Shane Valenti

[Nasher 33,613]

Precisely my point. Why forgo someone like Martin for Valenti when you can have Martin and Valenti.

Precisely my thoughts.

[BAMF 4,314]

Precisely my thoughts.

Same here!

Its not like we are going to lose him as a player! He will still be there! Shanes spot on the team in 2009 depend on how long Moloney can stay on the park.

[thevil1 421]

i reckon valenti is a good/solid player and a greatly determined guy........if he makes it long term its cause he's worked on the aforementioned deficiancies day and night, and i wish him all the best............HOWEVER..........

next year's draft is not as deep as this year, the years thereafter the drafts are compromised by west syd/GC17..........if he contnues to develope he WILL b promoted then.........not having him available for rounds 1-11 in 2009 is NOT gonna make or break this team, full stop.......so while i admire the sentiment, this is the real world gouga and we don't have enuf room for Macca, Moloney, McLean, grimes etc (comparing similar style players only, not davey, totally different skill sets) AND valenti in our best 22..............next year when Macca probably retires, he'd b a good relacement possibly, pending development and other youngsters on the lists development..........

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,789]

Keep him as a rookie. Use the PSD pick on a Sibasodo, Rockliff, or Greg Bentley.

Knowing our rotton luck with long term injury, Valenti will be promoted by round 1 anyway.

I see Valenti as strictly depth at this point of time.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Harsh?

Valenti performed better in that same C grade midfield. Jones' problem wasn't the extra attention. Still got plenty of it. It was his terrible decision making and disposal. That area of his game went backwards. He was struggling with that before McLean went down anyway.

And it is not one or the other like you imply, both can play in the same team.

And why isn't Davey and Valenti a fair comparison? Statistically Valenti was better, and applied himself to a much greater extent. Davey is the talent, but even you might concede Valenti trumped him in application?

Valenti was not playing No 1 midfielder. And not sure if there is another AFL club where a green 20yo is playing No 1 midfield particularly to an appalling ruck division.

If MFC are to move forward as a midfield I dont want 2 fringe midfielders. I see more development upside in Jones than I do Valenti and I will cut him some slack.

Davey and Valenti play different roles and at least you have admitted there is a gap in talent. Davey has his issues but once again he is proven player at AFL level who can really hurt team. But Davey does not need to fire this year. I admire Valenti's application but IMO his upside is limited. Application is an important ingredient but is not a substitute for skills and talent at this level. And for the role Valenti plays he is about 5th in line against other MFC players who play a similar role. We have a surplus of his type and bar one of them there are varying question marks on them all

The sensible suggestion is to keep him as a rookie and call him up if a LT injury strikes.

[montasaurus 0]

The PSD is not the honey pot it used to be. We are not giving up anything we couldn't have selected draft day.

Rockcliff and Sibasado weren't drafted for whatever reason. They are candidates for rookie lists. Unless we have another Martin up our sleeves I'd prefer to promote Valenti and free up four spots on our rookie list for players that will take time.

I have to disagree, there are some players with real potential this year in the PSD. Yes they have been overlooked but you never know what BP might un-earth for us.

RE Valenti, while both Jones, Brock & Maloney are fit there is now way known he is in our best 22.

Therefore if there is no injury best to free up a spot on the list for a KPP in my book. For what it is worth I really rated Valenti last year but with what we have just taken in the draft I don't think he warrents a spot on the list at this point. Maybe when Jnr retires he could win that spot.

[DemonTux 97]

Shane is going somewhere? Yes he played well last year for his 1st season and for what it's worth if he continues in the same vain he should be ok for another development year, he is still on the list, it's not like we have delisted hime.

(If i recall correctly, it is now possible to play rookies in a limited number of games during the year due to senior players being injured etc?)

ANY WAY looking forward he could be a proven (if not quite as good) replacement for someone like Junior when holes in the list open up at the end of next year, especially when the draft will be further compromised.

