and are able to execute a plan. That is not two thirds of Melbourne....... yet.

Mo can you name the 12 or 13 players that are capable of playing in a premiership this year?

[mo64 5,230]

No that's a ridiculous post. It is a good excercise to examine who on our list would be picked in a premiership team. The more players we can add to that list the closer we will be.

If by foot soldiers you mean good reliable consistent performers who can withstand pressure then I would say that most of our players haven't developed the consistency to make it as "foot soldiers" yet.

Good finals teams have few weaknesses and are able to execute a plan. That is not two thirds of Melbourne....... yet.

Mo can you name the 12 or 13 players that are capable of playing in a premiership this year?

You missed the point. As I said, I could name 25-30 players on our list, who after 1 or 2 years of training and playing amongst elite players, are capable of getting a game in a premiership team. Premiership teams are studded with average to ordinary players.

Conversely, I could name 10 players in the Geelong and Hawthorn teams, who if you placed into the Melbourne side this year, would not have been considered good reliable performers.

And just for the excercise, I'll name 12 players on our list who individually (not all 12), could get a game in that Hawthorn premiership team:

McLean

Rivers

Green

Bruce

Sylvia

Jones

Garland

Wheatley

Davey

P. Johnson

McDonald

Jamar/P. Johnson (Both are better ruckman at this stage than Renouf)

[jabberwocky 2,301]

"who after 1 or 2 years of training and playing amongst elite players,"

Exactly. This is something you didnt put in your original post.

I hope and sincerely believe that we will have more players playing closer to the required level by the end of next year. I think a lot of the players you mention would not have got a guernsey in the geelong or hawthorn finals team.

I probably could have added Whelan and Rivers (sigh) to my orginal group.

Jones, Wheatley and Mcdonald would not get a game with either midfield on current form. Bruce dont think so. Sylvia maybe.

[Chook 14,602]

Any one of 38 players in Travis Varcoe's position. Would have become the next Clay Sampson had they won yesterday.

Travis Varcoe, Matthew Stokes and Hunt are the three at Geelong who probably shouldn't be in their top team. Davey in for Varcoe; Brock McLean or Cam Bruce in for Gamble and Garland; and Green or a fit Rivers for Hunt. I also think that Paul Johnson could easily take the spot of Brad Ottens, who I don't rate. Also, it is my personal belief that Cam Mooney is the biggest hack ever to play the game, and could be replaced by Brad Miller or - again - Green. Both of these players are also better than Max Rooke.

By the way I rate Wojcinski and thought that his omission would cost Geelong the flag, and although it probably didn't, it certainly didn't help. I thought that Chapman should have come in for Stokes instead.

On Hawthorn, Paul Johnson in for Brent Renouf, Brock McLean for Clinton Young, Brad Green for Rick Ladson and Warnock for Stephen Gilham. In order to maintain the Hawks' hard team structure, these are the only guys from our team who could probably make it. Perhaps Brad Miller could get a gig too.

[mo64 5,230]

Jones, Wheatley and Mcdonald would not get a game with either midfield on current form.

This is why I find the question ridiculous. You're comparing the form of individual players who are playing within a team who couldn't adjust to a new gameplan, and was devoid of confidence.

Most of our list have got talent, otherwise they wouldn't have been drafted. Throw them into a side that is playing with confidence, and they'd slot right in.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

This is why I find the question ridiculous. You're comparing the form of individual players who are playing within a team who couldn't adjust to a new gameplan, and was devoid of confidence.

Most of our list have got talent, otherwise they wouldn't have been drafted. Throw them into a side that is playing with confidence, and they'd slot right in.

not ridiculous. It highlights that we have a midfield not capable of competing in finals. This was my point, highlighting our deficiencies. The hawks are a couple of years down the devlopment track than we are. I hope and actually expect a player like Jones to be able to get a game with any club in a couple of years. Add

Martin,

Garland,

PJ

Morton

and maybe Maric to that list as well.

Obviously if these players start to develop and perform, so will the team. The individual players must be judged on thier merits and thier ability to contibute to the team.

The other benefit about building a team in adversity is that you weed out frontrunners who are unable to win thier own footy and players who drop thier head when things don't go thier way.

[praha 10,309]

Hawthorn's list is a developed, experienced version of our current side. They were no different to us as we are now, 4 years ago.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Thew fact is, the reason that Geelong were and are still so good is that they are a strong team. They do have good players, but no individual brilliance has got them to where they are today.

