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.

Rogue's question is exactly the question I'd ask. If a player isn't in the best 22, or doesn't have the scope for improvement (i.e. potential) to become part of a best 22, then for me he is just list filler. I'm not saying that applies to Valenti, but it's the right question to ask IMO.

The thing about Valenti that haunts me is Greg Williams - too short, too slow, but outstanding football "brain" which made him a ball magnet, excellent defensiver skills and brilliant use of the ball, especially by hand. I used to hate Diesel as a player, but can't deny his value to his team. I'm not saying Valenti will be as good, but that's the niche he could well fit into.

What we've seen from Valenti so far is what he can do when he's been given consecutive games. I still think there's more upside to come - he's obviously played better than a lot of us thought him capable of. We also now know about his work ethic, his determination to improve aspects of his game. He's also shown that he's not as one-dimensional (i.e. in-and-under and nothing else) as a lot of us thought he was. The thing that stands out for me about Valenti is his "football brain", which can be at least as valuable as athleticism,

I don't see that it's a good move to delist a rookie who has had, what, 20 games or less, who has not reached his full upside capacity, who could well fill that sort of "engine-room" role in a different way.

I suppose an issue regarding Valenti is how he sees all of this? Would he really want to rookie for another 2 years ?? Might he feel he has a chance in the PSD ? In reality he's done nothing wrong. He's probably fulfilled the expectaions ( possibly surpassed them ) of the club and still has upside. Thats more than some at the club !! Its a conundrum..

I suppose an issue regarding Valenti is how he sees all of this? Would he really want to rookie for another 2 years ?? Might he feel he has a chance in the PSD ? In reality he's done nothing wrong. He's probably fulfilled the expectaions ( possibly surpassed them ) of the club and still has upside. Thats more than some at the club !! Its a conundrum..

Not really. In order for us to retain him on the rookie list as a third year rookie, we have to delist him, and he is then required to nominate for the National, Pre-season and Rookie drafts. I assume it's done that way on purpose to stop clubs from deliberately holding on to rookies forever without giving them a proper opportunity. So we're forced to either promote, or give Shane the opportunity to ply his trade elsewhere / give other clubs the opportunity to grab him. Either way, it's completely out of Shane's hands.

Not really. In order for us to retain him on the rookie list as a third year rookie, we have to delist him, and he is then required to nominate for the National, Pre-season and Rookie drafts. I assume it's done that way on purpose to stop clubs from deliberately holding on to rookies forever without giving them a proper opportunity. So we're forced to either promote, or give Shane the opportunity to ply his trade elsewhere / give other clubs the opportunity to grab him. Either way, it's completely out of Shane's hands.

youve just provided the argument that its not out of his hands.. He CAN opt for the PSd..he has options.. He can ask the club what they are doing..and if not a suitable answer go elsewhere ( or put hand up to do so )

The Conundrum is really the clubs..not his.. I possibly didnt convey that before.

youve just provided the argument that its not out of his hands.. He CAN opt for the PSd..he has options..

No - as per the rules, he HAS TO nominate if he wants to be eligible for a third year on the rookie list. He doesn't have an option. If we don't promote him this year, his options are nominate for all the drafts (which he would obviously do), or quit football.

Only when he's been through all three drafts and remains unselected are we able to put him on the rookie list for a third year. The same applies for Jake Spencer.

Either way, you're right in that the conundrum is the club's, not Valenti's.

thanks for clarification.. I didnt realise he still had to nominate for the draft having been elevated., thought it was straight into the PSd.. Apparently not

Rogue's question is exactly the question I'd ask. If a player isn't in the best 22, or doesn't have the scope for improvement (i.e. potential) to become part of a best 22, then for me he is just list filler. I'm not saying that applies to Valenti, but it's the right question to ask IMO.

My point was that there are half a dozen players on our list I would have behind Valenti.