This draft in particular is are about getting as much youth and the best talent onto the list as possible, on the current market. Why hamstring our selves in minimizing the best possible pics for someone who we have any way in a year where it is doubtful he will make any impact in the run to the finals? Yes it's only the PSD and rookie drafts and can be something of a raffle, but I still like to be able to have first pick of my lucky numbers even then.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I posted this earlier in the year:

I hate having to rely on stats, but let's just have a look at some of this year so far.

Valenti: 9 games, 67% game time, 17 disposals per game, 76.01% efficiency, 5.2 contested possessions per game (30.5% of possessions are contested).

Jones: 20 games, 80% game time, 20.65 disposals per games, 69.48% efficiency, 5.57 contested possessions per game (26.9% of possessions are contested).

McDonald: 18 games, 79% game time, 20.22 disposals per game, 78.73 % efficiency, 6.05 contested possessions per game.

McLean: 14 games, 80 % game time, 23.64 disposals per game, 74.19% efficiency, 7.2 contested possessions per game.

Bruce: 21 games, 85% game time, 23.9 disposals per game, 75.41% efficiency, 6.4 contested possessions per game.

Valenti has just about the best hands in close that I have seen from a Melbourne player in some time. He is also a beautiful kick and seems always have space around him.

[45HG 1,539]

I think Valenti has shown enough to prove that he can fulful a role for the club when asked.

With his close in ability and courage, he could possibly become a decent midfielder. But given that he is not there yet, and that he isn't going anywhere off our list, it makes little sense to not get an extra player on our list whilst continuing to develop Valenti.

A hard worker with great close in skills and a bucketload of courage is a good starting point.

I loved him at Sandy and the only problem I have is his scope for improvement. We'll see how he goes next year, but I wouldn't be promoting him at the moment.

I like the sound of Rockliff, though I must say I've not seen him play

[e25 5]

I posted this earlier in the year:

I hate having to rely on stats, but let's just have a look at some of this year so far.

Valenti: 9 games, 67% game time, 17 disposals per game, 76.01% efficiency, 5.2 contested possessions per game (30.5% of possessions are contested).

Jones: 20 games, 80% game time, 20.65 disposals per games, 69.48% efficiency, 5.57 contested possessions per game (26.9% of possessions are contested).

McDonald: 18 games, 79% game time, 20.22 disposals per game, 78.73 % efficiency, 6.05 contested possessions per game.

McLean: 14 games, 80 % game time, 23.64 disposals per game, 74.19% efficiency, 7.2 contested possessions per game.

Bruce: 21 games, 85% game time, 23.9 disposals per game, 75.41% efficiency, 6.4 contested possessions per game.

Valenti has just about the best hands in close that I have seen from a Melbourne player in some time. He is also a beautiful kick and seems always have space around him.

What does 'efficiency' measure? Is it the percentage he hits a target?

There are other stats that would need to be considered though to make a fair comparison, like '% of game time being tagged'

Valenti is good, has potential, but i think his ability is being overstated based on what he's shown so far.

[gOLLy 401]

Harsh?

Valenti performed better in that same C grade midfield. Jones' problem wasn't the extra attention. Still got plenty of it. It was his terrible decision making and disposal. That area of his game went backwards. He was struggling with that before McLean went down anyway.

And it is not one or the other like you imply, both can play in the same team.

And why isn't Davey and Valenti a fair comparison? Statistically Valenti was better, and applied himself to a much greater extent. Davey is the talent, but even you might concede Valenti trumped him in application?

What he said.

^^

[dee-luded 2,959]

What does 'efficiency' measure? Is it the percentage he hits a target?

There are other stats that would need to be considered though to make a fair comparison, like '% of game time being tagged'

Valenti is good, has potential, but i think his ability is being overstated based on what he's shown so far.

It's bloody good for a first year player.

[H_T 3,043]

Valenti is good, has potential, but i think his ability is being overstated based on what he's shown so far.

Yes, I agree with that. Personally, I believe we should keep Valenti as a rookie and use our PSD#1 on a Rockliff IMO, if a long term injury occurs during season, mfc can call him up.

