Looking at the McDonald and Bruce discussion one point brought up in favour of them leaving is that they open up a spot in the 22 and give a young developing player a chance to play 22 senior games and gain valuable experience that they would otherwise have been prevented from experiencing by the presence of the better credentialled veteran.

I think we might be farly close to the 8 in 2011 - what if the presence of the experience player made the difference between 8th and 9th? What about the relative value of a finals game for all 22 players? IMO Junior and Cam would have increased the likelihood of us playing finals in 2011.

Whilst I still think we're a chance for finals in 2011, in the greater scheme of things (all things considered), 22 games of experience for youth is worth a great deal IMO, rather than a quick exit out of the first week of the finals (even though the final might be a great experience). Granted, you can make a case either way.

You can't beat experience, and whilst the side is still very young, it gives a great exposure to the youth and therefore enables the FD to determine and sift through what is required to strengthen the list 'earlier'.

The impact of young guys developing together probably outweighs any loss of competitiveness.

Having the two might have helped us perform a little better but these two would retire/get retired shortly anyway, so we were going to have to learn how to win games without them at some point soon, regardless.

(The scales might have tipped the other way if Bruce and/or McDonald were top-tier players able to exert significant influence on matches, particularly if one was a KPF).

Looking at the McDonald and Bruce discussion one point brought up in favour of them leaving is that they open up a spot in the 22 and give a young developing player a chance to play 22 senior games and gain valuable experience that they would otherwise have been prevented from experiencing by the presence of the better credentialled veteran.

I think we might be farly close to the 8 in 2011 - what if the presence of the experience player made the difference between 8th and 9th? What about the relative value of a finals game for all 22 players? IMO Junior and Cam would have increased the likelihood of us playing finals in 2011.

I think that we are more likely to play finals without Bruce.

A fit Junior would make a difference but that's academic.

I'm more than happy with the path the club is walking.

If them leaving means Gysberts, Blease, Strauss and Tapscott all get good game time then that outweighs finals in 2011. Personally I think we're a monty to play finals next year and the inclusion of the 4 players I mention make this no less likely than having Junior injured and Bruce leaving the hard ball for others.

The games we can put into our talented youth next year is the worth of the season - not the 6th to 10th finish.

But you still do need some leaders around the place.

Although, having said that - I'm more of a rap for our leaders below the age of 21 then those older than that.

"what if the presence of the experience player made the difference between 8th and 9th"

Probably not a scenario worth worriying about for mine. So we just miss out on % or perhaps by 4 points and then rationalise it through 1 less veteran?

_____________________

As a general discussion on experienced players I don't think losing McDonald and Bruce will make a profound influence on our younger group. McDonald served his purpose this year and I think the value adding of having him on our list next year has been overstated by many.

Bruce is a genuine loss IMO as a 244 gamer who knows and plays an important role for us. 1 more year would have been very helpful (especially with the sub rule) but past that who knows? I see it more of a hole to fill than anything else though.

I thought our younger players took the game on this year and showed a fair bit of courage in sticking to the gameplan. We have enough senior players around them and coaches to keep guiding them. They need to build a camaraderie and grow from within now rather than rely on a 34 yr old in McDonald to alleviate their load/progress in the midfield (irrespective of Bruce now leaving). We still have Moloney, Sylvia and Jones in the guts to offer assistance and act as fellow players rather than purely as mentor figures although Moloney covers both aspects.

Look at how many teams have kids in their midfields now - they will be our future competition for success. Sure St.Kilda and Collingwood are more experienced in the middle atm but so what. Lets just accept that they're better than us at this point in time and move on. Like Geelong they will rebuild at some stage.

Does 22 games into Gysberts and Tapscott outweigh finals experience for all of Jones, Bartram, Watts, Frawley, Trengove, Morton, Sylvia, McKenzie, Dunn, Petterd, Garland, Moloney, Jurrah, Rivers, Scully, Wonna, Jamar, Bennell and Bail? It's not clear cut for me.

Does 22 games into Gysberts and Tapscott outweigh finals experience for all of Jones, Bartram, Watts, Frawley, Trengove, Morton, Sylvia, McKenzie, Dunn, Petterd, Garland, Moloney, Jurrah, Rivers, Scully, Wonna, Jamar, Bennell and Bail? It's not clear cut for me.

It's not clear cut.

That said, for me, I'm adament that we'll be better off without Bruce. He's disposal was iffy, put some pressure on him and we're in trouble. He got way too many, cheap and uncontested possessions by running into space behind the ball carrier and demanding it from his younger colleagues. They'll give it to their senior player, despite the fact more often than not they have better disposal.

If Bruce tackled like Junior or put his body on the line when it counted, I think there'd possibly be a case to make. As it is, I consider us more likely to make finals now that Bruce is gone.

Does 22 games into Gysberts and Tapscott outweigh finals experience for all of Jones, Bartram, Watts, Frawley, Trengove, Morton, Sylvia, McKenzie, Dunn, Petterd, Garland, Moloney, Jurrah, Rivers, Scully, Wonna, Jamar, Bennell and Bail? It's not clear cut for me.

Are they mutually exclusive?

Looking at the McDonald and Bruce discussion one point brought up in favour of them leaving is that they open up a spot in the 22 and give a young developing player a chance to play 22 senior games and gain valuable experience that they would otherwise have been prevented from experiencing by the presence of the better credentialled veteran.

I think we might be farly close to the 8 in 2011 - what if the presence of the experience player made the difference between 8th and 9th? What about the relative value of a finals game for all 22 players? IMO Junior and Cam would have increased the likelihood of us playing finals in 2011.

