Great day for the MFC

[e25 5]

Dappa, if you look at the key position players in the top 4 teams this season, they each had holes in them:

Hawthorn - 1 good key defender

Geelong - 1 average key forward

St. Kilda - No genuine key defender

Bulldogs - No genuine key forward or CHB.

On the other hand, over the past 4 seasons, Essendon have had the likes of Fletcher, Michael, Ryder, Lucas and Lloyd filling their key position posts, and haven't made the finals.

As Sydney, West Coast, Geelong and Hawthorn have shown, you can win a flag without a star in every key position.

thats a damn good point.

[hoopla 418]

Dappa, if you look at the key position players in the top 4 teams this season, they each had holes in them:

Yes they did - but not as many holes as we will have unless some of the under-performing talls on our list are transformed during the pre-season.

A couple of really good ruckmen can help cover weakness down the spine. Jamar, Johnson,Meeson or Spencer ( who looks promising in the ruck but can't kick) ?

I guess I find it frustrating that year in year out we recruit midfielders - and when they fail to 'kick on' we recruit more midfielders. From Carey - Mckernan to Lloyd-Lucas-Fletcher to Keating- Brown to Jolley-Ball-Goodes to Cox-Hansen to Ottens - Mooney to Franklin-Roughead, talls have been part of the premiership mix.

I am one of those who's seen Sibosado play - and I reckon he's worth a punt. Ideally you'd take him as a rookie - but if we don't take him in the PSD one of the others might.

Now if he's our PSD pick - and we take a ruckman and a KPP (or two) in as rookies, I'll be much happier. If we fill the rookie list with more lightly framed players under 190 cm, then I'd be worried that we're on a long rod to nowhere.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Dappa, if you look at the key position players in the top 4 teams this season, they each had holes in them:

Hawthorn - 1 good key defender

Geelong - 1 average key forward

St. Kilda - No genuine key defender

Bulldogs - No genuine key forward or CHB.

On the other hand, over the past 4 seasons, Essendon have had the likes of Fletcher, Michael, Ryder, Lucas and Lloyd filling their key position posts, and haven't made the finals.

As Sydney, West Coast, Geelong and Hawthorn have shown, you can win a flag without a star in every key position.

That's actually not a bad post.... however I don't agree with some of it. My point was that up both ends it's not enough to have just 1 good KP player and then a host of rotations. It's ok if your second KP player is not as good as the first, as long as they have bulk time to get used to each others' company... Carroll and Holland were two of the more average stay-at-home defenders our club has seen, and working together they did some pretty impressive things in their day.

So going on your above post... I don't rate either of the Bulldogs or the Saints. They're missing the players you suggested they're missing and I think you kind of reinforced my point.

- I consider the Saints to be the luckiest of the "other" five teams in the 8. They've recruited well and could well give it a shake next season, but last they were never a threat, certainly not with Hudgton and McGuire in the shape they're in.

- The dogs play a brand of footy no-one can touch on their day. But their lack of decent talls is precisely what keeps them away from the big two.

- As for the Hawks, who needs key defenders when their small defenders play season like the ones Sewell, Hodge and Campbell did? And I could handle opposition forwards running a bit riot as long as I had Buddy running even more riot up the other end. This example shows a hole in my theory because of the fact their small defenders, and the sheer brilliance of their forwards effectively meant they didn't need a tall defence.

- Geelong? I wouldn't say Mooney is average. Nor Ottens. Plus their defence is chock full of class. Has been for a looong time.

Now here's a couple of examples of teams that prove my point...

- Essendon... Not one of those guys you suggested is anywhere near stardom anymore. Lucas is probably the closest. Lloyd, Fletcher and Michael have had it... and Ryder isn't there yet. I would be depressed if I was a dons supporter.

- Carlton. They have the best FF going around at the moment... and the best FF of the past few years given he plays so close to the square compared to his counterparts, like Franklin and Brown who play further from goal. He kicks 80 a year and his team is still no-where near it. Why? Well... because they have heaps of holes (or HAD them anyway), but also because Waite just aint a forward's pinky toe.

- Fremantle. Pavlich. Need I say more?

- Collingwood. I don't rate them... but even an old fart like Rocca, working in tandem with a hot and cold Cloke look more dangerous than a single star forward. They keep making the finals, and people keep wondering why?

Like I said. Good post. For the record I will say our defence's future does look brighter than it has in years. In fact we've always sort of cobbled together our defence out of a mishmash of NQRs. Our forward line, in that time, is where we threw all our big eggs. Why am I pleased with our defence? Because I have a lot of confidence in the Rivers/Garland combination... and what they lack in size is made up for by the fact that we're getting game time into a bunch of other guys that could succeed where they fail. If you can't recruit Hurley, then recruit Martin, Warnock and Frawley... at least one of them should come on.

In another attempt to illustrate my point. The last big recruiting drive we went on netted us two of the best KP players this club has seen... even going back as far as the fox and a certain FF who still holds the record for goals kicked in a match.

Schwartz and Neitz were great players... one didn't reach the heights he could have because of injury, the other, because he was played out of position basically his whole career. And EVEN THOUGH both guys had a laundry list of setbacks, like average coaching, off field imbalance, and only a sprinkling of good injury prone midfielders and good but soft ones (Stinga, Yze)... we still made finals as much as just about anyone in those players' time. So what does this tell us? Well I think everyone would read that period in our history their own way... that leaves a lot of room for interpretation... Does it suggest that champion KP players and a bit of luck are the best solution? Does it suggest that no matter how good your talls are without a good midfield you're basically nailing sh%# to a wall?

For my part, I just reckon the FIRST thing you do when starting from scratch (and make no mistake that is what we have been doing since Neale's departure) is recruit your spine. I believe that's the club's intention...

So how do we recruit the next Schwartz/Neitz combination? I guess you have to take best possible KP two drafts running, then cross your fingers. Watts at this stage is part one, perhaps Butcher is part two?

Then saturate your list with potential KP players and hope two of them become solid AFL players in defence or swinging from one to the other... Good examples here are Bate, Dunn, Newton... and those guys have not become KP players for a wide variety of reasons...

You then blood your midfield for a couple of years... and Bob's your father's brother. Everyone, ideally, matures at the same time... and from there you don't have to recruit to fill your list, with 7 players every draft. You just recruit for your needs, trading your later picks to ensure you only get quality.

Long story short... People are always saying of players "that's a guy you can build a forward line/defence around." Other than Watts, none of the players we drafted this year, besides maybe Strauss as a 120 minute midfielder, offer that kind of natural structural solidity. The new players will excite, and will be good I would think... but to what end? We will only climb so far up the ladder, and weaken our chance of getting another Watts in the next draft, or even another Ablett/Judd.

It's all about the timing... constructing a premiership team, coming from where we're coming from, is a delicate, 5 year-long operation IMO... and in that time I would hope the footy department would be looking at recruiting a dynasty we can invest in, supporters can be gained with, and sponsors can throw money at over a space of 5-10 years... not a squad that'll juuust scrape in to a GF like last time, and dissapate, retire or ask for a trade as soon as they're done.

[hoopla 418]

For my part, I just reckon the FIRST thing you do when starting from scratch (and make no mistake that is what we have been doing since Neale's departure) is recruit your spine. I believe that's the club's intention...

..............................

The FIRST thing ...yes

The club's intention? .....by no means clear ! (................I just hope you are right...)

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

The FIRST thing ...yes

The club's intention? .....by no means clear ! (................I just hope you are right...)

Yeah... I hear them say in a few articles that they'd have liked Johnston, or Shoenmakers etc etc...

BTW sorry to those who bothered to read that last post. Got a bit carried away... again...

[e25 5]

Yeah... I hear them say in a few articles that they'd have liked Johnston, or Shoenmakers etc etc...

BTW sorry to those who bothered to read that last post. Got a bit carried away... again...

Its fair enough. You didn't make any outlandish statements or assassinate anyone's character.

Pretty good compared to a fair percentage of posts.

Took me 6 hours to read though.

On the topic of recruiting a spine - unfortunately we only had one No. 1 pick & we used that for a KPF.

We would've taken more had there been any decent ones left on the board that could justify passing up Blease or Strauss.

I'm glad the club used those picks on blue-chippers instead of gambling on a Trengove (possible Molan clone) or a Lisle (so highly regarded that he fell to pick 50).

The KPP we passed up could still turn out to be fantastic players, but i don't subscribe to the 'pick & hope' method. I prefer an educated, reduced-risk decision.

[e25 5]

And the other key is that all of our players taken are exceptional with their disposal - not something that could be said about Trengove, Lisle, McKernan, Cornelius, etc.

Reminds me of a drafting tactic used by Hawthorn...

