Michael Newton

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

i wonder who the 12 morons are that voted yes, i cant stop laughing, maybe juice joined demonland.

[Doggo 32]

Juice will probably come out and bag 5 or 6 this weekend against the Tiges.

Just as long as he doesn't have a "match-winning" performance, it'll be a welcome surprise!

[gOLLy 401]

What is Juice 21-22?....... 17 games? Bloody Hell!

[gOLLy 401]

i wonder who the 12 morons are that voted yes, i cant stop laughing, maybe juice joined demonland.

Well done Jack! Top post! Your the best!

[the fork 357]

Newton has shown little in his career so far. But we have to ask what that career consists of. 17 games, and yes it has taken him nearly 5 years to earn those games, but we should remember that the majority of his time at the club was under a coach unwilling to experiment with youth.

I believe that Newton is being written off a little early, much like other fringe players of the past, think Garland, Warnock and though yet to prove themselves Jamar and Meesen. His time is now, he must start to function as a leading forward. He has the remainder of this season and thankfully next year also, to prove himself. I say thankfully because I believe under Bailey, he deserves this time. (Bailey will play him on merit, I believe this differs to Daniher)

I have held great hopes for him but have become down on him of late. I listened to the game on the weekend and punched the window of the Troopy everytime he missed an opportunity.

I once spoke to a friend who worked with him closely and spent time at the club. I commented on the high hopes I had for him. He replied "The blokes a loser". (the only reason I repeat this is because the person who said it to me I trust, and it explains much when he offers little).

Edited July 29, 2009 by the fork

[maximum bob 462]

Gee, polls seem to be all the rage atm. Not sure why. Express an opinion yourself ffs.

Newton?

An absolute NO.

Can I make this any clearer?

[Doggo 32]

Newton has shown little in his career so far. But we have to ask what that career consists of. 17 games, and yes it has taken him nearly 5 years to earn those games, but we should remember that the majority of his time at the club was under a coach unwilling to experiment with youth.

I believe that Newton is being written off a little early, much like other fringe players of the past, think Garland, Warnock and though yet to prove themselves Jamar and Meesen. His time is now, he must start to function as a leading forward. He has the remainder of this season and thankfully next year also, to prove himself. I say thankfully because I believe under Bailey, he deserves this time. (Bailey will play him on merit, I believe this differs to Daniher)

If i remember correctly, Newton's first game was actually Neale Daniher's infamous last game as Melbourne coach, against Essendon in a thriller at the Dome. In the weeks prior to that match, there were many posters here calling for him to be given a game, as he'd played a couple of good games and kicked a bag or two in the VFL. I thought in the remainder of his games in 2007, under caretaker coach Mark Riley, he showed quite a bit to be excited about, and winning the MOTY definitely added to that excitement/hype. But it was widely acknowledged then that he was not ready, both physically and mentally, for the rigours of AFL footy, and had serious attitude issues; to which u allude to with your mates "[censored]" remark. His form in the 2 seasons since then has only served to further prove that.

So really the majority of his career has been under Bailey. He's had every chance to consolidate his spot in the side under Bailey's youth policy, especially considering he fits the specific need we have for a KPF, plus the fact that Robertson had spent the majority of the last two seasons injured, and Miller has generally been impotent as an inside 50 option. It's really the only rational explanation to his being offered a 2-year contract at the end of last season that i can come up with.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Doggo

[#MYHEARTBEATSTRUE 27]

Newton is a truck that delivers [censored]......

[Doggo 32]

Gee, polls seem to be all the rage atm. Not sure why. Express an opinion yourself ffs.

So i take it you don't think polls offer a point of interest and topic to allow posters to explore and express opinions then?

[rpfc 28,779]

Newton is a truck that delivers [censored]......

OK.

Now I want to change my NO to a YES.

Jaded, any help?

[maximum bob 462]

Get back to you later with a reply. Point taken but so am I, out the front door.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

18-66... Ouch.

I've loved him at times, and thought that he has all the gifts you'd need, physically and skill wise. But he's the worst kind of tempting... you give him years and years in the system and HOPE his head is in the right place. But the only thing that will confirm his maturity is when he IS mature (21 or 22+), is given a run, and shows something. He has been given a good long run, and has shown only little things here and there. He will improve, and like all talls, his best footy will be at 25-30. The question is not can he make it, but can he make it to be a consistently damaging forward of the kind we desperately need? The answer, I think, would have to be no at this stage. He's just never going to be to Watts what Bradshaw is to Brown. Would it be better for him to make way for other younger stars that COULD make it? Of course it would.

I don't blame anyone, not the footy department, not even Juice. You recruit talls, you give them a few years in the system, you keep your fingers crossed. If it doesn't work out, then that's a shame, and it's a black mark on the recruiters' page, but jesus, they can't ALL be great players. This guy was taken in the fourth round or something, FFS. And he was only on the list 4-5 years wasn't he? Well, it'll be 6 at the end of next year I think. That's pretty normal.

