Neeld: the Gaps in our List

[jnrmac 20,091]

OK. When Neeld was asked to speak about our list he put up a best 22. But the list had some blanks rather than players names as he believed we had no-one to fill those roles yet.

He wanted the recruiters to go out and get players to fill those needs.

How many holes do we have in our list and what positions are they??

The first would be obvious: a power forward. We tried to recruit Hale last year to have someone who can contest in the forward lin. Our crumbers would have something to crumb.

I would say a prime mover midfielder. Beemer is too slow and has proven poor against the good teams. Jones is not classy enough - an honest grunt player. Trengove is still a bit young. A definite hole here for mine.

The back line looks OK. Frawley, Garland, Rivers, Grimes, Bartram is a trier but lets himself down with disposal. MacDOnald is another trier but adds some hardness. Warnock is not up to it mostly. Maybe we need a speedy defender with skills a la Davis and Yarran. Had hopes for Bennell there but needs to improve really quickly.

Rucks we are as good as any one.

Thoughts on any gaps?

[The O 39]

I think we're short of a gun tagger. Someone who would make the other midfielder's jobs that much easier.

I'd also agree that we need a prime mover through the midfield, someone who can free up the attention on the other midfielders and assist in the development of the younger inexperienced midfielders.

[beelzebub 23,378]

Heres food for thought. There is a very understandable tendency when supporters review their players to categorise many in the "pretty good" or "ok" pile.

If were are to be really serious as a team looking to compete at its highest level then you need better than OK or Pretty Good

So the point here is many here need to stop looking at our list though their slightly rosey optics and consider how our new on-board coach might view them. He'll be quite cold and clinical in his evaluations..

See how you go now.

Not trying to be cute here.. just offer some insight as to the how and why its all about to change at Melboourne.

Different standards and expectations are now to be made of this team

[Jordie_tackles 354]

Main Gaps

Power forward "FF"

Small forward "crumber"

Class midfielder "Gun" - edit x2

Lesser Gaps

Second Back -can be played by Garland

Tagger -can be played by Bail and Bartram

Edited September 21, 2011 by Jordie_tackles

[Striker475 696]

Heres food for thought. There is a very understandable tendency when supporters review their players to categorise many in the "pretty good" or "ok" pile.

If were are to be really serious as a team looking to compete at its highest level then you need better than OK or Pretty Good

So the point here is many here need to stop looking at our list though their slightly rosey optics and consider how our new on-board coach might view them. He'll be quite cold and clinical in his evaluations..

See how you go now.

Not trying to be cute here.. just offer some insight as to the how and why its all about to change at Melboourne.

Different standards and expectations are now to be made of this team

Great point. I would suggest the only non-negotiable players right now are:

Moloney

Jamar

Trengove

Watts

Garland

Frawley

Possibly throw Jones in there as well.

They are it in terms of that top end. Even Moloney goes missing though. Everyone else has scope for step up or step out.

Yes, I know, there's another 38 names or so who aren't on that list, but those 38 all have some sort of niggle to their game that has them shown up.

I'm not saying that's the be-all and end-all for the rest of the list and we need a total rebuild. Not at all. What I am saying though is that there is scope for improvement, but also scope for culling if need be.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Striker475

[Jordie_tackles 354]

Heres food for thought. There is a very understandable tendency when supporters review their players to categorise many in the "pretty good" or "ok" pile.

If were are to be really serious as a team looking to compete at its highest level then you need better than OK or Pretty Good

So the point here is many here need to stop looking at our list though their slightly rosey optics and consider how our new on-board coach might view them. He'll be quite cold and clinical in his evaluations..

See how you go now.

Not trying to be cute here.. just offer some insight as to the how and why its all about to change at Melboourne.

Different standards and expectations are now to be made of this team

Not every player at Collingwood is an A grader either, you have bit players ect and those who do a job, they definately have all the bases covered and the stars ect

[beelzebub 23,378]

Not every player at Collingwood is an A grader either, you have bit players ect and those who do a job, they definately have all the bases covered and the stars ect

you nearly got the point...but

Ive not even suggested many of our are even A grade. What im saying is whatever grade someone might think a player is...be a tad more demanding.