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Took me 6 hours to read though.

Yeah. What can I say? I'll try not to let it happen again... but I can't seem to help myself. Many posters have cracked it at me in the past...

We would've taken more had there been any decent ones left on the board that could justify passing up Blease or Strauss.

Yup. I should explain a little further that I'm not disappointed AT THE CLUB for the lack of height taken. It's more that I'm disappointed that luck didn't fall our way. I always have maintained that beating VISY in rd 22, 2007 didn't hurt us, since this year we'd get our 3 good selections inside the first 20. Considering the depth I didn't mind that two of them were late in the top twenty. I was also not all that disappointed that we didn't end up trading for another pick in the teens, like last year. But looking at it now? Had we received picks 1 and 2 we'd have the best Ruckman and KP forward (recruits) in the land, plus Blease. Had we offloaded Green somehow for pick 14, like last year, then we'd have picked up Johnston who I think led contested marks in the carnival, even over our golden boy, which is saying something as Watts is seriously impressive in the packs. So looking at it now, this apparently deep KP draft was done and dusted by the time it got to us.

Long story short, I'm just a bit miffed at the situation, not the recruiters... and I absolutely agree that on further assessment, there just wasn't decent tall cattle after Sydney, Geelong and the Hawks took Brown, Johnston and Shoenmakers in the selections before ours. With that in mind, it's easier to stomach that we went small, fast and skilled. In the end, what Im calling unfortunate now, might end up being a lucky break for the club. I'm of the opinion that the best coaches, the only GOOD coaches innovate. And while run and carry isn't exactly new, DB with the players he's taken, could reinvent it with an almost exclusively fast, dangerous midfield. I'm not holding my breath that it'll happen, but I'll give it every chance, and DB my full confidence, until it's proven a failure should that be what transpires.

And the other key is that all of our players taken are exceptional with their disposal - not something that could be said about Trengove, Lisle, McKernan, Cornelius, etc.

Reminds me of a drafting tactic used by Hawthorn...

McKernan would have been ok I reckon. Roughie is an awful kick, and people say Franklin has kicking problems... I reckon it would have been more important that we had someone who likes a contest, and can bring the ball to ground and keep it in our attacking fifty. At the end of the day though, if we take the best KP forward next year, then we won't miss McKernan.

I like your thinking Shaft, and didn't realise til recently that kicking accuracy was a trading tactic of the Hawks. Exciting stuff. Especially considering how MFC has been kicking of late.

[Axis of Bob 11,759]

Our key defensive stocks are actually very well off at the moment. How people could say that we needed to recruit another key defender is beyond me.

I believe that a good side is built on a strong and flexible defence, with a skillful and hard running midfield and then you can set up your forward line however you choose to (ie, depending on what cattle you have up forward. As Hawthorn which forward lines do well against them, and they wwill tell you that they have a weakness against small mobile forward lines. Other sides, like the Dogs, struggle against taller forward lines.

But each team has a different forward setup. Not every team has a Buddy/Roughy style setup, and not every team has a mobile setup like Richmond.

What you need is a flexible defence that can negate various forward lines. I believe that we have the cornerstones of that defence, but what we need is time (and good small defenders).

I think we've seen enough of Martin, Garland and Rivers to know that they're going to be good players. Should nothing else happen then we have a tall and flexible defence amongst them. Martin - gorilla tamer, Garland - tall runner, Rivers - zoning tall/third man up. Two of those are only new into the game and have shown exceptional improvement in a short period.

Add to that we have Frawley (yet to find his feet, but can play tall or small) and Warnock (good, honest player with speed). I think we are very well catered for with tall defenders and I wouldn't look any further with them.

Now, with tall forwards. I think that if you take a key forward at pick 1 you must have faith that he will become a good player. Brad Miller has proved to us that he is a more than competent player and we have the unknown Newton around. But we also have the likes of Bate, Sylvia and Dunn as midsized options. Even if we play with just one tall forward, we will still be able to kick goals regularly if our defence and midfield are good enough. Just because Hawthorn won the flag this year doesn't mean that it is the only way to structure your forward line. Geelong won a flag (should have been two) with the mediocre Mooney as its main focal point and a host of midsized/small options around. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

And I think we all know that our midfield is slow and unskilled. I'm very happy to pick up speed and skill in the draft, and don't see us needing to pick up key forwards as a priority. Why should we pick a speculative key forward over a clearly needed midfielder, just because we want to kick our goals in a different way?

[Diablo 1]

Now, with tall forwards. I think that if you take a key forward at pick 1 you must have faith that he will become a good player. Brad Miller has proved to us that he is a more than competent player and we have the unknown Newton around. But we also have the likes of Bate, Sylvia and Dunn as midsized options. Even if we play with just one tall forward, we will still be able to kick goals regularly if our defence and midfield are good enough. Just because Hawthorn won the flag this year doesn't mean that it is the only way to structure your forward line. Geelong won a flag (should have been two) with the mediocre Mooney as its main focal point and a host of midsized/small options around. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

And I think we all know that our midfield is slow and unskilled. I'm very happy to pick up speed and skill in the draft, and don't see us needing to pick up key forwards as a priority. Why should we pick a speculative key forward over a clearly needed midfielder, just because we want to kick our goals in a different way?

Precisely the point Bob, another quality post. It doesn't really matter whether your forwards are 180cm or 200cm; if they are getting lace out delivery from a talented midfield they are going to look good.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

That's ultimately an ultra-positive post, claiming we have quality we just don't have. Maybe you're right, maybe you don't need Roughie and Buddy to win a flag. But for the next 6 years or so you're likely to have to fight your way through a team with those two players. Your point about picking up a mediocre tall, that we need midfielders first. I would say that considering midfielders come on quicker, you can recruit them later in a rebuild. And should the players we picked up turn out to be outside players, then we're back to exactly the place we were in 2002-2006. And for the record as silky skilled as these guys we brought in seem to be, I'm not sure any of them have the scope to be a complete midfielder of the ilk of Ablett/Judd/Cousins/Kerr/Power... Perhaps Strauss could get there.

Precisely the point Bob, another quality post. It doesn't really matter whether your forwards are 180cm or 200cm; if they are getting lace out delivery from a talented midfield they are going to look good.

Disagree. It never worked for the Dogs. And if you're going to deliberately play a small forward line you'd better hope your players have the skill, brains, pace, fitness and luck with injuries that they don't play a team that can keep up with them.

[Axis of Bob 11,759]

It's positive because I understand where we are as a team and the development left within the players I mentioned. It's not like I'm saying that Warnock is the answer to all of our problems. The problem with the Dogs is that they don't have a backline (certainly when Williams is unavailable) that is strong enough or flexible enough to shut down all types of forward line.

The Bulldogs are clearly int he top 3 teams, and that is without a strong, flexible backline nor any power forward. We have at least one power forward now (Watts), possibly 3 (with the now proven Miller and speculative Newton). We don't need to kick goals in the same way that Hawthorn do, because we need to kick goals against their backline, not their forward line.

A strong and flexible defence allows us to cover a tall forwardline line Hawthorn, a small forwardline like the Dogs or a midsized forward line like Geelong. And with Martin, Rivers, Garland, Frawley and Warnock, we can find a combination that will cover these three scenarios (especially with the versatility of Garland and Frawley).

Why do people always want to follow the leader? If you follow the leader you will always be behind the leader. Start your own line and make it a better line that the other. We followed the leader (Brisbane) with strong bodies and the game changed, similarly with run and carry (West Coast). With Bailey at least he has a vision of what will be successful and it doesn't involve following the leader.

Have a look at all of the clubs (and supporters) who are trying to recruit the next Buddy Franklin. But he's not there, because they aren't Buddy. Have a vision of what's going to beat teams like that and then recruit that way - not by copying them.

I don't think we need KPPs. The cries for KPPs come from supporters stuck in 2001, combined with Hawthorn's success this year, so they will always think we don't have enough KPPs unless our spine is Lockett, Carey, Hird, Jackovich and Scarlett. It's easy to see KPPs on the ground when you are watching because that is the last thing you see before the goal, but the midfield is what is really killing us because that's what creates the goal in the first place. And ours is complete rubbish.

In 2002-2006 we still had a crap midfield, but we had a team that was very well suited to playing Daniher's long kicking contested game. Unfortunately that team is no good at doing what Bailey wants, and he's going to recruit players that are.

Main point = if you're folling someone else, you'll always be behind.

[Stigga 25]

Great Posting Axis Bob.

