you obviously just have a bias in favour of these players that causes you not to see the amount of disposal errors they make. Buckley is one of the worst of the last decade or so he is an absolute butcher. How this could even be up for debate is beyond me...

Are you serious? Buckley averages 80% disposal efficiency, which is good considering he racks up alot of the ball. The only criticism of mine is that sometimes he kicks to the wrong options but that can be fixed with more training and especially a better team.

It is indeed a disappointment that a Rd 1 pick does not become more than a tagger. Its better than not becoming an AFL footballer at all (eg some of the Class of 2003).

Salient point.

2009 is the year he has to stand up.

The same goes for Bate as well.

The same goes for a lot of the list, but I cannot see how ANYONE could lump Dunn in the same category as Bate. Bate's done WAY more with his chances, and has many more lives left.

It's quite frightening that Matthew Pavlich is only 191cm tall and Dunn is 192cm.

Pavlich plays an inch and a half taller than he actually is.

Neitz, anyone? Not the best forward ever, and I'd put the Pav ahead of him, but how much do we miss the contests Neitz created...

i didn't mean to imply that I wanted Dunn to be played as a key forward. I would like him to be played as a 3rd tall type, similar to Brad Fisher from Carlton who i think is a really good player.

Point taken.

i just don't see ur side of it. he has a booming kick on him and his technique is fine. Butchering it by my definition is where a player kicks it wayyyy left or way right or scrubs it along the ground. Buckley rarely does this, he just has a tendency to kick it too long and ignore better options.

I think you may have touched on the area that causes difference between people on these players with suspect kicks. As far as I'm concerned I couldn't give a rats how it looks, or how the ball drops, it's how often the kick goes to our advantage, or to a 50/50 vs how often it goes to opposition. Modifying the assessment would be things like how a player kicks under pressure, how far they can kick, and how the kicks are shaped: ie whether or not they are easy to mark, how they chip, stab, how they shape shots on goal (not the ones that trickle, the ones that bend through the air)...

If a player "butchers" balls, as you put it, twice a match and still gets 80% effectiveness, then I'm thrilled.

This is turning into a good thread.

Are you serious? Buckley averages 80% disposal efficiency, which is good considering he racks up alot of the ball. The only criticism of mine is that sometimes he kicks to the wrong options but that can be fixed with more training and especially a better team.

I tend to agree that buckley is improvingthis season gone, but still has a way to go.

I reckon he was like the guitarist learning to perform live whilst still needing to look at the strings, he looks up at the crowd then forgets where his strings are..

Buckley looked to me in past years that he was trying to use his pace, but hadn't planned where he was going to deliver the pill, ending in a rushed,awkward disposal. I was not a fan at that point,, however i am rapt with his improvement in '08.

I hope he can continue improving next season to solidify his position in the one's.

Simon, let's get a bit more instinctive.

I really hope the club got it right with these 2. They are critical to the Club's improvement.

Watts was an obvious choice and nobody is going to shoot Prendergast if Jetta, Bennell & Bail don't make it.

Blease & Strauss are high picks in a Superdraft which means they might have been around top 10 in an average year. They were taken ahaed of very well credentialled players particularly some KPP's.

Lets hope they turn out more like Scott Thompson & Adem Yze rather than Aaron Rogers & Luke Molan.

Calling Blease and Strauss top 10 draft talent in an average year is pretty stupid. Rating these guys as superior calibre players because this is supposedly a "super draft" is stupid. Look at the 2006 AFL draft which was also dubbed a super draft and very few players have had much impact on their respective teams. 2007 which was an "average" draft i rate higher than 2006. For a super draft, the 2006 draft has been a bust...i understand the hype for the 2008 draft because we all want the best for mfc, but truth is any one our draftees right now are only as good as their last game

Carn the deesss

Calling Blease and Strauss top 10 draft talent in an average year is pretty stupid. Rating these guys as superior calibre players because this is supposedly a "super draft" is stupid. Look at the 2006 AFL draft which was also dubbed a super draft and very few players have had much impact on their respective teams. 2007 which was an "average" draft i rate higher than 2006. For a super draft, the 2006 draft has been a bust...i understand the hype for the 2008 draft because we all want the best for mfc, but truth is any one our draftees right now are only as good as their last game

Carn the deesss

it takes time for the bigger players to develop and in 2006 a lot of early draft picks were used on tall KPP eg Gumbleton, Hanson and Leuenberger. i think it's a bit early to compare these drafts.

