On 17/12/2010 at 03:28, Curry & Beer said:

but what exactly are you worried about? I can only imagine that you mean older players (old enough to not be part of our premiership tilt) taking a spot in the 22 over a kid... but there aren't any players like that! Green is our oldest now and he's obviously not getting dropped!

It isn't just who plays. It's where, and for how long.

Do we want Grimes in the midfield? Well that means playing someone in his position across half back - a kid? Probably. To the detriment of the immediate fortunes of the team? Definitely. Fantastic for our future if Grimes is as good a mid as many believe? Definitely.

Same with getting Green out of the forward 50 and letting Watts and Jurrah find their way.

Spencer getting ruck duties.

Trengove playing different roles.

Trying to find Nat Jones a place long term.

All these things don't help us short term, but help long term - help us win a flag.

  On 17/12/2010 at 05:06, High Tower said:

What odds would you give ?

{let's not forget, if I'm a bookmaker and in business, I'd want to attract business...)

High tower if a book maker put those odds out I would have money on it. Not enough money that it hurts but enough that will give me a good return. A couple of hundred at 125/1 if it gets up it will put 25K in my back pocket if it doesn't I lose $200 no big deal.

  On 17/12/2010 at 05:04, drdrake said:

If a bookie gave me 125/1 or 70/1 that the we will finish higher then the Dogs, North and Saints I would put a couple of hundred on not a lot but it doesn't need to be at those odds, IMO our list is a lot more advanced than some think, we have players that will be 3-4 years in the system that are very very good footballers. The dogs have just beaten us the past two years we will touch them up next year, the Saints we should of won two years ago but Scully and Trengove were on offer last year we tried to play their game plan not ours and north we play Jones on Harvey even when he goes forward that says it all.

Fair enough Doc, but the ifs and buts and should have are all over now. From 2011 we are expected to start Punching our weight. We either win or lose against opponents. We should have beaten the kangas loads of times over the past 2 years (because our list has more talent so they say) But we haven't & the Kangas have pumped themselves up against us because of the Favourable Media we keep getting. I heard Drew Petrie talking of this a few weeks back.

The MFC has enormous potential right now, but that's all. has to be converted into winning results yet.

I would put $100 on those above odds by the way, we have the ability to over achieve next year just as much as not.

Bring it on 2011

Hope that we have a fit list with no one on the long term injury list. This will ensure the rest takes care of itself.

Our list is in a better place now that there is a bunch of young guys coming through to contest spots on a legitimate basis. Rather than have to play youth to fast track development.

If we have a good injury list we should make finals.

  On 17/12/2010 at 05:08, rpfc said:

It isn't just who plays. It's where, and for how long.

Do we want Grimes in the midfield? Well that means playing someone in his position across half back - a kid? Probably. To the detriment of the immediate fortunes of the team? Definitely. Fantastic for our future if Grimes is as good a mid as many believe? Definitely.

Same with getting Green out of the forward 50 and letting Watts and Jurrah find their way.

Spencer getting ruck duties.

Trengove playing different roles.

Trying to find Nat Jones a place long term.

All these things don't help us short term, but help long term - help us win a flag.

see your point, but I really don't know how we judge that

for example I'm not sure the midfield is where Grimes will or should end up, we have so many genuine midfielders vying for the spots already and JG seems right at home at HBF, who's to say that moving him into the midfield is better for the long-term development of the side, why isn't it better to keep him on HBF honing his craft?

besides, I don't know how any of us can sit back and comment on where Bailey positions players, we just can't know the details of the masterplan, and all the things that happen behind the scenes for the coaching staff to make decisions like that. Cale Morton is another, only those at the club can really comment with authority on what position (out of almost any) is best for the side in general, and in reality it is only through trying things we will ever know. Interesting.

  On 17/12/2010 at 05:11, drdrake said:

High tower if a book maker put those odds out I would have money on it. Not enough money that it hurts but enough that will give me a good return. A couple of hundred at 125/1 if it gets up it will put 25K in my back pocket if it doesn't I lose $200 no big deal.

Again, what odds would you offer ?

  On 17/12/2010 at 04:30, maurie said:

If you improve your KPIs, the teams you are playing against will normally worsen theirs.

