i can see nathan jones getting the squeze. he's a good player but melbourne have plenty of players capable of playing his position and role.

so i'm highlighting him because when scully, trengove, blease and strauss get games...he'll be looked at to move over.

by the end of the season we will know...

Edited November 30, 200915 yr by disco_demon

i can see nathan jones getting the squeze. he's a good player but melbourne have plenty of players capable of playing his position and role.

so i'm highlighting him because when scully, trengove, blease and strauss get games...he'll be looked at to move over.

by the end of the season we will know...

Blease and Strauss to compete with, and beat, Jones for a spot in the 22?!

Blease will never play the role that Jones plays, and if Strauss ever does he will need a few more summers.

Jones and, to a lesser extent, Moloney are our only clearance players now that McLean is gone. Now I think Scully and Trengove will turn into Elite 'In/Out' Mids but not in their first year they won't, and nor should they be expected to. I will be much happier with Jones and Moloney on the bottom of the packs giving it out to more fleet, and sharp, of foot.

Edited November 30, 200915 yr by rpfc

Bell, Dunn, PJ, Bartram and Miller are obviously in trouble. McNamara, Bail and Cheney are also no certainties to go beyond 2010. Meesen and Newton have been delisted for all intents and purposes.

Of the rest, Maric worries me the most.

Garland's only possible problem is his foot.

Hughes has had no chances. He's never played a senior game. However most of the coaching staff have said at different stages that he is a part of their future plans. Given that there is now talk of using next years draft to elevate rookies, I would think he's going to find himself on the senior list in 2011.

I hope this is an attempt to be funny.

Hughes is coming up for his 4th year on the rookie list - although he has never shown enough consistent form at VFL level to be a serious contender for an AFL game. The coaching staff have had to refer to future plans when asked about him - because he has never been part of their present actions!! On past form, his best chance of staying at the club is to be injured for yet another season.!

Under the previous rookie rules, prior to the AFL changing them after this season, mature age rookies could not be on the list unless they had not played an AFL game. Hughes becomes a mature age rookie this year and so, under the rules at the time, if he played a game last year then we would have to delist or promote him at the end of the year. His form for Casey at the the end of the year was more than good enough to warrant a game or two in the AFL. It seems that the football department were keen to retain him on the list and the only way they could do that, aside from promoting him to the senior list (where spots are very tight - as shown by the delisting and re-rookieing of Meesen and Newton), was to not play him at the end of the year. He definitely would have played last year if not for that reason.

If the football department didn't rate him then they wouldn't have given him an extra year on the rookie list as a mature age player. Instead they would have delisted him, like they did to Valenti, and opened up the spot to pick up a new player on the rookie list. But they didn't, which I think says a fair bit about how the club rates him.

He certainly needs a good season to show that his body can hold up to an AFL workload and can translate his VFL form into AFL form, but the argument that he was playing VFL because didn't deserve an AFL game is an incorrect one. It was due to the AFL's rookie list rules at the time.

Jones and, to a lesser extent, Moloney are our only clearance players now that McLean is gone.

Could probably throw Sylvia in that lot as well - played some ripper games this year in that role!

Could probably throw Sylvia in that lot as well - played some ripper games this year in that role!

Not sure what games you watched. I thought Sylvia played his best footy roaming the ground from HFF, like his game against the hawks.

Moloney and Jones will play most games next year as they are required in that position - and half decent as well!

McDonald will still spend time working the clearances.

Davey is getting better at it and needs to be in the centre clearances at least.

After that Sylvia should spend more time in the role.

Then it is a lottery - how much can Scully and Trengove handle? Can Petterd step into the middle? Jetta? Grimes? Morton? McKenzie in the second half of the year.

Under the previous rookie rules, prior to the AFL changing them after this season, mature age rookies could not be on the list unless they had not played an AFL game. Hughes becomes a mature age rookie this year and so, under the rules at the time, if he played a game last year then we would have to delist or promote him at the end of the year. His form for Casey at the the end of the year was more than good enough to warrant a game or two in the AFL. It seems that the football department were keen to retain him on the list and the only way they could do that, aside from promoting him to the senior list (where spots are very tight - as shown by the delisting and re-rookieing of Meesen and Newton), was to not play him at the end of the year. He definitely would have played last year if not for that reason.

If the football department didn't rate him then they wouldn't have given him an extra year on the rookie list as a mature age player. Instead they would have delisted him, like they did to Valenti, and opened up the spot to pick up a new player on the rookie list. But they didn't, which I think says a fair bit about how the club rates him.

