Reckon Valenti flashed thru the centre and along the wing many times yest and in the last few weeks..and seemed to hit a target every time.

He has picked up the game plan super-quick.

He's not that slow, or too slow like some people suggest imo.

Off the top of my head I'd say Valenti is as quick, or quicker than Jetta, Bruce, Green or McLean..

His possession is clean - Top 10 from our list, on what i saw yesterday- and he's ready-2-go.

As i said on another thread, i just get the feeling he is about ready to explode.. like the master Bate and even Dunn are starting to do. (Dunn just starting to do )

Keep him before: miller or newts or bell or meeson/spencer even! You Can't have too many good mids!! Should be J-macs' replacement..and deserves at least a year to find out.

(Edit: all the above IMHO of course!! )

I agree with you, in that he seems quicker. I've been watching him for a few years now, & wanted him rookied. IMO he was, a bit slow by foot but has allways been a good decision maker @ VFL, & good disposal of the ball. However he struggled @ AFL level in the past, & I was frustrated for him not getting cosecutive games to adjust to the tempo & feel @ home out their.

Yesterday I saw him sprint laterally across the square, I raised my eyebrows with his briskness. I thought [censored], he seems quicker.

I reckon, because he's so dedicated & such a hard worker, that he's been working hard on his leg speed, if thats true, it's paying dividends.

I've wanted him kept on untill recently, where I started to have my doubts & for the benefit of opening list spaces, I started to count him off the list. I think I'm changing my mind again because he is a smart player & a real hard worker.

He might be worth more time.

Rising Star material?

If you asked me a month ago, I would have said he would be gone no doubt. I still think he's facing an uphill battle to get a gig next season, but he's giving himself every chance, which is great to see. He's a good honest footballer. Got to love his attitude.

I think he is a reasonable player but due to our poor list management, that we are losing and being too similar to others in the midfield I can't see him at Melbourne but I don't think it will be an end to his AFL career. I can see him making the Gold Coast list.

Why poor list management? If the Footy department thought he was good enough he would make the list.

I can't see who they would delist to put him, Spencer and our 4 or so draft picks all on the list. I like many have a major problem with Newton on the list.

BS5 and RR, I think you're both wrong.

It's not poor list management just because a bloke on the RL is a decent in and under player and you have three other similar players in a list of forty.

And, RR, it is not an indictment on a player that they remain on the RL if a club uses every rule to its advantage (in this case it is the rule that two years are allowed for those on the RL).

The example with regard to Valenti is that we kept him on the RL, if he eventually makes it onto the list, in 2008 because we wanted to keep open a spot on the list that eventually went to Liam Jurrah.

The amount of time spent on the RL is inconsequential to me, if the FD rate Valenti they will elevate or re-draft onto the list at the end of this year. If they do not rate him, they will not.

Why poor list management? If the Footy department thought he was good enough he would make the list.

Footy department & bad decisions? Not hard that one. Look no further than Newton's 2 year deal. You continually give credence to the Footy Dept's decisions. WHY? You should know better - there are a number (plenty?) of players on our list who should not be or should not have contracts past this year.

We all know you don't rate Valenti. He has had a couple of great games - you'd do well to acknowledge it and move on.

Rising Star material?

Quite possibly. Another week like this one and he might be up there.

Footy department & bad decisions? Not hard that one. Look no further than Newton's 2 year deal. You continually give credence to the Footy Dept's decisions. WHY? You should know better - there are a number (plenty?) of players on our list who should not be or should not have contracts past this year.

We all know you don't rate Valenti. He has had a couple of great games - you'd do well to acknowledge it and move on.

You know, sometimes you make a lot of sense...

Well said.

Spot on. More so than in other years, I feel that trade week will be a big factor in who is delisted. We may trade a couple of players, thereby opening up positions on the list. If not there will be some unlucky players who are delisted.

Tend to agree. May depend if someone like Bartram gets traded/delisted or not.?

Quite possibly. Another week like this one and he might be up there.

Not eligible i don't think. Too old @ 22.

I'm just putting it out there so that this forum is less painful to read if Valenti doesn't get a spot on the list next year.