More's to the point with a team like Hawthorn just have a look at their defense. One tall player in Croad, who even then isn't a true KPP. Next is Gilham, 192cm and C. Brown, 177cm. Talk about one C. Brown punching above his weight. Hawthorn defense is so good becasue becasue they choke the ENTIRE FIELD. They don't have a need for any guerilla defenders. Hawthorn are so well drilled and accountable when it comes to their defensive game plan. Take Pavlich for example, he has no space to lead into so he can't lead anywhere inside 50. So Fremantle bombs the ball long to a contest in the goal square. By the time the ball reaches the pack Pavlich is being mauled by 3 defenders who in an instant have descended on him. He has got little chance of marking the ball and almost instantaneouly the ball is rebounded by fantasticly paced and highly skilled individuals such as Bateman, Sewell and Osborne.

Hawthorn's strangehold all across the field defensively means it is difficult for opposition forward line players to ever be one out in front of goal.

It's a classic example of playing to your strengths and drawing that line as you mentioned AB.

Likewise Geelong in the forward line. Mooney really the only tall but even then not really a true KPP, more of a leading HFF. Then, mid-sied to smaller options.

When you have Enright, Ling, Bartel, Ablett, Corey, Chapman, Kelly and Selwood (i.e, best midfield in the league), your forward line can do anthing due to your midfield being fantastic at the hard-ball gets from stoppages and the inside-50's.

Once again playing to you strengths.

[H_T 3,043]

Schwartz and Neitz were great players... one didn't reach the heights he could have because of injury, the other, because he was played out of position basically his whole career. And EVEN THOUGH both guys had a laundry list of setbacks, like average coaching, off field imbalance, and only a sprinkling of good injury prone midfielders and good but soft ones (Stinga, Yze)... we still made finals as much as just about anyone in those players' time. So what does this tell us? Well I think everyone would read that period in our history their own way... that leaves a lot of room for interpretation... Does it suggest that champion KP players and a bit of luck are the best solution? Does it suggest that no matter how good your talls are without a good midfield you're basically nailing sh%# to a wall?

For my part, I just reckon the FIRST thing you do when starting from scratch (and make no mistake that is what we have been doing since Neale's departure) is recruit your spine. I believe that's the club's intention...

So how do we recruit the next Schwartz/Neitz combination? I guess you have to take best possible KP two drafts running, then cross your fingers. Watts at this stage is part one, perhaps Butcher is part two?

Then saturate your list with potential KP players and hope two of them become solid AFL players in defence or swinging from one to the other... Good examples here are Bate, Dunn, Newton... and those guys have not become KP players for a wide variety of reasons...

You then blood your midfield for a couple of years... and Bob's your father's brother. Everyone, ideally, matures at the same time... and from there you don't have to recruit to fill your list, with 7 players every draft. You just recruit for your needs, trading your later picks to ensure you only get quality.

Nice lengthy post Dappa, how many toilet breaks did you have when typing that one?

Seriously back to your post, I see your importance of developing the spine first. But there needs to be a balance. The aim should be to build the best possible list by needs.

This draft there was definitely a focus on good foot skills and lightning pace for the midfield, with the addition of a much needed KPF in Jack Watts. We desperately needed the likes of Watts who is not only a great KPF proposition, but also a future leader. We hit the double whammy with him, I have no doubt.

It's funny that when ND came to Melbourne and saw out seasons 1998-'01..It came to him that after the retirement of Ingerson and Ox in '02, Mfc desperately needed to redevelop the spine. The likes of Alistair Nicholson, Chris Lamb, Ryan Ferguson, Brad Miller, Craig Ellis, even Nathan Carroll were sort after along with Jared Rivers. A few quick fixes in Ellis and Holland by ND were required. But neither were stand outs, they were mere average KP opponents who battled on.

Rivers battles to get on the ground at present and we now have good candidates in the process to see who will put there hand up....Garland is coming on, Martin looks a likely type and Warnock looks as though he can be really competitive and strong in a contest. We will find out alot in the first half of 2009.

The forward line is in a precarious position IMO. Robbo is approaching the end, Newton is treading water, Miller seems to have been there forever now and we keep wanting him to be something we think he's capable of being, but clearly perhaps he is not. So he maybe a better choice for the 2nd or 3rd option under a Watts? as a Key Forward. We don't know yet if Dunn or Bate will be a part of it, having both been played in various positions.

What we do know is that our small forwards are looking alright with the likes of Davey, Wonaeamirri, Maric in the mix and now with some possible additions in Jetta, Bennell and possibly Blease.

Saturating your list with KP players and hoping that 2 of them put there hand up is certainly a quicker way in terms of settling on two good-great forwards for the future, but is that being neglectful of other needed positions such as backs/half backs? Perhaps the alternative is hoping the remaining "saturating" KP Players become options for kep positions in the back half of the spine. Ie A Dunn?

In summary, I think we all are starting to see progress. Our Pre Season Draft Pick I hope they use wisely. Alot of people are saying its got to be a ruck. I disagree entirely. Perhaps a ruck could be an option by the rookie draft IMO. But for the PSD I believe it should be the best available player with the Mfc having in mind that perhaps a mobile tall forward- maybe tall forward option to grow and develop along side Watts. Or a inside midfielder with exquisite skills to help out McLean.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

......

I don't think we need KPPs. The cries for KPPs come from supporters stuck in 2001, combined with Hawthorn's success this year, so they will always think we don't have enough KPPs unless our spine is Lockett, Carey, Hird, Jackovich and Scarlett. It's easy to see KPPs on the ground when you are watching because that is the last thing you see before the goal, but the midfield is what is really killing us because that's what creates the goal in the first place. And ours is complete rubbish.

....

In wonderful form Bob in the lead up to Christmas. Great posting.

[montasaurus 0]

When you have Enright, Ling, Bartel, Ablett, Corey, Chapman, Kelly and Selwood (i.e, best midfield in the league), your forward line can do anthing due to your midfield being fantastic at the hard-ball gets from stoppages and the inside-50's.

Once again playing to you strengths.

Where did they finish again?? No prizes for 2nd.

Footy has just had a sml period without dominat talls.

This will change in the next few years - especially if the AFL target tagging like they are about to so silky finishers hitting power fowards in shoot outs.

Something to look forward to away from the scrappy rubbish we have all had to put up with for the last 5 yrs.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

The problem with the Dogs is that they don't have a backline (certainly when Williams is unavailable) that is strong enough or flexible enough to shut down all types of forward line.

The problem with the dogs is that their backline is full of running players. They're more rebounders than defenders. It's a choice tha Eade makes and it's one of the things that contributes to their innovative and unique style. (will come back to this in the "always behind" part later)

The Bulldogs are clearly int he top 3 teams, and that is without a strong, flexible backline nor any power forward. We have at least one power forward now (Watts), possibly 3 (with the now proven Miller and speculative Newton). We don't need to kick goals in the same way that Hawthorn do, because we need to kick goals against their backline, not their forward line.

That's an interesting point. Firstly, you see the dogs being in the top three as a "good" thing. I don't see a team streaking up the list of flag chances to third, I see one that chronically can't make it into the top two, and to make a GF would have to hope for injuries to the Hawks or Cats. So this is simply a case of you saying the glass is half full and me sayng it's half empty. Point two: we have Watts, yes, and I'm hugely excited... but on what planet is Miller proven? He had a passable/good season last year in the face of overwhelming opposition. But until he kicks 60+ in a season as the main focal point up forward, he won't be "proven." And as for Newton, right now he's more likely than not to end up being an absolute nothing in AFL. That's a fact. I love him and hope against hope... But I'm a long way from putting money on the guy being a sure-thing. Now, that last sentence is a doozy. I never said we have to kick goals the same way Hawthorn do. No-one's going to recruit an athletic freak like Buddy anytime soon. What I'm saying is a simple question of centimetres. An athletic tall, of the like of Watts, would be 4 times as dangerous if he had an even taller, stationary, wrestling gorilla in the square. Watts can't be expected to dominate 22 rounds out of a year plus 3 finals. He needs to have a spell and that's where another reliable tall comes into it. And no, that's not Miller or Juice... yet. And your philosophy of kicking goals against their backline? interesting point, and I'll give you that... But I would remind you that we're not at match day right now. We're talking recruitment. And what we need is to kick a whoooole lot more on the scoreboard. We need a reliable 100-point per game set of forwards with backups. It's so rare that teams win flags without kicking big scores. We will never be Sydney, simply because we don't play at the SCG a lot.

A strong and flexible defence allows us to cover a tall forwardline line Hawthorn, a small forwardline like the Dogs or a midsized forward line like Geelong. And with Martin, Rivers, Garland, Frawley and Warnock, we can find a combination that will cover these three scenarios (especially with the versatility of Garland and Frawley).

