Explanations and biases:

For the purposes of this I am going to say that there will be 7 named defenders, although I am well aware that players will have a run in the middle, and vice-versa.

I believe Rivers, Frawley, Garland, and Warnock can play in the same backline.

I like Garland for the 'QB role' that Grimes and Bruce played in 2009. But I admit that there are doubts surrounding Garland being available at the start of 2010.

Players considered - Frawley, Grimes, Garland, Bell, Junior, Cheney, Rivers, McNamara, Bruce, Warnock, Bennell, and Strauss.

I believe that Junior and Bruce will be used they way they were in the last 6 weeks of 09 - in a BP and a HBF respectively.

That was not easy.

I hated leaving Bennell out of the backline, and I'm looking forward to seeing Strauss play off half back.

I was relieved to read that this is under that the assumption that players will rotate through the midfield at times.

I think this poll, like many discussions on the forum, highlights the depth we're starting to get at MFC. I really like all of the players you listed, except for one, and I really hope he has a break-through year. I won't name him b/c I have made a vow not to rubbish any of our players just in case they read the site.

Much clearer than the forward line task. No Bartram?

I think you really need a Utility option for Bruce, thats been his role for a number of years. He'll be used all over the place depending on match-ups, generally defensive roles though, so I picked Defence.

I don't buy into the 'too tall' thinking either, Garland & Frawley are both capable rebounders, have pace and can play small, Garland in particular.

I picked Strauss as the 8th, only because getting games into him is a priority, I hope to see both he & Bennell as regular picks though. It pains me to say it but this task just reinforces my view that J-Mac should have retired, may be I under value the importance of leadership & experience out on the field though.

I am still unsure on Cheney, initially I thought his 2009 in-roads dictated retention, then I thought it was perhaps neither here nor there, I'd probably still lean towards giving him another year as small defender is probably not Bennell's best role, I am not sure Cheney is a better player than Bartram though and we only need 1 player of that type, he doesn't hack it like Barts but Barts is better at checking his man.

Bell is finished, like others I once held hopes of a midfield role, cant see that ever happening with the kids we'll have to play there now.

Interested to see how T-Mac goes if hes retained, could be a wildcard.

FB: Rivers Warnock Bennell

HB: Bruce Frawley Grimes

Int: Garland

Thoughts

Garland:might not be available for round 1 in which case others come into thinking, and I want to try him forward at some stage but the first thing I'd like to see is him back to being a versatile athletic defender.

4 talls: Saints had Fisher, Dawson, Blake + Gilbert, Geelong had Harley, Scarlett, Taylor, Milburn - I believe we can easily play 4 talls but it will be important to get run from them. Frawley and Garland have this in their games already but need to step it up. I really rate McNamara as a mid-tall player and he might end up being best 22 ahead of one of the others

Bruce/McDonald/Grimes half back: I like Bruce off half back, he reads the play well, knows when to attack and defend and unless his kicking is off uses it well. Where as I still think Junior will have a role leading the midfield (not in terms of minutes played or being the number 1 player but I think it is where he belongs). That should definitely stay the case if we don't get Ball. I also have concerns over his pace in a deep back pocket. Grimes probably deserves a shot in the midfield but he is just so great off half back and good teams have superb players in this position.

Bennell/Strauss/Bartram: I like Bennell as the small defender and we need to train someone up to play on the (generally indigenous) quick crumbing small forwards. Strauss is another possibility for this position but Bennell has him covered at the moment due to exposed form. Bartram is a good defender in this position but I don't see him holding a spot without improvement in skills

McNamara/Cheney/Bell: I think these guys are competing with the 4 talls for the shut down midsized defender who plays on guys like Mark Williams and LeCras. McNamara needs to work on his body to primarily improve his defence, Cheney needs more skills and speed and Bell needs to get back to playing something like his best footy.

Warnock, Frawley, Garland, Rivers fit in for me. Warnock and Frawley for FB and CHB. Rivers and Garland can push up the ground more, or take smaller forwards.

McDonald will play midfield. Bruce too. Grimes could play defence, but if we bring Strauss in then Grimes could well go into the midfield. Not sure about where Grimes is best suited though.

Bennell and Strauss the two most likely from the others to play defence. Bell no chance. Cheney probably squeezed out of the team. McNamara has the potential to take a spot in the defence, possibly Rivers', but at the moment he isn't ready.

I'm much more comfortable with McDonald and Bruce limiting the minutes of Cheney, Strauss, and Bennell, rather than Scully, Trengove, Blease, and Maric.

