Our new BIG HARD team for 2012.

[DirtyDees DDC 176]

Our draft and rookie selections this year indicate a new and clear direction from the club. Gone are the days when we picked skilful skinny players such as Blease, Gysberts and Jurrah.

Instead we have landed two big key position footballers from the main draft, plus a big bodied 18yo in Taggart, and another 3 strong bodies in the rookie draft. There is no sign of us planning for ‘development years’; Neeld stated today they picked recruits who are ready to go.

With this in mind, I thought I’d go through the list and pick our biggest ‘ready to go’ team. I used the official stats on the MFC website and measured the players across 3 categories:

weight,

height, and

AFL games experience.

We have a total of 46 players; 39 footballers on our senior list and 7 on the rookie list.

I went through each of the 3 categories and simply gave them a number from one (highest) to 46 (lowest). If they had the same weight or height or number of games, they got the same score (EG; Watts, Cook and Sellar are all listed as 196cm so they all came in 7^th in height).

I then added their scores in each of the three categories and ended up with a team of 22.

B: Rivers, Frawley, J MacDonald

HB: Davis, Sellar, T McDonald

C: Garland, Sylvia, Morton

HF: Watts, Williams, Dunn

F: Martin, Clark, Green

R: Jamar, Bate, Moloney

IC: Petterd, Fitzpatrick, Gawn, Sub. Spencer.

You have to admit – it’s a BIG team; a good choice for NBL or NFL; maybe not for AFL.

So I have to introduce another condition – that they must have played at least 10 games of AFL.

This will remove Davis, T McDonald, Williams, Fitzpatrick, Gawn and Spencer.

This team now looks like this:

B: Rivers, Frawley, J Macdonald

HB: Grimes, Sellar, Trengove

C: Garland, Sylvia, Morton

HF: Watts, Dunn, Jurrah

F: Martin, Clark, Green

R: Jamar, Bate, Moloney

IC: Petterd, Jones, Gysberts, Sub. Bartram

Bartram and McKenzie are both listed as 82kgs and finished with the same total score, so I picked Bartram because of his experience.

I picked Garland on the wing in the hope that at least one Demonlander would like my side.

The most valuable player – Jamar, and second is Clark. No wonder the club made a big move for him in the draft.

Is this the team that will make Melbourne the hardest team to play against in the AFL?

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

Not bad DD (ddc) ....interesting selection process. Think Id probably squeeze Jordie in there somewhere, Good to see Grimes back! When do we play!!

[Dee Zephyr 19,267]

Not a bad selection method but maybe you should have included a speed criteria because that team lacks some speed. I would include Bail, even though he's not super quick he is a must, Bennell and Davey for their nimble movements and I agree with Wadda We Sing on Jordie.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

There's no doubt Neeld is serious about making the MFC a hard team to play against. I've absolutely loved the post season this year.

[DirtyDees DDC 176]

Not a bad selection method but maybe you should have included a speed criteria because that team lacks some speed. I would include Bail, even though he's not super quick he is a must, Bennell and Davey for their nimble movements and I agree with Wadda We Sing on Jordie.

Yes i agree it's a bit lacking in the speed category, but none of the new recruits are noted for their speed. MN wants strong bodies, who can kick - the same parameters used by the recruiting team at Collingwood.

I also don't have their speed results, and i wanted the selection to be as objective as possible.

The guy at No 23 is Howe. He will step into the round one side for the suspended Sylvia.

[jayceebee31 761]

DD - Your correct, I think your team is pretty spot on,a couple of changes I'd make- Bartram would be in my best 21. Joel McDonald may make a good sub- but feel a lot of others would be my preferred . And I would have Davey in, instead of Gysberts at this stage.

But the HUGE & CORRECT choice is GARLAND on the WING .

[DirtyDees DDC 176]

DD - Your correct, I think your team is pretty spot on,a couple of changes I'd make- Bartram would be in my best 21. Joel McDonald may make a good sub- but feel a lot of others would be my preferred . And I would have Davey in, instead of Gysberts at this stage.

But the HUGE & CORRECT choice is GARLAND on the WING .

Garland only got there because Lethal Leigh Williams hasn't played enough games!

[rpfc 28,480]

Bartram and McKenzie are both listed as 82kgs and finished with the same total score, so I picked Bartram because of his experience.

I picked Garland on the wing in the hope that at least one Demonlander would like my side.

Any team selection process in which McKenzie isn't one of the first 5 picked is inherently flawed DDC, I'm sorry.

And Garland on the wing...sheesh.