I'd be more upset if the club didn't dot every i and cross every t when it comes to developing youngsters. Had we gotten rid of him at the end of his 2nd or 3rd years, I'd have been more concerned than I am now.

He's not up to it. Move on.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,088]

Personally, I think he's viable trade bait. The Dogs, Sydney and Richmond are all in the market for another forward, and Port probably aren't that far behind them in needing one. The Bulldogs are even looking at Barry Hall! That's desperation. If we could get a third or even fourth round pick for him, I'd be thrilled. I think he'd be best of fat the Bulldogs out of those options, and perhaps they could do something about his kicking, given that they pride themselves on that aspect of their game (all evidence from the weekend aside ).

[Doggo 32]

The Bulldogs are even looking at Barry Hall! That's desperation. If we could get a third or even fourth round pick for him, I'd be thrilled.

The Bulldogs are looking at Hall because he's a proven gun player, capable of kicking 70+ goals a season, and he's exactly what they're lacking at the moment. He might be old and serious nutcase, but at his best he's a very dangerous prospect, and since they believe their 'premiership window' is this season, 2010 and maybe 2011 with their ageing list, and with Hall likely to have 1 or maybe 2 good years left in him, he's a prime choice for them.

Newton isn't even on the same page as Hall if we're talking about prospects to help them win a flag in the short term.

If they were looking at Newton, then i'd say "that's desperation"!

[RalphiusMaximus 6,088]

Newton isn't even on the same page as Hall if we're talking about prospects to help them win a flag in the short term.

If they were looking at Newton, then i'd say "that's desperation"!

Can't argue with that, but I think they'd be insane to recruit Hall. He's not interested anymore and is a good chance to be suspended for at least part of the year.

Aside from the Hall factor, I still think that Newton would fit in well with them. He's a good age for them, has good mobility, and would benefit from the supply they can give him. The only issue is whether they could fix what's wrong between his ears. I don't look at him as in the same league as Hall, but he may be someone they are willing to take a punt on for a low pick.

[Doggo 32]

Personally, I think he's viable trade bait. The Dogs, Sydney and Richmond are all in the market for another forward, and Port probably aren't that far behind them in needing one

Was just thinking about this a bit further and i just can't agree. I'd argue that Sydney have Jesse White as the main-man they'll be pinning their FF hopes on over the next decade and will be looking to draft and develop another KPF probably.

Richmond already have their fair share of VFL tall forward types who don't cut it at the top level (Cleve Hughes, Adam Pattison, Jay Schulz etc) so there's no way they'd go for one of our rejects, especially not under a new coaching regime next year.

The Dog's as i said earlier, are in their open window time and will want a proven player like a Hall, or will trade for a KPF.

And to be honest i don't know enough about Port to say whether they'd bite, but i find it highly unlikely.

I don't know, i think we'd be happy to get ANYTHING for Juice at this stage, most likely a very late pick in 4th or 5th round, which we would probably pass on anyway.

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,294]

NO

[CHF 2,768]

I voted that he will make it in AFL.

I recall that he was taken in the same draft as Bate and Dunn and, if I recall correctly, was around selection number 55/56. The three players were the three youngest players taken in that draft and, at the time, it was considered a good move by a number of people.

However with the ND structure I believe that we lacked a viable structure for development of young players. I think this has been addressed in the last couple of years and that it will continue to be addressed in the near future.

I have not seen him play recently as I am based in Europe. but I do recall his early games at the club and I thought he had ab bit to offer.

Given that Dunn, bate and newton were all very young when they entered into the system and that i do not think the system was all that good at the time i would make sure these kids are given every opportunity to come good under the present structure.

I would hope that Newton and the other two are given all the support the club can offer in the next pre-season and season to make sure that we see the best that they can offer before making decisions.

[demon heart 3]

good to see his family got right behind him and voted aswell... millers not to far behind him, 100 + games and really has lost his way.

[donny williams no 25 0]

2010?

Are energies should be focussed on developing a flag-winning team - we are building for 2012 onwards.

If you don't see Newton as the answer beyond 2010, then what is the point?

He'd just get in the way of Watts' development.

So, do I understand from this post, that in your view 2010 should also be written off? That at the start of the year the selectors should pick not the best 22 to win round 1 but those most likely to win us a flag in 2012? If Watts is still light and thin, and best suited to a flanker's role, he should nevertheless be played at CHF or FF?

Do you ever stop to think how debilitating that would /will be for the MFC?That another year will be spent losing games which might be won if the best available 22 were selected?The club won't survive.

Watts will supplant Newton and whoever else is in his way, when he's physically ready to do so, and that's the way it should be. Balme played Neitz for a couple of seasons at CHB--IT helped him a lot--Watts might need a number of games on a HBF before he steps up into a key forward role.