That is where my head is on that.

They are going to play, they should play in the backline, and I will put whatever credibility I have left as rpfc on those two playing predominantly in defence.

(Apologies for the grandiose statement - I have just bought the Mumford & Sons CD. Inspiring.)

I don't like having 4 talls in the back half it doesn't give us the run that we need. Warnock and Frawley are certainties Garland is injured so that gives Rivers a head start. McDonald, Grimes and Bruce should play all over the ground depending on match ups. Morton will play a part in the back line as well.

B: FRAWLEY, WARNOCK, BRUCE

HB: GRIMES, RIVERS, MORTON

McDonald and Bennell to start on the bench.

I don't like having 4 talls in the back half it doesn't give us the run that we need.

It can work. Garland and Frawley aren't slow by any means. Two of the best things about those two is their run and carry out of the backline.

Firstly, some good work there rpfc. I like these 'forward' and 'backward' thinking tasks.

I chose Bennell as seventh and Strauss as eighth, much like torpedo's reasoning in getting games into Strauss.

That was not easy.

I was relieved to read that this is under that the assumption that players will rotate through the midfield at times.

I think this poll, like many discussions on the forum, highlights the depth we're starting to get at MFC. I really like all of the players you listed, except for one, and I really hope he has a break-through year. I won't name him b/c I have made a vow not to rubbish any of our players just in case they read the site.

Fair point Barry.

I think you really need a Utility option for Bruce, thats been his role for a number of years. He'll be used all over the place depending on match-ups, generally defensive roles though, so I picked Defence.

I don't buy into the 'too tall' thinking either, Garland & Frawley are both capable rebounders, have pace and can play small, Garland in particular.

I picked Strauss as the 8th, only because getting games into him is a priority, I hope to see both he & Bennell as regular picks though. It pains me to say it but this task just reinforces my view that J-Mac should have retired, may be I under value the importance of leadership & experience out on the field though.

I have my fingers crossed for Garland with his injury. Here's hoping for a full and troublesome free recovery with no hiccups.

I don't necessarily have the same view with regard to McDonald, I think he will be played a bit in defence, I also think some midfield roles can still be there for him, albeit not as much. His experience out on the field is very important from my point of view. Even with new draftees debuting next season and playing a part in the midfield. Exposing them to his leadership on & off the field is - I won't say is critical - but I think it's most important.

I'm much more comfortable with McDonald and Bruce limiting the minutes of Cheney, Strauss, and Bennell, rather than Scully, Trengove, Blease, and Maric.

That is where my head is on that.

They are going to play, they should play in the backline, and I will put whatever credibility I have left as rpfc on those two playing predominantly in defence.

(Apologies for the grandiose statement - I have just bought the Mumford & Sons CD. Inspiring.)

Totally agree with all of that. Particularly the last sentence.

I don't necessarily have the same view with regard to McDonald, I think he will be played a bit in defence, I also think some midfield roles can still be there for him, albeit not as much. His experience out on the field is very important from my point of view. Even with new draftees debuting next season and playing a part in the midfield. Exposing them to his leadership on & off the field is - I won't say is critical - but I think it's most important.

Fair enough. Its just frustrating his primary role is now where competition for spots is hottest.

Fair enough. Its just frustrating his primary role is now where competition for spots is hottest.

I understand the frustration. By the end of next season that role from Macca may be extinguished, and the other competition in those spots may be better for it having played under McDonald.

Fair enough. Its just frustrating his primary role is now where competition for spots is hottest.

In the last 6 weeks of 09 Junior played a very effective BP.

Roles change. I think his has.

I am really surprised that the vote is only slightly leaning toward McDonald in the backline.

In the last 6 weeks of 09 Junior played a very effective BP.

Roles change. I think his has.

I am really surprised that the vote is only slightly leaning toward McDonald in the backline.

Me too. I have him in on a rotational and/or horses for courses policy. It's hard to say, but I have him starting in the midfield for Round 1. But I fully expect him to play in the back half most of the season.

Edited November 1, 200916 yr by High Tower

Warnock still concerns me, I wouold like to see Frawley continue to develop at FB, if all players are fit I would like to see the following back 6

Bennell, Frawley, Garland

Bruce, Rivers, Grimes

That gives us not only a good defensive back 6 but also an attacking one, Frawley might not reach the same level as Scarlett but he has the ability to play a similar type role where as Warnock is more your traditional FB.

