OK can probably put this to bed quickly, OOC in 2012 and by that stage unlikely not to accept a 1 year contract by then as we should be v.close to premiership window.

edited because i spell like a grade schooler.

Edited November 9, 201014 yr by mordja

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 agree - the "turning 30" rule is a croc.

Bailey is in his 4th year, has been given charmed run to rebuild his list with 4 drafts of his own choosing & more top 20 picks than anyone else. Making the 8 only means we are in the top 50% in the comp - that should be the minimum we are aiming at with the draw we have been given.

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

Not just this club.

1 yr at a time is a prudent policy for 30+ players wrt contracting.

Regarding Bruce the question is was it purely the 1 yr policy itself that he was up in arms about or the unlikelihood of being recontracted for season 2012 - there's a difference and it is this very difference which exemplifies why such a policy should exist so the club's hands are not tied. To argue against the policy doesn't make sense to me.

McDonald played to the age of 34 I don't see what the issue is.

To the original topic - I could see it bringing us undone a little - as the season wears on. I could see the club bringing Newton back for eg. as a physical presence.

In other words, I think we'll look at a few more recycled players or seasoned state league players to help with the weekly rigours of AFL, let alone finals. The byes will also help.

OK can probably put this to bed quickly, OOC in 2012 and by that stage unlikely not to accept a 1 year contract by then as we should be v.close to premiership window.

Indeed.

I think the right decission has been made. No matter how hard i try i could not get bruce in our best 22-21. James mac would have struggled next year as well with new interchange. Being old does not mean best and i think we have to play our best side possible. And with the interchange rules it makes it even harder. We now have to fit 2 ruckmen into the team which will need some creative thinking. I believe the need to kick goals and have a effective ruck means that you might see spencer lining up in the middle and taking all ruck work in the defensive half while Jamar could be used at forward taking all the ruck in the forward half while being a goal kicking option, which he likes. We will not be strong in september if it is all left to him like last year. Sandilands a great example this, it is just too much work.

My best team would be somthing like this.

Bartram, frawley, Trengrove ( need more than davey that can hit targets out of defence and much better disposal and couragous than bruce)

Garland, rivers, Davey (enough said)

Blease (cant break lines without serious speed and this kids a ferrari) Mckennzie, Scully

Sylvia, Watts, Pettard (to pick up their best kick coming out)

Green, Jamar, Jurah (pretty tough to match up on, none play conventional)

Spencer Moloney Grimes (born to play middle)

Morton as sub, Macdonald (maybe) Dunn, Gryberts.

rounding out the list of guys u would expect to see more of, tapscot-Jones-Struass-Bennel-Bate. Could not fit in aussie either, can see the romantic notion of it, but to limited)

Would not swap one of them for 10 bruces. And glad an era of guys that refused to chase or keep their headdown and were senior players but the first ones beaten when we lost, is now over

Nicely formulated as a topic there Old One of the better ones for a long whiles.

What is the essence ? games in legs v finals experience with a side order of leadership ( from experience ) perhaps.

Some have already spoken about the notion of whether the noted ingredients are mutually exclusive. Id agree they aren't.

There seemed to be the idea that we are close to the 8 and therefor all things emanate from that. I dont concur quite so readily with this.

With respect to season 2011 I put well and truly into the 8. Be that 6,7 or 8 matters not. I put us there. So i dont see any conflict or choice with regards to the ideas of puttiig more games into young legs and allowing the aura of finals to ensume the older ones . Both will happen

To the notion of the hypothetical that there is a degradation of sorts coming from that there wont be the leadership of Junior and Bruce ? Other threads have covered this, but to summise; Macca as good as he was is replacable. The role of captain will be ably carried out by someone. And Im not questioning Bruces game here so much as any true and relevant leadership. If these qualities are more prevalent at times off the filed then again we have many to fill the breech. On field we have all seen the leadership of Green, Moloney, Grimes , Davey to name a few. They dont do it all the time but its there.

Are we denying ourselves any natural progression up the ladder because of the older deletions ? No

Will the vacancies better equip some youngsters through opportunity ? Yes

Will we be playing finals footy in 2011 ? My wordy wordy...YES

Id actually go as far as to say ( and no disrespect to any player here ) that the MFc will be far better next year for those that have left. You d have to suppose that as thats the reason the club has/is done what it has.

When there is Oxygen players can breathe