MATCH PREVIEW AND TEAM SELECTION

[Chook 15,012]

That makes no sense, Chook.

The way I see it, every group of players will be a metre or more further away from the outlying players than normal. This extra space will give a player who bursts out of a stoppage more time to size up their options and hit a target.

More Distance Between Players = Less Pressure on the Ball Carrier

[angrydee 842]

Poor Strauss he tried hard last week and needs to get some continuity in the AFL. I'm fed up with Neeld, get him out of here.

+1

Neeld is not coaching for the future of one of our important kids - he's trying to save the unsalvagable- his career

[McQueen 17,864]

The way I see it, every group of players will be a metre or more further away from the outlying players than normal. This extra space will give a player who bursts out of a stoppage more time to size up their options and hit a target.

More Distance Between Players = Less Pressure on the Ball Carrier

Okay, I see what you mean but doubt that it would influence the outcome of many plays.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,087]

Okay, I see what you mean but doubt that it would influence the outcome of many plays.

Chook has covered it well but in summary having 10% extra length than MCG is 10% more space to get out of a stoppage towards goals. Most players break from a stoppage toward goal rather than sideways. McKenzie will not be exposed for endurance on a big ground but his ability to break from a stoppage or limit his man is the issue. Thats ignoring his inability to spread which is more important on a bigger ground.

[McQueen 17,864]

Chook has covered it well but in summary having 10% extra length than MCG is 10% more space to get out of a stoppage towards goals. Most players break from a stoppage toward goal rather than sideways. McKenzie will not be exposed for endurance on a big ground but his ability to break from a stoppage or limit his man is the issue. Thats ignoring his inability to spread which is more important on a bigger ground.

Thanks for clarifying. I assumed you were talking his ability to run further with his tag.

[thaipantsman 180]

Watts should play FF or CHF and left there. "Watts" to lose"? Everybody popping corks cos Dawes kicked two from chest marks and for making a couple of swift dashes with his $200 haircut impressive No 6.. Yes agreed he looks the Part. He may even prove to be "the Man"..apologies to Anthony the real MAN. YES. Watts to ff and leave him there for remainder of the season instead a mere three Quarters.

Edited May 25, 2013 by thaipantsman

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I'm always impressed that people here know so much more about the players, their injuries, their likely opponents, matchups, contingency matchups etc etc than a group of full-time professional people who have been closely involved in footy for years. Doubtless mistakes are made. By all means express views and comment, but a lot of the comments sound like the outpourings of know-it-alls or people with axes to grind.

Well the club aren't doing a great job are they?

I reckon if we got a panel of demonlanders they wouldn't do much worse.

[rjay 24,815]

Strauss is a good kick and surprised me with his pace last week. We need to get consistent games into these guys, not up and down.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Well the club aren't doing a great job are they?

I reckon if we got a panel of demonlanders they wouldn't do much worse.

Demonland would probably make better recruiters.

[titan_uranus 24,963]

Demonland would probably make better recruiters.

Unfortunately not. You can't recruit with hindsight, which is what Demonlanders love to do.

In fact, if you go back to each year, you'll find Demonlanders generally completely agreed with the decisions taken.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Demonland would probably make better recruiters.

We've got the runs on the board.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Unfortunately not. You can't recruit with hindsight, which is what Demonlanders love to do.

In fact, if you go back to each year, you'll find Demonlanders generally completely agreed with the decisions taken.

How many times do you need to see pleas from posters on here for us to recruit a player only to be over ruled by the club who pick up another dud.

Read the posts before the drafts and you may be surprised how we've often got it right. Once the decision is made we generally just hope for the best.

[titan_uranus 24,963]

How many times do you need to see pleas from posters on here for us to recruit a player only to be over ruled by the club who pick up another dud.

Read the posts before the drafts and you may be surprised how we've often got it right. Once the decision is made we generally just hope for the best.

Really?

You want to back this crap up?

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,087]

Unfortunately not. You can't recruit with hindsight, which is what Demonlanders love to do.

In fact, if you go back to each year, you'll find Demonlanders generally completely agreed with the decisions taken.

Agreed. All the media and forum experts were surprised with how early we took Cook, Gysberts and Strauss at the time we took them. At least one of them may still prove them wrong.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Really?

You want to back this crap up?

Have a look at our list. Now that's crap.

Just go back and look at the Wines thread the Darling thread and similar threads. Show me where anyone completely agreed with Cook.

BTW these clowns get paid to do this job and they've failed miserably; or you that much of a company man you reckon we've done well?