Just as a side note relating to Gumbleton, i thought it was interesting reading on the AFL website that Essendon intend to play one of the tallest forward lines in history, no matter what the case is, with Lloyd, Lucas, Neagle and Gumbleton, as well as throwing in Hille and McPhee. they'll be stuffed when the ball hits the ground.

Calling Blease and Strauss top 10 draft talent in an average year is pretty stupid. Rating these guys as superior calibre players because this is supposedly a "super draft" is stupid. Look at the 2006 AFL draft which was also dubbed a super draft and very few players have had much impact on their respective teams. 2007 which was an "average" draft i rate higher than 2006. For a super draft, the 2006 draft has been a bust...i understand the hype for the 2008 draft because we all want the best for mfc, but truth is any one our draftees right now are only as good as their last game

Carn the deesss

Yeah, I'll echo Hillie's comments. And besides, comparing the 3 most recent drafts defies logic. You can't compare the 3 most recent drafts as some of those players are yet to debut (the ones that WILL debut of course, not the no-hopers). Will you be saying the same for Jacky boy when he takes a couple of years to come on?

it takes time for the bigger players to develop and in 2006 a lot of early draft picks were used on tall KPP eg Gumbleton, Hanson and Leuenberger. i think it's a bit early to compare these drafts.

Just as a side note relating to Gumbleton, i thought it was interesting reading on the AFL website that Essendon intend to play one of the tallest forward lines in history, no matter what the case is, with Lloyd, Lucas, Neagle and Gumbleton, as well as throwing in Hille and McPhee. they'll be stuffed when the ball hits the ground.

Are you a Dons fan? Just wondering, after the Gumbleton thing coupled with your name...

i thought it was interesting reading on the AFL website that Essendon intend to play one of the tallest forward lines in history, no matter what the case is, with Lloyd, Lucas, Neagle and Gumbleton, as well as throwing in Hille and McPhee. they'll be stuffed when the ball hits the ground.

... and the tanking begins! We need to out do Essendon by playing the shortest forward line, slowest midfield and worst ruck combination in history - just like last year.

... and the tanking begins! We need to out do Essendon by playing the shortest forward line, slowest midfield and worst ruck combination in history - just like last year.

Cant quite work out how this relates to Blease and Strauss?

Are you serious? Buckley averages 80% disposal efficiency, which is good considering he racks up alot of the ball. The only criticism of mine is that sometimes he kicks to the wrong options but that can be fixed with more training and especially a better team.

hahahah well there's some concrete proof of just what a load of sh!t those stats are - who takes them a blind monkey? They must give you a 'tick' for getting the ball within 50 metres of its target

I don't need your 80% to tell me anything, I prefer to go on what I actually see with my own eyes when attending games. The kid is an absolute shocker with his disposal at the moment, he is barely even a positive on the match because he loses so many points through turnovers. Bruce, Wheatley, Jones and Morton were all serial offenders in the same way all year - there is no use making excuses for them

i just don't see ur side of it. he has a booming kick on him and his technique is fine. Butchering it by my definition is where a player kicks it wayyyy left or way right or scrubs it along the ground. Buckley rarely does this, he just has a tendency to kick it too long and ignore better options.

Thats called butchering the possession. In today's game that relies so much on gaining possession, maintaining control of the ball and using the ball to its best use, turning the ball over is a cardinal sin.