[CarnTheDees 52]

The comparisons of Valenti and Godfrey are complete rubbish. One is a natural in-and-under centreman with excellent skills in close and the ability to find the footy. The other was a guy who could run whilst holding someone's jumper.

There are numerous examples of past and current players who are not quick, lack penetration in their kicking but still outstanding footballers because they get in and under and read the game well. Greg Williams is the most obvious example but in the modern game we have Sam Mitchell, Scott West and Daniel Cross as standouts too.

The confusion between a lack of kicking penetration and poor footskills is also disappointing from the Valenti knockers. As the stats above (in his first AFL year) show, his accuracy by foot is good. I know that the current trend is for fast, line-breaking, long-kicking midfielders. But would you prefer a Valenti-type or a Daniel Ward type in your side?

Valenti's first year was exceptional for a first year player with no expectations. Right now I would have him around level with Nathan Jones and Moloney, but the reality is that there's probably not room for all 3 in the same 22 (if McLean is playing too).

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The comparisons of Valenti and Godfrey are complete rubbish. One is a natural in-and-under centreman with excellent skills in close and the ability to find the footy. The other was a guy who could run whilst holding someone's jumper.

There are numerous examples of past and current players who are not quick, lack penetration in their kicking but still outstanding footballers because they get in and under and read the game well. Greg Williams is the most obvious example but in the modern game we have Sam Mitchell, Scott West and Daniel Cross as standouts too.

The confusion between a lack of kicking penetration and poor footskills is also disappointing from the Valenti knockers. As the stats above (in his first AFL year) show, his accuracy by foot is good. I know that the current trend is for fast, line-breaking, long-kicking midfielders. But would you prefer a Valenti-type or a Daniel Ward type in your side?

Valenti's first year was exceptional for a first year player with no expectations. Right now I would have him around level with Nathan Jones and Moloney, but the reality is that there's probably not room for all 3 in the same 22 (if McLean is playing too).

Both are Godfrey and Valenti are players with loads of application and endeavour but limited in their skills and pace. Its that easy. I guess the comparison with Davey was more logical.

I am not sure why people are quoting the statistics of the past year as some vindication of Valenti. Too many of our "inside" midfielders are fringe C graders in a slow third world midfield. His statistics are comparable with many of these C graders. And people are keen to put another one on our list? Bravo.

We need to do far better than we did last year. Valenti strengths are more of what we have got and not what we desperately need. And its not the narrow minded option of Valenti type vs Ward type. We need players with pace and the requisite skills by hand and foot.

At least you have the reality check that there is probably not room in the same 22 for both Moloney, Jones and Valenti. You can add Junior as well.

Many of the C graders are contracted this year and are going to be tested this year and will have to deliver otherwise players like Beamer will have to go. Junior will retire at year end.

Valenti has the chance to further impress selectors over the next year. Clearly by keeping as a rookie they realise the shortcomings better than those that post here.

But I dont get excited over a footballer who represents more of the same in a limited one pace midfield. We need to set the bar higher particularly in our midfield. Its a needs a quantum lift. If the footy dept think Valenti is there in 12 months then fine.

[mo64 5,853]

Both are Godfrey and Valenti are players with loads of application and endeavour but limited in their skills and pace. Its that easy.

Once again you've proven your lack of knowledge of the game. You've had it in for Valenti the moment he was rookied.

There is no comparison between Godfrey and Valenti. Valenti wins his own ball and makes good decisions. He may not have pace over 20 metres, but gets caught alot less frequently than Jones. Godfrey on the other hand was a tagger, that's it. He was not necessarily slow in body, but slow in mind. He had poor disposal and decision making kills.

They are complete opposites in in football terms.

[Gouga 566]

Valenti has the chance to further impress selectors over the next year. Clearly by keeping as a rookie they realise the shortcomings better than those that post here.

Rhino you talk like Valenti is the only player on our list with shortcomings. I'd argue that they all do!