My goodness. I just can't see how you've come to that conclusion. A strong and flexible defence (Geelong) allows you to get done in the GF by the Hawks. You're ABSOLUTELY kidding yourself if you look at a backline of Martin (kid), Rivers, Garland, Frawley (lots of these - "?") and Warnock (who?) and go against the unparalleled might of Buddy, Roughie and Williams. I mean, on what planet will that backline ever win a flag against that forward line? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being positive, and sticking with those kids... but fair go. Garland has had one good season, and Rivers hasn't had much more. Oh, and before you quote Garland's game against Buddy as evidence we can shut them down, that was one game. Garland has to beat his opponents, and SMASH them as often as Buddy does before I start comparing them.

Why do people always want to follow the leader? If you follow the leader you will always be behind the leader. Start your own line and make it a better line that the other. We followed the leader (Brisbane) with strong bodies and the game changed, similarly with run and carry (West Coast). With Bailey at least he has a vision of what will be successful and it doesn't involve following the leader.

Aaaah yes... The follow the leader thing. I'm a big supporter of this theory. I always word it differently. The best coaches, and pretty uch the only truly successful coaches innovate. Look at every flag of the past 10 years... they all came from coaches who tried to do something to change the status quo. It's a requirement. MFC fans (the thinking ones, anyway) know this better than anyone. Neale copied the previous year's premiers year in year out until a year came along where he just didn't have the cattle to implement Sydney's gameplan. It's a great way to end up 4th or 5th every year.

My problem with this logic? Were is DB innovating? You show me. How does recruiting small running players redefine the game? Silky skilled outsiders and grunty one paced insiders... Doesn't that sound familiar? Sounds to me like MFC for the last ten years actually.

And you're kidding yourself if you think recruiting what you think will be the game's best CHF is "following the leader." It's not a fad, or in vogue... having a great CHF is unquestionably an ironclad rule of the AFL. As Parkin said, if you have a good KP player... you play them at CHF. Since the dawn of Australian rules, CHF has always been the most important position on the ground.

So what is DB doing then? I don't know that he's redefining the game... but perhaps the side is heading in the direction of the Essendon sides during Hird's time... DB played under Sheeds, and it looks to me like we have the new Hird anyway... Maybe DB won't need to reinvent? Maybe he'll have the players that he can simply coach around? If we go badly enough in these few years, we could have the stars required... that is my hope... and similarly it is my hope that if we recruit 6 stars in this time, that 2 of them are KP forwards... players as effective (but not necessarily identical to) as Franklin.

Have a look at all of the clubs (and supporters) who are trying to recruit the next Buddy Franklin. But he's not there, because they aren't Buddy. Have a vision of what's going to beat teams like that and then recruit that way - not by copying them.

As above. I'm not trying to advocate recruiting the next Buddy. I want the guy who'll outstrip Buddy as he declines. Perhaps a guy that plays closer to goal, and kicks straighter.

I don't think we need KPPs. The cries for KPPs come from supporters stuck in 2001, combined with Hawthorn's success this year.

I'm not stuck in 2001. I'm sticking to a rule that is as I said, an absolute law of the game. And if DB's gameplan was to emulate the dogs and recruit exclusively for running players, I'd be extremely concerned about our future.

Nice lengthy post Dappa, how many toilet breaks did you have when typing that one?

Oooh. Let me just adjust my catheter just quickly.... Ok...

It's funny that when ND came to Melbourne and saw out seasons 1998-'01..It came to him that after the retirement of Ingerson and Ox in '02, Mfc desperately needed to redevelop the spine. The likes of Alistair Nicholson, Chris Lamb, Ryan Ferguson, Brad Miller, Craig Ellis, even Nathan Carroll were sort after along with Jared Rivers. A few quick fixes in Ellis and Holland by ND were required. But neither were stand outs, they were mere average KP opponents who battled on.

Yeah... you see there again, Neale believed he had the team to go ahead. But with his exciting young players in the midfield in Ooze, Bruce, Green... He knew he needed to have an effective group of KP players quicksmart, because they take time to develop. In the end, it went nowhere. Which to me highlights even more the idea that we should establish a good, solid, perhaps GREAT spine before we even start thinking about a midfield... and that it definitely has to go in that order - spine then midfield. The BALANCE then comes in the years following that, where you bring in young players who take less time to establish themselves. At which time the KP players are in their mid twenties and have grown into their bodies... And the best part of this is that you don't suffer from mediocre success while you're recruiting. Your bottoming out period isn't interrupted by a finish in, say, 9th or 7th.

What we do know is that our small forwards are looking alright with the likes of Davey, Wonaeamirri, Maric in the mix and now with some possible additions in Jetta, Bennell and possibly Blease.

Interesting. I'm starting to sound a bit depressing here, but I think this is one area I don't share your enthusiasm or point of view. Davey isn't playing in the forward lie (would love it if he did), Wonna I love, but I'm not sure he'll be the next Wizard/Flash... Maric I'm excited about but don't know a whole lot about him, Jetta from what I've heard is a defender/mid, Bennell is the same... and as for Blease I'm not sure he's a forward at all. I see him more as a wingman. He'll kick goals more because of his pace and the distance he covers (a la Johnson over at the pies) but they'll be from the midfield... I'm not sure he'd be a great "target" for our defence or midfield to be looking for up the ground.

Saturating your list with KP players and hoping that 2 of them put there hand up is certainly a quicker way in terms of settling on two good-great forwards for the future, but is that being neglectful of other needed positions such as backs/half backs? Perhaps the alternative is hoping the remaining "saturating" KP Players become options for kep positions in the back half of the spine. Ie A Dunn?

Hmmm. I think what I mean is more that you spend your early picks on the best KP talent so that the saturation only happens when you're looking for your 2nd and 3rd talls. In our case I think the point is actually moot. I reckon we have a number of good 3rd talls running around, like Bate and Miller as you suggest.

In summary, I think we all are starting to see progress. Our Pre Season Draft Pick I hope they use wisely. Alot of people are saying its got to be a ruck. I disagree entirely. Perhaps a ruck could be an option by the rookie draft IMO. But for the PSD I believe it should be the best available player with the Mfc having in mind that perhaps a mobile tall forward- maybe tall forward option to grow and develop along side Watts. Or a Key Back to develop.

I like Gaertner and Deboer personally, along with Sibosado who would be interesting. I don't think we would put any hope in a PS pick, so a KP player we can just develop over time is a safer and less expensive option in terms of list space. Actually, the three players were around, I think, the 40-50 mark in the phantom draft. Big sliders. But I guess they're always going to be faulted in some way.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Jesus. I did it again.

Man, demonland will be better off when my vacation here finishes.

[H_T 3,043]

My goodness. I just can't see how you've come to that conclusion. A strong and flexible defence (Geelong) allows you to get done in the GF by the Hawks. You're ABSOLUTELY kidding yourself if you look at a backline of Martin (kid), Rivers, Garland, Frawley (lots of these - "?") and Warnock (who?) and go against the unparalleled might of Buddy, Roughie and Williams. I mean, on what planet will that backline ever win a flag against that forward line? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being positive, and sticking with those kids... but fair go. Garland has had one good season, and Rivers hasn't had much more. Oh, and before you quote Garland's game against Buddy as evidence we can shut them down, that was one game. Garland has to beat his opponents, and SMASH them as often as Buddy does before I start comparing them.

Well, to be fair on our boys. Let's look at the second time when they took on the Dawks. Margin was what? 3 goals? Our forward line being more potent would have won that game with a bit of luck. A much better midfield would have demolished the hawks that day. Give credit where credit is due, our boys played well that day. Fair point? I believe the planet is earth.

Oooh. Let me just adjust my catheter just quickly.... Ok...

No sudden movements..you should be right....at least thats what I believe what they say...

Yeah... you see there again, Neale believed he had the team to go ahead. But with his exciting young players in the midfield in Ooze, Bruce, Green... He knew he needed to have an effective group of KP players quicksmart, because they take time to develop. In the end, it went nowhere. Which to me highlights even more the idea that we should establish a good, solid, perhaps GREAT spine before we even start thinking about a midfield... and that it definitely has to go in that order - spine then midfield. The BALANCE then comes in the years following that, where you bring in young players who take less time to establish themselves. At which time the KP players are in their mid twenties and have grown into their bodies... And the best part of this is that you don't suffer from mediocre success while you're recruiting. Your bottoming out period isn't interrupted by a finish in, say, 9th or 7th.

On the flipside. Lets take the Hawks again. Hodge, Mitchell, Crawford and Co. were there before the likes of Buddy & Roughead. Or is that just an exception to your rule?

I like Gaertner and Deboer personally, along with Sibosado who would be interesting. I don't think we would put any hope in a PS pick, so a KP player we can just develop over time is a safer and less expensive option in terms of list space. Actually, the three players were around, I think, the 40-50 mark in the phantom draft. Big sliders. But I guess they're always going to be faulted in some way.

