What the Heck is "Development"

[Ted Lasso 16,823]

Good God, Lucas Cook taken before Jack Darling!!

Reading that can cause heart failure.

Meanwhile at the same time the previous CEO was designing a club school blazer.

I cannot blame opposition clubs for not taking the MFC seriously before PJ stepped in.

I remember being shocked at the time we didn't take Darling, he was rated close to pick 1 aside from being abit of an idiot off field, thought we would swoop in and grab a bargain key forward to go with Watts

[Sir Why You Little 34,583]

I remember being shocked at the time we didn't take Darling, he was rated close to pick 1 aside from being abit of an [censored] off field, thought we would swoop in and grab a bargain key forward to go with Watts

There was nothing wrong with Darling, it was a one off incident that Meth Coke exaggerated beautifully.

It beggars that these recruiting morons we had could command a salary. Put the club back another 15-20 years again.

[Axis of Bob 10,250]

It's a good post and something that I've been thinking about for a while. I also don't have experience in this field.

Development, to me, is the ability to improve a player's game to its highest possible level. In some areas this scope is virtually zero, and in others it's immense.

Skill deficiencies are definitely able to be developed. You can't turn Jayson Daniels into Darren Jarman, but you can turn Jack Fitzpatrick into Nick Riewoldt.

Game knowledge can be developed. Look at the number of Irish players who become high possession getters. Look at Anthony Koutoufides. Look at Daniel Merrett.

Athleticism is unlikely to be developed, especially speed. You might get bigger and you might get a bit more endurance, but if your role requires speed then you'd better already have it.

Coaches are responsible for developing the former, but recruiters are responsible for the latter. This is through tutoring and training good habits and educating the player to recognise these things himself. That's what I believe it to be.

To expand on your topic somewhat, I think that the poor return on our drafting has been a combination of both poor drafting and development, but I think different players have not met expectations due to either. In sort, though, I think it boils down to 1) selecting players who will improve greatly with development and then 2) ensuring we develop them well.

First of all, to analyse where our issues have been, let's look at some of the success stories of our (relatively) recent drafting. I'm not talking in terms of player X vs player Y, but some of the players we have drafted who have turned into good AFL players.

N Jones, Grimes, Frawley, Garland, McDonald. Hmmm, it's not a particularly long list!

These players all have 2 things in common:

1) The first thing that I look at that these players have in common is their mental strength. They are, what you call, 'teacher proof'. That is, it doesn't matter who was in charge, they were always going to get the best out of themselves because they would do extra work, look at their own game, do research and make sure they improved.

2) The second thing is that they all have athletic attributes that suit the role they are expected to play. What do I mean by this? Jones and Grimes are midfielders who have better endurance and gut running than most others in the competition and have passable speed and strength. Frawley and Garland play near goal and are blessed with what is most important in that role - speed. Frawley has power and Garland has agility, which are important in their roles. McDonald is a negating defender who plays further from goal, but he has exceptional endurance and good size. His poor kicking is not a big issue because of his role. You could throw McKenzie in that group too from the rookie list.

Each of these players had issues. But they were all issues that could be improved with development.

Jones was an outside midfield who had to be taught how to play inside. But he had the athletic attributes and the mentality to do this.

Grimes had injury issues and robotic kicking. The kicking issue could have been improved with development, but instead we found him a role where it was less of an issue.

Frawley came as a poor kick and a bit 'green' (ie, didn't know how to get involved in the game). Kicking could be developed from poor to decent and he could be taught how to play (because he was instinctively good in contests).

Garland had played little footy. Development could teach him this.

McDonald was a poor kick who didn't know how to play. His kicking and knowledge could be developed.

What about the ones where they have disappointed us:

Watts, Trengove, Cook, Blease, Strauss, Tapscott.

These have disappointed for different reasons, but generally one of two reasons - either they are/were athletically unsuited to their role, or there were not developed well (and weren't 'teacher proof').

Trengove, Cook, Tapscott, (maybe Blease) are all athletically unsuited to their roles at AFL level.