Only if their KPIs are identical - which they won't be given KPIs are based on *that teams* previous recent performances vs current expected performance.

  On 17/12/2010 at 04:30, maurie said:

You can't all gain more KPI stats.

You can. Both teams could: Increase their tackle count, gain higher I50's, increase metres gained, etc.

One team just does it by more. There are obvious standouts in individual games like points for. Even then, you may do better than last year but if the opposition finished above you last year and they improve their points for ...

  On 17/12/2010 at 00:47, jayceebee31 said:

I agree wholeheartedly except I have 3 of your maybe's in for a win..and don't be surprised if we win Rd2,Rd 15 & R18..this IMO.. I think we can beat Hawthorn..

I would not be at all surprised if this happened, but we are also likely to drop some games I have in as wins. Last season we lost a couple early on that I had seen as certainty's only to get up and thrash Brisbane and draw with the pies when I had those matches down as certain thrashings against us. I have no doubt we will see something similar this year.

  On 17/12/2010 at 02:17, e25 said:

Ralph, it's a bit naive to assume any team will win all of their "winnable" games, especially a young team.

Our biggest issue will be consistency and backing up after a tough fought match, whether the opposition are "easy" or not.

To win 3/4 of the "easily winnable" matches would be a good result, as well as half of the 50/50s.

I'm as excited and optimistic about our team as anyone, but I think a few are getting ahead of themselves based on as yet unrealized potential.

As above to C&B, I don't doubt that we will drop some of my winnables. However, as with the season gone, we will also pick up some of the unwinnables to compensate. I think it will all even out. I'll live with being called overly optimistic or even naive because of my positive outlook, and of course if we are hit with a bad run of injuries it could significantly alter things, but I still think my numbers will stack up at the end of the season. Feel free to quote the hell out of me in 8-9 months if I turn out to be way off the mark.

When he was coaching, Ron Barassi often made the point that in dealing with emerging teams, ladder position and games won or lost weren't necessarily the most appropriate measures by which one should gauge a team's improvement from one year to the next. He often cited the fact that other teams could show more improvement and a number of factors such as luck, injury, a favorable draw etc that determined where you finished on the ladder.

This approach is consistent with the view that the appropriate measure for improvement and success is, as rpfc, the Bobs and others have indicated already; something other than improvement in ladder position.

Real improvement entails some evidence that we have a game plan that works and works well and also some signs that the playing list is developing to the point that we can see sufficient numbers emerging as elite players.

We saw glimpses of the former in the wins against Essendon and Sydney at the MCG and we need to produce this more consistently over a season and without let up during a game. James Frawley was an example of a player emerging into the latter category. Mark Jamar came from nowhere to become an AA ruckman. We need to see more of this in 2011.

I agree that these things must happen for us to win a flag which is, after all is said and done, the single most important (but not the only) determinant of success in competition sport.

However, I don't think that's what Redleg was alluding to when he asked us to articulate our "expectations of what would constitute a successful 2011". I think he was seeking out our own aspirations for the season to come. What are our hopes and dreams as individuals for 2011?

Obviously, we want improvement on several levels and, as I've stated, team improvement doesn't necessarily bring ladder success but that's what I'm hoping for in 2011 anyway.

Despite losing the experience of Junior and of Cam Bruce, I fully expect Melbourne to make the finals and that an A on Maurie's scale above would do me nicely as a benchmark to constitute a successful season.

I would accept a 13th place finish if the Bobs et al could convince me that in doing so we had really improved but it would nevertheless be a result well below my pass mark in terms of my current expectations.

I'm expecting us to bury the interstate hoodoo, beat Geelong (wherever we play them), Carlton and Collingwood. I want to see us field a dominant ruck and on ball combination and yes, I'd like to see Jack Grimes move up to elite status in the midfield. If the football department moves him there then I know that it's likely the move's been made because we have the player to fill the role down back that he filled so well early last year before his injury. I'm not just going on a hunch about Grimes in the midfield. I've seen him kill it in the middle against Essendon in a practice game early this year and I think that's where he ultimately belongs.

