Fancy one of your own supporters saying we don't have a player in the top 150, despite the fact it is blatantly erroneous, why would you post it?

Totally agree.

le cras kicked 59 goals in that west coast team last year. id go so far as to say hed be in any team in the comp as a medium forward. name me a better one. that would put him in the top 50.

Robbo played as a small fwd in 2005 and kicked 70 goals. He didn't make Mike's top 50.

Its clearly subjective but I stand by my call that Le Cras shouldn't be there.

Robbo played as a small fwd in 2005 and kicked 70 goals. He didn't make Mike's top 50.

Its clearly subjective but I stand by my call that Le Cras shouldn't be there.

Based on that, no he shouldn't, but personally I think LeCras does deserve to be there.

But the list is such a joke i almost expected to see Jake King in the 30s.

Ah 45, you're at it again. The actual comment from WYL was "Over the last 3 years we would have struggled to get a player in the Top 100-150". In no way he stated your words of "NONE of our players would be in the top 100-150..."

This is my opinion, but I'm sure you will manage to read far too much into this and reply with something far from 100% accurate as your recent history shows.

Care to enlighten me as to what my "recent history shows"?

I paraphrased what WYL was getting at and he replied with:

Yes i did & i stand by it.

So, much of your post about me is superfluous.

I'd take Aaron Davey above Andrew Lovett anyday and St Kilda gave a first round pick for Lovett. It's fair to say the Saints would love to have him on board.

I'd rate Riewoldt, Montagna, Fisher, Hayes and maybe Goddard ahead of Davey. I'd probably rate dal Santo and Milne as well over Brad Green. That's still possibly 2 Melbourne players in their top 10-15

At Geelong, I'd have Ablett, Chapman, Bartel, Johnson, Ling maybe Corey ahead of Davey and I compeltely disagree that no Melbourne player in the last 3 years would fit into their best 18.

None would fit into the top 5 at Sydney? You're joking aren't you? Aside from Goodes and Kirk, Davey and Green could quite easily have wandered onto that team and been in their best players.

The crux of what I was originally getting at is to say it's ridiculous to say that no Melbourne players would make the top 150 in the comp. Your run off "top 20 of Geelong, top 15 of St Kilda or Western Bulldogs, the top 10 of Brisbane and Hawthorn, and the top 5 of Adelaide, Collingwood and Sydney, as well as random players like Pav and Sandilands" is incorrect, in my opinion, and is about 60 players short of 150.

Edited March 23, 201015 yr by 45HG16

Care to enlighten me as to what my "recent history shows"?

I paraphrased what WYL was getting at and he replied with:

So, much of your post about me is superfluous.

I'd take Aaron Davey above Andrew Lovett anyday and St Kilda gave a first round pick for Lovett. It's fair to say the Saints would love to have him on board.

I'd rate Riewoldt, Montagna, Fisher, Hayes and maybe Goddard ahead of Davey. I'd probably rate dal Santo and Milne as well over Brad Green. That's still possibly 2 Melbourne players in their top 10-15

At Geelong, I'd have Ablett, Chapman, Bartel, Johnson, Ling maybe Corey ahead of Davey and I compeltely disagree that no Melbourne player in the last 3 years would fit into their best 18.

None would fit into the top 5 at Sydney? You're joking aren't you? Aside from Goodes and Kirk, Davey and Green could quite easily have wandered onto that team and been in their best players.

The crux of what I was originally getting at is to say it's ridiculous to say that no Melbourne players would make the top 150 in the comp. Your run off "top 20 of Geelong, top 15 of St Kilda or Western Bulldogs, the top 10 of Brisbane and Hawthorn, and the top 5 of Adelaide, Collingwood and Sydney, as well as random players like Pav and Sandilands" is incorrect, in my opinion, and is about 60 players short of 150.

Agreed. To say that none of our players are as good as, say, Travis Varcoe or Josh Hunt or Farren Ray or Adam Schneider is a fallacy.

Collectively these sides have been fantastic, but some players have looked a million bucks by virtue of only having to play a role and letting the stars carry the team.

Our better players do not have that luxury.

Agreed. To say that none of our players are as good as, say, Travis Varcoe or Josh Hunt or Farren Ray or Adam Schneider is a fallacy.

Collectively these sides have been fantastic, but some players have looked a million bucks by virtue of only having to play a role and letting the stars carry the team.