He certainly needs a good season to show that his body can hold up to an AFL workload and can translate his VFL form into AFL form, but the argument that he was playing VFL because didn't deserve an AFL game is an incorrect one. It was due to the AFL's rookie list rules at the time.

Well that's an extraordinarily clever piece of list management ......" That bloke deserves a game - but we're not going to see if he can play at AFL level - so that we can keep him on the rookie list............. And he doesn't want the opportunity to prove that he should be promoted to the primary list because he's got his heart set on being a mature age rookie.. !?

You must have very close contact with the club - and/or the man himself. Last year the club was heard to say that it felt it had an obligation to rookie him again because of the circumstances surrounding the termination of his previous contract. Was that right or not?

Well that's an extraordinarily clever piece of list management ....

I'll say !

- Brad Miller

- Clint Bartram

- Addam Maric

Not sure what games you watched. I thought Sylvia played his best footy roaming the ground from HFF, like his game against the hawks.

Yeah, spent a lot of those games across half forwrd too - but did get thrown into the "centre" clearances at stages.......that's all i meant! like you said though - probably needs to be thrown in a bit more?!

Well that's an extraordinarily clever piece of list management ......" That bloke deserves a game - but we're not going to see if he can play at AFL level - so that we can keep him on the rookie list............. And he doesn't want the opportunity to prove that he should be promoted to the primary list because he's got his heart set on being a mature age rookie.. !?

You're only looking at the superficial consequences and not the intended ones. The idea behind AoB's theory is that it buys him more time; another year in fact. It means we could massively hedge our bets by retaining him on the cheap for the extra year. The alternative would be to give him one or two games at the end of the year, but what happens then? In a small handful of games, the FD are not going to learn anything they don't already know, it's simply not enough time, so they're forced to prematurely swing the axe, or prematurely promote him, both of which carry the risk of undesired consequences.

In short, if the FD had decided by the very late season (say, round 19) that they still had not made up their minds on Hughes, then AoB's theory is the perfect way to buy time.

If I were the player, I'd certainly choose a guaranteed second year on the rookie list over risking being delisted. What would you do?

Well, if you look at the theories for why that would happen then it is the most logical explanation. His form was 10x better than Rohan Bail's at the time and both were eligible to play seniors at that stage. Bail got the nod and Hughes (despite Hughes' good form) missed out at the time.

And then we see that Hughes has been retained on the rookie list and, at the time, he wouldn't have been allowed to if he'd played a game.

It just makes sense.

I like Hughes as a player because he's very clean and has great pace as a medium forward. And being picked to play AFL football isn't Hughes' decision, it's the football department's.

Well, if you look at the theories for why that would happen then it is the most logical explanation. His form was 10x better than Rohan Bail's at the time and both were eligible to play seniors at that stage. Bail got the nod and Hughes (despite Hughes' good form) missed out at the time.

And then we see that Hughes has been retained on the rookie list and, at the time, he wouldn't have been allowed to if he'd played a game.

It just makes sense.

Well it makes sense if you expect Hughes - who at 23 is not good enough to be on the primary list of the bottom side - to improve sufficiently to debut as a 24 or 25 year old in an improving side down the track.

He's not a big man, he's not especially quick, and he doesn't exhibit any special football nous. He's never been a standout in the VFL. When you factor in his history of injury - you've got to conclude that the odds are stacked against him.

Not especially quick?

You've never seen him, have you? If you have then you didn't notice him. I think that explains a fair bit of your argument.

Either way, he would have played last year such was his form. We were having a hard enough time delisting enough players to get the draft picks we did (hence delisting Newton and Meesen and rookieing them, as well as keeping Jordie McKenzie on the rookie list).

He's a medium forward who is lightning quick, has great hands and is strong overhead. Injuries have held him back, but the talent is undeniably there.

I've noticed a few people are worrited about Maric.

Just wait and see how 2010 pans out. I still think we have a gem on our hands, is a lovely user of the pill.

Not especially quick?

You've never seen him, have you? If you have then you didn't notice him. I think that explains a fair bit of your argument.

Either way, he would have played last year such was his form. We were having a hard enough time delisting enough players to get the draft picks we did (hence delisting Newton and Meesen and rookieing them, as well as keeping Jordie McKenzie on the rookie list).

He's a medium forward who is lightning quick, has great hands and is strong overhead. Injuries have held him back, but the talent is undeniably there.