Edited May 25, 2013 by RobbieF

[P-man 13,366]

Unfortunately not. You can't recruit with hindsight, which is what Demonlanders love to do.

In fact, if you go back to each year, you'll find Demonlanders generally completely agreed with the decisions taken.

Even if we took that to be the case, how much of that would you attribute to hope? I assume you are referring to when a player has been signed, at which stage the very best we can do is talk about the positives we hope that person can bring to the team, because there's nothing we can do to alter the decision if we don't agree with it.

Prior to recruiting them, I certainly don't recall complete agreement on Rodan or Pedersen for instance. Afterwards however, the focus turned towards what they can bring to the team. That's not called agreement. That's called being hopeful.

Edited May 25, 2013 by P_Man

[Young Dee 1,303]

Agree with many on here that Strauss should be playing ahead of either nico or bail - Nicho is not going to be part of our future so why bother putting valuble games into him?

Should have given him at least another game - he doesn't win a whole lot of the ball but works hard defensivly and when he does get it uses it well. Had a couple nice runs through the centre and probably quicker than Nicho.

His VFL form has shown that he is just to good for that level so he should at least be given a few consecutive games - it worked for Tappy

[titan_uranus 24,963]

Have a look at our list. Now that's crap.

Just go back and look at the Wines thread the Darling thread and similar threads. Show me where anyone completely agreed with Cook.

BTW these clowns get paid to do this job and they've failed miserably; or you that much of a company man you reckon we've done well?

I didn't say our list wasn't crap, it is. But I do not see drafting as the main reason for this problem. I see it as terrible on and off-field leadership, I see it as a lack of any sort of club culture, I see it as poor coaching, poor development, little direction, at times poor facilities.

Lucas Cook is the one example that exists of a genuinely bad drafting decision. I don't disagree with that. Whinging about Darling, however, is based purely on hindsight, and calling our drafting team our for not taking him, as has been said numerous times before, is unfair, given that every other club (except Collingwood, who didn't pick until pick 30), also passed on him. Not every other player who went before Darling is better than him, so we're not the only ones to have missed him.

Again, I don't disagree that Wines is a good player, but Toumpas was highly rated, and most who favoured Wines did not claim that Toumpas was untalented.

Even if we took that to be the case, how much of that would you attribute to hope? I assume you are referring to when a player has been signed, at which stage the very best we can do is talk about the positives we hope that person can bring to the team, because there's nothing we can do to alter the decision if we don't agree with it.

Prior to recruiting them, I certainly don't recall complete agreement on Rodan or Pedersen for instance. Afterwards however, the focus turned towards what they can bring to the team. That's not called agreement. That's called being hopeful.

I guess we can split 'recruiting' into halves, drafting and non-drafting.

In terms of drafting, Cook is the only pick I would say was a genuine error. He wasn't rated that highly, we admitted at the time it was a bit of a left-field pick, and we paid the price. The rest of them, though, were players picked where they were rated, and we made the right decision based on the evidence available (I'm talking Morton, Watts, Scully, Trengove, Gysberts Toumpas). Disagreement after the fact is based on hindsight and I don't agree with it.

In terms of non-drafting, it's easy to say 'we should have gone after [X]' (Luke Ball, Shaun Burgoyne, insert whoever we wanted here), but in reality there are a huge number of constraints operating on who a club like the MFC can get. There wasn't universal agreement over these players, but we really haven't paid a lot for any of the ones who people consider to be crap (Gillies, Rodan, Pedersen).

Overall, I don't attribute a great deal of fault to our drafting/recruitment team. Yes, there are certain players who simply haven't lived up to their position in the draft. But Cook aside, I don't say that's because we drafted poorly. I say that's because of the myriad other problems at the MFC.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I didn't say our list wasn't crap, it is. But I do not see drafting as the main reason for this problem. I see it as terrible on and off-field leadership, I see it as a lack of any sort of club culture, I see it as poor coaching, poor development, little direction, at times poor facilities.

Lucas Cook is the one example that exists of a genuinely bad drafting decision. I don't disagree with that. Whinging about Darling, however, is based purely on hindsight, and calling our drafting team our for not taking him, as has been said numerous times before, is unfair, given that every other club (except Collingwood, who didn't pick until pick 30), also passed on him. Not every other player who went before Darling is better than him, so we're not the only ones to have missed him.

Again, I don't disagree that Wines is a good player, but Toumpas was highly rated, and most who favoured Wines did not claim that Toumpas was untalented.

I guess we can split 'recruiting' into halves, drafting and non-drafting.

