Cheers Davis333, but that still leaves a few questions.

The players whose contracts expire at the end of 2009 can be split into 3 groups.

Last years draftees: Morton, Grimes, Maric, Cheney and McNamara. Considering the last 2 were bottom age I wouldn't expect any of those guys to be delisted

Middle age players: Bell, Davey, Jamar, McLean, Miller, Meesen and Sylvia

Older players: McDonald, Robertson, Whelan

That list claims Bell and Meesen are out of contract at the end of this year but in the Melbourne list 2009 thread in the drafting and trading section people are saying both are contracted until Oct 2010. This needs clarifacation as they are 2 prime candidates to be delisted at years end if they don't improve this year. Davey, McLean, Sylvia and probably Miller are all safe unless Watts and Jurrah develop very quickly into kpf's. If PJ, Spencer or Meesen can't dislodge Jamar from #1 ruck he'll stay also.

The older players are all possible retirements but none are certain and will depend on injuries, form and willingness to continue. Not a lot of wriggle room imo, unless all 3 older players retire

So Assuming all 3 older players wish to continue into 2010 which is quite possible we have little or even no room to move come draft time. This tells me there will either be a couple of forced retirements or a busy trade period. Eg Player _________ and pick 10 for pick 6 or something like this. If we have another bad on field year, don't be supprised if a couple of big name players are moved on especially if we have picks 1+2.

great post - furious d

I think it's fair to say that for a pick 8, he's been a let down. But we didn't pick him at 8, we traded a later pick for him.

Picking him up at MFC was ALWAYS going to be speculative. But there's no point speculating on a player like Meesen if you're not willing to follow through with it. When picked up at age 20 (or thereabouts) the club would have set goals (mostly attitude and training related) for the kid, and if he met them, give him another couple of years. At the end of, say, a 4 year period, if he was floundering, consider mature-age rookie, or trade/delist. I would be worried about us if we DIDN'T leave every stone unturned. As I said above, this model or mature-age recruitment of ruckmen has worked beautifully with PJ... If you look at his situation a ruckman had to go from WC cos they had a few good ones, and it was unclear if he would make it. He still ha market value, because we traded for him... we didn't take another team's cast-offs. The same is true (in principle) of Meesen. Though I will agree he's shown nowhere near as much as PJ at a similar time.

Ultimately what we're talking about here is backing the recruiters, and their long-range assessment of a player's capabilities.

At this point in time Meesen has been a dud even if we had rookied him. Clearly there was enough track record of him in SA after being pick 8 that could have raised and indicated question marks about him. In addition, giving him a three year deal on a speculative selection is most disturbing. There is nothing wrong with MFC leaving no stone unturned so long as it does not shoot itself in the foot with silly deals for bog ordinary players that dont address the issue.

I am not sure at this point in time why there is any rapture or back slapping over PJ. Clearly ranked as 2nd ruck behind a spud like Jamar that cant ruck does not tick the boxes of success in my book. He has many of the secondary nice to have skills for a big man just too few of the must haves.

I am not sure at this point in time why there is any rapture or back slapping over PJ. Clearly ranked as 2nd ruck behind a spud like Jamar that cant ruck does not tick the boxes of success in my book. He has many of the secondary nice to have skills for a big man just too few of the must haves.

Rhino, I am a bit more upbeat about PJ than you. While he is not a "traditional ruckman" he can ruck and has the pace to get to contests. He also has more football skills and a ton of pace more than the "traditional ruckman" and can play in other positions. He has improved his marking and with our lack of key forwards he is an important member of the list.

Not saying he is a great player but he is valuable for us at the moment.

Rhino, I am a bit more upbeat about PJ than you. While he is not a "traditional ruckman" he can ruck and has the pace to get to contests. He also has more football skills and a ton of pace more than the "traditional ruckman" and can play in other positions. He has improved his marking and with our lack of key forwards he is an important member of the list.

Not saying he is a great player but he is valuable for us at the moment.

Fair enough.

I'd rather we had a competent traditional ruckman and I just have not seen PJ hurt oppositions up forward. And I hope Watts goes a long way to correcting our lack of key forwards.

well you are obviously counting flankers when we are discussing true midfielders... in any case I don't see room for Dunn in any role

There aren't a great deal of specialist flankers nowadays, particularly forwards. Most are midfielders playing on a flank ala James Kelly

Fair enough.

