So Jones was promoted to the leadership group purely on a whim?

Leadership does mean you are ensconced in the 21.

I doubt you would think that way - "if you are in the leadership group, you are in the best 21".

Brad Miller will tell you you can be dropped and be a leader.

Agree with all who say that Bate, Martin, and Maric all have to show something this year.

I strongly believe, though, that Warnock is an important part of this team. We need someone who is capable of coming in when a player like Frawley or Rivers is injured, and I can't think of many people on our list who would be a more suitable replacement for them than Warnock. His performance in the first few games without Frawley in the side will show his true worth to the Dees.

How can you be an 'important part of the team' of your presence in the team is reliant on one of two people being injured.

Surely he is 'important to the back-up team.'

And arguing about the importance of depth is pointless because you can't replace your best players.

Petterd along with Green were easily the most potent forwards before Jurrah returned last year. In no way is it a 'crunch' year for him unless he just goes backwards. Aussie is one of the best users of the ball in our forward line and also one of the few who provides genuine forward pressure. I'd take him before Maric any day. Dunne proved very useful last year and we would expect further improvement. We need Jones around the stoppages and he showed real improvement in his kicking last year. Warnock and Martin are the ones in the gun. I think Martin may yet be a useful player but Warnock's limitations are fairly obvious. Tommy Mac also. I suspect Jetta is one of those that coaches love because he is such a goer. If he continues to improve he should be OK.

I don't know what to think about Bate. He just confuses me. A strange style of player. Feet anchored to the ground. Seemingly slow but deceptively quick when the goals are open. No overhead skills. An ugly but efective kick. The fact is, when we are up and going, he is usually there. I give up.

You have said that all (except Maric) improved last year and they are not facing 'crunch' years.

I am saying that they may have shown improvement but you cannot carve a career out of one season that was better than the adequate seasons before it. Petterd, Wonna, Bate, Dunn, and Batram in their best form are pushing for best 21 selection, but they have had their issues in the past and 2011 is important for their careers.

Leadership does mean you are ensconced in the 21.

I doubt you would think that way - "if you are in the leadership group, you are in the best 21".

Brad Miller will tell you you can be dropped and be a leader.

Point taken, but I would still think that as he has only just been given a leadership role, he is probably considered by the club to be in the top 21, as I am sure that they will expect him to lead on-field as well as off. It is now up to Jones to use that promotion as an incentive to continue to make improvements to his game in 2011 as he did in 2010 and not rest on his laurels - Miller I think blew that big time and Jones strikes me as being a very different beast.

Edited March 2, 201114 yr by hardtack

How can you be an 'important part of the team' of your presence in the team is reliant on one of two people being injured.

Surely he is 'important to the back-up team.'

And arguing about the importance of depth is pointless because you can't replace your best players.

Do you not think it is important to have players who can come in when others are injured? I would call these important parts of a team.

Regardless of the player, you need to be prepared for injuries. Warnock is an important player for us as he has played at the AFL level before and will be able to step in when key defenders are injured.

And you have got to be kidding that depth is not important? I'm not even going to address that.

Do you not think it is important to have players who can come in when others are injured? I would call these important parts of a team.

...but they are not in 'the team.' How can something be important to a whole they don't belong to? And only reside in if others abdicate?

Regardless of the player, you need to be prepared for injuries. Warnock is an important player for us as he has played at the AFL level before and will be able to step in when key defenders are injured.

Prepared for injuries...

You cannot replace your best players. Warnock is not Frawley, and without Frawley it wouldn't matter if it was Warnock or Davis - our structure would be hurt immeasurably.

And you have got to be kidding that depth is not important? I'm not even going to address that.

Maybe you should address it? Think it over.

Why is so fantastic to have a 27th player on your list that could possibly take the 18th best players position in the 21?

If we want to win flags it is all about the best 6-8 players and keeping them fit.

Look no further than our depth from 2004-2006; we were thereabouts but never in the hunt in August/Sept, but Sandringham won a hattrick of flags.

Depth is as depth does.

...but they are not in 'the team.' How can something be important to a whole they don't belong to? And only reside in if others abdicate?

Prepared for injuries...