Our better players do not have that luxury.

+1

Care to enlighten me as to what my "recent history shows"?

I paraphrased what WYL was getting at and he replied with:

So, much of your post about me is superfluous.

I'd take Aaron Davey above Andrew Lovett anyday and St Kilda gave a first round pick for Lovett. It's fair to say the Saints would love to have him on board.

I'd rate Riewoldt, Montagna, Fisher, Hayes and maybe Goddard ahead of Davey. I'd probably rate dal Santo and Milne as well over Brad Green. That's still possibly 2 Melbourne players in their top 10-15

At Geelong, I'd have Ablett, Chapman, Bartel, Johnson, Ling maybe Corey ahead of Davey and I compeltely disagree that no Melbourne player in the last 3 years would fit into their best 18.

None would fit into the top 5 at Sydney? You're joking aren't you? Aside from Goodes and Kirk, Davey and Green could quite easily have wandered onto that team and been in their best players.

The crux of what I was originally getting at is to say it's ridiculous to say that no Melbourne players would make the top 150 in the comp. Your run off "top 20 of Geelong, top 15 of St Kilda or Western Bulldogs, the top 10 of Brisbane and Hawthorn, and the top 5 of Adelaide, Collingwood and Sydney, as well as random players like Pav and Sandilands" is incorrect, in my opinion, and is about 60 players short of 150.

Milne over Brad Green you must be joking right?

I'd take Aaron Davey above Andrew Lovett anyday and St Kilda gave a first round pick for Lovett. It's fair to say the Saints would love to have him on board.

I'd rate Riewoldt, Montagna, Fisher, Hayes and maybe Goddard ahead of Davey. I'd probably rate dal Santo and Milne as well over Brad Green. That's still possibly 2 Melbourne players in their top 10-15

At Geelong, I'd have Ablett, Chapman, Bartel, Johnson, Ling maybe Corey ahead of Davey and I compeltely disagree that no Melbourne player in the last 3 years would fit into their best 18.

None would fit into the top 5 at Sydney? You're joking aren't you? Aside from Goodes and Kirk, Davey and Green could quite easily have wandered onto that team and been in their best players.

The crux of what I was originally getting at is to say it's ridiculous to say that no Melbourne players would make the top 150 in the comp. Your run off "top 20 of Geelong, top 15 of St Kilda or Western Bulldogs, the top 10 of Brisbane and Hawthorn, and the top 5 of Adelaide, Collingwood and Sydney, as well as random players like Pav and Sandilands" is incorrect, in my opinion, and is about 60 players short of 150.

Exactly.

Davey could walk into any side in the comp as a small forward, but because we lack class in the midfield (currently), this is where he is played at Melbourne.

With 750(odd) players in the comp, IMO we would have at least a couple in the top 20%.

In 3 years time we'll have Frawley, Grimes, Sylvia, Trengove, Watts, Scully, Garland, Davey, Jurrah, Morton, Blease and Strauss so who really gives a flying about this year's top 50. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if one or two more crept in over the year.

Milne over Brad Green you must be joking right?

I wholeheartedly agree and take it back 100%. No idea why I wrote that

Care to enlighten me as to what my "recent history shows"?

I paraphrased what WYL was getting at and he replied with:

So, much of your post about me is superfluous.

I'd take Aaron Davey above Andrew Lovett anyday and St Kilda gave a first round pick for Lovett. It's fair to say the Saints would love to have him on board.

I'd rate Riewoldt, Montagna, Fisher, Hayes and maybe Goddard ahead of Davey. I'd probably rate dal Santo and Milne as well over Brad Green. That's still possibly 2 Melbourne players in their top 10-15

At Geelong, I'd have Ablett, Chapman, Bartel, Johnson, Ling maybe Corey ahead of Davey and I compeltely disagree that no Melbourne player in the last 3 years would fit into their best 18.

None would fit into the top 5 at Sydney? You're joking aren't you? Aside from Goodes and Kirk, Davey and Green could quite easily have wandered onto that team and been in their best players.

The crux of what I was originally getting at is to say it's ridiculous to say that no Melbourne players would make the top 150 in the comp. Your run off "top 20 of Geelong, top 15 of St Kilda or Western Bulldogs, the top 10 of Brisbane and Hawthorn, and the top 5 of Adelaide, Collingwood and Sydney, as well as random players like Pav and Sandilands" is incorrect, in my opinion, and is about 60 players short of 150.