We have what appears to be a relatively easy draw and, apart from Collingwood, I see little potential for improvement in the rest of last year's top eight so the opportunity is going to be there for emerging teams to grasp.

On that basis therefore, my 2011 pass mark as we end the 2010 calendar year is a place in the eight. I'm expecting better than a pass mark, say 5th or 6th (and I don't think that's being unrealistic as long as our stars align properly) but my hopes are that we make the grand final, that we play Collingwood and that sometimes even dreams come true.

  On 18/12/2010 at 01:37, Whispering_Jack said:

However, I don't think that's what Redleg was alluding to when he asked us to articulate our "expectations of what would constitute a successful 2011". I think he was seeking out our own aspirations for the season to come.. 

 

Correct.

  On 17/12/2010 at 04:29, High Tower said:

125-1.

I'll take it---tell me how I can get on...

  On 15/12/2010 at 00:55, maurie said:

A+: Top 4

A: Finals

B: More wins than last year, just outside top 8

C: Same wins as last year

D: Fewer wins than last year

E: Bottom 4

I find it hard not to agree with Mauries assessment.

I would like to see games rewarded next season purely on merit and not on development.

I am unclear why people are so intent on moving Grimes into the midfield. He could be an A grade mid but I believe he could end up the best half back in the league if settled there.

When injury free last year Sylvia was fantastic. I expect the same and dont understand how people expect more. A full year in that form and he is a shoo in for AA.

  On 17/12/2010 at 01:10, drdrake said:

I can't understand why people think the Bulldogs are ahead of us, the bulldogs will miss the 8 in 2011, we will high five them on the way up the ladder as they progress towards an extended period in the bottom 4. Same as North, we will finish higher then North. I also believe the Saints will slide they will drop to 6-8th.

Geez, I think your way off the mark. I think North, onfield are on the improve with a strong young list & culture.

The Saints I expect to be much the same as last year, but need to try to bring on McEvoy & some other young-uns through their year. 2nd place.

The Bullies I think will finish the H & A @ about 3 - 5.

The Cats I think will slide 1 or 2 spots to around 4th.

Freo to improve a little.

The Hawks are the darkhorse for mine, I expect them to improve, how Much?

The Blues, same old''''.

Sydney to slide a bit.

Brisbane to slide.

The Crows, where's the inspiration?

  On 18/12/2010 at 11:42, big_red_fire_engine said:

I find it hard not to agree with Mauries assessment.

I would like to see games rewarded next season purely on merit and not on development.

I am unclear why people are so intent on moving Grimes into the midfield. He could be an A grade mid but I believe he could end up the best half back in the league if settled there.

When injury free last year Sylvia was fantastic. I expect the same and dont understand how people expect more. A full year in that form and he is a shoo in for AA.

Why stop with the development of a flag winning team?

Because we can finish 6th if we try real hard?

I want a flag.

And I know Bailey will do what is necessary.

And by the way, that doesn't mean we won't play finals, it just means that we keep on playing our talent and expose them - even to the detriment of the team's fortunes on the day.

  On 17/12/2010 at 05:08, rpfc said:

It isn't just who plays. It's where, and for how long.

Do we want Grimes in the midfield? Well that means playing someone in his position across half back - a kid? Probably. To the detriment of the immediate fortunes of the team? Definitely. Fantastic for our future if Grimes is as good a mid as many believe? Definitely.

Same with getting Green out of the forward 50 and letting Watts and Jurrah find their way.

Spencer getting ruck duties.

Trengove playing different roles.

Trying to find Nat Jones a place long term.

All these things don't help us short term, but help long term - help us win a flag.

I could see that maybe Grimes & Jones could switch zones one day, allowing Jack into the Mids.

I can imagine Jones in a pocket.

  On 17/12/2010 at 05:45, Curry & Beer said:

see your point, but I really don't know how we judge that

for example I'm not sure the midfield is where Grimes will or should end up, we have so many genuine midfielders vying for the spots already and JG seems right at home at HBF, who's to say that moving him into the midfield is better for the long-term development of the side, why isn't it better to keep him on HBF honing his craft?

besides, I don't know how any of us can sit back and comment on where Bailey positions players, we just can't know the details of the masterplan, and all the things that happen behind the scenes for the coaching staff to make decisions like that. Cale Morton is another, only those at the club can really comment with authority on what position (out of almost any) is best for the side in general, and in reality it is only through trying things we will ever know. Interesting.