Of course, you select every player on your list with an eye to them improving your first 22. Valenti is behind a few in the midfield but if his inclusion in the best 22 means Beamer, Scully, and Davey get to kick more because he is the one at the bottom of the packs well that is great.

I don't know if they'll be able to fit him in but he has shown he can play at this level. Good luck to him. If he plays for another club after we have overlooked him I will understand the club's decision and I won't begrudge Shane any success at all.

My point was that there are half a dozen players on our list I would have behind Valenti.

Of course, you select every player on your list with an eye to them improving your first 22. Valenti is behind a few in the midfield but if his inclusion in the best 22 means Beamer, Scully, and Davey get to kick more because he is the one at the bottom of the packs well that is great.

I don't know if they'll be able to fit him in but he has shown he can play at this level. Good luck to him. If he plays for another club after we have overlooked him I will understand the club's decision and I won't begrudge Shane any success at all.

I agree with what you say. If MFC don't rate him enough to draft him, so be it, but I expect him to be picked up by someone in the draft.

Sellers market I reckon.

Rogue's question is exactly the question I'd ask. If a player isn't in the best 22, or doesn't have the scope for improvement (i.e. potential) to become part of a best 22, then for me he is just list filler.

Exactly.

If someone's not in the best 22 you need a very good reason to keep them on. Generally, that reason is that you feel they have the potential to be a best 18 player.

When you're rebulding the list, as we are, I don't see the need to keep fringe players who you feel have limited upside. If we were 'in the window' there might be some justification for doing so (ie. keep a spare tall to give ruck depth).

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.

IDisagree. He is a natural accumulator of the ball and is physically strong , acommon weakness acrossour list.His tackle count is excellent and he would be my first mid fielder selected now and going forward even if afulllist was available Allhe needs is the continued opportunity to play and his self belief wil grow. He does not now at the moment that he will get a regular spot ,but once hebeleives that he has earnt his spot watch this kid grow in his presence on the field.

and by the way Im not related to him

IDisagree. He is a natural accumulator of the ball and is physically strong , acommon weakness acrossour list.His tackle count is excellent and he would be my first mid fielder selected now and going forward even if afulllist was available Allhe needs is the continued opportunity to play and his self belief wil grow. He does not now at the moment that he will get a regular spot ,but once hebeleives that he has earnt his spot watch this kid grow in his presence on the field.

and by the way Im not related to him

That's ok, you disagree. I won't object to that. I acknowledge he is a accumulator of the ball, I acknowledge that he can tackle. In fact I hope Bailey plays him in these 2 remaining games against quality opposition. Then we'll all know where he stands.

What I also acknowledge is that IMO the likes of McLean, Moloney & Jones have him covered in most departments, particularly disposal under pressure. I'm surprised you've said he would be your first selected midfielder from our current list. Mind boggling that one. Each to their own though.

Let's see him up against carlton's and st.kilda's midfields phantom8. A decision may have already been made.

No problem.

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?

He's only been in the senior team for 2 minutes! Give him a chance to rate!

That's basically been my main point when discussing Valents so far. He's earnt the right for a chance IMO

But we might be coming from vastly different areas anyway Ht:

-Davey, surely in his 1st full year as a midfielder/onballer would be classed in the upper echelon of the 'B- grade Mids? Like a B+ rather than a B-

Definately not 'C- Grade"!!

-An Bartel, a B- Grade Mid?? Thats brownlow medalist and premiership player, Jimmy Bartel right?

EDIT: think Selwood is a year away from being that elite, consistant A- Grade Mid. B+ for mine.

I look at it like this: Swap Davey an Selwood around. Selwood wouldn't be as good as he is playing

for us. Davey would be better with the midfield skill of geelong around him and i believe this MUST

be taken into consideration. But.. i digress..

Edited August 20, 200916 yr by DemonDan...

I see there are new rules for trade week this year (rookies can be traded). Here

I hope the MFC elevates Valenti. But if they don't, I hope they help him get a game at another club.