Interesting to see dustin martin at 30 odd or whatever he was, do we recruit players that arent as good or once the get to the club does it go pear shaped. If we had have taken Martin instead of trengrove would martin still be as good?

Yes. But we should have taken Trenners & Martin.

Mike has got a couple things wrong and just got sucked into what everyone else thinks.

There are some seriously overrated players in there.

1) My first problem is Cyril at 17. So Mike is telling me he is a better asset then Pavlich, Cox, Jack Reiwoldt and Dustin Martin just to name a few. Cyril is amazing in patches but without consistency, is not better then those players.

2) Brad Sewell, Petrie, Luke Ball, Jamison, Leuenbeger are all better then Frawley?? Every single one of those clubs would trade those 'stars' for Frawley in a heartbeat.

3) Nic Nat is not better then a host of those players between 28 - 50.

I think Mike took an easy route and went with what the uneducated (football wise) crowd thinks.

I wonder how many serious punch on's have started because of Mike's Top 50??

Nobody agrees with it!! And he knows it.

I thought he had retired to sorrento to Slowly evaporate...

Interesting to see dustin martin at 30 odd or whatever he was, do we recruit players that arent as good or once the get to the club does it go pear shaped. If we had have taken Martin instead of trengrove would martin still be as good?

Please don't remind me about Dustin Martin...

your question above should be answered this season. I have always wondered how good Franklin would have been at the MFC & how much is the Hawthorn ethos.

The list is ridiculous and aimed at selling newspapers. Its so biased towards forwards/mids - yet its backlines that win you flags. Its a joke.

How is Thomas above Murphy?

Jonathon Brown & Cyril Rioli, too high IMO based on recent seasons.

Nic Nat' too high, but IMO may have a true Breakout Year 2012.

Mike has got a couple things wrong and just got sucked into what everyone else thinks.

There are some seriously overrated players in there.

1) My first problem is Cyril at 17. So Mike is telling me he is a better asset then Pavlich, Cox, Jack Reiwoldt and Dustin Martin just to name a few. Cyril is amazing in patches but without consistency, is not better then those players.

2) Brad Sewell, Petrie, Luke Ball, Jamison, Leuenbeger are all better then Frawley?? Every single one of those clubs would trade those 'stars' for Frawley in a heartbeat.

3) Nic Nat is not better then a host of those players between 28 - 50.

I think Mike took an easy route and went with what the uneducated (football wise) crowd thinks.

Agree with both these. And how on earth is Hurley ranked higher than Josh Kennedy - who doesn't even make the cut!! Would saddle him up in red & blue in a heartbeat.

List is always one bloke's subjective view presented as news but one thing always gets me - no matter how bad other clubs get they always seem to have at least one player floating around the middle of the rankings whereas for the last five years we've been lucky to sneak one guy into the very lower reaches of it. Where's our superstar coming from?

Mikes top 50 list is a joke. Placing Martin (25th) ahead of Nat Fyfe (40th) is a disgrace. If Fyfe played for Collingwood or Carlton I reckon he would have cracked top 15 and possibly even top 10 that Mike Sheehan is so delusional. This is a top 50 list of most hyped Vics, peppered with the occasional interstate superstar.

Who cares? I guess a lot of people. I'm interested but at the end of the day it's only an opinion. I don't mind a good argument about the top 5 or so or best in position but the rest is not worth the time. As a Melbourne supporter I haven't had a lot to waste my time on since Robbie.

So, as I've said early on it's Ablett for me at 1 but I can see where a lot are marking up Buddy, he's certainly up there in the most watchable list. I love watching Adam Goodes play, I think Pendlebury uses the ball and sets up play better than anyone and apart from that I could care less.

Nic Nat? Seriously? I was willing to defend Mike's choices in general as it as, as stated a purely speculative list, but Nik Nat is not now and will not be at any stage of the year in the top 50 players in the competition.