Warnock still concerns me, I wouold like to see Frawley continue to develop at FB, if all players are fit I would like to see the following back 6

Bennell, Frawley, Garland

Bruce, Rivers, Grimes

That gives us not only a good defensive back 6 but also an attacking one, Frawley might not reach the same level as Scarlett but he has the ability to play a similar type role where as Warnock is more your traditional FB.

I always felt Warnock was a CHB. With more pace than Rivers. And Rivers was more value as a loose man.

There are my impressions.

Frawley will be a gun FB though.

Both Frawley & Garland have the speed and height to play tall & small. Although i prefer to see the ball in Frawley's hand runningouot of defense as I believe he has the better disposal of the two. River's as loose man & Warnock as FB also make a good combination. I've also become a fan of Warnock & Rivers' aggressiveness, I think it's important to have that presence there to help look after the greenhorns.

I think Bennell, Bruce, Davey, Grimes, Morton & McDonald rotating through the back line & mids is the better mix for this half of the ground. I love watching Cheney play but I worry that his height may restrict who he can play on. We do need to get games into Strauss as well, but I'm sure they'll find room when one of the above six are rested or injured, same goes for McNamara with the talls.

I think Bell will be played only if we are decimated by injuries, so as much I like him, I hope I don't see him out there.

I always felt Warnock was a CHB. With more pace than Rivers. And Rivers was more value as a loose man.

There are my impressions.

Frawley will be a gun FB though.

I think the FB / CHB distinction is becoming less and less relevant, if its not redundant already, where Frawley & Warnock line-up will be determined by match-ups on a week to week basis.

I think the FB / CHB distinction is becoming less and less relevant, if its not redundant already, where Frawley & Warnock line-up will be determined by match-ups on a week to week basis.

I would agree with that, as we have seen Warnock & Frawley in both positions. Strangely enough, for some reason when I pencil or type in a side I always seem to put Warnock as FB, Frawley out at CHB. I think Frawley is a little more confident and more attacking / better with the ball running off halfback with a penetrating kick. That's probably the reasoning for putting them down on paper like that. Or posting like that...

FB/CHB are redundant in that the rarely play out of the square and the hole respectively.

But I still think there is the 'FF' - A bit bigger and slower, short leads, small tank (Fevola, Kossie, Tippett) and a 'CHF' - bigger tank, bit shorter, moves onto the wings a bit (or a lot), chest marker (Brown, Riewoldt, Cloke).

They are positioned all over the place but I believe Frawley is better suited to the 'gorilla FFs' and Warnock the fit, quick CHFs.

I believe Frawley is better suited to the 'gorilla FFs' and Warnock the fit, quick CHFs.

The last 2 weeks of the season, Frawley was our number 1 defender playing on Fev (7 goals) and Riewoldt (6 goals).

He's more suited to taking the number 3 forward.

The last 2 weeks of the season, Frawley was our number 1 defender playing on Fev (7 goals) and Riewoldt (6 goals).

He's more suited to taking the number 3 forward.

Frawley was moved off Riewoldt before most of his goals were scored. If anything, that game showed me that Frawley COULD play on the number 1 forward.

Frawley was moved off Riewoldt before most of his goals were scored. If anything, that game showed me that Frawley COULD play on the number 1 forward.

Agreed.

And against Carlton, MFC were hardly to trying to impede the supply of the ball from MFC's forward line through the centre to Fev.

Analysis by reading the results in the paper.

The last 2 weeks of the season, Frawley was our number 1 defender playing on Fev (7 goals) and Riewoldt (6 goals).

He's more suited to taking the number 3 forward.

Frawley played very well on Fevola IMHO. Fev got one or two ludicrous free kicks (and they really were quite unjustified) but otherwise, Frawley covered him very well.

If I remember correctly during that match, Tom McNamara played on Fev for a time and was turned inside out by him! (However I think young Tom has a future at MFC).

I can't remember Frawley spending a great deal of time on Riewoldt. And anyway, that like the Carlton match was a bit weird in that we weren't really trying, were we!

Frawley is developing into a very good big bodied defender.

And ps: what about Martin? Are his backline days over?

The last 2 weeks of the season, Frawley was our number 1 defender playing on Fev (7 goals) and Riewoldt (6 goals).

He's more suited to taking the number 3 forward.

Fev kicked most of his goals when Frawley wasn't on him, and when he did kick goals on him they were outlandish flukes.

Riewoldt is also, arguably, the best player in the comp and the Dees as a whole weren't exactly after the win after half time - when Nick kicked most of his goals.