One of the biggest problems with any list are the players that always appear adequate, but deep down we know they have varous shortcomings which in the main , because they are 'our' team we suddenly gloss over.

An example say would be Sylvia.. He has all the hallmarks of a very talented and solid player with above average ability. So youd think hed be a very very good player. But hes not, or at least doesnt play to it. So how might a dispassionate new fella view Colin...like a fanatical Melbourne supporter ? I hope not.

Bartram. Has many things going for him as a defender and many would automatically put him in our top 22 . But he cant kick for sh!t and who , if theyre honest doesnt shake when he has the ball ? Is this really where we would have the standard of our backmen ?

Again, fans often smooth over the cracks. We need eyes that see all the cracks, see all the potential that can be changed, if indeed it can, or ...or move them on.

Id be surprised if half that board wasnt vacant when Neeld put up his team.

[Jordie_tackles 354]

you nearly got the point...but

i got it but was simply pointing out that its ok for a player to be "ok" as long as there are the "good" and "great" players we need as well, and understand just as much that everyone seems to want to overstate the value of our players

Do you want to do a true analysis of our list without such "rose coloured" glasses on our just tell us how to?

[beelzebub 23,378]

nupp.. JT..my point is many of the players some think are OK... ...they arent really, and thats the thing.

Say compare the players you think are ok as compared say the ones youd equate to at as you ve mentioned it Collingowood.

At Melb by way of analogy you might only need a 6/10 to be Ok..at the Filth its 7/10 etc and on and up

Im making an observation. You dont like it. So be it

[jnrmac 20,091]

Collingwood has a host of players who would struggle at other clubs if they were key players. Wellingham, Blair, Maxwell etc are average players that look like good players in a really good team. Varcoe and Mackie are the same at Geelong. But team is the word. The Pies play as a team and have a few genuine stars of the game.

Even Simon Buckley looks OK in their team. Jones would be a gun, Petterd would be a star, etc.

It's the cream we are missing, particularly in the midfield. Look at the I50's we concede. That's our midfield. Stats don't lie. Our fwd line is actually very efficient. It just doesn't get in their anywhere near often enough.

And of course our ability to play as a real team. Too many go missing too often. Leaders - Ha! We have none that have played more than 80 games.

[Jordie_tackles 354]

nupp.. JT..my point is many of the players some think are OK... ...they arent really, and thats the thing.

Say compare the players you think are ok as compared say the ones youd equate to at as you ve mentioned it Collingowood.

At Melb by way of analogy you might only need a 6/10 to be Ok..at the Filth its 7/10 etc and on and up

Im making an observation. You dont like it. So be it

I do like it actually, alot, your being more proactive than alot would have been

And i agree, "good" players at Melbourne wont get a game at Collingwood what is your point? Neeld needs to clean out half our list? i just dont see what you want to make of all this right now? what do you think this means for our list? and development?

I dont care where you play, i still use the same method to grade your ability, its across the league, its not OK for MFC or Collingwood its ok for the AFL,

Other questions which can be asked are is it the game style the players are being tought ect, will Neeld change this and make players look better/play better as a result, does this get taken into account, i say this as we delisted Buckley (for an example) and he played games for Collingwood, do i think he is a much better player? No, he looked a bit better in a better team but i didnt see much to say he would have added anything to our 2011 season,

So is it the current or now ex MFC system that is holding some players back or just talent?

[beelzebub 23,378]

two things.. My thrust was that when some , or possibly the many come to wonder where the gaps are , they may not be harsh enough in evaluations. There is that tendency to too forgiving, or accomodating. Somany excuses ( in place of reasons ) will be throw up as to why so and so ought to be up on the board but ..ec etc. Im simply pleading the case to be 'real' in evaluating , to be a bit more uncomporising.

Different folk will have different players on the list and players missing.