In terms of drafting, Cook is the only pick I would say was a genuine error. He wasn't rated that highly, we admitted at the time it was a bit of a left-field pick, and we paid the price. The rest of them, though, were players picked where they were rated, and we made the right decision based on the evidence available (I'm talking Morton, Watts, Scully, Trengove, Gysberts Toumpas). Disagreement after the fact is based on hindsight and I don't agree with it.

In terms of non-drafting, it's easy to say 'we should have gone after [X]' (Luke Ball, Shaun Burgoyne, insert whoever we wanted here), but in reality there are a huge number of constraints operating on who a club like the MFC can get. There wasn't universal agreement over these players, but we really haven't paid a lot for any of the ones who people consider to be crap (Gillies, Rodan, Pedersen).

Overall, I don't attribute a great deal of fault to our drafting/recruitment team. Yes, there are certain players who simply haven't lived up to their position in the draft. But Cook aside, I don't say that's because we drafted poorly. I say that's because of the myriad other problems at the MFC.

Are you serious? There were a lot on here that wanted darling and we finished up with Cook instead it's irrelevant that he was passed up by other clubs the point I was making was that Demonlanders wanted him but the recruiters didn't.

Have a look at the Wines thread and tell me we didn't want him.

Morton, Watts, Scully, Cook all first round selections and in fact our first pick; three of the four were tall skinny forwards who are either gone or going, the other one was possibly one of the worst number one draft picks on record. His main attribute was he was really fit; couldn't kick over a jam tin, has no penetration with his handball and hovers around packs but good enough for us. Didn't the recruiters look at Gysberts before they picked him; I reckon I could lift heavier weights than him, another to add to the stick brigade.

Watched a bit of the Eagles game today and the thought of Nic Nat and Darling playing for them and not for us sickens me; we pay these guys to draft the best and what we got was the most inept bunch of pretenders in the competition.

But you'll give me a few more excuses, you're good at that.

Edited May 25, 2013 by RobbieF

[DemonOX 8,779]

Honestly, I've just about lost all faith in Mark Neeld by now.

That happened in rd 1 for me chook (and I've lost ALL confidence in Neeld)

[titan_uranus 24,963]

Are you serious? There were a lot on here that wanted darling and we finished up with Cook instead it's irrelevant that he was passed up by other clubs the point I was making was that Demonlanders wanted him but the recruiters didn't.

Yes, I'm serious. Notice how I didn't start saying things like 'you're an idiot', even though I kind of believe that. I tried to have a debate with you. Instead, knowing your position is weak and mine is at the very, very least, reasoned, you started with the 'are you serious', 'you'll give me more excuses' stuff. Oh well, here we go then.

I admitted that Cook was a mistake, so you've wasted your time on that one. Nice work.

Have a look at the Wines thread and tell me we didn't want him.

My point there was that there were also people who wanted Toumpas. You're trying to make it sound like 100% of Demonland said 'let's get Wines' and then we were all taken aback when we took Toumpas. That simply was not the case.

Morton, Watts, Scully, Cook all first round selections and in fact our first pick; three of the four were tall skinny forwards who are either gone or going, the other one was possibly one of the worst number one draft picks on record. His main attribute was he was really fit; couldn't kick over a jam tin, has no penetration with his handball and hovers around packs but good enough for us. Didn't the recruiters look at Gysberts before they picked him; I reckon I could lift heavier weights than him, another to add to the stick brigade.

Only two were tall forwards, Morton was never a forward, so good work on that one.

Everything you've said about Scully is reflecting with hindsight. Back in 2009, there was no debate as to his status as the number 1 pick. To call out the recruiters because he's since not lived up to it is hold them to crystal-ball standards, which isn't fair.

Watched a bit of the Eagles game today and the thought of Nic Nat and Darling playing for them and not for us sickens me; we pay these guys to draft the best and what we got was the most inept bunch of pretenders in the competition.

You know very well that it was a 50-50 debate as to who was better out of Watts and Naitanui. Again, I'm not saying the choice was completely clear. What I am saying, though, is that there was plenty of support for Watts both here and in the public. The decision to take Watts might not have been yours, but it was a justified decision that plenty on here shared, so whinging about it really doesn't make much sense except to show that you're bitter.