Versatility, & to round off his game & experience. Our future leaders will need to know how to play different positions all over the ground, to plug holes when needed & to just plain setup attack or defence.

And to give others the learning role off half back as well.

  On 18/12/2010 at 12:26, rpfc said:

Why stop with the development of a flag winning team?

Because we can finish 6th if we try real hard?

I want a flag.

And I know Bailey will do what is necessary.

And by the way, that doesn't mean we won't play finals, it just means that we keep on playing our talent and expose them - even to the detriment of the team's fortunes on the day.

Yes it will be interesting to watch that philosophy grow next season rp, i agree with you.

But the line between winning games and developing Talent gets that little more diffused. We have been able to exist in the shadows for 3 years while the Tigers took our heat (God Love 'em) they also beat us just at the right moment.

The Team management by the FD will be pivotal next year, even more than 2010 because the expectations will rise.

Will be fascinating to see how it turns out in 2011.

  On 18/12/2010 at 05:55, jayceebee31 said:

I'll take it---tell me how I can get on...

By keeping your money in your pocket. Seriously, as if we'll finish above all of St.K, Dogs & North. If we do, that is top 4 territory. Like I said, keep your money.

  On 18/12/2010 at 11:42, big_red_fire_engine said:

I am unclear why people are so intent on moving Grimes into the midfield. He could be an A grade mid but I believe he could end up the best half back in the league if settled there.

If we had two of him there would be no problem, so it's a matter of priority and also a matter of whether we have a suitable half back to replace him and release him to the middle. 

I think he has what it takes to become one of the most effective midfielders in the competition. I admit I don't have a great deal to go on and it's more of a hunch than anything else but, on this, I trust my instincts. 

In the practice match v Essendon at Visy Park earlier this year, he spent possibly 1½ quarters in the middle at the feet of Mark Jamar and while that combination was in operation, he picked up possessions at will and Melbourne dominated. The rest of the time, Essendon was in control and it won the game reasonably comfortably.

That and the fact that he played mainly midfield when he captained the Vic Metro Under 18s and his skills and athleticism are all I have to go on but it's worth a try in the NAB Cup IMO.

  On 18/12/2010 at 12:26, rpfc said:

Why stop with the development of a flag winning team?

Because we can finish 6th if we try real hard?

I want a flag.

And I know Bailey will do what is necessary.

And by the way, that doesn't mean we won't play finals, it just means that we keep on playing our talent and expose them - even to the detriment of the team's fortunes on the day.

Last year I was firmly in the development is more important than wins or ladder position camp, but this year I think we need to aim a little higher. I think the 8 is a reasonable and realistic goal.

Last year we still had blokes like Miller, PJ and Bell, who may have given us more on the day than a kid but who weren't in our plans long term. Now we have 10 players who'll be 24 or older rd 1 next year. Only 6 are comfortably best 22, Green, Davey, Jamar, Moloney, Rivers and Sylvia. Warnock and MacDonald are fringe and Martin is playing for his career. Last is Robbie Campbell and he's a roll of the dice. The state of our list pretty much guarentees that young players will get gametime.

The last few years we've had to choose between developing young talent in the seniors or persisting with guys we didn't think were up to it or we thought were past it. This is no longer the case. Everyone on our list now is a potential best 22 when our window opens, if they can make the most of their opportunities. Competition for spots should be pretty feirce next year and games should be earned.

I see this year as the beginning of the next stage of our development. Last season we managed to become competitive, we were in games longer, won more of them and were seldom blown away. Now we have to move from being competitive to being a contender. First step on that path is to make the 8.

  On 18/12/2010 at 12:26, rpfc said:

Why stop with the development of a flag winning team?

Because we can finish 6th if we try real hard?

I want a flag.

And I know Bailey will do what is necessary.

And by the way, that doesn't mean we won't play finals, it just means that we keep on playing our talent and expose them - even to the detriment of the team's fortunes on the day.