I understand DeBoer back in September was being mentioned alot amongst the obvious picks that went in the top 10. He had been sliding since the AFL Finals series. Apparently is a ball magnet big time. Its his poor disposal that fails to tick recruiters boxes.

[montasaurus 0]

Dappa dan,

I'm glad you put this all down. I can't agree any more that we don't need to copy we need to build and my view is you need to kick goals to win games not rely on stopping them. From my basic knowledge of the game of the last 50 yrs the most success sides have always been those with KPP who preform up forward or in the middle. So what has changed??

The Nat draft is a good start for us with speed and skill but we need to finish it otherwise we will just become the next doggies side (great potential but I doubt will ever play off in a GF due to their lack of forward scoring ability). Watts will need help, Miller is great but is a hard working grunt. Where's the tall with the x factor that can kick 6-8 if watts is having a bad day or triple teamed like lyon had to put up with in the late 90's. Wish list is 3 med-tall players who can kick bags (Assume robbo is not in this list), 2 small forwards that have both goal scoring and defensive pressure (Davey is Midfield) and 1 power tall (Johnson is a ruckman and pls not Jamar). I think the 1st two have been reasonable well addressed in the draft leaving the power forward. Unfortunately newton has not come on. Thus for PSD KPF is a must

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Well, to be fair on our boys. Let's look at the second time when they took on the Dawks. Margin was what? 3 goals? Our forward line being more potent would have won that game with a bit of luck. A much better midfield would have demolished the hawks that day. Give credit where credit is due, our boys played well that day. Fair point? I believe the planet is earth.

Yeah, that was the game I said not to mention where Garland went with Buddy. Oh, and had we actually turned up with a midfield, the Hawks would have... umm... tried. They never got out of first gear. But yes, we were good that day. Showed some heart. Gave the fans something to be proud of.

On the flipside. Lets take the Hawks again. Hodge, Mitchell, Crawford and Co. were there before the likes of Buddy & Roughead. Or is that just an exception to your rule?

Hodge is the exception... he's an exception to MOST rules actually. Mitchell was a player that was never supposed to be what he became. If we could turn a mid range pick/rookie pick into a player like that you'd have to say the footy gods were trying to sleep with us... Oh and Crawford, I'm not sure you can say he had the influence in 2008 of any one of 20 of their other players.... So yes, exceptions to the rule, but the rule is players like Young, Ellis etc etc... who are still just little kids, but can, even at their age, be premiership players playing the role they play in the Haws' side. For example... Buddy, at Ellis' current age, wasn't having the impact Ellis is now.

I understand DeBoer back in September was being mentioned alot amongst the obvious picks that went in the top 10. He had been sliding since the AFL Finals series. Apparently is a ball magnet big time. Its his poor disposal that fails to tick recruiters boxes.

Mmm. Well there you go. Poor disposal is just cancer... seems to make all fans and recruiters run in the opposite direction. My thing with that is that Martin's disposal is hardly incredible. Likewise Rivers... is there room to blood another stopping defender? At that kind of pick, we can afford to overlook a few gremlins in the works...

Dappa dan,

I'm glad you put this all down.

My fingers aren't.

The Nat draft is a good start for us with speed and skill but we need to finish it otherwise we will just become the next doggies side (great potential but I doubt will ever play off in a GF due to their lack of forward scoring ability). Watts will need help, Miller is great but is a hard working grunt. Where's the tall with the x factor that can kick 6-8 if watts is having a bad day or triple teamed like lyon had to put up with in the late 90's. Wish list is 3 med-tall players who can kick bags (Assume robbo is not in this list), 2 small forwards that have both goal scoring and defensive pressure (Davey is Midfield) and 1 power tall (Johnson is a ruckman and pls not Jamar). I think the 1st two have been reasonable well addressed in the draft leaving the power forward. Unfortunately newton has not come on. Thus for PSD KPF is a must

See now... why couldn't I just do that? You're my hero monty.

As with most of our side we seem to have some really good second and third tier players. I've said it 15 times now, but PJ has to be among the best resting ruckmen around... he's pretty much the perfect backup... fills in in the ruck without dominating... has the pace and endurance to run all over the ground. Likes playing in defence and attack, and has shown something at both ends... GREAT kick of the footy at goal and to a man. What more could you ask for? If he had Cox taking the ruck, and say Neitz and Robbo 4 or 5 years ago in the forward line he'd be making Mick Malthouse and his mates go even balder than they are. Silly's another one... He played a ripping game from defence early this year, and is at home on a wing... apparently they want him in the midfield this year and when he goes forward, he's devastating on his day. If he had some tall timber taking the heat around him, imagine what a thorn he'd be in opposition sides? Actually... thorn? He'd be a bloody great branch...

Going on that post though, I reckon that gaping hole you highlight with your last sentence has to be addressed NEXT year... early word is Butcher, but we'll worry about that when the current bunch are closer to growing some pubes before we start measuring them up for their demons gurnsey. Trying to recruit our second big-name tall from one pick in the PSD is a bit unreliable... if we gave a bunch of late picks a chance, then maybe... but I'd prefer to go with the best KP player two drafts running... But again, that's just me.

[Axis of Bob 11,759]

The problem with the dogs is that their backline is full of running players. They're more rebounders than defenders. It's a choice tha Eade makes and it's one of the things that contributes to their innovative and unique style. (will come back to this in the "always behind" part later)

Rebounding defenders is a strength and weakness of the Dogs. It is also a strength and weakness of Hawthorn. Do you thinkk that Gilham was playing for his wonderful defnsive spoiling ability? They have Croad as a lockdown player and the rest of them run amok. They play the zone defence so their man on man contesting is less important. We would not have a purely offensive backline, but a strong and flexible backline that both attacks and defends, like Geelong's.

Firstly, you see the dogs being in the top three as a "good" thing. I don't see a team streaking up the list of flag chances to third, I see one that chronically can't make it into the top two, and to make a GF would have to hope for injuries to the Hawks or Cats. So this is simply a case of you saying the glass is half full and me sayng it's half empty.

I'm talking about how a side with clear deficiencies in its backline has been able to be clearly in the top 3 in the competition this year, including beating Hawthorn in Tasmania. They did this by winning the midfield and kicking goals with their small forward line. They didn't need to have a Buddy to win the game, as they attacked with a forward line that worked for them. A more flexible forward line allows them to be more effective against a wider array of teams, but their small forward line will generally work well for them.

Brisbane has two of the more formidable forwards in the competition in Brown and Bradshaw. They finished 10th for average goals scored but 6th in inside 50s. The Bulldogs finished 3rd (2nd i50). Richmond finished 5th (11th i50). St Kilda, with Riewoldt and Koschitske, finished 12th (14th i50). There's no correlation between these numbers and it shows that any forward line can work, depending on the talent of your midfield and forwards.

Point two: we have Watts, yes, and I'm hugely excited... but on what planet is Miller proven? He had a passable/good season last year in the face of overwhelming opposition. But until he kicks 60+ in a season as the main focal point up forward, he won't be "proven."

As far as Miller being proven on if he kicks 60+ goals, I'll just pull you up. That's horse crap. Miller was excellent this year and you, I and everyone here knows it. Don't think you can make rubbish claims like that an get away with it as it only shows that you are more interested in winning the argument and saving face than you are about being right. As a Comparison, how about one of the media's more lauded key forwards: Travis Cloke.

Disposals: 14.2 (Cloke 13.5)

Contested marks: 0.7 (1.5)

Tackles: 2.6 (1.8)

Goals: 1.4 (1.7)

1%ers: 3.1 (2.6)

Errors: 5.5 (7.6)

Statistically he had an excellent season in a side that was ranked 16th for inside 50s compared to Collingwood's 3rd ranking, and he has proven that he is a capable AFL key forward. The Doggies would absolutely kill for him. Now don't besmirch Miller for some cheap point scoring.

And your philosophy of kicking goals against their backline? interesting point, and I'll give you that... But I would remind you that we're not at match day right now. We're talking recruitment.

What?!?!? Why do you think we recruit players? We're not recruiting them so that we can put their names in a spreadsheet and compare them during the school chess club meetings!! These players are being recruited to play on match day. We need to be able to kick goals against opposition backlines. Try to challenge yourself into thinking about what works effectively rather than simply being able to put a team down in specific positions on a whiteboard. The game isn't played on a computer, it's played on match day. Bailey wants to recruit the players that will most effectively serve his plan on match day.

My goodness. I just can't see how you've come to that conclusion.

I, personally, find that logic works best for me. I find it an important tool in forming opinions and creating ideas and concepts.