Last year, it was the one statistic that MFC seemed capable of outdoing other sides. Buckley is one of the culprits. There are others in the side too that need to improve. If MFC are to make any forward progress in 2009 and beyond they must address this point otherwise better sides will just keep the pressure on us and belt us when we stupidly turn the ball over.

Daniel Ward was another player who during his time destroyed his value to the side from his run by his poor disposal and decision making. Its no good breaking the lines if you just turn the ball over.

Daniel Ward was another player who during his time destroyed his value to the side from his run by his poor disposal and decision making. Its no good breaking the lines if you just turn the ball over.

Dead right it is just getting more and more critical too. Watch a game, any game from 08 and notice how often a goal results directly from an opponent's turnover. You just get cut to ribbons by sides like Geelong.

To be fair we seem to have emphasised good ball users in the latest draft. I have a feeling the butchers are going to find themselves at Casey quick smart

Are you a Dons fan? Just wondering, after the Gumbleton thing coupled with your name...

na mate. none of that. i've got red and blue pumping through my veins, don't worry about that.

Are you serious? Buckley averages 80% disposal efficiency, which is good considering he racks up alot of the ball. The only criticism of mine is that sometimes he kicks to the wrong options but that can be fixed with more training and especially a better team.

Agree. And more game experience.

Thats called butchering the possession. In today's game that relies so much on gaining possession, maintaining control of the ball and using the ball to its best use, turning the ball over is a cardinal sin.

Last year, it was the one statistic that MFC seemed capable of outdoing other sides. Buckley is one of the culprits. There are others in the side too that need to improve. If MFC are to make any forward progress in 2009 and beyond they must address this point otherwise better sides will just keep the pressure on us and belt us when we stupidly turn the ball over.

Daniel Ward was another player who during his time destroyed his value to the side from his run by his poor disposal and decision making. Its no good breaking the lines if you just turn the ball over.

I think one point to note with buckley is he tends to win the ball in traffic. An interesting stat would be # of unforced errors vs # errors from pressure. One thing I did notice last year was buckley was very good at handpasses through traffic to space where a player should be, unfortunately they were not. Therefore finishes like strauss, Blease, CM, Grimes, etc + co could do better in the future as the gain experience and game time together. So I would suggest a high percentage of buckleys clangers are due to lack of support from a midfield that struggled to do the hard work last year (negative running etc).

I think Buckley is a big chance to take a step over the next couple of years to become a very good player for us. I was talking him up just last night to a friend and i summed him up as the only bloke in our squad that has the ability to wrong foot players ala judd+ablett. Apologies to Davey who I think uses his pace more of the time to get around players.

I think one point to note with buckley is he tends to win the ball in traffic. An interesting stat would be # of unforced errors vs # errors from pressure. One thing I did notice last year was buckley was very good at handpasses through traffic to space where a player should be, unfortunately they were not.

If a footballer is going to play midfield then it is a given especially against top 8 sides that possession you get will involve significant pressure on the ball handler. If MFC is to improve then the midfield need to consistently be able to make optimal decisions with the disposal of the ball while under pressure. At the moment, MFC cannot do this and the skill level exhibited is poor.

Buckley does offer MFC some scope with his running but at times his decision making is poor and needs to become more acute under pressure

I think Buckley is a big chance to take a step over the next couple of years to become a very good player for us. I was talking him up just last night to a friend and i summed him up as the only bloke in our squad that has the ability to wrong foot players ala judd+ablett. Apologies to Davey who I think uses his pace more of the time to get around players.

If Buckley is half as good as Judd and Ablett then we have down well. I would not bother with the apologies to Davey who is trading off past season's glories and has done little up the field to justify any accolades

Buckley does offer MFC some scope with his running but at times his decision making is poor and needs to become more acute under pressure

Totally agree, but I think confidence in the midfield group should go a long way to assit him improving.

If Buckley is half as good as Judd and Ablett then we have down well.

Stay tuned in 09.......... He was the one light in the midfield group last year for me. Hopefully he can develop and take the next step this year! I don't have the stats to back me up but would suggest the games we played well (may not have won) buckley generally had good games. More importantly I see him as a player that will put guys like grimes, strauss, blease into space to finish his good work.