You cannot replace your best players. Warnock is not Frawley, and without Frawley it wouldn't matter if it was Warnock or Davis - our structure would be hurt immeasurably.

Maybe you should address it? Think it over.

Why is so fantastic to have a 27th player on your list that could possibly take the 18th best players position in the 21?

If we want to win flags it is all about the best 6-8 players and keeping them fit.

Look no further than our depth from 2004-2006; we were thereabouts but never in the hunt in August/Sept, but Sandringham won a hattrick of flags.

Depth is as depth does.

So would you prefer to have a list of only 22 players, then? It wasn't our depth's fault we didn't make it. It was guys like Jeff White, Adem Yze, Russell Robertson, and even the great David Neitz who were at fault. If you're arguing that trading a player 25 and 26 for a player 10 is a good move, I'd agree with you, but that doesn't mean that depth is unimportant.

Edited March 2, 201114 yr by Chook

So would you prefer to have a list of only 22 players, then? It wasn't our depth's fault we didn't make it. It was guys like Jeff White, Adem Yze, Russell Robertson, and even the great David Neitz who were at fault. If you're arguing that trading a player 25 and 26 for a player 10, then obviously the 10 better, but that doesn't mean that depth is unimportant.

Depth isn't important.

They don't win you games of footy. They are role players that do a job.

I'm being blunt but we have to develop 6-8 stars/very good/A grade/whatever players and have role players around them.

You don't win games with depth, you don't win friends with salad.

i agree with people regarding morton...he needs to lift...he came to the club as a #4 draft pick.

To me Morton has been disappointing every year. He has IMO underperformed, in every seasons expectations.

I can't remember any time, when I've been pleasently surprised by what mortons contributed. I have tried to stay supportive. He hasn't been a dead loss.

But has underperformed, a bit like a school boy footballer.

To me Morton has been disappointing every year. He has IMO underperformed, in every seasons expectations.

I can't remember any time, when I've been pleasently surprised by what mortons contributed. I have tried to stay supportive. He hasn't been a dead loss.

But has underperformed, a bit like a school boy footballer.

His first two seasons were quite good.

I'm not sure what you were expecting from a teenage 6"4 stick figure midfielder...

Depth isn't important.

They don't win you games of footy. They are role players that do a job.

I'm being blunt but we have to develop 6-8 stars/very good/A grade/whatever players and have role players around them.

You don't win games with depth, you don't win friends with salad.

Have you even watched St Kilda over the past two years? They don't seem to be winning Premierships with their 6-8 stars/role players around them.

Have you even watched St Kilda over the past two years? They don't seem to be winning Premierships with their 6-8 stars/role players around them.

Maybe they don't have a functioning forward line?

It's just how the comp is set-up. You can't afford to have a team of stars, and you need role players but we have never had the stars.

Run-of-the-mill players are easy to get, it's the stars that you need to find...

Have you even watched St Kilda over the past two years? They don't seem to be winning Premierships with their 6-8 stars/role players around them.

this might be my most hated of footy forum comments

a couple of kicks different and they were back to back premiers

they will be up there again for a few more

dont talk about them as if they are some failure please

this might be my most hated of footy forum comments

a couple of kicks different and they were back to back premiers

they will be up there again for a few more

dont talk about them as if they are some failure please

By no means are they a crappy side, but many of their games are decided by a few kicks simply because of the way they play. They have been one of fifteen failures in both of the past two years, largely due to their lack of depth. On the other hand, people went on and on about how Collingwood had so many players pressing for slots in their side. Collingwood won the Grand Final and St Kilda didn't, which suggests that the model which includes very strong jostling for positions in the bottom quarter of the side is the superior one.

By no means are they a crappy side, but many of their games are decided by a few kicks simply because of the way they play. They have been one of fifteen failures in both of the past two years, largely due to their lack of depth. On the other hand, people went on and on about how Collingwood had so many players pressing for slots in their side. Collingwood won the Grand Final and St Kilda didn't, which suggests that the model which includes very strong jostling for positions in the bottom quarter of the side is the superior one.

This is worth a thread on its own.

Collingwood's best players played far better than their counterparts in the second granny.

