Interesting interpretation on my post

You sure you actually read it ?

Now tell me how many years do the MFC extend Brad Millers contract for ?

Yeah I read it. All I'm saying is football cultures are build on respect & loyalty ... both internal & external. Those are two way qualities it goes both ways.

If the club or the supporters dont repect and treat the players with loyality & respect ... why should the players be loyal or respect us?

Answer they wont!!! Geelong have been masters at it, their players have stayed for much, much less than market value. Plus when players have wanted to move on they have been treated with respect ie King & Prismall deals are two recent examples.

Football clubs and supporters want loyalty from there players? Yet are prepared to drop them & get rid of them the second they no longer in our top 22 or "not part of our future" ...

However, I also understand the modern era we live in ... That goes both ways too!

Now tell me how many years do the MFC extend Brad Millers contract for? Until the day their is a mutual parting of the ways. Sometimes you cant measure all players against how many kicks they get every Saturday. IMHO Brad is still in our best 38 players baring in mind were we stand in this upcoming draft & this draft & trading period is not a "normal" year.

Look I accept my views are "old fashioned" but IMHO thats what has allowed Geelong its sustained period of success. If we are going to follow the Cats onfield I just feel we should follow them off-field.

Just my point of view no big deal .. I respect peoples opinions to take the opposite view thats football.

Edited August 9, 201014 yr by hangon007

Well players are selected based on present form, are they not?

Yeah but you also need internal pressure for places. Brad kicking 10 in the second best competition in Australia could not have done a better job.

HOWEVER, we are a club moving into another era and it is the young kids (i.e. our FUTURE) that need the game time moreso than a 26 year old that has not fulfilled his potential and was Melbourne's past era.

Forward thinking is to release Miller and move on.

No premiership lists are build on balance ... a mix of players and ages. Are all Geelong players kids? Are all Collingwood players all kids? Lets take our current premiership favourites ... How did they top their list up this year? With kids? This is not the year to be topping up with kids. Also baring in mind where our current draft picks will be.

You dont have to fill your list with first round draft picks to win a premiership it takes balance & depth.

Edited August 9, 201014 yr by hangon007

No premiership lists are build on balance ... a mix of players and ages. Are all Geelong players kids? Are all Collingwood players all kids? Lets take our current premiership favourites ... How did they top their list up this year? With kids? This is not the year to be topping up with kids. Also baring in mind where our current draft picks will be.

Totally agree! That's why we have Junior and Davey and Bruce and Green in the side. With Jamar and Rivers and Warnock as the next-gen age bracket.

Up forward is Bate, Petterd, Jurrah, Watts, Sylvia, Green, Aussie... all predominantly of young and mid-young aged players (exception of Green who adds the EXPERIENCE) which is a great base for development.

Do we NEED Miller Time?? :/ No.

My Lord, Brad was drafted in 2001, now is hardly the time to be debating whether or not he deserves a game. He's had ample opportunity to become a fixture but has failed again and again to do so.

Nothing has changed. Brad Fisher kicked ten apparently for the Bullants, drafted in 2002, he's in the same category.

Totally agree! That's why we have Junior and Davey and Bruce and Green in the side. With Jamar and Rivers and Warnock as the next-gen age bracket.

Up forward is Bate, Petterd, Jurrah, Watts, Sylvia, Green, Aussie... all predominantly of young and mid-young aged players (exception of Green who adds the EXPERIENCE) which is a great base for development.

Do we NEED Miller Time?? :/ No.

Ok you are entitled to your views. Personally I just think this weeks our opponents have "intimated" us for years. Do we have a player on our list who can physically intimated young backmen and own that goal square? (Now dont get me wrong - NOTHING illegal)

AFL football is a mans game .. ‘Cometh the hour, cometh the man.’

If Brad could come into that side and create space for Watts & Jurrah and own that goal square we could have a very interesting next three week. Now my expectations would not be 10 goals I would be happy with 2-3 yet take the "oppositions" focus away from Jurrah & Watts.

However, that would be up to our coaching staff, so irrespective of the outcome I will support all our players till they are no longer playing in the red & the blue.

