Funny that. Clark=Peter Moore. One Or two high price big name does not make a cohesive team. Where are all the grunts that make a great side?

on the other end of a shopping list I suspect !!

we do have some grunt, it just under whelming and under helped at present

I think Rivers is one senior player we need to keep, one of our best over the last couple of seasons, also think that Davis may well be moved on at the end of the year. He hasn't really come on, can't deny his courage at the contest but has been consistently beaten throughout this season.

I don't think so. He' looks to be playing injured atmo & I think the club is giving him a scare by putting a shot over his Bow. IMO trying to shake him up.

He's been very good in his first 2 seasons & is now injured & playing.]

I cannot see us letting him go unless he's maybe not a strong trainer.

on the other end of a shopping list I suspect !!

we do have some grunt, it just under whelming and under helped at present

OK, so you reckon we just go out and buy it? Too easy.

Rivers is a definate keep for me.

He is a leader and has versatility. He aint the best, but he give 100% & we will need that next year.

Can't you see playing Rivers & Garland forward was to make room in defence for Watts & T-Mac? Why? Because we have to play these kids now they're ready to play to get their gameday experience Up.

The Rivers & Garland experiment was to see just how Watts,,,, & T-Mac,,,, went in the real stuff under the pump. AT the same time,,, 'they' would have evaluated Rivers against Garland,,, as to Who to keep going forward...

Garland got his contract:

Rivers hasn't !

We can't keep them all.

Some wanted Green kept. Some want Aaron kept. Some want Beamer kept. Some want Spencer gone. Some want Martin gone...

BUT,, which players do we need for the our long term future.

Edited August 15, 201213 yr by dee-luded

OK, so you reckon we just go out and buy it? Too easy.

You seem to miss the idea that thats exactly what Neeld and co are looking to do EOS. They have flagged their intention to get some harder bodied , experienced "older' type aboard.

You're assuming that Rivers hasn't delayed it himself; that article that we are indirectly referring to may be just lazy about the circumstances.

Agree. And that is not good. And its not good that MFC arent publicly battling to keep him. Thats why I am concerned there is a possible stalemate where the Club will talk with Rivers if he has not got a better deal elsewhere by October.

Thats entirely plausible....buying it.

The defence profers evidence 101a....The individual known as Clark !!

In his 11 games to date he exhibited daredo than many. Hes here 5 mins and he takes on the mantel of "dont [censored] with the jumper".

So strangely yes, it seems you can buy a fighting spirit, or rather you can buy those that have it.

edit:

random observation...how odd he played 11 games this year !!

And yet you don't think Rivers shows the same spirit?

I would like to refer you to his almost maniacal grin during the melee against Essendon. One of the highlights of the season, for sure.

If we have learnt anything from the Junior McDonald debacle it is don't let go of senior players who can help with the next generation coming through. Those who learn nothing from the past are doomed to repeat it.

We have a strong new leadership group who can help the the next gen, so we're right there.

The second (underlined) part of your post I absolutely agree with. Thank god we're finally seeing some real change at the club.

We have a strong new leadership group who can help the the next gen, so we're right there.

The second (underlined) part of your post I absolutely agree with. Thank god we're finally seeing some real change at the club.

We have a new leadership group yes. I question whether they are strong though. Aside from Clark and Jones as individuals. I would rate them a collective dis-functional C- so far. And don't trot out the excuse they are still learning.

Edited August 15, 201213 yr by america de cali

Agree. And that is not good. And its not good that MFC arent publicly battling to keep him. Thats why I am concerned there is a possible stalemate where the Club will talk with Rivers if he has not got a better deal elsewhere by October.

Or we could be just going along with the situation because we want flexibility with the list...

I still think Rivers will be here next year.

Forgot to add Watts to the backline mix, giving us a first choice backline Frawley, Garland, Watts and McDonald as talls complemeted by two smaller, running types. Neeld has already flagged his intention to develop Watts as Melbourne's Goddard type player down there next season.

If Cloke shows up on our doorstep, this scenario is even more likely to play out.

I can see why a two-year deal elsewhere at a club where he'll be a definite starter might be more apealing to Rivers.

Forgot to add Watts to the backline mix, giving us a first choice backline Frawley, Garland, Watts and McDonald as talls complemeted by two smaller, running types. Neeld has already flagged his intention to develop Watts as Melbourne's Goddard type player down there next season.

If Cloke shows up on our doorstep, this scenario is even more likely to play out.

I can see why a two-year deal elsewhere at a club where he'll be a definite starter might be more apealing to Rivers.

Watts and Rivers are the rebounding backs we need. You take out rivers and Watts will get tagged out of a game a lot like Davey used to off the half back flank. Watts isn't ready to be a general down back he needs help. The pies have shaw, Obrien and Maxwell all rebounding for them. You can't leave it to one player. Keep T mac and Chip on the big forwards and Rivers and Watts rebound it out of there.

Watts and Rivers are the rebounding backs we need. You take out rivers and Watts will get tagged out of a game a lot like Davey used to off the half back flank. Watts isn't ready to be a general down back he needs help. The pies have shaw, Obrien and Maxwell all rebounding for them. You can't leave it to one player. Keep T mac and Chip on the big forwards and Rivers and Watts rebound it out of there.

