Factors in favour of a recall:

- We have lost approx 600 games experience with the departure of Junior, Bruce and Miller from the team.

I believe at the start of this year that the club intended to retire Junior at the end of 2010; Bruce at the end of 2011, and Green by 2012 or 2013. It was going to be an orderly transition of leadership and knowledge to the new guard. By the end of next year the Scullys and Grimes and Trengoves and Frawleys would have at least 40 games experience and be ideal role models within the club. The departure of loyal lifetime member Bruce has thrown a spanner into this succession plan.

- We could have as many as 10 new kids at the club next year who have never played senior footy. Junior is highly respected as a leader and role model. He would be an excellent on-field and off-field mentor for the new recruits. He doesn't need to be the captain to perform this role but he'd still be a required member of the leadership team. I'm certain the current group would welcome him back if he wants to return.

- We do have a precedent for recalling someone to the club. Norm Smith in '65. Sacked on the friday night before the match (by courier - how bad is that!!!!)and reinstated next week.

Against:

- He is 34. The club has clearly indicated a preference for youth.

- Is he up to it? He took a while to get over an injury this year. It may be a risk.

- would he get a regular game in the seniors or would he be satisfied spending some time with Casey?

In August we asked him to stand down because we still had other experienced players to fill his role. The goalposts have now changed. There are vacancies. We have 5 or 6 spots on the rookie lists and we will have trouble finding good players or Jurrahs to fill all the spots.

If we change our mind, does he have to be picked as a rookie or can he come back as our other veteran (with Green)?

No, No!

We have plenty of players too cover both McDonald & Bruce. Leadership wont be a problem without them.

Our young players will thrive on the opportunity...

The McDonald decision was a good one, that hasn't changed.

  On 06/11/2010 at 09:39, Nasher said:

I wouldn't.

Neither would I.

A number of posters have said that if we knew this weeks ago Junior would have stuck around.

If so, and we don't backflip - our retention strategy has been dictated by a former player who took too long and ask for too much.

Maximize our list, bring him back.

i'd bring him back... in the end it comes down to...

junior vs our 6th selection in the rookie draft;

Having juniors experience vs not having it; AND

playing junior in 10-20 matches vs playing a younger player in that position

i'd say the benefits outweigh the disadvantages

The Dees have the cattle to replace Junior and Bruce (think Jordie Mac, Gysberts) and now there are 2 game day spots for the likes of Tapscott and Blease to fill. The only concern is on field leadership and experience. This is where Moloney, Davey, Jamar, Sylvia, Green and Rivers will step up and to a lesser extent Jones, Frawley, Dunn ect. As good as Junior and Bruce have been, they were hardly responsible for Melbourne's rise this year. This will be a good test of character for a lot of the boys, both senior and junior. 2011, get excited!!!

I'm for it. But now that there's one less Vet, doesn't that mean we can pick up another rookie?

  On 06/11/2010 at 23:01, rpfc said:

Maximize our list, bring him back.

You're normally on the ball rpfc with alot of matters.

I dont think so here though.

  On 07/11/2010 at 21:43, Rhino Richards said:

You're normally on the ball rpfc with alot of matters.

I dont think so here though.

Rhino, I created this thread a little bit tongue-in-cheek

Obviously the odds in a situation like this of the club doing a backflip are pretty long

However, it does seem worthy of discussion. I'm reasonably sure the club in its planning didn't envisage losing both veterans (and Capt/ViceCapt to boot). Junior is obviously well respected and popular and could contribute in many ways.

Of course we don't know Junior's opinion in this possibility. He may well have moved on and committed himself to other goals

Its more a wish/what-if thing than anything else

I may have had one or two too many frothies at the races on stakes day, and had a really solid conversation with a bunch of old Melbourne boys. Neita and Nathan Brown...i asked the question. how are we going to cover the experience of losing junior and millsy?

they both said....guys like greeny, rivs and BRUCE will be the ones right at the top.

little did they know

Needless to say I'm all for it!!

The thread has merit, even if it is just to reflect with hindsight.

Im not for bringing him back, but wouldnt have let him go initially, if I knew bruce was going.

Whats done is done. Would only make us look reactive and rudderless. Will spread like a cancer. New leaders will step up and perhaps from the most unlikely scenarios. There will always be leaders and many of our past leaders have been appointed by default. So we haven't lost much if anything IMO. We have a much better talent pool and steadily increasing experience to look into now.

We'll be fine without him but the statement I said before still rattles around in my head:

If we knew Bruce was off I think we would have given Junior another.

So now I can't help but get to the conclusion that TH's job has been dictated to by a former player.

It does not sit well with me.

I don't care about what 'it will look like' - I only care about a flag, and if experience is needed to drive this kids on then bring him back.

We have leaders to replace him but...

There are leaders and then there are leaders...

Junior is/was one.

rpfc is right in that if we knew Bruce was going and would have kept McDonald we should now keep McDonald. That does have some issues regarding whether we've essentially burned the bridge and whether McDonald has moved on, etc.

However, I'd rather give McKenzie the role McDonald had. We also have guys like Gysberts and Tapscott that I can't fit into the 22, and they're even less likely to get a game if we retain McDonald.

I think I'd rather get games into our young mids than have McDonald.

  On 08/11/2010 at 02:00, Rogue said:

rpfc is right in that if we knew Bruce was going and would have kept McDonald we should now keep McDonald. That does have some issues regarding whether we've essentially burned the bridge and whether McDonald has moved on, etc.

However, I'd rather give McKenzie the role McDonald had. We also have guys like Gysberts and Tapscott that I can't fit into the 22, and they're even less likely to get a game if we retain McDonald.

I think I'd rather get games into our young mids than have McDonald.

Spot on.

  On 07/11/2010 at 21:43, Rhino Richards said:

You're normally on the ball rpfc with alot of matters.

I dont think so here though.

I concur.