I'II stand by my comment that the two critical errors he made against Collingwood and Bulldogs came at crucial times late in the game that resulted in goals that lost us the lead and ultimately the game. In all likelihood had those errors not occurred we would have won. Its tough to single him out and I wasn't calling for his head after those errors. I am just realistically assessing the situation that we need a small, quick, tough, smart back and skilful back pocket in the future. There is a lot to like about Bartram - I love his intensity and courage. He is a good honest player who gives his all. But he's not our future - his skills (or lack thereof) will let us down even though he has improved as you point out (to which I agree).

And I still don't get the "self serving" reference.

There were other bigger issues that cost us the game against both Collingwood and Bulldogs. Its self serving to nitpick an incident as the determinant merely to serve a pre conceived notion. Might you have not notice all the other efforts and possessions that Bartram got to the betterment of the team's position.

At the start of this year, I would have agreed with your position. Bartram has been better than that this year. In some cases much better. He may or may not be there in 3 to 5 years. But if he maintains this form or betters it, its going to a crack small backman that replaces. At 22, there is no reason why that cannot be Bartram.

There were other bigger issues that cost us the game against both Collingwood and Bulldogs. Its self serving to nitpick an incident as the determinant merely to serve a pre conceived notion. Might you have not notice all the other efforts and possessions that Bartram got to the betterment of the team's position.

At the start of this year, I would have agreed with your position. Bartram has been better than that this year. In some cases much better. He may or may not be there in 3 to 5 years. But if he maintains this form or betters it, its going to a crack small backman that replaces. At 22, there is no reason why that cannot be Bartram.

It is hardly self serving to identify a couple of key errors that resulted in goals. It was done merely to support my opinion - if that's self serving then your condemnation will need to spread across every thread as many posters use examples to illustrate their points. And its hardly "nitpicking" when the errors identified resulted in goals at crucial times in the game.

I hope you are right about Bartram because it will mean we have a quality back pocket/tagger for many years to come which means we can focus our recruiting in other areas. But at the moment we agree to disagree and time will tell who will right.

You have posted a few times about it. For the record.

I think Strauss is quick enough for this role in my forecast. Bartram is definitely a candidate. But Strauss offers more in terms of kick outs and I envisage him being much more effective as he matures.

I like the idea of Strauss because he's - apparently - a pretty good kick but I never saw him as a lock-down defender.

It'll be interesting to see if he does end up performing that role. Obviously having a lock-down small defender with a laser-like boot is a big plus.

However, I've seen him more as a loping HBF so far, so I'm not sure if he has the pace or defensive aptitude. I hope you're right though.

sorry to get off the topic but...

i think if the afl was to allow subs, extend the bench and cut rotations...melb is ready. We have a lot of emerging talent that needs game time. With a young list we should cope ok with the reduced rotations...plus subs and extended bench would allow us to play more players.,..all good in theory.

This would benefit a lot of teams of course...

Dont forget we also have Stefan Martin and he isnt slow

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Have you ever seen him play?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Have you ever seen him play?

Have you?

He came second in the 2008 Grand Final sprint...can't be that slow