I agree, and you'd have to be blind not to, that our disposal was way below AFL standard last year. But I think a large part of the problem was noone presenting upfield. Early in the year , before I'd resigned myself to just how bad we were, I was constantly screaming "move" as the targets upfield wandered around aimlessly. It improved a bit as the year went on but not to the extent necessary.

Buckley's run was a prime example. He'd get the ball, take on the opposition, look up, nothing. It's harder to have good decision making when your options are limited. How often did we hanball or shortpass to a stationary target only to see an instant tackle laid and a turnover enforced? When we were playing good footy we seemed to run in waves and having 3 or 4 options made it easier to find a good one.

It's another chicken and egg arguement I suppose. Did we stop running because our disposal was so poor we were afraid of being hurt on the turnover, which we were often. Or was our disposal so poor because we had 50/50 options at best to kick it to most of the time.

Totally agree, but I think confidence in the midfield group should go a long way to assit him improving.

Stay tuned in 09.......... He was the one light in the midfield group last year for me. Hopefully he can develop and take the next step this year! I don't have the stats to back me up but would suggest the games we played well (may not have won) buckley generally had good games. More importantly I see him as a player that will put guys like grimes, strauss, blease into space to finish his good work.

The heartening thing for me is the sheer QUANTITY of on-ballers we now have. There is about 20 of them, and there is nothing healthier than being made to earn and keep a spot - also very good for depth. Fortunately there are 5 of 6 of them who might just become 'the real deal' too. Don't know if Buckley is one of them. Here's hoping.

The heartening thing for me is the sheer QUANTITY of on-ballers we now have. There is about 20 of them, and there is nothing healthier than being made to earn and keep a spot - also very good for depth.

agree, but quality is just as important. While some of the kids have big raps on them, due to age etc we may not see much for 2-3 years. Hence in the short term players like buckley, jones, maloney and mclean are the key. the next generation of grimes, morton, blease, strauss even watts are very exciting prospects that if they do come on over the next couple of years we have a lot to look forward to.

The heartening thing for me is the sheer QUANTITY of on-ballers we now have. There is about 20 of them, and there is nothing healthier than being made to earn and keep a spot - also very good for depth.

Focus on the QUALITY not the QUANTITY. Currently we have senior players who are at best in few instances capable but some who are NQR and we have young players with unproven potential that is not guaranteed in each case to evolve into playing talent. If we dont have players rising to become A graders rather than C grade quality we have seen over the past 2 years, it would not matter if we had 40 of them. And depth is an illusion and a waste if you dont have the cream in top half dozen players.

Focus on the QUALITY not the QUANTITY. Currently we have senior players who are at best in few instances capable but some who are NQR and we have young players with unproven potential that is not guaranteed in each case to evolve into playing talent. If we dont have players rising to become A graders rather than C grade quality we have seen over the past 2 years, it would not matter if we had 40 of them. And depth is an illusion and a waste if you dont have the cream in top half dozen players.

Agree, but I just feel it is like having a bunch of potted plants in the back yard. You nurture them and hope they grow into strong trees - the more you have the greater your chances of getting some good ones. I mean we just MUST have 2 or 3 A-Graders amongst the 20, SURELY!

After Macca, Bruce and Green

McLean

Morton

Jones

Davey

Sylvia

Buckley

Grimes

Blease

Strauss

Bail

Jetta

Bennell

Watts

Maric

Petterd

Bartram

Dunn

Valenti

Moloney

Seriously if we can't cultivate a quality midfield group out of that lot we deserve to fold as a club, and we probably will

The last real "star" or elite of the game MFC produced was Robert Flower and he retired in 1987.

MFC have had stacks of midfielders since then and we have not produced a star. Quantity does not guarantee quality.