Edited August 10, 201014 yr by hangon007

basically the team should be performanced base, i dont care if newton kicked 10 goals, or spencer kicked 10 goals, or in this case miller kicked 10 goals, he will play this week.

another important factor is he is in the leadership group, but bottom line is miller will play this week, hopefully to the omission of paul johnson as i think watts being dropped would be pointless for his development, and he was important in the last quarter, even though he had little stats, 3 goal assists and what should have been 2 goals is enough to keep his spot.

Ok you are entitled to your views. Personally I just think this weeks our opponents have "intimated" us for years. Do we have a player on our list who can physically intimated young backmen and own that goal square? (Now dont get me wrong - NOTHING illegal)

A terrible case of overvaluing the tuff stuff. Honestly I thought even the Stephen Baker decision would have sent some shock waves in even the darkest corners of the football public. Clearly not.

The way you intimidate sides is the frequency and manner that you win the contested ball. Each and every player needs to do it.

Football might be a man's game but its not a thugs game.

basically the team should be performanced base, i dont care if newton kicked 10 goals, or spencer kicked 10 goals, or in this case miller kicked 10 goals, he will play this week.

If the team is performance based how do you justify picking a kp forward when all kpf positions are covered and dropping a ruckman to support Jamar. Makes no sense.

agreed its a tough decision, but surely after 10 goals and being in the leadership group he will have to get a gig.

i dont know what will happen, i was thinking that jamar rucking solo in this match isnt to bigger loss, as hawthorns ruck stocks are pretty poor, but also it is a match where maybe miller could be able to handle a 5 minute stint in the ruck.

dropping of paul johnson was what i thought would be the likely occurance for brad miller, but again im not selection pannel, but the core of my arguement being that it is performance based, 10 goals at casey should mean a match for miller this week.

....

Selection is about making the right decisions for the best outcome for the whole team given its current disposition and the opponent their playing.

Its not just about he kicked X goals therefore he gets selected. Its the same the other way too.

Miller is no certainty to be selected. Given we have Junior, potentially Beamer, Rivers, Davey, Bruce and Green out there, the leadership issue washes as much as it did in the prior week.

true i see where you are coming from, but i can also see the reason for him playing this week after winning the match for casey, it will be interesting to see how selection goes, and even though it makes a hard job for selectors, its good to see all players throwing their names up for selection, even miller who most supporters would say is past it.

similar situation to when dunn kicked 8 goals but did minimal the weeks before at casey, except we had no one kicking goals then

Edited August 10, 201014 yr by Mad_Melbourne

Ok you are entitled to your views. Personally I just think this weeks our opponents have "intimated" us for years. Do we have a player on our list who can physically intimated young backmen and own that goal square? (Now dont get me wrong - NOTHING illegal)

I agree with Rhino's reply to your post...

But maybe you mean an instigator?? That would be Lynden Dunn.

A terrible case of overvaluing the tuff stuff. Honestly I thought even the Stephen Baker decision would have sent some shock waves in even the darkest corners of the football public. Clearly not.

Wrong example. Your example not mine. Terrible case of choosing the wrong player as an example.

I called for a player who has the ability to own the goal square and make opposition backlines think twice about entering the space with his physical presence not his physical thuggery. For me it all about drawing attention away from Jurrah & Watts. Now if our coaching staff don't think Miller can do that job, so be it, if they do think he can do the job I will support him 100%.

I didn't call for a player known for behind the play incidents. That was your interpretation.

Edited August 10, 201014 yr by hangon007

I agree with Rhino's reply to your post...

With all due respect to Rhino he is putting the wrong player up as an example.

I dont and never want any Melbourne player to be involved in behind the play incidents. There is a massive difference from aggression at the ball and the space ... than directed to the opposition player by behind the play incidents.

Just as I said to Rhino, if our coaching staff dont think Brad Miller has the ability to make this distinction or he cant create space for Jurrah & Watts so be it I can live with that. However, I have this feeling he will come into heavy consideration this weekend, because of who our opponents are.

Selection is about making the right decisions for the best outcome for the whole team given its current disposition and the opponent their playing.

I agree with you 100%

Its not just about he kicked X goals therefore he gets selected. Its the same the other way too.

Yes. Ok Its also about all players on our list exerting internal pressure to maintain their spot.

Miller is no certainty to be selected. Given we have Junior, potentially Beamer, Rivers, Davey, Bruce and Green out there, the leadership issue washes as much as it did in the prior week.

By the same token he is also no certainty not to play. However, I can give you one certainty, the attitude of many Melbourne supporters to one of their own.