You're ABSOLUTELY kidding yourself if you look at a backline of Martin (kid), Rivers, Garland, Frawley (lots of these - "?") and Warnock (who?) and go against the unparalleled might of Buddy, Roughie and Williams. I mean, on what planet will that backline ever win a flag against that forward line?

We have already shut them down once. And you are getting far too emotional in your argument by using the phrase "unparalleled might" when describing their forward line. Buddy is a good player, but Garland and Hudgton have already shown that he is susceptible to defenders with genuine speed. He's a good player but he's by no means invicible. Roughie is an honest trier with good athleticism and power, but is a low possession player. Warnock has shown that even he has the potential to cover him. To think that, in time, Martin or Rivers won't surpass Warnock's current level is, as before, just making cheap statements to score worthless points.

Furthermore, any available key defender would clearly not have been at a high enough standard to warrant throwing away a draft pick on. As I said before, you don't win a flag by comparing teams on a spreadsheet. An extra NQR key defender just would be a player sitting in the VFL behind all of the players mentioned above.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being positive, and sticking with those kids... but fair go. Garland has had one good season, and Rivers hasn't had much more. Oh, and before you quote Garland's game against Buddy as evidence we can shut them down, that was one game. Garland has to beat his opponents, and SMASH them as often as Buddy does before I start comparing them.

You set unrealistic expectations on young key defenders. There is a list of full backs in the game and their games played in their first few years in the James Frawley thread earlier this year (post #66 http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?show...0&start=40). To have Garland and Martin do so well in their 2nd and 1st season respectively is a massive positive. Plus Frawley has only played 2 years.

Were is DB innovating? You show me. How does recruiting small running players redefine the game? Silky skilled outsiders and grunty one paced insiders... Doesn't that sound familiar? Sounds to me like MFC for the last ten years actually.

There's no way yet of telling where DB is innovating because it's too early for him to show that. He's had two drafts and has shown that he's very keen to draft players with very good running ability and excellent skills. How he uses them? I guess we'll find out!

But to say that we are just drafting the same ways as we did for the last 10 years is just emotional drivel. It does reinforce why you want KPPs though, given that youa re focussed on the ND era so much. I don't remember the last time we had a midfielder who runs like a whippet and kicks with great skill. We drafted 5 of them on the weekend.

Name me 5 super skilled and super quick MFC players in the last 10 years.

And you're kidding yourself if you think recruiting what you think will be the game's best CHF is "following the leader." It's not a fad, or in vogue... having a great CHF is unquestionably an ironclad rule of the AFL. As Parkin said, if you have a good KP player... you play them at CHF. Since the dawn of Australian rules, CHF has always been the most important position on the ground.

"Unquestionably an ironclad rule?" Sounds like hyperbole. The only rules are the ones in the book, and even they are not iron clad. When was the last time a team won a flag without playing directly man on man around the ground? When was the first time? Has the game changed and will it continue to change?

I could equally argue that the CHF role is now dead due to the speed of the modern game. I could also argue that Hawthorn doesn't have a CHF, that Buddy plays FF and Roughy plays FP.

CHF is dead because moving the ball through a marking target outside 50 is too slow to get the ball to a FF before the midfielders flood back into defence and take their space away. So the ball is now run through this area through 'run and carry', or via a wide range of mid sized forwards and midfielders. By kicking the ball to a CHF you invite a contest and turnover which will catch your defence out of position, resulting in a counterattacking goal to the opposition. This is the reason why small forward lines seem to function as well as tall forward lines in the modern game.

I'm not trying to advocate recruiting the next Buddy. I want the guy who'll outstrip Buddy as he declines. Perhaps a guy that plays closer to goal, and kicks straighter.

So you're not trying to recruit Buddy, you're trying to improve on Buddy. Firstly, we did just recruit Jack Watts, and secondly your expectations are (Dr Cox voice) "really really really ra-ah-heeeeeeeeeellllyyy" too high.

I'm not stuck in 2001. I'm sticking to a rule that is as I said, an absolute law of the game. And if DB's gameplan was to emulate the dogs and recruit exclusively for running players, I'd be extremely concerned about our future.

If you were in 2001 then requiring more KPPs would be an "absolute rule of the game". It isn't and you are. I've since showed you how this statement is a load of steaming horse turd. And you clearly stated that you don't know what DB's plan is, so presuming that he's trying to emulate the Dogs is very foolish.

Neale believed he had the team to go ahead. But with his exciting young players in the midfield in Ooze, Bruce, Green... He knew he needed to have an effective group of KP players quicksmart, because they take time to develop. In the end, it went nowhere. Which to me highlights even more the idea that we should establish a good, solid, perhaps GREAT spine before we even start thinking about a midfield... and that it definitely has to go in that order - spine then midfield

You see how you are stuck in 2001 again? And also your unrealistic expectations? If we keep trying to recruit a 'great' spine (Ablett, Carey etc) then we'll never get around to winning a flag. Brisbane was the last team to have a great spine, and they also had a great midfield. Since then, no premiership team has had a great spine. And once we have a great spine then we'll only have about 4 years to recruit and develop a great midfield to play in a premiership. Hmmmmmm, seems a little far fetched.

i like Gaertner and Deboer personally, along with Sibosado who would be interesting. I don't think we would put any hope in a PS pick, so a KP player we can just develop over time is a safer and less expensive option in terms of list space. Actually, the three players were around, I think, the 40-50 mark in the phantom draft. Big sliders. But I guess they're always going to be faulted in some way.

Neither Gaertner nor DeBoer can kick to save themselves. Embarrassingly poor kicks. In the modern game, where maintaining possession of the ball (especially midfielders) is paramount (and is obviously a focus of DB) I will bet London to a brick that we don't choose either of these players in the PSD. Sibosado, I've heard, is a bit timid despite his talent. It didn't work for Aaron Rogers, despite his talent. I don't think we see KPPs as a deficiency, so I'd highly doubt that we'd take a key position player. My money would be on a skillful midfielder - hopefully on that wins clearances.

Thanks for listening!

[Redleg 40,864]

Rebounding defenders is a strength and weakness of the Dogs. It is also a strength and weakness of Hawthorn. Do you thinkk that Gilham was playing for his wonderful defnsive spoiling ability? They have Croad as a lockdown player and the rest of them run amok. They play the zone defence so their man on man contesting is less important. We would not have a purely offensive backline, but a strong and flexible backline that both attacks and defends, like Geelong's...Thanks for listening!

Nothing on TV last night?

Good post.

[Bails 0]

Thankls for reading you mean

is it annoying anyone else that the demons recruits are yet to be seen together all in their gear??

most of the other clubs have been on the news, fox sports etc but we have not yet seen our new players together in the MFC gear.

have i missed it??

i also ran the lake this morning and trotted past the junction to see a fairly ordinary turn out at training..... i can actually name who was there and i watched for 5 mins. can someone tell me why there would be such a small turn out

Players training:

Dunn (massive unit these days - and i would expect him to be to big do a run with role)

Sylvia

Davey

Aussie

Newton

Blease

Bartram

Bate

That is all......

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

That's extraordinary... I think you've COMPLETELY missed my point in just about every paragraph.

Rebounding defenders is a strength and weakness of the Dogs. It is also a strength and weakness of Hawthorn. Do you thinkk that Gilham was playing for his wonderful defnsive spoiling ability? They have Croad as a lockdown player and the rest of them run amok. They play the zone defence so their man on man contesting is less important. We would not have a purely offensive backline, but a strong and flexible backline that both attacks and defends, like Geelong's.

I didn't say I disagreed that we needed a flexible defence... one that can rebound and defend, switching gears as the coach sees fit. I don't recall disagreeing with you there. What we disagree on is the recruiting of quality KP players, their importance in the game, as well as our difference in opinion as to the quality of our current players... I would fully expect that to call a KP defender quality he has to have the ability to rebound. Not sure what you're so up in arms about there.

I'm talking about how a side with clear deficiencies in its backline has been able to be clearly in the top 3 in the competition this year, including beating Hawthorn in Tasmania. They did this by winning the midfield and kicking goals with their small forward line. They didn't need to have a Buddy to win the game, as they attacked with a forward line that worked for them. A more flexible forward line allows them to be more effective against a wider array of teams, but their small forward line will generally work well for them.

Here's where you completely missed my point. I couldn't give a flying fig about a team that comes third. You want to be as good as these guys? Then good luck to you. In my opinion... and this is all I'm saying here that it's my opinion... Having crafty nifty ways of reinventing your squad to effectively be competitive is all well and good, but I'm sick of being also rans. You can be the best team in the league and still lose a GF. I don't want to be good enough to compete... we've been hat for years. I want a flag, pure and simple, and to do that I believe you have to do it in the recruiting stages.... If our club is looking at the Eade model and trying to emulate it then we've lost before we've begun. We're trying to emulate a squad that came third...