I'd rather we had a competent traditional ruckman and I just have not seen PJ hurt oppositions up forward. And I hope Watts goes a long way to correcting our lack of key forwards.

Agree that PJ has not hurt oppositions yet up forward but that can only happen if he is given time to settle in a forward role.

Agree we need at least one "traditional ruckman". Maybe Spencer will get to that stage in time.

Also agree that so far Meesen has been hopeless for his trade position. If he doesn't improve this year I would be looking to terminate his last year with a compromise deal. He will then be untradeable and would have to be delisted. He could end up one of our worst trades ever. I wish him luck, we could certainly use another handy ruckman.

Fair enough.

I'd rather we had a competent traditional ruckman

Why?

Did you see my earlier post?

Which ruckmen do you fear in opposition teams? Tell me why you fear them. Is their ability to get the ball to their midfield one of them? Probably not. It's more likely their impact once the ball is in play.

Ruckmen get about 30 taps a game and about 10% are effective. Schweppes, you want to have a traditional ruckman?????

PJ needs to do one thing; stop the opposing ruckmen having effective hit outs. That's all. He can then use his agility and "small man skills" around the ground and hurt opposition much more than a player like Brogan, Jolly or Chraman. Todays game is possession, kicking and skill.

Many blame the centre square rule changes for Jeff White's demise. It was a small part of it. White's demise was because he stopped being effective around the ground.

PJ needs to do one thing; stop the opposing ruckmen having effective hit outs. That's all. ...

Many blame the centre square rule changes for Jeff White's demise. It was a small part of it. White's demise was because he stopped being effective around the ground.

Correct assessment of PJ. It would be nice if he had an impact in the centre.

No arguments about White though. Its a good point about his lack of effectiveness around the ground.

If anyone watched the first 1/4 of the Brissy vs Carlton game at the Dome this year they'd have an understanding of the influence a dominate ruckman can have out of the middle.

......As compared to the domination of the leading ruckman in 2008....Cox, Sandilands and Hille.

One interesting thing that may come out of 09 is the "crack down" on tagging that is around the corner. This could well see the game change in the middle with the importance of a tap ruckman to advantage potentially becoming more important leading to more open, free flowing through the middle?

we can only hope.

If anyone watched the first 1/4 of the Brissy vs Carlton game at the Dome this year they'd have an understanding of the influence a dominate ruckman can have out of the middle.

No, I'd prefer to watch the Grand Final and see the lack of impact any ruckman had. And I look at Cox, Sandilands and Hille playing in bottom teams.

I agree that you have to have a ruckman who gives a contest and stops the opposition ruckman giving his midfield a joyride and it would also be nice to have Cox.

But WC wouldn't have lost so much this year if they had lost Cox instead of Cousins and Judd.

Ruckmen are grossly overrated IMO and will become moreso as the game develops. I'm very pleased we missed Warnock; not because he mightn't be a good ruckman but because Carlton have given him a huge salary which is out of proportion with his importance to the team.

Midfields win you games, not ruckmen. And at the moment we have neither.

......As compared to the domination of the leading ruckman in 2008....Cox, Sandilands and Hille.

In Sandilands best game Freo nearly got over the top of the Cattery, and when Hille played better so did Essendon.

The very fact your lamenting Paul Johnson's inability as a true tap ruckman and refusing to rate him despite his advantage over most around the ground suggests that you consider a 'true' ruckman important.

I also take it you didn't see the game in question where Charman shat all over Cloke in the first 1/4

No, I'd prefer to watch the Grand Final and see the lack of impact any ruckman had. And I look at Cox, Sandilands and Hille playing in bottom teams.

I agree that you have to have a ruckman who gives a contest and stops the opposition ruckman giving his midfield a joyride and it would also be nice to have Cox.

But WC wouldn't have lost so much this year if they had lost Cox instead of Cousins and Judd.

Ruckmen are grossly overrated IMO and will become moreso as the game develops. I'm very pleased we missed Warnock; not because he mightn't be a good ruckman but because Carlton have given him a huge salary which is out of proportion with his importance to the team.

Midfields win you games, not ruckmen. And at the moment we have neither.

Well have a look at Geelong winning their recent grand final, King was very influential in & around the contests. Lots of Heavy work dished out.