Now as to your conundrum ( of sorts) , is it the system or talent ? Do they have to be mutually exclusive ?

What was the system ? Is it how players are developed and mentored,? How they are trained ? how they are coached ?

Could be any and all. .

The talent : is it both the identifying of the need to be filled or the ability to truly indentify to the calibre of talent of the draftees etc.

The problem is its really all of the above to varying degrees.

There is every chance that for some it will be that they dont get to play in positions best suited to their natural abilities. Sometimes its done to expand the players experience ,sometimes its done because the slection has him out of place.

About the only thing I can get a good grasp on in terms of the 'what" is that whatever it was, its about to become something a bit different. Its this difference and a fresh set of eyes that will re ajudicate our list according to role

Its often been suggested different coaches/selection have particular biases come some players. The Rev did, I'm sure Bails did. This may go to which player is chosen, or where theyre put on the paddock

.

Still...all that goes to the why of whether certain players are less equiped or advanced as they might. Where Neeld is, and indeed the club is to first address who is where..firstly in terms of appropriate selection for various positions and then who is where in terms of development.

[Biffen 12,943]

My thoughts on some of the gaps mentioned in the opener are .

Power Forward- Hale isn't one , they hardly exist anymore because they get killed by numbers.

Crumber- a hole that Maric , Jetta , Flash or someone must fill because these guys are made , not recruited overnight .

(see Milne ,Schnieder ,Davis , Betts ,)

Garland-a lot of room for improvement.He falls down a lot and has poor body language when he is down.

Moloney-not slow , our best player-the best clearance man in the comp in fact-against Geelong he could hardly jog due to illness.

Jones-will improve every year because , like Beemer , the attitude is right .

Bennell will make his knockers look foolish next year-he has the lot but fades in and out as young guys do .

Rucks-we're sweet here

Backs- overworked but incohesive , kick outs , plan?

Rivers-an enigma who should be more consistent

[Whispering_Jack 30,181]

Time and again and even against the weaker teams we win in the ruck but we fail to turn that advantage into superior numbers in terms of clearances at the stoppages. Further, even when we do win those stoppages, we fail to produce the efficiency necessary to build winning scores, especially against the stronger clubs.

Clearly, this is a major area that needs to be addressed in terms of both personnel and technique. We have a new midfield coach and I think this is a start. Choko never seemed comfortable looking after the backs and I believe will be much better in his new role. A couple of genuine midfielders who are good at extracting the ball out of the middle would not go astray in helping him do his job.

[Guest Deefence]

Bartram. Has many things going for him as a defender and many would automatically put him in our top 22 . But he cant kick for sh!t and who , if theyre honest doesnt shake when he has the ball ? Is this really where we would have the standard of our backmen ?

I have an idea for Barty, wondering if it would work. Get him and Bleasey to spend every waking moment together for the next six months, forming a bond, a working relationship. Let the two boys get to know each other by presence alone. And on the field, wherever Clint is, Sam is. Wherever Sam is, Clint is.

Why? BOOM! Bartram smothers the ball, applies the tackle, puts his body on the line, takes the brunt of the charge. WHACK! The pill spills free, is quickly handpassed off, quick chip kick. WHOOSH! Bleasey is off, running the lines, dodging players, moving that ball.

What do we get from this? We make the most of both boys talents, and negate their negatives. Bartrams disposal is poor at times, but his contest is not. Bleasey's ability to win a ball is suspect, but his speed and manoeuvrability are not.

I dunno, just a thought.

[Slartibartfast 17,297]

you nearly got the point...but

I'm surprised you've read this forum for so long and haven't picked up on the fact that role players are fine, it's the elite players that set you apart and that is where we are sorely lacking, particularly in the midfield.

If you doubt this just look at the decline of teams when their elite players are not replaced, injured or suffer poor form. Brisbane, PA, WB last year (Johnson, Lake, Cooney etc), Adelaide (Edwards, Goodwin, McLeod, Burton) and Saints this year (Hayes, Reiwoldt, Gilbert, Goddard). Look at WC with Cox, Kerr and Glass all playing well. Last to top 4.