I just thought of something: Miller is in our leadership group. Hehe.

Who will be the replacement for Miller next year all things going Melbourne's way...?

I just thought of something: Miller is in our leadership group. Hehe.

Who will be the replacement for Miller next year all things going Melbourne's way...?

I rest me case your honour ... No respect. hehehe.

My certainty took all of 20minutes to come true ... hehehe.

Edited August 10, 201014 yr by hangon007

I rest me case your honour ... No respect. hehehe.

My certainty took all of 20minutes to come true ... hehehe.

It probably was a bad call by me because I know his leadership credentials are rock solid. But he's not even in the starting 22 for the Dees.

When he's ousted next year, who replaces Bradley Miller?!?! Pia???

Wrong example. Your example not mine. Terrible case of choosing the wrong player as an example.

I called for a player who has the ability to own the goal square and make opposition backlines think twice about entering the space with his physical presence not his physical thuggery. For me it all about drawing attention away from Jurrah & Watts. Now if our coaching staff don't think Miller can do that job, so be it, if they do think he can do the job I will support him 100%.

I didn't call for a player known for behind the play incidents. That was your interpretation.

You were focussed on intimidation. I explained how intimidation is done in todays football. You overrate the push and shove and I dont see the value of Miller doing it. In AFL he does not have physical presence. Its alot easier in the VFL when you are playing kids shorter and lighter than you are.

You mince words about opposition players thinking twice and physical presence. Any even muted attempt on a player going for a ball will be penalised. You overrate the marginal aspects while missing the major requirements. Miller falls down with those at AFL level. I didn't call for any behind the play incidents either. I used Steven Baker as an example of a player who was front and centre on what he was doing. And the AFL have absolutely set a firm message about physical play on an opponent.

The bottom line is you intimidate by winning the contested ball and the uncompromising way you do it.

No disrespect intended, but assuming Miller isn't at the club in 2011, his spot in the leadership group would be taken by Grimes.

No question.

Even with it being a vote by the players, I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

No disrespect intended, but assuming Miller isn't at the club in 2011, his spot in the leadership group would be taken by Grimes.

No question.

Even with it being a vote by the players, I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

Grimes = 20 games. :/

I was thinking more along the lines of giving Col Sylvia the challenege - that next step in his AFL career. The demise of his off-field indiscretions should be rewarded because he is on the verge of being an A-Grade footballer. However... does he have leadership qualities???

Considering Grimes was a whisker off being in the leadership group this year, I'd say Sylvia doesn't stand a chance.

You were focussed on intimidation. I explained how intimidation is done in todays football. You overrate the push and shove and I dont see the value of Miller doing it. In AFL he does not have physical presence. Its alot easier in the VFL when you are playing kids shorter and lighter than you are.

You mince words about opposition players thinking twice and physical presence. Any even muted attempt on a player going for a ball will be penalised. You overrate the marginal aspects while missing the major requirements. Miller falls down with those at AFL level. I didn't call for any behind the play incidents either. I used Steven Baker as an example of a player who was front and centre on what he was doing. And the AFL have absolutely set a firm message about physical play on an opponent.

The bottom line is you intimidate by winning the contested ball and the uncompromising way you do it.

No you gave your opinion on how you thought intimidation is done in todays football and you named a player. No I did not under rate the major requirements. All I said is we need to try and find a player on our list who can add that "extra space in our forward line and own the goal square through his physical presence. Somebody who can take the focus away from Jurrah & Watts" You are focussed on putting words in my mouth.

IMHO too many supporters miss and under rate parts of the game because they are too busy scream out Your a "dud" "your past it", "your not in our future" , "go to the gold coast."

"You overrate the marginal aspects while missing the major requirements. Miller falls down with those at AFL level." Many players go back to the 2nd for many reasons but that is not to say they cant change. Well at least they cant change in the mind of the supporters!

If you dont think Miller can do that job ... fine. I have no problem with that. However, as long as any player is on our list I hope my football club will not give up on them.

Even though i was wrong with Dunn, Jamar and a few others i see absolutely no reason to go backwards and pick miller, but then again i have been wrong in the past

the reason he kicked 10 goals is because he has an AFL players body but a footbal brain of a VFL player...miller is just a big body...

our forward line seems to be effective without needing to fill it with a big bodied forward that's had his fair chances...