Well I've watched several matches - both TV and live - when Hughes has been named - and I've never noticed this lightning quickness of his. He must have been running where the ball wasn't ! He has a big spring but he rarely jumps at the right time to demonstrate his ability overhead. He was certainly a better player at Casey than he was at Sandy.

Perhaps injuries have held him back - but they had better letter him go quick smart!!

Well it makes sense if you expect Hughes - who at 23 is not good enough to be on the primary list of the bottom side - to improve sufficiently to debut as a 24 or 25 year old in an improving side down the track.

He's not a big man, he's not especially quick, and he doesn't exhibit any special football nous. He's never been a standout in the VFL. When you factor in his history of injury - you've got to conclude that the odds are stacked against him.

Someone at the club ticked you off over bagging Barts?????

Given that our third pick is likely to be nearing #60 in the draft and we've still got a few average players on the list, I'm not sure a player we rated quite highly as a youngster (like Maric) is likely to be in the gun. Those types will be persevered with, given access to young talent in the draft will be more difficult.

Given that our third pick is likely to be nearing #60 in the draft and we've still got a few average players on the list, I'm not sure a player we rated quite highly as a youngster (like Maric) is likely to be in the gun. Those types will be persevered with, given access to young talent in the draft will be more difficult.

I also think that people forget Maric was underage when we drafted him, and spent his first season, much like Watts and Blease this year, completing VCE.

Last year was his first real AFL season where he got to undertake pre-season training, but unfortunately suffered a season ending shoulder injury.

He showed in a number of games this season that he is a very smart player and an exceptional kick (except his first game this year where he was well off ), and we certainly lack smart smalls in our forward line who are versatile enough to also push into the midfield.

Can definitely see a role for him in our best 22.

what about jordie mackensie

I also think that people forget Maric was underage when we drafted him, and spent his first season, much like Watts and Blease this year, completing VCE.

Last year was his first real AFL season where he got to undertake pre-season training, but unfortunately suffered a season ending shoulder injury.

He showed in a number of games this season that he is a very smart player and an exceptional kick (except his first game this year where he was well off ), and we certainly lack smart smalls in our forward line who are versatile enough to also push into the midfield.

Can definitely see a role for him in our best 22.

Maric was been used as the designated kick for goal last friday at training, hes got a smooth style, he looked injury free and i would think he would be looking at a massive 2010.

I've noticed a few people are worrited about Maric.

Just wait and see how 2010 pans out. I still think we have a gem on our hands, is a lovely user of the pill.

Totally agree. Even Maric's name being bought up in this thread is astounding.

At the end of 2010, I reckon Junior will retire. PJ, Bell, Bail, Bartram, Miller, TMac and Cheney are out of contract with no certainty of renewal.

Meesen and Newton are already on the "rookie" list and should be careful planning their 2011 season. Barring a miracle, they wont be at MFC once their contracts expiry.

Unless Garland's injury is deemed terminal to his career, he wont be cut at the end of 2010.

If you look beyond the contracts, if a player is not best 22, fit or in their first season in 2010 then they are at the "cross roads" because I would like to think there will be no easy positions and every spot will be heavily contested each week.

You are a [censored]- Eleven possible changes at the end of 2010. McNAMARA & CHENEY will definately be there. Garland ,unless his injury causes retirement will also be there. I believe there will no more than 7 leave.

I also think that people forget Maric was underage when we drafted him, and spent his first season, much like Watts and Blease this year, completing VCE.

Last year was his first real AFL season where he got to undertake pre-season training, but unfortunately suffered a season ending shoulder injury.

He showed in a number of games this season that he is a very smart player and an exceptional kick (except his first game this year where he was well off ), and we certainly lack smart smalls in our forward line who are versatile enough to also push into the midfield.

Can definitely see a role for him in our best 22.

It depends what you define "at the crossroads" to mean. Is there potential that his position on our list will be reviewed at end of year. I would say possible under certain circumstances. Therefore it depends on what you believe those circumstances to be and how likely they are to occur. I would think for a third year small forward in a developing side if he does not play more than 10 senior games in 2010 then there would be reason for review. I would say there is some likelihood of him not meeting that criteria.

My concern with Maric is whether other players will go past him in the pecking order. Granted he was bottom age and had injury concerns but he is not a true small forward.To me he actually reminds me more of a mini-Porplyzia in style. I actually rate him but he will be competing with Aussie, Jetta and maybe Tapscott for a position and I believe he lacks the defensive skills, hardness and flexibility that these players may offer. I hope he works on his defensive side and endurance because without improvement in these areas he will struggle to get into the senior side.

Edited December 1, 200915 yr by big_red_fire_engine