There's a fly in the ointment here. I believe Bailey comes up for contract renewal at the end of 2011. He's won 15 1/2 games out of 66 - not a great record. There are also at least 4 other coaches coming out of contract at the end of next year.

Will he promote Blease,Tapscott Strauss and Gysberts over the likes of Morton, Bate, McDonald and Jones? Will he persist with a potential long term player who is struggling for form, like we did with Bennell last season? Or do we just have a short term focus and pick the best side available for each week?

Injuries and match-ups will play a part too, but if we are on 6 wins after 12 games, I'd be very surprised if Bailey uses the last 10 games to promote youth, or to develop Garland as a full forward.

  On 18/12/2010 at 12:26, rpfc said:

Why stop with the development of a flag winning team?

Because we can finish 6th if we try real hard?

I want a flag.

And I know Bailey will do what is necessary.

And by the way, that doesn't mean we won't play finals, it just means that we keep on playing our talent and expose them - even to the detriment of the team's fortunes on the day.

And a very large part of winning a flag is having a settled team.We can still develop players and this should and is on going but winning games and getting that winning feeling is also most important.I believe we should look at having a best team and having say 5 emerg.and concentrate on them as our playing squad..if injuries happen add accordingly.Similar to Geelong, Brisbane in the past and Collingwood this year. Thi doesn't preclude to allowing some ,say Blease, Tapscott etc.. to play if they are ready for it- if not develop them at Casey.I'm also hungry for a flag- but also greedy -I want a dynasty for this club -say 5 in the next 12 years..

  On 18/12/2010 at 20:03, furious d said:

Last year we still had blokes like Miller, PJ and Bell, who may have given us more on the day than a kid but who weren't in our plans long term. Now we have 10 players who'll be 24 or older rd 1 next year.

This is my point there isn't much mature body filler if any there any more. Fierce competition for spots should naturally create improvement this year. If Bates form is better than Cooks should he be played ahead of him (ala Watts) or given a game when he is ready which may be 2 season away. A win at all costs culture must now start to be built into these players and the list in its current state should not hold this back.

  On 18/12/2010 at 19:47, Whispering_Jack said:

If we had two of him there would be no problem, so it's a matter of priority and also a matter of whether we have a suitable half back to replace him and release him to the middle. 

I think he has what it takes to become one of the most effective midfielders in the competition. I admit I don't have a great deal to go on and it's more of a hunch than anything else but, on this, I trust my instincts. 

In the practice match v Essendon at Visy Park earlier this year, he spent possibly 1½ quarters in the middle at the feet of Mark Jamar and while that combination was in operation, he picked up possessions at will and Melbourne dominated. The rest of the time, Essendon was in control and it won the game reasonably comfortably.

That and the fact that he played mainly midfield when he captained the Vic Metro Under 18s and his skills and athleticism are all I have to go on but it's worth a try in the NAB Cup IMO.

It will be a topic for debate for much of the year. Is it a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul?

We all know how great he is off half back, how good at beating his opponent 1 on 1 and rebounding the footy. With the opposition usually pumping the ball inside forward 50 many more times than us, having Grimes there to win the ball back and hurt them on the rebound is invaluable. However, would Grimes going into the midfield lead to less opposition inside 50's, more stoppage wins and inside 50's for us which we desperately need? Possibly. Will it diminish our backline though?

Firstly we need to get continuity of games into Jack. If that means more time at half back than midfield to let his body strengthen then so be it. I can however see him spending time in the guts this year, perhaps in direct swap with Trengove during games, to further aid his development.

But overall I just want 22 games from him, no matter where he ends up playing he will tear it up!

  On 18/12/2010 at 21:52, big_red_fire_engine said:

This is my point there isn't much mature body filler if any there any more. Fierce competition for spots should naturally create improvement this year. If Bates form is better than Cooks should he be played ahead of him (ala Watts) or given a game when he is ready which may be 2 season away. A win at all costs culture must now start to be built into these players and the list in its current state should not hold this back.

Agree with the winning culture stuff Big red. For too long these kids have played in losing teams. It's time to develop a winning culture and a ruthless attitude in games to lift this club to the next level. Bit it is a delicate balance as we do still need to develop some players. There is no better way to fast track development than winning though!