Again 45, you have misquoted what someone has said. If you re-read my post, you will see that in my third paragraph, I have actually stated "...I too would struggle to fit a Melbourne player in to the top 100 based on the past 3 seasons...". With the list of clubs and the amount of players they have that would be ahead of our players, it adds up just short of 100. Not once in that post did I mention that we wouldn't have a player in the top 150 - I said I would struggle to fit someone in the top 100. But, you continue to change things, misquote, or even your own attempts of "paraphrasing" for the sake of starting or adding to an arguement.

I think you have confirmed the last line of my original post to be accurate.

But my issue was with 150, that was my initial contention to which WYL himself said that he stands by. You arguing about that point and moving the goalposts is you misquoting my contention.

However, I will take you to task even over you saying you'd struggle to put a Melbourne player in the top 100. That either means you won't do it (i.e. no Melbourne players in the top 100) or you might (you're sitting on the fence and don't want to state your actual position). You claimed you wouldn't put a Melbourne player in the top "20 of Geelong, top 15 of St Kilda or Western Bulldogs, the top 10 of Brisbane and Hawthorn, and the top 5 of Adelaide, Collingwood and Sydney, as well as random players like Pav and Sandilands." I went through some of those teams and stated my opinion, you have not done so.

And yes, of course I'm adding to the argument. It's been claimed that none of our players are in the top 150 (100 in your case) to which I disagree. Am I not allowed? My opinion was backed up with analysis, I don't see your problem.

This thread is so embarrassing... I am certainly no Mr.Positivity, and I am under no illusions about where we are at right now, but just a tiny bit of support wouldn't go astray. I know for a fact the players read these sites and geez you lot do very little to inspire them to run out there and get hurt for you. Combine that with the fact half of you can't even be bothered turning up to the matches in the first place and people wonder why our lads can sometimes look a little disinterested and lacking heart. It's a bit of a worry really.

Fancy one of your own supporters saying we don't have a player in the top 150, despite the fact it is blatantly erroneous, why would you post it?

PS. Sylvia was just about the best player in the comp for about a month there, his game against the Hawks would have to be one of the best individual efforts of the year. If we were a top 4 side his name would be all over the pointy end of the brownlow table

C&B, the players DO NOT need to read this site, or any other AFL forum to realise that they aren't in the best place at the moment. If they take offence to what we say, it is a bit of a worry. Good players/teams use any bad words about them as motivation (ie Nick Riewoldt and his whole Brisbane/Crying incidents from a few seasons back - I don't see him looking disinterested). Do you want Sheehan to stop putting in his top 50 in the Herald Sun just in case Sylvia, Moloney or aby other of our players reads it and gets offended because we only have 1 player that barely made the field? For them, that should be a wake up call. Pav made the list very high up while being part of a losing team, so I don't want to hear that excuse from our supporters or even our "top" players.

I/We support our players through all times, good and bad. We support by buying memberships, turning up to games (albeit 1 game for me as I live in Qld), and everytime I wear my demons jumper/singlets to my own footy training. There are some players on our list who have more than enough ability to be in Sheehan's top 50, reality is, they aren't in it, and that's the frustrating part about our team at the moment. It's not negativity from my behalf, it's frustration.

But my issue was with 150, that was my initial contention to which WYL himself said that he stands by. You arguing about that point and moving the goalposts is you misquoting my contention.

However, I will take you to task even over you saying you'd struggle to put a Melbourne player in the top 100. That either means you won't do it (i.e. no Melbourne players in the top 100) or you might (you're sitting on the fence and don't want to state your actual position). You claimed you wouldn't put a Melbourne player in the top "20 of Geelong, top 15 of St Kilda or Western Bulldogs, the top 10 of Brisbane and Hawthorn, and the top 5 of Adelaide, Collingwood and Sydney, as well as random players like Pav and Sandilands." I went through some of those teams and stated my opinion, you have not done so.

And yes, of course I'm adding to the argument. It's been claimed that none of our players are in the top 150 (100 in your case) to which I disagree. Am I not allowed? My opinion was backed up with analysis, I don't see your problem.