I'm not here to tell you not to like him, because his story is likeable as I'm sure he is. However in his games this year he has had 3, 3, 4, 5 and 5 contested possessions (average of 4). Everyone is talking him up as being 'no slower than McLean, Jones, Moloney etc' however McLean averages 6.5 contested possessions, Jones 5.9 and Moloney 7.4. If he's not winning contested ball then he is playing as an outside midfielder. A role for which he is athletically unsuited in a team sense as he is not a line runner but rather an accumulator. If you are his height you need to either be exceptional at clearances (Mitchell) or have high class speed (B Harvey/A Davey). He is behind McLean, Jones and Moloney as a slow inside midfielder, plus we have high quality inside midfielders with Scully and Trengove coming in next year. He would never break into that midfieldso we would just be wasting a spot on the list for the same sort of player that everyone complained that Daniher wouldn't get rid of until it was too late.

Just preparing you so that it doesn't come as such a shock.

I'm just putting it out there so that this forum is less painful to read if Valenti doesn't get a spot on the list next year.

I'm not here to tell you not to like him, because his story is likeable as I'm sure he is. However in his games this year he has had 3, 3, 4, 5 and 5 contested possessions (average of 4). Everyone is talking him up as being 'no slower than McLean, Jones, Moloney etc' however McLean averages 6.5 contested possessions, Jones 5.9 and Moloney 7.4. If he's not winning contested ball then he is playing as an outside midfielder. A role for which he is athletically unsuited in a team sense as he is not a line runner but rather an accumulator. If you are his height you need to either be exceptional at clearances (Mitchell) or have high class speed (B Harvey/A Davey). He is behind McLean, Jones and Moloney as a slow inside midfielder, plus we have high quality inside midfielders with Scully and Trengove coming in next year. He would never break into that midfieldso we would just be wasting a spot on the list for the same sort of player that everyone complained that Daniher wouldn't get rid of until it was too late.

Just preparing you so that it doesn't come as such a shock.

Geez.. bit hard when you consider how further the McLeans and Moloneys are in the career and how much more game time they've had. Give him a chance to prove himself.

Highlighted the bold cause, i dont really think 2-3 less 'contested possies' over a match is that much of a gap to make up Especially considering he's on the improve.

I see your point tho. I just think, whether your an inside or outside mid, 4 foot 2 or 7 foot 2 - if you get the ball and hit the target, as Valents did on the weekend (and don't forget he bettered Brent Harvey 2 games back,) you deserve your chance!

He tries as hard as the newtons and millers and bells - and is a better player right now...

Also, your theory doesn't allow for injuries to all our famous mids - which brings me to my final point,

your banking on mids that haven't played a game yet- that we haven't even recruited yet!!

What if BP goes with the Scully/Butcher combo? The midfield would look pretty silly with butcher running thru the centre!! ...with Scully walking along side him...

EDIT: Oh yeah.. i forgot he also only had half a pre-season, so there's no reason why 6 months from now after a full PS with the team, he can't pick up another yard of pace! -and improve his tank

Edited August 17, 200916 yr by DemonDan...

...if the FD rate Valenti they will elevate or re-draft onto the list at the end of this year. If they do not rate him, they will not.

You just argued my point.

BTW, the way if Valenti was viewed as good enough by the Footy Department they would not have had to decide whether to have the PSD pick. He could have been elevated earlier this year when injuries started up and players were out for the season. He wasn't.

Footy department & bad decisions? Not hard that one. Look no further than Newton's 2 year deal. You continually give credence to the Footy Dept's decisions. WHY? You should know better - there are a number (plenty?) of players on our list who should not be or should not have contracts past this year.

We all know you don't rate Valenti. He has had a couple of great games - you'd do well to acknowledge it and move on.

Do you know how player contracts are determined and do you understand the complexities of list management. I doubt it.

I will give credence to the Foot Dept because they are made up of predominantly AFL experienced people with years in the game who spend hours upon hours watching and assessing footballers at MFC and other Clubs. There is alot more information that they are privy to that you and I would never know about. But you know better Mono? I am sure you dont. However in recognising the expertise of the Footy Dept. I will also hold them responsible and accountable for their decisions and the outcomes.

BTW, while I dont agree with the Newton contract, Valenti's future did not rest on the outcome of Newton's contract.