[jayceebee31 761]

Garland only got there because Lethal Leigh Williams hasn't played enough games!

Then you are a bad judge at this stage because Williams will play at Casey for the season, whilst Garland will star for the Dees on the WING.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Then you are a bad judge at this stage because Williams will play at Casey for the season, whilst Garland will star for the Dees on the WING.

....like Fevola will at FF for MFC. Oh wait.....

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Any team selection process in which McKenzie isn't one of the first 5 picked is inherently flawed DDC, I'm sorry.

And Garland on the wing...sheesh.

I agree with your first point re the junkyard dog, and Neeld won't have mad such an emphasis on recruiting big bodied targets only to play Dunn at CHF.

I like the idea of trying Garland on a wing.

[jayceebee31 761]

Any team selection process in which McKenzie isn't one of the first 5 picked is inherently flawed DDC, I'm sorry.

And Garland on the wing...sheesh.

McKenzie is so far behind the others in fitness, he will be very lucky to play the opening round for the Dees. He has been in the rehab group for nearly all the pre season training so far. Garland has been training with the midfield in many drills so far. He has proven to be too small & light to maintain a key tall back role.He will become a match winner on the wing able to go back and also go further up the forward line from this position. Will be able to show his full skill set including speed, poise and kicking from this position. Sellar will play a major key tall back man role, allowing Rivers to play on the 3 RD tall with either Davis or Joel Macdonald as his backup.

[StillWoewodin22 5]

Spencer... surely not...he is useless. Saw him in the street the other day and admit that he has stacked on muscle, but does not excuse the fact he can't kick and his tap work is pretty much useless. I wouldn't have thought u need that many talls in the one side.

[rpfc 28,480]

Garland has been training with the midfield in many drills so far.

Has he?

I can only remember you mentioning that once, and no other poster.

Garland has proven to be too small & light to maintain a key tall back role.

No he hasn't and this is where I have the most issue with the way you argue, jcb. You have the right to your own point of view, but not your own facts. Garland has been great as the 2nd tall in the backline and you know it.

He will become a match winner on the wing able to go back and also go further up the forward line from this position.Will be able to show his full skill set including speed, poise and kicking from this position.

That may be, but we invested a lot on other players of a similar ilk that might play ahead of Garland on a wing - Morton and Watts. That is not to say that they will be good wingmen or that Colin wouldn't be a great wingman, but players regularly play - not where they play their best footy - but where we need them to play.

Sellar will play a major key tall back man role, allowing Rivers to play on the 3 RD tall with either Davis or Joel MacDonald as his backup.

Again, this may be, but it is a giant leap of faith to have Sellar take the roles that Rivers would normally play (something I agree with you by the way - Sellar might take those that Rivers play on not who Garland played on). And I highly doubt that the players that Garland took could be taken by Rivers. The more mobile CHFs, of which there are plenty in the AFL require the attributes you described Garland of possessing.

Garland will be there until Davis or McDonald can do what he does, because no-one else we have can (save for Frawley).

[old55 23,609]

I think JCB is on the right track - Sellar to key back with Frawley, Rivers to 3rd tall back and Garland to a higher, more attacking role like he played under Viney. Whether that's off half-back or wing - who knows.

[rpfc 28,480]

I think JCB is on the right track - Sellar to key back with Frawley, Rivers to 3rd tall back and Garland to a higher, more attacking role like he played under Viney. Whether that's off half-back or wing - who knows.

Easier said than done, though.

And my major issue is not with giving a 22 year old with 21 games experience the 2nd tall position, nor is it the movement of a established backman into a more attacking position, it is with the movement of Rivers into the role that Garland played.

I don't think he can do it.

Rivers is a great loose man, but Garland was not that.

So there some logic missing here:

Sellar takes Rivers' role on the hulking 2nd forwards or resting ruckman.

Garland moves onto a HBF/wing position.

Rivers moves into Garlands' role on agile CHFs and lead up forwards (with some time spent on smaller types)?

He can't do that.

So get Davis or McDonald to do that or keep Garland in that postion.

Edited December 13, 2011 by rpfc

[PaulRB 6,372]

The key moving forward is player flexibility. We know Garland can play back, so if/when required we can simply move him back. However, if we can develop Garland into an Andrew Embley style wingman we will start to fully utilise Col's talent and increase the options the coaches have.

I'm all for it.

In fact I'd suggest a player flexibility score added to DC's formula as players capable of playing multiple roles are worth more than specialist/limited one, especially given the limited bench and speed of the game.