Ideal Melbourne Back Six

*Strauss Frawley Garland

Watts McDonald *Nicholson

* Strauss and Nicho may not be the names, but these are the types of players (quick, precise kickers) we need complementing the Watts/Frawley/Garland/McDonald back 4.

Rivers is depth in 2013 for mine. As such, it's understandable he may look elsewhere.

Also, you are underestimating what Watts can become in 2013. We need quick, agile, athletic rebounders. Not old school floating backmen like Rivers IMO.

We have a new leadership group yes. I question whether they are strong though. Aside from Clark and Jones as individuals. I would rate them a collective dis-functional C- so far. And don't trot out the excuse they are still learning.

Neeld has hand-picked captains and a leadership group he feels will best reflect his footballing ethos moving forward. Let's trust his judgement.

Ideal Melbourne Back Six

*Strauss Frawley Garland

Watts McDonald *Nicholson

* Strauss and Nicho may not be the names, but these are the types of players (quick, precise kickers) we need complementing the Watts/Frawley/Garland/McDonald back 4.

Rivers is depth in 2013 for mine. As such, it's understandable he may look elsewhere.

Also, you are underestimating what Watts can become in 2013. We need quick, agile, athletic rebounders. Not old school floating backmen like Rivers IMO.

But Watts is a floating backmen and I'd rank Nicho and strauss behind Rivers at the moment. A 2 year deal would be suffice for me and hopefully by 2014 you are correct and Nicho and Strauss have overtaken him. But we need Rivers next year.

Neeld has hand-picked captains and a leadership group he feels will best reflect his footballing ethos moving forward. Let's trust his judgement.

Lets trust his judgement? Reminds me of the Geelong game. Both our captains start on the bench. Clark wins an improbable ball and makes an even more improbable goal when the game is still up for grabs. Not one team mate comes to congratulate him. IMO Rivers has shown far more leadership than the co-captains this season despite being humiliated by his demotion which appears more political than football related. I don't believe the concept of divide and conquer works with football teams.

Lets trust his judgement?

What other choice is there?

What other choice is there?

Yes, we have see what next season delivers. But he is not above scrutiny.

I don't think so. He' looks to be playing injured atmo & I think the club is giving him a scare by putting a shot over his Bow. IMO trying to shake him up.

He's been very good in his first 2 seasons & is now injured & playing.]

I cannot see us letting him go unless he's maybe not a strong trainer.

You may be right there, but room does need to be made on the list and he is yet to break into the senior side.

Ideal Melbourne Back Six

*Strauss Frawley Garland

Watts McDonald *Nicholson

* Strauss and Nicho may not be the names, but these are the types of players (quick, precise kickers) we need complementing the Watts/Frawley/Garland/McDonald back 4.

Rivers is depth in 2013 for mine. As such, it's understandable he may look elsewhere.

Also, you are underestimating what Watts can become in 2013. We need quick, agile, athletic rebounders. Not old school floating backmen like Rivers IMO.

Out of that back-line I'd prefer Rivers to Garland. Strauss, Nicholson, Watts, Frawley, McDonald or Grimes all have decent pace, and Rivers reads the play better than anyone, which has always made up for his lack of leg speed. Where Rivers gets caught is when he has to play the second tall role, as he's too small and slow. He also doesn't have Garland's "moments". Rivers as the third tall works.

Out of that back-line I'd prefer Rivers to Garland. Strauss, Nicholson, Watts, Frawley, McDonald or Grimes all have decent pace, and Rivers reads the play better than anyone, which has always made up for his lack of leg speed. Where Rivers gets caught is when he has to play the second tall role, as he's too small and slow. He also doesn't have Garland's "moments". Rivers as the third tall works.

Agree. And yet I seem to remember Garland on the Tip Rat for much of last Saturday - and effectively too, as he has been on a small in the past. Maybe the pressure is on the Nicholson/Strauss/dare I say it Bartram type rather than on Rivers.

In the absence of a new key forward I like Rivers in this role. If Clark and Jurrah were playing Rivers provides decent option.

In the absence of a new key forward I like Rivers in this role. If Clark and Jurrah were playing Rivers provides decent option.

I agree with this. And if we do land Cloke, he and Clark take the two main defenders out of play leaving two strong marking options in Jurrah and Rivers (three if Howe is played forward)...makes it harder for the opposition to man up on our forwards.

May be starting to get a bit on in years and having a few more injuries, but Rivers is should be retained for 2 more years IMO. Veteran list eligible?

Probably finish in top 3 in the Bluey this year. Regardless of our situation, that will speak highly for him.

Rivo is tireless down back and IMO would easily fit into any other AFL defence. Neeld with his L's experimented with Rivo up forward a bit . This exposed a few flaws. The Guy can defend though. IMO our no 2 defender behind Spud Junior. Mc will be good but give him time to develop otherwise you'll only find yourselves bagging out on him early next year. Mc's still quite a way off Premo.

Range Rover writes a load of complete Rot! One day we should lock him up in the Melbourne Change Rooms and broadcast the sheer shite he continually writes about the Guys.

Garlo and Sellar are serviceable but not in Rivers class as a defender.