It's why the loss of Scully is so important and why replacing him with elite potential so critical.

[Lutz 76]

I have an idea for Barty, wondering if it would work. Get him and Bleasey to spend every waking moment together for the next six months, forming a bond, a working relationship. Let the two boys get to know each other by presence alone. And on the field, wherever Clint is, Sam is. Wherever Sam is, Clint is.

Why? BOOM! Bartram smothers the ball, applies the tackle, puts his body on the line, takes the brunt of the charge. WHACK! The pill spills free, is quickly handpassed off, quick chip kick. WHOOSH! Bleasey is off, running the lines, dodging players, moving that ball.

What do we get from this? We make the most of both boys talents, and negate their negatives. Bartrams disposal is poor at times, but his contest is not. Bleasey's ability to win a ball is suspect, but his speed and manoeuvrability are not.

I dunno, just a thought.

Left-field suggestion, but I'd try Bartram in a forward pocket.

His ferocious attack on the ball, tackling and defensive skills would make him great at applying forward line pressure and keeping the ball in the F50 arc.

His disposal and decision making would be less of an issue - he'd only need to focus on kicking the ball straight at goal, centring it, or kicking to the obvious option. It would remove a lot of the indecision he faces when trying to advance the footy upfield.

A similar sort of thing seems to have worked with Jake King.

It's funny, we've sorta seen a reversal of roles in recent times.

Creative players to the backline, not so much to play tight, but because of the drive they give out of the backline and into the forward line. Defensive structures make their defensive skills less critical.

And conversely, hard-at-it defensive types deep in the forward line, to lock it in there once it comes in.

To create that frenzied pressure that leads to goal opportunities.

The switch from the hunted to the hunter.

Don't be surprised if you see it.

[beelzebub 23,378]

Not the silliest thing ive seen Fan...very left field as you suggest but sometimes its easier focusing when youre up the sharp end.. The target, or direction is far more obvious. Down back theres an anfinitum of possibilities.

I sense youve hit a anil when you profer the idea that some players might get a gig in positions many of us will be unfamiliar with. I didtinctly get the impression Neeld will recast this mob in HIS idea of a team lienup. No guarantees this is a monty but he'll re assess the attributes of all and reallocate them.

Im with you that as a notion we must turn the tables.. become the hunter. Acknowledging , or rather conceding youre the hunted has given the game to your opponents from the outset.

[Robbie57 2,020]

Bartram cant kick. He can tag.

However one of Neeld's non negotiables will be perfect delivery of the ball.

Quite a few of our team will be in for a long summer.

[beelzebub 23,378]

I'm surprised you've read this forum for so long and haven't picked up on the fact that role players are fine, it's the elite players that set you apart and that is where we are sorely lacking, particularly in the midfield.

If you doubt this just look at the decline of teams when their elite players are not replaced, injured or suffer poor form. Brisbane, PA, WB last year (Johnson, Lake, Cooney etc), Adelaide (Edwards, Goodwin, McLeod, Burton) and Saints this year (Hayes, Reiwoldt, Gilbert, Goddard). Look at WC with Cox, Kerr and Glass all playing well. Last to top 4.

It's why the loss of Scully is so important and why replacing him with elite potential so critical.

Im surprised youve read as much as yo do and missed the point

Ive no problem with the notion of role players etc. All players are not elite, all have a role to play. The supposition is thus as simple as many are going to rate our players higher than they ought to be, irrepsective of the nature of them, irrespective of their role etc , many just arent as good as some suppose .

In this they will, when looking at the put this player or that player in position. What Im saying, is I think Neeld will not be so quick and he has already intimated this by suggesting there are quite a few holes.

Your talking to the wrong bloke Fan if you think im concerned over Scully going.. The most overhyped player weve had on a list in years. Good but not what many suppose. Anyhow weve done him to death...hes history.