[H_T 3,048]

I think JCB is on the right track - Sellar to key back with Frawley, Rivers to 3rd tall back and Garland to a higher, more attacking role like he played under Viney. Whether that's off half-back or wing - who knows.

I would say half back, we would still need him defensively to take a forward. It will be interesting to see what they do with McDonald and Davis, solve this and we may have our answer. I just think in terms of experience, more often than not, Garland will play off half back. And if there is any injuries to any of Frawley, *Sellar or Rivers, he'll be a key back.

If he's playing on a WING as JCB alludes to, well then our midfield desperately needs improvement.

*Note: Sellar has to prove himself first IMO before there is a temptation for Garland to be released to halfback.

[Maldonboy38 6,403]

Reflecting on the various drafts and our recruiting, the first point to really hit me is that our starting 22 is probably going to look fairly different from what we may have expected only 3-4 weeks ago. 

There is a definite emphasis on size of body mass, or mature body shape. This implies that Neeld is making a priority of players who can hold their position over the ball. For mine, Cameron Ling is the best example I can think of - he was so difficult to knock off a contest and often stood up under tackles from much bigger players.

 

Therefore, people like Bate, Dunn, Couch, Williams, Sellar are more likely to be considered for selection especially from half forward to half back including the midfield. This is the zone where the big bodies win the footy.

 

However, a game plan based on this body type needs the people like Bail, Bennell, Grimes, Blease etc... running the lines to break the game open and take advantage of the effective stoppage work of the  big bodies.

 

I am a huge fan of Gysberts' potential, but until he puts on body mass I can see him at Casey for a while in 2012. I put Jetta, Morton, Cook in the same category.

 

I must admit that at this stage I am holding judgement on any developments because:

• I have seen too many preseasons where everything looked rosy and we fell in a heap during the season proper
  
• I am yet to see Neeld actually coach in a match
  
• Most of our really skillful players have lighter bodies which means we may be able to win stoppages but then our skills will possibly let us down.
  

Time will tell.

[hardtack 10,547]

Nice DD.. I do think Howe needs to be in there (possibly at the expense of Gys on the IC?). The only flaw I see in the conditions is the requirement for having played at least 10 games of AFL... how will anyone ever achieve the 10 AFL games required to qualify, if they don't qualify to play in the team because they don't have enough AFL games to qualify :-)

[DemonWA 3,934]

Interesting to see all of the discussion RE the backline.

i lean to RPFC's way of thinking. Why on gods earth would we move Garlo from the backline, when he is forming a formidable backline combo with Chip. If anyone is vunerable it is Rivers, as Tommy McDonald is showing a bit in preseason, and Sellar is obviously another option.

But as a general rule, everyone needs to step back and stop looking at the new fellas weight and height stats, and start looking at the way they train and play. People need to remember that Sellar couldnt get a game at the crows.

Also dont discount smaller bodies gettign a run under Neeld's game plan. Dale Thomas, Sidebottom and Beams, pendlebury etc arent big blokes.

[ox_5 163]

Also dont discount smaller bodies gettign a run under Neeld's game plan. Dale Thomas, Sidebottom and Beams, pendlebury etc arent big blokes.

Pendlebury is deceiving, you wouldn't think he is big because he is such a smooth mover.

His bio for the start of 2011 was 191cm and 91kgs. That's big.

[DirtyDees DDC 176]

Yes i agree it's a bit lacking in the speed category, but none of the new recruits are noted for their speed. MN wants strong bodies, who can kick - the same parameters used by the recruiting team at Collingwood.

I also don't have their speed results, and i wanted the selection to be as objective as possible.

The guy at No 23 is Howe. He will step into the round one side for the suspended Sylvia.

Just a correction here. The player to step up and replace Sylvia for round one will be McKenzie. He was tied with Bartram.

Howe is next cab of the rank and he will replace Jurrah if Liam fails to recover from his injury in time for round one.

Hardtack made a good point about the minimum 10 games condition - how will a Tom McDonald achieve the minimum 10 games to qualify if they can't get picked?

I've named 24 players. We tend to use at least 30 in a typical season, so injuries and form will create vacancies throughout the year.

Also i believe we will follow Geelong's model and rest everyone at least once throughout the season.

The average weight and height of this line-up is 189cms and a big 89kgs. That's above the league average in both categories.

[Bossdog 2,002]

Very large forward line where are the crumbers

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

My take on all this is that Neeld has recruited big mature guys to create genuine competition on our list. Not all of them will play together. But this will help create the"hardness" the coach wants, at least we do no at this stage the new coach is a man of his word.

The MFC could seriously suprise in 2012. January will tell quite a bit.