In regards to putting my top 100 players out there for the world to see will be a total waste of my time, as there will be endless questions raised about why a certain player is rated higher/lower than another, or why a certain player is in or not in. Sheehan gets paid to do that, I don't! However, I do appreciate you coming back with some form of änalysis", you obviously havwe a lot more time on your hands than I do.

While you may think this is sitting on the fence, you would be correct is assuming that I don't have a list of my top 100, therefor my numbers from clubs that would have players ahead of our players is an estimate. I went through the Adelaide list, and easily found 5 players playing better, consistent football than Melbourne playres, might even be able to squeeze another 1 or 2 in there. Upon going through Geelong's list, I managed to get 13 players (obviously 7 short of my original estimate of 20). It does support my statement (and opinion) though that "I too would struggle to fit a Melbourne player in to the top 100 based on the past 3 seasons". Sure, I might be able to find 1 or 2 MFC players worthy of consideration for this list, but it's sad that some clubs (in my opinion) would have 10+ players in there, and we may or may not have more than 1 or 2.

My issue with you is when you quote someone, ensure that you are accurate with your quotes. Also, when you paraphrase, you put in the words that you want to hear and run with it. At times your paraphrasing has been totally inaccurate, however, because you put it up in lights on here, other people read what you say and sadly believe your paraphrasing. I have no issue with difference of opinions, it's healthy, but when things are being stated that are incorrect, that's when it is very dangerous.

But my issue was with 150, that was my initial contention to which WYL himself said that he stands by. You arguing about that point and moving the goalposts is you misquoting my contention.

However, I will take you to task even over you saying you'd struggle to put a Melbourne player in the top 100. That either means you won't do it (i.e. no Melbourne players in the top 100) or you might (you're sitting on the fence and don't want to state your actual position). You claimed you wouldn't put a Melbourne player in the top "20 of Geelong, top 15 of St Kilda or Western Bulldogs, the top 10 of Brisbane and Hawthorn, and the top 5 of Adelaide, Collingwood and Sydney, as well as random players like Pav and Sandilands." I went through some of those teams and stated my opinion, you have not done so.

And yes, of course I'm adding to the argument. It's been claimed that none of our players are in the top 150 (100 in your case) to which I disagree. Am I not allowed? My opinion was backed up with analysis, I don't see your problem.

I never mentioned 150 45 you did that. I said Top 100.

I never mentioned 150 45 you did that. I said Top 100.

You said top 100 after you went back and edited your posts about ten minutes ago.

Anyway, I've stated my belief

I never mentioned 150 45 you did that. I said Top 100.

You mentioned 100-150, read 45HG16's post WYL. You cannot edit your reply in his post (post#8); unlike your post No.7 which you have just edited to suit yourself !

Poor form champ.

Lists are meant to be fun.

Wonder what people feel about where dees players would fit in now?

Wonder what people feel about where dees players would fit in now?

Green, Frawley, Jamar and Sylvia all deserve to be there...anywhere from 20-50

We're 10th and we are commanding 4 positions in a top 50 list. Dream on.

Frawley...yes , and possibly Green and Jamar. Sylvia too inconsistent at this point.

Green definitely. Jamar's had one good season, and so I wouldn't be surprised to see him relegated, though he clearly deserves to be there. Sheahan does like to go with players who've played a couple of years of good footy before he gives them a spot. Likewise he keeps them in the list even if they've had an average season.

IMO Frawley deserves to be well ensconced in the top 40 or so. I doubt he will be though. I'd be impressed with Mike if he was. Sylvia needs to put a whole season together, but wouldn't be far off.

All in all. Green is the only one he'd have to put in. And even then he'll find an excuse to put him at #49 or something.

We're 10th and we are commanding 4 positions in a top 50 list. Dream on.

Frawley...yes , and possibly Green and Jamar. Sylvia too inconsistent at this point.

Sylvia will be there.

I reckon he will have all four.

Wonder what people feel about where dees players would fit in now?

I think Jamar, Frawley and Green might all be in it.

Btw, no reply to the above posts back in March. .... Probably too focused on the Aussies wanting to open the batting on a sticky wicket in NZ at the time.

Lists are meant to be fun.

Well, let's find out if the players mentioned ~ Green, Frawley, Jamar and Sylvia would all be in the top 50 at present.

What do you think Mike ?

Jamar- yes.

Green- yes.

Frawley- yes.

Sylvia- maybe.

Davey- maybe.