The point I'm trying to make unsuccessfully is that Valenti at age 21 and with 9 games experience in which he performed admirably (despite all his shortcomings) is beyond the rookie list type developmental stage. He is good enough to be considered for selection week in, week out.

It is not a case of 'we have too many'. If Valenti's performances are good enough he'll get selected. Maybe even ahead of Jones and Moloney.

People talk like Rockcliff and Sibosado are must haves. Then why were they not selected amongst the 70 odd the other week in the national draft? They are players that for whatever reason require time to be developed and work on whatever shortcomings it was that kept them from being drafted earlier. They are rookie list candidates. That is all at this stage.

[e25 5]

Once again you've proven your lack of knowledge of the game. You've had it in for Valenti the moment he was rookied.

There is no comparison between Godfrey and Valenti. Valenti wins his own ball and makes good decisions. He may not have pace over 20 metres, but gets caught alot less frequently than Jones. Godfrey on the other hand was a tagger, that's it. He was not necessarily slow in body, but slow in mind. He had poor disposal and decision making kills.

They are complete opposites in in football terms.

Jones gets caught all the time cos he's being tagged.

Rhino's and your arguments are just simplifying their games to different levels.

Either way, i think people either give Valenti too much or too little credit.

He IS a C grade player, but one I expect to make the jump to B grade in the next 2 years. He has shown a LOT for a first year player & if you could swap a player on the senior list for him on the rookie list it would be done in a heartbeat with about half a dozen players.

But he is a rookie & this works better for the club for now.

But he is NOT significantly better than Jones at this stage.

[e25 5]

Rhino you talk like Valenti is the only player on our list with shortcomings. I'd argue that they all do!

The point I'm trying to make unsuccessfully is that Valenti at age 21 and with 9 games experience in which he performed admirably (despite all his shortcomings) is beyond the rookie list type developmental stage. He is good enough to be considered for selection week in, week out.

It is not a case of 'we have too many'. If Valenti's performances are good enough he'll get selected. Maybe even ahead of Jones and Moloney.

People talk like Rockcliff and Sibosado are must haves. Then why were they not selected amongst the 70 odd the other week in the national draft? They are players that for whatever reason require time to be developed and work on whatever shortcomings it was that kept them from being drafted earlier. They are rookie list candidates. That is all at this stage.

We don't have a crystal ball, so if its possible, we might as well get both Valenti & one of Rockliff or Sibosado on our list, then whichever one pans out like hoped, we will have that player (hopefully both).

I think we are just using the resources available to us to the full extent of their potential.

[Gouga 566]

We don't have a crystal ball, so if its possible, we might as well get both Valenti & one of Rockliff or Sibosado on our list, then whichever one pans out like hoped, we will have that player (hopefully both).

I think we are just using the resources available to us to the full extent of their potential.

I understand why Valenti was originally left on the rookie list. The club wanted to take full advantage of this year's draft which we did. However we do have two spots on our list that would not have been available at season's end. I'm talking of course of Carroll and Johnson.

Now we are in the position were we can draft a seventh 18 year old, most likely a speculative candidate. My argument is that that seventh 18 year old who wasn't drafted on national draft day for whatever reason may be a better candidate for the rookie list where he'll be allowed time to develop than a 21 year old who has proved he can cut it at AFL level and may be best 22 considering form and who is available.

By passing in the PSD considering that it looks like other clubs will go with experience (Carr, Skipworth, Tippett, Johnson, Cousins) it is most likely that we are not giving up anything that won't be available come rookie draft day.

[montasaurus 0]

By passing in the PSD considering that it looks like other clubs will go with experience (Carr, Skipworth, Tippett, Johnson, Cousins) it is most likely that we are not giving up anything that won't be available come rookie draft day.

Fair Call,

but this would mean that we could potentially take both Rockcliff and Sibosado without other clubs getting a lookin. If we pass i think we get the 1st pick in rookie then the rest have their go don't they? So based on this leave Valenti where he is and if the need arises lift him then.