I think the one big thing you can't escape is that if you have enough quality it doesn't actually matter how you coach. We're bottoming out three years running, and it's critical that the TYPE of players we get are n a position to damage sides. If we recruit 3 mids and a ruckman like Cox, Cuz, Judd and Kerr then you have a champion midfield that makes everyone look good. Likewise if you recruit players like Buddy and Roughie up the other end, you have a forward line that wins by sheer weight of scoring. You see? We're both right here... My point? It's just a matter of opinion.

Brisbane has two of the more formidable forwards in the competition in Brown and Bradshaw. They finished 10th for average goals scored but 6th in inside 50s. The Bulldogs finished 3rd (2nd i50). Richmond finished 5th (11th i50). St Kilda, with Riewoldt and Koschitske, finished 12th (14th i50). There's no correlation between these numbers and it shows that any forward line can work, depending on the talent of your midfield and forwards.

Here again... I can quote simple stats. Hawks = 1 flag, and their great strength on the ground comes from the forward line, particularly their KP players... Geelong have a KP forward that, while maligned, played like a star in the year they won their flag in Mooney. And speak to ANY Geelong fan and they would have killed for a player of higher quality that a Lonergan. They actually claim that's what they needed to get over the line. You see? I mean the only difference here is our opinion, and we can both quote stats and what you call "proof" til the cows come home.

As far as Miller being proven on if he kicks 60+ goals, I'll just pull you up. That's horse crap. Miller was excellent this year and you, I and everyone here knows it. Don't think you can make rubbish claims like that an get away with it as it only shows that you are more interested in winning the argument and saving face than you are about being right.

Don't presume to tell me what I "know." Miller kicked 28 goals and he was "excellent?" Not one player on our list was "excellent." Scratch the surface for five seconds here and you'll see that Miller is still not the answer. He's not Neitz's left bootlace... and that's something "you, I and everyone else knows." Now before you get all "emotional" as you call it, understand that I like Miller for his strengths, and am fully aware that he is a required player for a number of reasons. Chief among them that he creates a contest, which is something our small forwards desperately need. Do you think Miller would walk into the forward line of any of the top 4 teams? I doubt he'd even get into the KP bereft dogs to be honest. How can you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously when I claim that Miller's problems form wise contribute to my lack of respect for his impressiveness as a player... and you have the gall to say I'm trying to "win an arguement?" Mate.. I couldn't care less about the arguement, but I won't be told I'm in a contest here when all I've done is quoted a sensible reading of recent stats and form. You think I'm alone in questioning Miller's credentials? Open your eyes...

Statistically he had an excellent season in a side that was ranked 16th for inside 50s compared to Collingwood's 3rd ranking, and he has proven that he is a capable AFL key forward. The Doggies would absolutely kill for him. Now don't besmirch Miller for some cheap point scoring.

And don't you be afraid to take your hand off it. Miler kicked 28 goals in a 16th placed side... don't keep clinging to hero worship when you're 16th on the ladder with easily the worst list in the league (albeit a young one). Now, with your clear and unabashed love for the guy in mind, I'll give you the fact that the guy tries hard and deserves to be in the side... And I admire him for working on his disposal, being a pillar of strength and flying the flag against the nigglers in the league, and for his natural on-field leadership.... and given his age he'll be an important player in a dark time... but we're not going to win a flag BECAUSE of Brad Miller. If he's our only target up forward with a gun midfield, you can bet we'd be knocking on the door of 3rd... and that's it. Brad will be a sensational player if he can go back to being what made him so exciting early in his career. A 3rd or on a good day, a 2nd tall. And for that I'll always be on his side... but unlike some supporters, I won't get over excited about his footy until he gives me something substantial to hang my hat on. Not being a FF in a 16th placed side with as appalling a forward line record as ours this year.

What?!?!? Why do you think we recruit players? We're not recruiting them so that we can put their names in a spreadsheet and compare them during the school chess club meetings!!

Jesus Christ. Calm down for five seconds... You're saying recruit the forwards to beat the defenders... I'm saying recruit the forwards that can outscore the opposition's forwards. Worked for the Hawks. I can say you show interesting logic and you turn around and carry on like I haven't thought about it because I don't agree? Sit down, have a cup of tea, and try opening your mind for a minute. I believe... and this is with your point considered... that if you recruit a forward that can undercut the strengths of the best defence in the league, all that will happen is another defender will come along that can undercut HIS strengths... Buddy is a good example of what you're talking about. He's a player who's athleticism makes other defenders' strengths irrelevant. But surprise surprise.... he's a high draft pick key position player... So you see, if I ask for the next Buddy Franklin (in quality, not in terms of the "type" of player he is i.e. athletic) what I'm asking for is a KP forward that is that good at the game of footy he can make an entire list look dangerous. Simple really...

I, personally, find that logic works best for me. I find it an important tool in forming opinions and creating ideas and concepts.

Feel better now? Go wash your hands... You wanna discuss footy then let's discuss footy. Leave the childish jabs to the teenagers. Who's doing the "point scoring" now? You're better than that....

We have already shut them down once. And you are getting far too emotional in your argument by using the phrase "unparalleled might" when describing their forward line.

Oh Jesus. Ok. Well then let me call it what it is. Instead of unparalleled might let me say they're the best forward line in the competition by a looong way. Make you feel better? Good. Change anything? No. And shutting them down once counts for nothing.... how convenient it is that you missed the fact that I mentioned earlier they didn't try. If we were a threat they would have gotten the car out of 1st gear. Please tell me you're not one of those fans that believes that just because we pushed the best forward line in the comp and tested them ONCE that means we're not too far off it. It happens every season because when the best teams come up against the worst teams they find it harder to lift and take them seriously. When our defence pushes the best 4 forward lines EVERY time we play them in a season then I'll be more pleased... Actually, if we were as good in defence as you say, why did we finish 16th?

Buddy is a good player, but Garland and Hudgton have already shown that he is susceptible to defenders with genuine speed. He's a good player but he's by no means invicible. Roughie is an honest trier with good athleticism and power, but is a low possession player. Warnock has shown that even he has the potential to cover him. To think that, in time, Martin or Rivers won't surpass Warnock's current level is, as before, just making cheap statements to score worthless points.

Buddy is a good player... just good eh? And as for being susceptible to pace, every player has their openings and weaknesses... and for the record, opposition coaches will sus him out now and his career will only get harder, but so what? He's still a champion and will still win more games off his own boot than he's required to. Getting analysed happens to every great player, and it's an important rite of passage for any great KP player. But Hudgton and Garland could have beaten him simply because he wasn't on his game, or had a niggle, or was distracted... or most likely.... he didn't consider it a requirement for him to win the game for his club... and you know what? He was right. He barely lifted a finger that day and his team still won. Maybe if he was needed he might have put a bit more effort in. And where the HELL did I claim Rivers and Martin won't surpass Warnock?!!!! cheap statements to score points? What the hell have you been reading?!! Rivers is our best defender in about 8 different ways... Martin has been encouraging but has to cross many more bridges before he's a trustworthy premiership defender... which is what we should be looking for him to be. And besides... again... you're getting all excited about a bunch of KP defenders that let in more score than just about anyone this year!!! I agree wholeheartedly that it's encouraging considering that they're just young still... but Jesus... I'm not going to lock them in their positions for the next five years if they don't make further improvement.

Furthermore, any available key defender would clearly not have been at a high enough standard to warrant throwing away a draft pick on. As I said before, you don't win a flag by comparing teams on a spreadsheet. An extra NQR key defender just would be a player sitting in the VFL behind all of the players mentioned above.

Sure. Late picks, of course... But you have to have a full compliment, don't you? If picking up KP players late in the draft was such a bad thing, then Warnock and Martin wouldn't be the golden boys you regard them to be now would they? Also I think it' healthy to have pressure on your 22 from the young guys coming up behind them.

You set unrealistic expectations on young key defenders. There is a list of full backs in the game and their games played in their first few years in the James Frawley thread earlier this year (post #66 http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?show...0&start=40). To have Garland and Martin do so well in their 2nd and 1st season respectively is a massive positive. Plus Frawley has only played 2 years.

Yep... look, I'm right behind these guys... I'm just not going to get unrealistically positive YET. If you bring in defenders at their age you expect them to get beaten. What you need is to see if they're learning and getting better. Which they are. This isn't a massive shot I'm taking at our current list... I actually think it's not too far off being the list we want... I just hope that should a player fall by the wayside, the club won't cling to playing him when he's obviously not good enough.