There aren't a great deal of specialist flankers nowadays, particularly forwards. Most are midfielders playing on a flank ala James Kelly

well that's not entirely true there are plenty of flankers (eg O'Keefe)

there are also midfielders who are not flankers but constantly on the ball (eg Mitchell)

so there is an obvious distinction between the types even though there some you would define as 'both' (eg Bruce)

anyway as i've stated 7-8 or 10-12 I don't see Dunn owning any of these spots

there are 21 midfielders/flankers there he is not in the top 12 IMO

and since he is no KPP or small forward, defender or ruck I don't see his future

got it?

<_<

At this point in time Meesen has been a dud even if we had rookied him. Clearly there was enough track record of him in SA after being pick 8 that could have raised and indicated question marks about him. In addition, giving him a three year deal on a speculative selection is most disturbing. There is nothing wrong with MFC leaving no stone unturned so long as it does not shoot itself in the foot with silly deals for bog ordinary players that dont address the issue.

We haven't exactly been destination of choice for players moving clubs - maybe 3 years was necessary to get him across the line. The question mark remains about the assessment of his capabilities but the contract term is not a problem from my point of view - especially if he's not on top dollar. Maybe the final dice hasn't been rolled on his career, just as the new centre bounce rules hurt White, the 4 boundary umpires might help Meesen get to the contest later in the match with his extra endurance and be the only ruckman at that contest and therefore win more effective hitouts. Altho it's possible speed may be the deciding factor and even tho he's still running, he still can't make the contest - and no ruckmen can. If this IS the case then it adds another nail to Phoenix's importance of ruckmen coffin.

We have 19 players on our list who were 1st or 2nd round draft picks or equivalent (trades for *) and most of them are young and have plenty of scope for development and improvement.

Jones, McLean, Bate, Frawley, Morton, Johnson*, Sylvia, Dunn, Petterd, Grimes, Green, Maric, Bell, Moloney*, Rivers, Wheatley, Watts, Blease, Strauss

B: Petterd Frawley Wheatley

Strauss Rivers Grimes

C: Morton Moloney Blease

Johnson McLean Jones

F: Sylvia Watts Dunn

Green Bate Maric

I: Bell

I realise that's not a guarantee of quality but it's likely that most of them can play and we've got a few late and rookie pick players who are OK.

In Sandilands best game Freo nearly got over the top of the Cattery, and when Hille played better so did Essendon.

The very fact your lamenting Paul Johnson's inability as a true tap ruckman and refusing to rate him despite his advantage over most around the ground suggests that you consider a 'true' ruckman important.

I also take it you didn't see the game in question where Charman shat all over Cloke in the first 1/4

Great you nit pick individual quarters while I am talking about the lack of impact over whole seasons (week in week out.). There is a clear and consistent message about ruckman and their impact on the game and you're missing it.

If Sandilands and Cox are so important and so dominant why are their sides continually losing. Ruckman dont impact games in the past couple of years like they did 5 to 10 years ago.

In regard to Johnson you also miss the point. I am lamenting Johnson's inability to have any impact in the centre of the ground. MFC is not competitive with the umpire bounces the ball up and MFC is not competitive when it hits the ground. Phoenix has pointed this out quite clearly.

I agree that you have to have a ruckman who gives a contest and stops the opposition ruckman giving his midfield a joyride and it would also be nice to have Cox.

But WC wouldn't have lost so much this year if they had lost Cox instead of Cousins and Judd.

Midfields win you games, not ruckmen. And at the moment we have neither.

Sums it up quite well IMO.

We haven't exactly been destination of choice for players moving clubs - maybe 3 years was necessary to get him across the line. The question mark remains about the assessment of his capabilities but the contract term is not a problem from my point of view - especially if he's not on top dollar. Maybe the final dice hasn't been rolled on his career, just as the new centre bounce rules hurt White, the 4 boundary umpires might help Meesen get to the contest later in the match with his extra endurance - altho it's possible speed may be the deciding factor and even tho he's still running, he still can't make the contest - and no ruckmen can. If this IS the case then it adds another nail to Phoenix's importance of ruckmen coffin.

Good food for thought Old. Its going to get harder for the big immobile players.

Good food for thought Old. Its going to get harder for the big immobile players.

The critical ruck contests are likely to be deep inside the 50 with no genuine ruckman contesting them. The result of a tap to advantage here is likely to be a goal. Forwards who can ruck a bit will increase their value. And it will be crucial to have tall backs who can at least nullify the tap to advantage.

The critical ruck contests are likely to be deep inside the 50 with no genuine ruckman contesting them. The result of a tap to advantage here is likely to be a goal. Forwards who can ruck a bit will increase their value. And it will be crucial to have tall backs who can at least nullify the tap to advantage.