Half of the 20 you list are NQR, mediocre or pedestrian. Some are not even midfielders. Some will not make it past two years of borderline footbal. There is a 2 or 3 that have potential with no certainty of making the big steps required. Not all of them will make the star level.

And its a stretch at best to have Watts in the midfield. MFC would want Watts to become a star but it is more than likely it will be up forward.

If we are to serious challenge in the coming years we need a quality midfielder that it includes the development of 2 or 3 top players within those ranks.

The last real "star" or elite of the game MFC produced was Robert Flower and he retired in 1987.

Tingay, Viney, Lovett?? Not stars but i would say close to the elite level over a few years. Certainly as a group which is more important then individually.

But this re-inforces our current problems, even as a group they just can't cut it against the better sides. Moving forward if we can get mclean, jones, morton, blease, strauss to develop into a tingay, viney, lovett type group we will have a pass mark. We need 1 or 2 to develop into stars and gain an A mark on this group.

Tingay, Viney, Lovett?? Not stars but i would say close to the elite level over a few years. Certainly as a group which is more important then individually.

Rubbish.

Tingay was too injury prone and missed 4 to 5 years of football when he was at his prime. He was important in MFC's 1994 and 1998 finals push but not elite.

Lovett - Brett or Glenn?? Glenn had chronic soft tissues. Brett Lovett lack pace (made up for it in other area) and played off the half back line.

Viney- Hard strong inside midfielder whose game was let down by ordinary foot disposal.

All good MFC players in their time but not elite and barely troubled the MFC team of the century.

Look at other clubs recently.....

Hawthorn have Hodge, Franklin

Geelong have Ablett, Bartels

WCE had at their peak...Cousins and Judd....Cox has been the best big man in the 10 years IMO but the argument over ruckman's importance has dwindled

Freo have got Pavlich

Essendon had Hird, Fletcher

Brisbane have had Voss, Aker, Black and Brown

Collingwood have had Buckley

Western Bulldogs have had Johnson, West... Cooney could be there at the end of his career.

North have had Archer, Carey

The above players have been consistent and often brilliant standout players for the side in theri positions that have changed and won matches by their superior performance.

MFC have had good players some very good but the only player I can put in that company is Flower. We have not had anyone close to his calibre and performance since his retirement.

But this re-inforces our current problems, even as a group they just can't cut it against the better sides. Moving forward if we can get mclean, jones, morton, blease, strauss to develop into a tingay, viney, lovett type group we will have a pass mark. We need 1 or 2 to develop into stars and gain an A mark on this group.

ATM, we have many midfielders at MFC that just cant perform/ execute at the standard required in AFL. Some of that is youth and inexperience. Some are not IMO good enough and will be phased out over the next two years and hopefully be replaced by more appropriate types that will develop. We need the young players to step up and develop even beyond the Tingay, Lovett and Viney standards but it would be good if many of our "depth" players were that good. And yes we do need one or two players to become elite.

Rubbish.

Tingay was too injury prone and missed 4 to 5 years of football when he was at his prime. He was important in MFC's 1994 and 1998 finals push but not elite.

Lovett - Brett or Glenn?? Glenn had chronic soft tissues.

Viney- Hard strong inside midfielder whose game was let down by ordinary foot disposal.

All good MFC players in their time but not elite and barely troubled the MFC team of the century.

lovett and Viney standards but it would be good if many of our "depth" players were that good. And yes we do need one or two players to become elite.

In both 94 & 98 we went close. By 2011 I think we would all be happy if we have had a year close to either of these.

"All good MFC players in their time but not elite and barely troubled the MFC team of the century." - This was my point. When fit they were able as a group to not only match it with the best but beat a lot of them i.e., close to elite level. Indivially none of them were elite, but as a group were on the verge. Right now 1st step get a midfield to compete thats it. then hopefully a couple develop into the star status. IMO brock mclean has whats required if he can stay fit. Watts in a hird type role could well start to fill the hole. Add a couple of B+ or A middies to this (morton, jones, grimes, struass, blease) and we may yet get there.