And I think the analogy with Hawkins is a good one--is anyone suggesting Hawkins should be cut?His kicking has been worse than Newton's really and he's given so many more opportunities in a top side than Newton, that I suggest the camparison is bad for Hawkins--yet Thompson persists, is trying him in more positions, and, bingo, he kicked a couple of pretty good goals [i understand] last week.

[rpfc 28,779]

So, do I understand from this post, that in your view 2010 should also be written off? That at the start of the year the selectors should pick not the best 22 to win round 1 but those most likely to win us a flag in 2012? If Watts is still light and thin, and best suited to a flanker's role, he should nevertheless be played at CHF or FF?

Do you ever stop to think how debilitating that would /will be for the MFC?That another year will be spent losing games which might be won if the best available 22 were selected?The club won't survive.

Watts will supplant Newton and whoever else is in his way, when he's physically ready to do so, and that's the way it should be. Balme played Neitz for a couple of seasons at CHB--IT helped him a lot--Watts might need a number of games on a HBF before he steps up into a key forward role.

And I think the analogy with Hawkins is a good one--is anyone suggesting Hawkins should be cut?His kicking has been worse than Newton's really and he's given so many more opportunities in a top side than Newton, that I suggest the camparison is bad for Hawkins--yet Thompson persists, is trying him in more positions, and, bingo, he kicked a couple of pretty good goals [i understand] last week.

I would say, and many would agree, that Watts' output in the forward line next year would be comparable to Newtons' - and Watts can kick straight.

Watts will play on a wing/HFF, but Bate will play HFF/CHF, and Jurrah FF/HFF, and Miller might be FF/CHF. If Newton can get a game in the forward line with Watts - fine.

But Jack Watts will playing games he doesn't deserve, as Jetta has, as Bennell has, as Morton has, because that is where we are at.

We are building for something beyond 2010. Does that mean I don't think we can win games? No, I have already said that 12 wins next year is a possibility. But we cannot win the 2010 flag, so we should be building a team to challenge in later years. If this means winning 8 games instead of 10 then that is the way it has to be.

But Bailey has already said his primary focus is to develop players - Jack Watts is a big player in our future and his development will require him to play a majority, if not all, of his games in the AFL next year. And if that means we kick 1 goal 4 behinds less because Newton isn't there then so be it.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If many of the senior players retire or are delisted this year then on average age, years of experience and games played the 2010 list will probably be younger, less experienced and few games played than the 2009 list......but better......hopefully..in the long run.

There will still be some pain in 2010 as the younger players learn the game.

[Rogue 585]

But Bailey has already said his primary focus is to develop players - Jack Watts is a big player in our future and his development will require him to play a majority, if not all, of his games in the AFL next year. And if that means we kick 1 goal 4 behinds less because Newton isn't there then so be it.

I think Newton and Watts can both get games, particularly if Robbo and/or Miller aren't around next year.

I also wouldn't be too optimistic about next year. Again, I expect us to be more competitive and this should be reflected in our percentage, but I think we'd need to be very fortunate to get 10 wins (let alone finals).

We're going to have a pretty inexperienced side and we're going to have inexperienced players playing leading roles.

Hopefully we get a decent run with injuries - we're due for it!

[Vipercrunch 2,827]

Hopefully we get a decent run with injuries - we're due for it!

Damn straight we are.

[donny williams no 25 0]

I would say, and many would agree, that Watts' output in the forward line next year would be comparable to Newtons' - and Watts can kick straight.

Watts will play on a wing/HFF, but Bate will play HFF/CHF, and Jurrah FF/HFF, and Miller might be FF/CHF. If Newton can get a game in the forward line with Watts - fine.

But Jack Watts will playing games he doesn't deserve, as Jetta has, as Bennell has, as Morton has, because that is where we are at.

We are building for something beyond 2010. Does that mean I don't think we can win games? No, I have already said that 12 wins next year is a possibility. But we cannot win the 2010 flag, so we should be building a team to challenge in later years. If this means winning 8 games instead of 10 then that is the way it has to be.

But Bailey has already said his primary focus is to develop players - Jack Watts is a big player in our future and his development will require him to play a majority, if not all, of his games in the AFL next year. And if that means we kick 1 goal 4 behinds less because Newton isn't there then so be it.

yes, I guess that's ok. But at some point, development of players and winning matches have to coincide don't they?Incidentally, I'm not certain that this year there have been players better than Jetta, Bennell or Morton who could have been played to better effect. I think that in the weather prevailing on Queens Birthday, Watts shouln't have played [Norm Smith often picked teams with weather conditions in mind, tho I concede that grounds were worse then]

I do think there is room for Newton, if he shows enough, plus Watts in the same team.