But to say that we are just drafting the same ways as we did for the last 10 years is just emotional drivel. It does reinforce why you want KPPs though, given that youa re focussed on the ND era so much. I don't remember the last time we had a midfielder who runs like a whippet and kicks with great skill. We drafted 5 of them on the weekend.

Emotional drivel. Fair dinkum... the hard-on you have for the teenagers we just recruited, and the rash assumption that they're the right direction to go before they've even got their drivers' licences... THAT'S emotional drivel. And if you have to have it spelt out for you.... we have had soft outside mids... Johnstone, Bruce, Green (who has become hard, credit where credit's due) Yze... Are you seriously claiming that we've had a reputation of being a hard side? Oh ... and now you know why I want KP players do you? I'm focssed on an era, sure, but it's not ND's. It's the current one. All these other sides have these great KP players... we just lost ours... and while we had him we still weren't good enough. I now want more than one. And it's not the ND era, it's the Schwartz/Neitz era. We looked dangerous when they looked like our future, and make no mistake, Ox's injury had more impact on our fortunes than history would record. As for the whippet who kicks straight... Johnstone was no whippet, but he was quick and a great kick. Yze likewise wasn't slow, and in his day was an awesome kick.

Name me 5 super skilled and super quick MFC players in the last 10 years.

What? Are you talking about Blease? He's the only super quick one. I'll name you five fast or good sized (not super fast or super tall) super skilled players... Yze, Johnstone, Bruce, Green, Sylvia, even Powell had kicking issues but was effective... Anything else you need?

"Unquestionably an ironclad rule?" Sounds like hyperbole. The only rules are the ones in the book, and even they are not iron clad. When was the last time a team won a flag without playing directly man on man around the ground? When was the first time? Has the game changed and will it continue to change?

Sounds like it. But it isn't. Has the game changed Sure... it's evolved... but that rule hasn't.

I could equally argue that the CHF role is now dead due to the speed of the modern game. I could also argue that Hawthorn doesn't have a CHF, that Buddy plays FF and Roughy plays FP.

You could argue... but I think Buddy would prove you wrong. Fevola is a FF... Buddy plays all over the joint. Notice that I rarely use the term CHF. KP forward is now a more apt term. If you commit to playing a CHF and FF you become predictable. Hence the use of tall forwards who can lead simultaneously, play one deep one rangy... That's where the game has evolved... but shock, horror... they're still there, and all of a sudden there's two of them kicking 100 goals in a season. But no... you're right... MEANINGLESS position...

CHF is dead because moving the ball through a marking target outside 50 is too slow to get the ball to a FF before the midfielders flood back into defence and take their space away. So the ball is now run through this area through 'run and carry', or via a wide range of mid sized forwards and midfielders. By kicking the ball to a CHF you invite a contest and turnover which will catch your defence out of position, resulting in a counterattacking goal to the opposition. This is the reason why small forward lines seem to function as well as tall forward lines in the modern game.

See above... CHF isn't dead, it's out of vogue. Like I said, there's a difference between saying CHF and KP forward.

So you're not trying to recruit Buddy, you're trying to improve on Buddy. Firstly, we did just recruit Jack Watts, and secondly your expectations are (Dr Cox voice) "really really really ra-ah-heeeeeeeeeellllyyy" too high.

Nice Scrubs quote there... can't disrespect that. What I can disrespect is the sentiment. As far as I'm concerned... and I would hope as far as any dees fan is concerned I would be trying to recruit 3 KP forwards of better quality than Buddy. If just coming second or third best keeps you happy then by all means, follow a mediocre club. I want us to be the best, an if we had that kind of culture, maybe we wouldn't be the basket-case we are. Maybe we'd have a coach like Matthews who is unwilling to compromise. The area that you should be accepting is by not crucifying a payer for NOT being Buddy. You recruit and expect them to be the best ever... when they inevitably don't end up that good... you accept it. But it doesn't mean you don't shoot for the stars before you hit the moon.

If you were in 2001 then requiring more KPPs would be an "absolute rule of the game". It isn't and you are. I've since showed you how this statement is a load of steaming horse turd. And you clearly stated that you don't know what DB's plan is, so presuming that he's trying to emulate the Dogs is very foolish.

You've "shown" me nothing. You've offered your opinion. Big deal. Some of your logic is as big an over-positive load of "steaming horse turd" as anything I've seen on here. Unlike you, I'm able to see that we both have opinions, can both offer "proof" as you call it that we're right... Unlike you, however, I'll welcome all opinions...

You see how you are stuck in 2001 again? And also your unrealistic expectations? If we keep trying to recruit a 'great' spine (Ablett, Carey etc) then we'll never get around to winning a flag. Brisbane was the last team to have a great spine, and they also had a great midfield. Since then, no premiership team has had a great spine. And once we have a great spine then we'll only have about 4 years to recruit and develop a great midfield to play in a premiership. Hmmmmmm, seems a little far fetched.

Unrealistic expectations?!!!! What ARE your expectations anyway? Do you actually want to win a flag? Or do you just want to be competitive again like we were under Daniher? Oh and yeah, recruiting the next Carey will never get us "around to winning a flag"... Cos Carey never won one did he? And where did you get the 4 years thing from? Recruit a great spine in a quick enough period.... say 2-3 years.. the n when they mature and play their best footy you'll have about 7 years do fill in the midfield gaps!!! Look at the Hawks!! Their big name KP players are all 23!! Maybe since Brisbane teams haven't had COMPLETE great spines... but they've had sensation KP players... Port had Tredrea, Geelong had Mooney (who played a great season, even if he's working class), Hawks had Roughie and Buddy, WC had Glass, Sydney had Hall and their great defensive talls.

Ok I tell you what Axis... I'll stick to believing KP players are important and are, in fact, KEY players, and you stick to thinking lightning quick midgets win you flags, and that the modern game is so far removed from footy in the past that you have to recruit completely differently than we did within the last decade... we'll mix and stir over the next few years, then leave to set... and we'll see how the end result tastes. I'm pretty confident KP players will be as important in the next 10-15 years as they have been though the entire... history... of the game. But that's just me. Actually, that's not just me, that's actually the opinion (this steaming pile of horse turd) of a lot of people, you'll find...

Neither Gaertner nor DeBoer can kick to save themselves. Embarrassingly poor kicks. In the modern game, where maintaining possession of the ball (especially midfielders) is paramount (and is obviously a focus of DB) I will bet London to a brick that we don't choose either of these players in the PSD. Sibosado, I've heard, is a bit timid despite his talent. It didn't work for Aaron Rogers, despite his talent. I don't think we see KPPs as a deficiency, so I'd highly doubt that we'd take a key position player. My money would be on a skillful midfielder - hopefully on that wins clearances.

Oh my god.... Ok... so we'll just no pick anyone then, shall we? Are you claiming a decent midfielder will be MORE likely to come out of this pick? And before you get all hoighty toighty consider that your golden boy Miller came pretty late in the draft and is not considered a good kick... Martin equally is one of your "embarrassingly" poor kicks... and you seem to be going all goey when their names are mentioned. Try loosening your grip for a second Axis and reeeeead what I wrote. ANY pick this late is going to be highly speculative. That doesn't mean we don't give it a crack. Your logic just doesn't stay consistent. If Martin and Miller are such great solutions as you claim, then why are you so unwilling to have a punt on these kids?

Thanks for listening!

Wish I could say the same.

I'm done posting on this, I've wasted enough time and it's clear you're more interested in your soap-box than any considered debate, which is a shame as you seem to have a lot of general knowledge. As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty simple... you can condense all this into a simple few sentences. We believe opposite things. I believe that the right direction to go is to recruit tall first, then get the best smalls as timing is the key. You can recruit whatever model you like, and if they mature together, you stand a fair chance of giving it a damn good shake. If you recruit as good a KP player as you can find, and they end up being as brilliant as Buddy, then that's twice as scary for the opposition as recruiting, say, the next Judd. I'm also quite happy with the players we've taken given what was on offer, but am disappointed that we've gotten as far into our rebuilding drafting as we have and haven't got the spine I was hoping for.

You on the other hand believe the opposite. That streaming through the middle with skinny kids who have laser-guided boots is what will get us to a respectable position, and that that kind of innovation is what will catch the rest of the league napping. And I have to say mate, you could be right. It could work. In fact it will, as we won't be stuck where we are forever. What I want though, for the simple reason that our club is in bad shape, is to be competitive first, then dangerous, then a GF team, then a premiership team, then a MULTI premiership team. I want LASTING success... and I want to be sure that we've dotted every I and crossed every T on the way there. This last draft, to me, did that as well as I could have hoped for given all the KP talent I'd have liked was gone by our second pick. But it won't assuage my disappointment at not having the long-term project players in place NOW for their first pre-season.