Sylvia I see as an adaptable midfielder who is able to play up forward and has been generally a more outside player than McLean. I think Sylvia

has a better kick than Mclean. Games played are the difference of 6 over their 6 seasons for MFC. In consider Sylvia more important in a side than Mclean

Morton: Won the Larke medal, the best first year player for MFC and has played 40 out of 44 games since debut. He has averaged 20.6 disposals per game.

versus Mclean's 18.8. Morton averages 6.6 marks a game versus 3.8 for Mclean Morton also average 0.7 goals a game while Mclean 0.4. There are few

players in the AFL who have been more impresive since their debut and gone with such little notice. Morton also plays a wing/back flanker role which is

completely different to Mclean.

All good points DD, but with respect, I think you've missed the point of the thread horribly here.

We;re not talking about stats, averages and what a player DOES bring to the team. We're talking about past tense here. What a player HAS done between 2000 and 2009. There's no doubt in my mind that I'd have chosen Sylvia and Morton ahead of Mclean (and likely Jones too depending on how he plays in the next couple of years) if we were picking a side for 2010.

You can't discount the fact that McLean had a far greater say in games, and even in a final, than any of those players. He regularly racked up double digit possessions in the first quarters of games, and went on to crack 25+ 30+ habitually.

Morton has found the footy just as much - but only over the space of a couple of years.

Sylvia has played as many games just about - but has been explosive and dominant only in 2009. Before then he frustrated us a LOT. Certainly a lot more than McLean did. McLean's only REALLY frustrating seasons were this last one, and the one he was injured in.

Jones hasn't covered nearly as much ground as Brock. He's a good player, has played a lot of games at a solid if unspectacular output. I think you could mount a fair case for him based on consistency. But Brock's best in 2005-2009 was far better than Jones' best in the same period.

For what it's worth, I think all three of Jones, Sylvia and Morton could turn out to be better players than Brock.

All good points DD, but with respect, I think you've missed the point of the thread horribly here.

We;re not talking about stats, averages and what a player DOES bring to the team. We're talking about past tense here. What a player HAS done between 2000 and 2009. There's no doubt in my mind that I'd have chosen Sylvia and Morton ahead of Mclean (and likely Jones too depending on how he plays in the next couple of years) if we were picking a side for 2010.

You can't discount the fact that McLean had a far greater say in games, and even in a final, than any of those players. He regularly racked up double digit possessions in the first quarters of games, and went on to crack 25+ 30+ habitually.

Morton has found the footy just as much - but only over the space of a couple of years.

Sylvia has played as many games just about - but has been explosive and dominant only in 2009. Before then he frustrated us a LOT. Certainly a lot more than McLean did. McLean's only REALLY frustrating seasons were this last one, and the one he was injured in.

Jones hasn't covered nearly as much ground as Brock. He's a good player, has played a lot of games at a solid if unspectacular output. I think you could mount a fair case for him based on consistency. But Brock's best in 2005-2009 was far better than Jones' best in the same period.

For what it's worth, I think all three of Jones, Sylvia and Morton could turn out to be better players than Brock.

Mclean is probably deserving of a position in the side It was a difficult task and when it came down to deciding especially for the mid

roles i preferred Jones due to consistency than Mclean. But I can see that the argument for Mclean is a plausible one.