I'm looking forward to 2011 even without the experienced players who have left. I think their time had either come or was rapidly closing in and I have no problem with the club's decisions. It's a tough gig running a football club and, as we can see from the topics on the board and the diversity of opinions, it's often a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

In respect to the topic, I can't see why it has to be so black or white. I think we have a good mix of players to help us into the next few seasons and with that, I'm sure the team that runs out each week will contain a mix of the young and the older and more experienced heads. I wouldn't play youth for youth's sake and generally believe that players should earn their place in the team irrespective of age, sex or religion.

I only wish that Australia's test selectors had the same adventurous spirit of the MFC football department. Sick of seeing the same faces and still dirty on the way they teated Brad Hodge but that's another story.

If pushed to choose between putting game time into Tapscott and Gysberts et al, and limping into a final with a couple of older players who have repeatedly failed at the finals hurdle before, I'd choose the former.

From my understanding of finals footy, you need plenty of pacy, solidly built types willing to take body contact and execute skills under pressure. We should be trying to develop this type of player, not thinly built endurance runners.

Looking at the McDonald and Bruce discussion one point brought up in favour of them leaving is that they open up a spot in the 22 and give a young developing player a chance to play 22 senior games and gain valuable experience that they would otherwise have been prevented from experiencing by the presence of the better credentialled veteran.

I think we might be farly close to the 8 in 2011 - what if the presence of the experience player made the difference between 8th and 9th? What about the relative value of a finals game for all 22 players? IMO Junior and Cam would have increased the likelihood of us playing finals in 2011.

I think we should make the finals regardless. On the strength of a very good draw I have us down for 13-15 wins, and I don't think the loss of Bruce really changes that.

Are they mutually exclusive?

Good point. I dont think they are at all.

IMO Junior and Cam would have increased the likelihood of us playing finals in 2011.

Perhaps, but their presence in 2011 wouldn't increase our likelihood of winning a flag in 2014, and that's all, and I assume the club, cares about.

Since DB became coach the idea has been to clear out and reinvigorate the list - no problems with that. But are we becomming too ruthless? Too youth orientated? Is a player automatically over the hill when they turn 30? Realistically Junior and bruce had more footy in them. If Brad Green is still playing good footy at 30 do we offer him a 1 year contract? Would we blame him if he took 2 years elsewhere?

I think the key factor for me is that we aren't talking about giving 'one' extra kid a go, but giving three or even more a few games over the course of the year - some will just take a development step and not be major contributors, but one or two might become solid in the 22.

The other factor is more opportunities for payers who might have got a dozen or fifteen games next year, but now will more likely play all 22.

I think the opportunities outweigh the losses, to be honest.

Since DB became coach the idea has been to clear out and reinvigorate the list - no problems with that. But are we becomming too ruthless? Too youth orientated? Is a player automatically over the hill when they turn 30? Realistically Junior and bruce had more footy in them. If Brad Green is still playing good footy at 30 do we offer him a 1 year contract? Would we blame him if he took 2 years elsewhere?

Offering them a one year contract isn't saying they are past it. It is saying we think you have something to offer, hence why we are offering you a contract. Players can go downhill very quickly after 30, especially the way the game is going now. Its good business, not really ruthless. We were ruthless in Bruce in not caving in to his demands, but we offered him a contract.

Since DB became coach the idea has been to clear out and reinvigorate the list - no problems with that. But are we becomming too ruthless? Too youth orientated? Is a player automatically over the hill when they turn 30? Realistically Junior and bruce had more footy in them. If Brad Green is still playing good footy at 30 do we offer him a 1 year contract? Would we blame him if he took 2 years elsewhere?

sure the club thought Bruce could play more Football. He was offered a one year contract. The speed of the game is going up each year.

Any player over 30 should be offered no more than one year at a time.. Look at Brad Johnson for confirmation.

Are they mutually exclusive?

Pertinent question.

But faced with a hypothetical choice, I'd take 22 games into the 1 youngster every time.

And who are we kidding? Cameron Bruce would never be the difference between making and not making finals.

He never has been in the past, why would that change now?

But faced with a hypothetical choice,

Yes a hypothetical ...

Yes a hypothetical ...

The point was that it is a hypothetical which demands that they are mutually exclusive.

A very unlikely occurrence in my opinion.

Bruce would never be the singular difference.

Whilst I still think we're a chance for finals in 2011, in the greater scheme of things (all things considered), 22 games of experience for youth is worth a great deal IMO, rather than a quick exit out of the first week of the finals (even though the final might be a great experience). Granted, you can make a case either way.

You can't beat experience, and whilst the side is still very young, it gives a great exposure to the youth and therefore enables the FD to determine and sift through what is required to strengthen the list 'earlier'.

I believe we can achieve both finals whilst gaining pertinant experience.

Since DB became coach the idea has been to clear out and reinvigorate the list - no problems with that. But are we becomming too ruthless? Too youth orientated? Is a player automatically over the hill when they turn 30? Realistically Junior and bruce had more footy in them. If Brad Green is still playing good footy at 30 do we offer him a 1 year contract? Would we blame him if he took 2 years elsewhere?

Green turns 30 in March if I'm not mistaken.

IMO - You've actually brought out a very reasonable question.

When is Green's contract up, and will he be the exception to the rule? Experience is telling me that he wont be the exception, and will be offered 1 year contracts after he is 30.

Isn't it just a standard policy for the club not to offer longer contracts to the 30+ players?