As to this whole 'look at them now, imagine if we had them', I'm reminded of a great article I read about NBA drafting a few days ago: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/62485/the-kawhi-leonard-conundrum-and-why-life-is-unfair. Since you're unlikely to read it (or, if you do, concede that it makes a good point), let me explain. Essentially, the author says that it's easy for Washington Wizards fans (the Wizards being a perenially crap NBA side) to say 'imagine if we'd drafted X', when they see players playing for clubs like the San Antonio Spurs, who are perenially a strong side. He argues that the Wizards are generally more poorly administered than the stronger clubs, meaning that players don't reach their potential. You're more likely to be a good NBA player, he argues, when your opportunity is to play with beasts at the Spurs than with no leadership at the Wizards. I believe the same argument applies here. Who knows what Naitanui would be like if he'd come here? Certainly the evidence suggests he'd have struggled. Conversely, who knows what Jack Watts could have become at a strong club with strong leaders and standards.

Those are my arguments. They're not excuses. They're simply reasoned arguments. I know you don't like them, because you're bitter and angry and recruiting is really easy to whinge about.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Yes, I'm serious. Notice how I didn't start saying things like 'you're an [censored]', even though I kind of believe that. I tried to have a debate with you. Instead, knowing your position is weak and mine is at the very, very least, reasoned, you started with the 'are you serious', 'you'll give me more excuses' stuff. Oh well, here we go then.

I admitted that Cook was a mistake, so you've wasted your time on that one. Nice work.

My point there was that there were also people who wanted Toumpas. You're trying to make it sound like 100% of Demonland said 'let's get Wines' and then we were all taken aback when we took Toumpas. That simply was not the case.

Only two were tall forwards, Morton was never a forward, so good work on that one.

Everything you've said about Scully is reflecting with hindsight. Back in 2009, there was no debate as to his status as the number 1 pick. To call out the recruiters because he's since not lived up to it is hold them to crystal-ball standards, which isn't fair.

You know very well that it was a 50-50 debate as to who was better out of Watts and Naitanui. Again, I'm not saying the choice was completely clear. What I am saying, though, is that there was plenty of support for Watts both here and in the public. The decision to take Watts might not have been yours, but it was a justified decision that plenty on here shared, so whinging about it really doesn't make much sense except to show that you're bitter.

As to this whole 'look at them now, imagine if we had them', I'm reminded of a great article I read about NBA drafting a few days ago: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/62485/the-kawhi-leonard-conundrum-and-why-life-is-unfair. Since you're unlikely to read it (or, if you do, concede that it makes a good point), let me explain. Essentially, the author says that it's easy for Washington Wizards fans (the Wizards being a perenially crap NBA side) to say 'imagine if we'd drafted X', when they see players playing for clubs like the San Antonio Spurs, who are perenially a strong side. He argues that the Wizards are generally more poorly administered than the stronger clubs, meaning that players don't reach their potential. You're more likely to be a good NBA player, he argues, when your opportunity is to play with beasts at the Spurs than with no leadership at the Wizards. I believe the same argument applies here. Who knows what Naitanui would be like if he'd come here? Certainly the evidence suggests he'd have struggled. Conversely, who knows what Jack Watts could have become at a strong club with strong leaders and standards.

Those are my arguments. They're not excuses. They're simply reasoned arguments. I know you don't like them, because you're bitter and angry and recruiting is really easy to whinge about.

Melbourne played in a Grand Final in 2000 and played in finals in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 so clearly we have the capacity to develop players; we also played in finals in the 80's (GF in 88) and 90's so your assertion that we can't develop is pure [censored]. This was all done when we had the worst facilities in the competition and before we moved to what Neeld describes as the best available. We have developed Frawley to AA status, Green missed by a bee's dick and Jamar made it in the same year as Frawley.

Our problem is we recruited poorly and selected skinny kids who are not suited to the modern game; Morton was a classic example, if anyone looked at him they would have to question his capacity to develop the physique to cope and guess what; he didn't, nor did Gysberts, Cook and Watts is struggling. We picked Maric, which was a surprise choice, based on him being the best kick in the draft; you have to get the ball to kick it and unfortunately he couldn't.

We have simply picked the wrong types over the last 10 years and as our good players retired we either missed draft picks or selected poorly. It doesn't surprise me that you can't see what the problem is.

[jackaub 1,402]

How many times do you need to see pleas from posters on here for us to recruit a player only to be over ruled by the club who pick up another dud.

Read the posts before the drafts and you may be surprised how we've often got it right. Once the decision is made we generally just hope for the best.

You are so right Robbie many on here didnt want a bar of jack Watt amongst others only to be howled down by some on here Hardly Hindsight Titan old man

[jumbo returns 6,737]

Poor drafting has killed this club.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

Gold Coast givin it to the Dawks atm....only 4pts in it fair way into the 3rd.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Wadda We Sing