Hence the importance of Martin up back and the possible development of Johnson, Bate etc to pitch hit while up forward.

If the 4 boundary umpire process has the proposed impact it will only increase the requirement for players to be mobile as well as in some cases above 195cm.

Great you nit pick individual quarters while I am talking about the lack of impact over whole seasons (week in week out.). There is a clear and consistent message about ruckman and their impact on the game and you're missing it.

If Sandilands and Cox are so important and so dominant why are their sides continually losing. Ruckman dont impact games in the past couple of years like they did 5 to 10 years ago.

In regard to Johnson you also miss the point. I am lamenting Johnson's inability to have any impact in the centre of the ground. MFC is not competitive with the umpire bounces the ball up and MFC is not competitive when it hits the ground. Phoenix has pointed this out quite clearly.

I never said ruckmen were the be all and end all, but if you have one that can continuosly pump the ball down the throat of your on-ballers then it doesn't matter if they're Chris Judd or Cameron Hunter; they're still going to have a significant advantange, and headstart, over their direct opponents.

I didn't nit pick 1/4s either - Sandilands was an entire game where he almost pulled his team over the reigning premiers, and Hille's stretched over a few games.

Your point on Johnson's inability to compete only furthers my argument that you need quality ruckmen (which for all intents and purposes I'd consider the Campbell/Taylor combination a quality pairing) to ensure this doesn't happen to often:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rcBz0CES5hE

I never said ruckmen were the be all and end all, but if you have one that can continuosly pump the ball down the throat of your on-ballers then it doesn't matter if they're Chris Judd or Cameron Hunter; they're still going to have a significant advantange, and headstart, over their direct opponents.

But Cox and Sandliands do that week in and week out and WCE and Freo still lose. Without a top midfield a good ruckman does not have a significant impact.

I didn't nit pick 1/4s either - Sandilands was an entire game where he almost pulled his team over the reigning premiers, and Hille's stretched over a few games.

Wow. Sandilands ...for an entire game...no kidding. And you know why they did not beat the Cats with such a dominant ruckman?.........their inferior midfield. The Cats won the game even thought they got smashed in the ruck becasue they had a better midfield. Have a look at Freo's results over a couple of seasons and Sandilands dominance at the centre bounce means diddlysquat when you dont have a quality midfield. Have a look at WCE without Cousins and Judd. Cox is still there.

Your point on Johnson's inability to compete only furthers my argument that you need quality ruckmen (which for all intents and purposes I'd consider the Campbell/Taylor combination a quality pairing) to ensure this doesn't happen to often:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rcBz0CES5hE

My comment on Johnson is that IMO he is not good enough to stop the opposition ruckman getting consistent first use of the ball in the centre and to provide first dibs clearance for his midfielders. His inability to effectively compete is an assessment of his weakness not a support of the importance of ruckman. We need him to be competitive to nullify the opposition ruckman. Neither Jamar or PJ do that consistently or effectively.

Hawthorn won the flag on the back of a top quality midfield (lead by Hodge) and your facile pumping of two competent ruckman as "quality" only supports the view that ruckman are not as important as they once were and that they are not as critical in the victory as a quality midfield. Campbell and Taylors job was to nullify the impact of Ottens and Blake ans they did that. No ruckman had an impact on the final result. It was won and lost as it has been for some years in the midfield. Interesting that the Hawks were prepared to trade Taylor but there were no takers for the "quality".

And to top it off you had to use the highlights of possibly the bet midfielder in the past 10 years in Judd to support your argument. Priceless. The clip most adequately highlights the need to nullify the opposition ruckman to prevent sod easy taps to elite midfielders like Judd. Here's a tip replace Pattison (26) from Richmond in the clip with PJ and you might get an idea of my issue with PJ. I dont rate Pattison and would prefer PJ around the ground.

Just to get off the ruck debate for a minute......

I'm interested to see what people think re Daniel Bell. Surely with CJ leaving this has opened a window.

At his best (and not injured) I think certainly for the short term (3yrs) there is a spot in the 18 for bell.

The problem I see with bell is the gap between his best and worst.

The problem with Bell is that he is not good enough to consistently hold his place in the side.

He has been six years on the list and for a first round draft pick in 2002, he has not delievered to expectations.

Both CJ and Bell were/are fringe players and neither was denying the other of a spot in the side. I would hope and expect others on the MFC list to step up and overtake Bell in 2009 and beyond.