[Gouga 566]

Fair Call,

but this would mean that we could potentially take both Rockcliff and Sibosado without other clubs getting a lookin. If we pass i think we get the 1st pick in rookie then the rest have their go don't they? So based on this leave Valenti where he is and if the need arises lift him then.

If the club was interested in both than I'd agree but there is nothing to suggest that it is.

[montasaurus 0]

There's also nothing gained at this point by having valenti on the list either. I want to see a KPF and Sibosado is the right fit. that will then leave Rockcliff as our 1st rookie (This is just speculation), but I think is quite likely to happen. Even De-Bore as 1st rookie.

Not in our best 25, but if injuries and still playing well at VFL then an opportunity might come up.

He played some great games last year and filled a role but is not one of our best and certainly not one of our best moving forward.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Once again you've proven your lack of knowledge of the game. You've had it in for Valenti the moment he was rookied.

There is no comparison between Godfrey and Valenti. Valenti wins his own ball and makes good decisions. He may not have pace over 20 metres, but gets caught alot less frequently than Jones. Godfrey on the other hand was a tagger, that's it. He was not necessarily slow in body, but slow in mind. He had poor disposal and decision making kills.

They are complete opposites in in football terms.

Its no surprise you dont get it Mo. BTW Godfrey was s-l-o-w in both departments. Care to apply the same standards to the comparison of Valenti with Davey, wizard?

Rhino you talk like Valenti is the only player on our list with shortcomings. I'd argue that they all do!

Too many of our "inside" midfielders are fringe C graders in a slow third world midfield.

You dont read too well at times Gouga. Do I need to spell it out more literally?

The point I'm trying to make unsuccessfully is that Valenti at age 21 and with 9 games experience in which he performed admirably (despite all his shortcomings) is beyond the rookie list type developmental stage. He is good enough to be considered for selection week in, week out.

He is behind McLean Jones and Junior. FWIW I think Moloney is on his last chance.

It is not a case of 'we have too many'. If Valenti's performances are good enough he'll get selected. Maybe even ahead of Jones and Moloney.

Its a case of having too many one paced midfielders with limitations on their skills. We have to get better, much better. Valenti has 12 months to show that he has the capability to lift to that higher standard required. And its higher than what was served up last year. Its clear the football department have significant doubts that he can and for some of the MFC footy department they have been oversighting Valenti for 3 to 4 years.

People talk like Rockcliff and Sibosado are must haves. Then why were they not selected amongst the 70 odd the other week in the national draft? They are players that for whatever reason require time to be developed and work on whatever shortcomings it was that kept them from being drafted earlier. They are rookie list candidates. That is all at this stage.

I wonder if some of the posters here should be agents for Rockcliff and Sibosado the way they talk them up.

[thevil1 421]

I posted this earlier in the year:

I hate having to rely on stats, but let's just have a look at some of this year so far.

Valenti: 9 games, 67% game time, 17 disposals per game, 76.01% efficiency, 5.2 contested possessions per game (30.5% of possessions are contested).

Jones: 20 games, 80% game time, 20.65 disposals per games, 69.48% efficiency, 5.57 contested possessions per game (26.9% of possessions are contested).

McDonald: 18 games, 79% game time, 20.22 disposals per game, 78.73 % efficiency, 6.05 contested possessions per game.

McLean: 14 games, 80 % game time, 23.64 disposals per game, 74.19% efficiency, 7.2 contested possessions per game.

Bruce: 21 games, 85% game time, 23.9 disposals per game, 75.41% efficiency, 6.4 contested possessions per game.

Valenti has just about the best hands in close that I have seen from a Melbourne player in some time. He is also a beautiful kick and seems always have space around him.

Yeah, but was there as much pressure/focus from the opposition on him as those your comparing to? Clearly not! And a beautiful as you say, yeah, maybe, but certainly not when he tries to get some distance..........anyway, I rate him, but I think this is over the top, he's not CLEARLY better than anyone else in our midfeild.........and if he was our footy department would have already promoted him!