It's the stars that separate sides.

crunch year for strauss, it could well be his last year on the list, if he cannot work his way into the squad and show something at an afl level, his kicking is so good, yet he rushes himself and puts more pressure on himself than is actually around, his defensive skills are pretty good, and his foot speed is solid enough, he has the makings of being a chris newman esque defender, just teeing up passes off the back flank, [censored] hitting leads, yet he has not capatilised on his potential yet.

This is worth a thread on its own.

Collingwood's best players played far better than their counterparts in the second granny.

It's the stars that separate sides.

I agree that it's the stars that separate sides, but every player that takes to the field has an important role to fill.

I'm well aware that Warnock is no Frawley, but are you saying that it doesn't matter who replaces an injured star player as they will all have the same (ineffective) impact?

You can't have someone like Jones (arguably an odd one out in the midfield, but still one of our best 21) go back and play on KPFs. You NEED to have back-ups at EVERY position.

This is worth a thread on its own.

Collingwood's best players played far better than their counterparts in the second granny.

It's the stars that separate sides.

Actually, I think it was the reverse. The Saints players didn't back up for the replay, & malthouse stopped the saints midfield run 'n' carry. Montagnia was appalling. A lack of creativeness from the Saints coaching panel saw too many basic moves go untried,,,, to try to free the shackles & inspire the side.

I agree that it's the stars that separate sides, but every player that takes to the field has an important role to fill.

I'm well aware that Warnock is no Frawley, but are you saying that it doesn't matter who replaces an injured star player as they will all have the same (ineffective) impact?

You can't have someone like Jones (arguably an odd one out in the midfield, but still one of our best 21) go back and play on KPFs. You NEED to have back-ups at EVERY position.

You may require 'back-ups in every position' but you cannot afford good enough backups to every position - we aren't Chelsea or Man City.

If you want to waste your money getting 30 average to good players then go for it.

I am just saying that it seems to me the top 4 teams are dominated by 6-8 stars of the game surrounded by disciplined role players.

Having decent depth may keep you (slightly more) competitive than playing kids but it is the stars that win flags.

Ergo - depth is not important to winning flags.

Actually, I think it was the reverse. The Saints players didn't back up for the replay, & malthouse stopped the saints midfield run 'n' carry. Montagnia was appalling. A lack of creativeness from the Saints coaching panel saw too many basic moves go untried,,,, to try to free the shackles & inspire the side.

The reverse would be the Saints stars outlplayed their Collingwood counterparts...

I stand by the sentiment that Hayes, Montagna, Riewoldt, Dal Santo, and Fisher were way down on their performance and that is where they lost the game.

You need your best players playing well in the first week of October...

Edited March 2, 201114 yr by rpfc

By no means are they a crappy side, but many of their games are decided by a few kicks simply because of the way they play. They have been one of fifteen failures in both of the past two years, largely due to their lack of depth. On the other hand, people went on and on about how Collingwood had so many players pressing for slots in their side. Collingwood won the Grand Final and St Kilda didn't, which suggests that the model which includes very strong jostling for positions in the bottom quarter of the side is the superior one.

it means your entire theory is out the window if that ball had just sat up a bit and into the hands of Milne in the goalsquare very late in GF1

that's one bounce of one ball

You may require 'back-ups in every position' but you cannot afford good enough backups to every position - we aren't Chelsea or Man City.

If you want to waste your money getting 30 average to good players then go for it.

I am just saying that it seems to me the top 4 teams are dominated by 6-8 stars of the game surrounded by disciplined role players.

Having decent depth may keep you (slightly more) competitive than playing kids but it is the stars that win flags.

Ergo - depth is not important to winning flags.

I understand your argument, but this is just something that you're not going to be able to persuade me of, and I feel the same is vice versa.

For me, Warnock is an important player and will be with the Dees well beyond 2011.

You may require 'back-ups in every position' but you cannot afford good enough backups to every position - we aren't Chelsea or Man City.

If you want to waste your money getting 30 average to good players then go for it.

I am just saying that it seems to me the top 4 teams are dominated by 6-8 stars of the game surrounded by disciplined role players.

Having decent depth may keep you (slightly more) competitive than playing kids but it is the stars that win flags.

Ergo - depth is not important to winning flags.

I agree with you. I think we have our 6-8 too... basically the blokes in the demonland banner plus Watts and Trengove