So in summation...to simplify.. I know we have players who might be say.. A B or C level..having different roles. What I suggest is that many of the supposed A's are really A- or B that the B's are B- or C level etc.

Neeld will want them better..whatever role they have to play

[The Chazz 4,077]

Im surprised youve read as much as yo do and missed the point

Ive no problem with the notion of role players etc. All players are not elite, all have a role to play. The supposition is thus as simple as many are going to rate our players higher than they ought to be, irrepsective of the nature of them, irrespective of their role etc , many just arent as good as some suppose .

In this they will, when looking at the put this player or that player in position. What Im saying, is I think Neeld will not be so quick and he has already intimated this by suggesting there are quite a few holes.

Your talking to the wrong bloke Fan if you think im concerned over Scully going.. The most overhyped player weve had on a list in years. Good but not what many suppose. Anyhow weve done him to death...hes history.

So in summation...to simplify.. I know we have players who might be say.. A B or C level..having different roles. What I suggest is that many of the supposed A's are really A- or B that the B's are B- or C level etc.

Neeld will want them better..whatever role they have to play

This is where I really feel for Dean Bailey. He inherited a list that had minimal that resembled an A-grade, he knew that and went about changing it. For 3 years, a majority of his players weren't required to play roles (the type that Neeld will be asking), as he placed higher importance on development and games played together. Sadly in 2011 when his players were asked to play roles, they basically had no bloody idea what to do.

Of course Neeld will want them to play better, what coach doesn't? When Bailey took over, he wanted his list to look better, which will then help them play better, he honoured the first part, but I think only had a genuine 12 months where he could fulfil the second part, but was let down by his players.

As you said, we've done the $cully thing to death, but while $cully may have been the most overhyped player on our list for years, there was definitely enough evidence to suggest that we had a beauty on our hands. When was the last time we had a player come to us that was so focused on being the best player he possibly can, and actually had the ability to become one of the best in the league? There are always going to be superstars that don't require the level of commitment that $cully craved, so hopefully our turn will come (they may even be on our list already), but it's vital that we use those compo picks to get a midfielder or 2 that will be at that A level that we need, becuase I have no doubt we lost one that was on that level.

[Slartibartfast 17,297]

So in summation...to simplify.. I know we have players who might be say.. A B or C level..having different roles. What I suggest is that many of the supposed A's are really A- or B that the B's are B- or C level etc.

Neeld will want them better..whatever role they have to play

I may well have missed your point because I actually don't read much but the comment above caught my eye.

We have the second youngest list in the competition and you're thinking that we should seek improvement? You think that Neeld will want a developing list to get better and won't be happy with a team that finished where we did.

Insight. Thanks. I'll think on that.

[Lutz 76]

Bartram cant kick. He can tag.

However one of Neeld's non negotiables will be perfect delivery of the ball.

Quite a few of our team will be in for a long summer.

Bartram is not the best at selecting and hitting targets. He can tackle and go hard at the footy.

Moving him deep in the forward line largely negates the need for him to deliver the ball.

His job will be to fight like hell to get the footy when it hits the deck.

It's really about simplifying the game for him, and actually playing to his strengths.

To do that, you need to recognise that the game has changed.

It has worked for Jake King.

Don't just discount it out of hand.

I was told I was being just as silly when I suggested Tapscott be moved to a HBF when he was drafted.

"But he's a Paul Chapman clone! They'll never do it - he belongs in the forward line kicking goals!" they cried.

[rpfc 28,463]

I was told I was being just as silly when I suggested Tapscott be moved to a HBF when he was drafted.

"But he's a Paul Chapman clone! They'll never do it - he belongs in the forward line kicking goals!" they cried.

We apologise for not knowing your track record of predicting good positions for players...

Batram can be a defensive forward.

But he will not be dangerous in the slightest when he has the footy.

He can play that role, but others can play it better.

Good luck to him.

[Nasher 33,616]

However one of Neeld's non negotiables will be perfect delivery of the ball

I highly doubt that.