You're clearly a hindsight scholar and its fooled you into a series of "I Know better" postshots.

I'm just putting it out there so that this forum is less painful to read if Valenti doesn't get a spot on the list next year.

I'm not here to tell you not to like him, because his story is likeable as I'm sure he is. However in his games this year he has had 3, 3, 4, 5 and 5 contested possessions (average of 4). Everyone is talking him up as being 'no slower than McLean, Jones, Moloney etc' however McLean averages 6.5 contested possessions, Jones 5.9 and Moloney 7.4. If he's not winning contested ball then he is playing as an outside midfielder. A role for which he is athletically unsuited in a team sense as he is not a line runner but rather an accumulator. If you are his height you need to either be exceptional at clearances (Mitchell) or have high class speed (B Harvey/A Davey). He is behind McLean, Jones and Moloney as a slow inside midfielder, plus we have high quality inside midfielders with Scully and Trengove coming in next year. He would never break into that midfieldso we would just be wasting a spot on the list for the same sort of player that everyone complained that Daniher wouldn't get rid of until it was too late.

Just preparing you so that it doesn't come as such a shock.

It isn't all about winning the contested ball (although it is important)....you havent said anything about his tackling and pressure he's putting on the opposition.

In the last 3 weeks he's had 5, 9 & 5 tackles!!! 19 tackles in the past 3 weeks is pretty good going....not to mention he had 4 the week before that.....just because his contested possession count isn't as high as the other in & under players doesn't mean he isn't putting in the grunt work.

Just to compare the pressure on the ball carrier since round 17:-

Tackles

S.Valenti - 4, 5, 9, 5 = 23

J.McDonald - 3, 6, 3, 5 = 17

N.Jones - 7, 1, 1, 1 = 10

B.Moloney - 6, DNP, 1, 1 = 8

Note, i haven't included McLean as he has missed 3 of the last 4 rounds.

I can see Valenti taking McDonalds role in the team as of next year....Should McDonald be moved on to provide a spot on the main list for Valenti?

My other question is, do you think having Valenti in the team has allowed Jones or others in the team space to improve other aspects of their game...ie not being at the bottom of the pack and instead being able to spread and creating attacking options?

Edited August 17, 200916 yr by Bingo

I think alot of people are forgetting about our entire list. If we had everyone fit, he wouldn't be getting a game, plain and simple. He got an opportunity through injuries to other players. We haven't even seen the likes of Blease, Strauss & Co. yet. Now we're getting most likely two star midfielders in the draft and people are putting valenti on a pedastal ahead of Mclean, Moloney & Jones.

He might be ok at ground level in and under, but opposition sides will take his opponent up forward where he will struggle for height. He doesn't hurt opposition like a Moloney, McLean and Jones can - let alone the new draftees.

Valenti's hope of staying on Melbourne's list is if someone like bartram gets delisted, and he gets elevated. Which may just be a little unlikely.

30 possessions against a fragile and complacent and pathetic Fremantle won't cut it I'm afraid. Let's see his form against quality in the Carlton and StKilda midfields.

It isn't all about winning the contested ball (although it is important)....you havent said anything about his tackling and pressure he's putting on the opposition.

In the last 3 weeks he's had 5, 9 & 5 tackles!!! 19 tackles in the past 3 weeks is pretty good going....not to mention he had 4 the week before that.....just because his contested possession count isn't as high as the other in & under players doesn't mean he isn't putting in the grunt work.

Just to compare the pressure on the ball carrier since round 17:-

Tackles

S.Valenti - 4, 5, 9, 5 = 23

J.McDonald - 3, 6, 3, 5 = 17

N.Jones - 7, 1, 1, 1 = 10

B.Moloney - 6, DNP, 1, 1 = 8

Note, i haven't included McLean as he has missed 3 of the last 4 rounds.

I can see Valenti taking McDonalds role in the team as of next year....Should McDonald be moved on to provide a spot on the main list for Valenti?

My other question is, do you think having Valenti in the team has allowed Jones or others in the team space to improve other aspects of their game...ie not being at the bottom of the pack and instead being able to spread and creating attacking options?

Surely not, Valenti is too slow to catch anyone isn't he??