It is a team effort, and what makes them so good is the way they work for each other, have confidence in each other and trust each other.

[torpedo 33]

Rono on Demonologist raised a good point last week about Geelong's forward line. Steve Johnson aside, which of the remaining Geelong forwards would make a difference to our side?

Good teams are made up of 1-6 top liners, and the rest are foot soldiers, who play a role. At least 2 thirds of the Melbourne list could be foot soldiers in a good side.

Good point.

Milburn, Mooney, Lonergan, Stokes, Rooke, Kelly, Varcoe & Blake were all exposed as passengers yesterday.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Yesterday gave me hope, it demonstrated that a rebuild is a viable model and that its the team not the names on the list that matter.

[Yze_Magic 3]

McLean

Rivers

Green

Bruce

Sylvia

Jones

Garland

Wheatley

Davey

P. Johnson

McDonald

Jamar/P. Johnson (Both are better ruckman at this stage than Renouf)

McLean YES- gun

Rivers YES - gun

Green YES - gun

Bruce NO WAY - the last player Clarkson would want in a Hawk jumper.

Sylvia YES- would be a weapon in a top side

Jones NO - nope, too slow and no awareness.

Garland YES - yes, young gun much better than Gilham.

Wheatley NO - not a chance

Davey YES - absolutely

P. Johnson YES - underrated giant

McDonald YES - yes, but just barely. Hawks midfield is deep and awesome.

[beelzebub 22,269]

Rivers and Garland would get a gig in the Hawks backline.

Rivers cant get a gig in ours !!!

[torpedo 33]

McDonald would have been retired already, like the MFC should have done this year. Whats his role in 09? Its not midfielder, we've got an excess of HBFs?

[Jaded No More 58,661]

McLean and Garland.

[Tolstoys Nudge 1,251]

Rivers and Garland would get a gig in the Hawks backline.

Yes they would, very well said, Warnock even would almost sneak in..

Garland, Rivers, Bruce, Green, Mclean, Davey get a game at hawks..

Mclean, Green and Garland to replace Taylor at the cats.. Davey in for Stokes/Varcoe.. Robertson for Lonergan

[beelzebub 22,269]

Glad to see Rosecoloureditis isnt affecting anyones outlook !!

Hawthorn just stymied a team that only lost two games for the year...and some think ( seriously ) that any of our wonderfully 16th placed team are a start at either of these two teams ??

My friends..we have a ways to go before we're truly of THAT calibre !!

[Chook 14,602]

Glad to see Rosecoloureditis isnt affecting anyones outlook !!

Hawthorn just stymied a team that only lost two games for the year...and some think ( seriously ) that any of our wonderfully 16th placed team are a start at either of these two teams ??

My friends..we have a ways to go before we're truly of THAT calibre !!

I disagree. I don't think there's a team in the history of the game that's been so good that their worst player is better than the best players of the worst team. Brad Green, Brock McLean and Aaron Davey are good. The first two would get a game in any team in the competition, and Davey is probably better than 90% of small forwards in the league.

[beelzebub 22,269]

No..y7oure quite simply giving these guys far too much weight for their REAL ability . Yes ..each can put on a game every now and then..but not week in week out.

That anyone can think we have players good enough shows that many still dont set the bar high enough.

We were 16th for a very good reason this year. There's an extra level you have to go to in order for the "team" to be truly successful...ours dont achieve that yet.. They ( players ) may have some potential in this direction.. but they ARENT there yet..and as such they arent good enough for those two teams !!

[Chook 14,602]

No..y7oure quite simply giving these guys far too much weight for their REAL ability . Yes ..each can put on a game every now and then..but not week in week out.

That anyone can think we have players good enough shows that many still dont set the bar high enough.

We were 16th for a very good reason this year. There's an extra level you have to go to in order for the "team" to be truly successful...ours dont achieve that yet.. They ( players ) may have some potential in this direction.. but they ARENT there yet..and as such they arent good enough for those two teams !!

I don't know how you could possibly think that Brad Green would be unable to perform better than Matthew Stokes given the opportunity. Conversely, Cam Mooney would be unflatteringly decent in our side. I take your point that we're bad, but team performance doesn't have as much correlation with player talent as you seem to think.

Are you trying to tell me that you'd trade Green for Stokes? What about Brock McLean or Aaron Davey? If the answer is yes, then I'm afraid we'll never agree.