Spectators seem to watch games of footy with prejudices. Footy produces the unexpected. Colin Garland is a good example.

I saw things watching Valenti playing the last couple of weeks albeit against ordinary opposition which can be defined as footy smarts. Ie looking around and selecting his options quickly and delivering the ball well, turning his body to evade tacklers and just some other intangibles that show that the bloke is a footballer. He is the antithesis of Daniel Bell who may be fighting for the same spot on the list. Bell is far more athletic but much less of a footballer.

If it were any other second year rookie that played that game on the weekend everyone would be universally singing his praises. Many had already put a line through his name and seem to be treating his performance as an affront to thier footy intelligence.

What it will come down to is balancing the list. Valenti is physically limited and can only really be used in the guts. The question is, Is he good enough at what he does to own that position outright? Have we seen enough of him to answer this question?

I think alot of people are forgetting about our entire list. If we had everyone fit, he wouldn't be getting a game, plain and simple. He got an opportunity through injuries to other players. We haven't even seen the likes of Blease, Strauss & Co. yet. Now we're getting most likely two star midfielders in the draft and people are putting valenti on a pedastal ahead of Mclean, Moloney & Jones.

Forgot you were picking the teams an that HT.

Glad to see you've put some 'rhino richards' negetive spin into your post to support your point.

We could apply this post to the same situation as Garland, Bate, Slyvia faced a year ago!!

Now look where those guys are..

Haven't seen the likes of Blease, strauss an co.

Exactly! Least we know Valenti can play.

You don't think he's earnt a year to see if he can't keep progressing- In case those young lads don't?

People are putting Valenti ahead of the Brocks, Jones and Moloneys ATM - Thats cause he's been our best midfielder for the last month or so!!

Surely that makes sense??

Deserves his chance BP! ...whether it works out or not...

Glad to see you've put some 'rhino richards' negetive spin into your post to support your point.

Hey, just cause your negetive bugger here, doesn't mean your not a top bloke in the real world!?

Outside the heated debates of the footy forum :D

Double Oops! :D

Must have been the collision of the capital D's in the names. Mea culpa

You just argued my point.

BTW, the way if Valenti was viewed as good enough by the Footy Department they would not have had to decide whether to have the PSD pick. He could have been elevated earlier this year when injuries started up and players were out for the season. He wasn't.

I seriously doubt whether you actually care about arguing your point properly as you know full well I didn't 'argue your point.'

You pick and choose and it's rather taxing to keep responding to a bloke who will not even concede the premise of my argument.

The FD if they rate Valenti, did not need to elevate Valenti at the end of last year as he had another year on the RL as an option. They could just be using every rule to their advantage and elevate at the end of this year. It does not mean, necessarily, that they don't rate him.

Is Valenti a best 22 player in a good side?

Does Valenti have the potential to be a best 18 player in a good side?

Forgot you were picking the teams an that HT.

No problem.

People are putting Valenti ahead of the Brocks, Jones and Moloneys ATM - Thats cause he's been our best midfielder for the last month or so!!

You think so??!!

I think you've got to assess where you want this club and team to go. When building a team of quality players to embark on the Top 8, then Top 4, ask yourself this, is Valenti good enough to be a part of our midfield - let alone our starting 22 in pursuit of a Premiership?

If the likes of Judd, Ablett, Selwood, Swan, Cooney are A- grade midfielders....

If the likes of S.Thompson, Corey, Bartel, Pendlebury, Mitchell, Murphy, Hayes, are B- grade midfielders....

If the likes of Davey, O'Bree, Vince, Power, Ball, Sylvia, Sewell are C - grade midfielders....

Where does Valenti rate?

If the side is to build a midfield - a quality midfield - where does Valenti fit in?

You need to assess where you want this team to go, and who is going to come on the journey.

Is Valenti a best 22 player in a good side?

Does Valenti have the potential to be a best 18 player in a good side?

I don't know.

Would've said Garland was a hack early 2008 (in fact I did say that), look how that turned out...

You're asking the wrong question - Does this 22 yr old, who has offered more than half a dozen on our list, deserve a place on our list?

And I think the answer is yes.

The next question is - Can we fit him in with our contractual obligations to other players?

We'll find out...