Trengove was recruited as an all around midfielder who could deliver the ball forward when in space, but does not have the speed to get on the end of the ball in space. He is athletically well suited to being an inside midfielder, but isn't the role that he plays. He needs development of his inside game (which should be possible) to be a top level player. At the moment it's like recruiting Lenny Hayes to play on the wing.

Cook is a key forward who's big strength was his ball use and endurance. Unfortunately he was very slow and very slight, which meant that it was almost impossible for him to get the footy in his role. His strengths were great, but irrelevant when he was so athletically unsuited to his role. This can't be developed and is not to blame.

Tapscott is small in AFL terms, but big in juniors. His strengths at junior levels don't translate to AFL level. So we need to look for his other AFL strengths, which are ...... his kicking which, like Cook, is irrelevant if your athletic failings mean you can get the ball. His downfalls can't be adequately developed and therefor is not to blame.

The others (Watts, Blease Strauss), are what I would call development related problems. Each of these has athletic strengths (with one major weakness for Blease) that are very, very well suited to their roles. However, the development has failed them.

Watts has the speed, skill etc etc to make him dominant in most AFL roles. But he came to the club needing to learn how to play, the expectations and how to influence AFL footy. He was given games and told to develop. But he isn't 'teacher proof'. He played roles that were easy for him to use his skills, but he didn't really learn anything. Now he's 5 years into his career and he is still needing to be taught how to play football. This is a development problem.

Blease has speed and skill (with awful endurance), which is a great skill set for a small forward/back role. Unfortunately he is still playing like a kid, rather than an AFL player. He doesn't get involved in games because he hasn't been developed properly. And he certainly isn't 'teacher proof'!!

Strauss has great athletic attributes and a great kick, which is perfect for the small back role. But he's not that bright and not 'teacher proof', so he needs help. He can be developed to play a role in defence, but he hasn't been taught how to play footy yet. This is a development problem.

There are certain things that you need to be able to do to be successful in your role at AFL level, and certain things that you can get by without. But these all relate to your role. In junior football these things aren't necessarily limiting to your performance, but at AFL level they do. We have drafted players who are athletically unsuited to the role we expect them to play, and we have also failed to develop players who should otherwise be able to be good footballers.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Trengove was recruited as an all around midfielder who could deliver the ball forward when in space, but does not have the speed to get on the end of the ball in space. He is athletically well suited to being an inside midfielder, but isn't the role that he plays. He needs development of his inside game (which should be possible) to be a top level player. At the moment it's like recruiting Lenny Hayes to play on the wing.

Elite running, game sense and knowing your role enables this.

Hannebery isn't fast, but he's an elite runner in a good team. Brock McLean isn't fast, but he's reinvented himself with a fit body and improved running and now gets many of his touches in space.

Trengove's lack of preseasons has curtailed his running, but I believe he'll be able to develop his inside and outside roles the fitter he gets and within a stronger on-ball unit.

[DeeSpencer 23,189]

Unfortunately I too don't have the experience you're seeking.

I suspect it's a mixture of treatment, expectations on individual players, selection decisions, understanding a players strengths and weaknesses, and crucially the leadership group. It probably includes the whole fabric and culture of a club. It's intangible, but I reckon Roos and co know how to do it.

A youngster that joins the Sydney Swans goes through an induction process. This may be the same at most/all clubs, but it's driven by the LG. Sydney's LG virtually runs the club with the imprimatur of the coach. Tom Mitchell is going to be a genuine star. Yes, he had injury issues in his first season, but he also played plenty of footy at their lower level. He didn't play a senior game in his first year. Scully, Watts, Morton and Trengove come to the club and there's much fanfare. The Kids get talked up a lot. They're anointed as the ones that are going to drive the club up the ladder. Rather than just settle in, learn from the senior group, play most of the year at Casey, they're given exalted status. The psyche of the whole club is wrong. They players feel expectation that they shouldn't and senior players probably get their noses out of joint, especially when they see their teammates pensioned off or leave for other clubs.

There's probably not one easy answer, but there's been a culmination of poor decisions adversely effect young players drafted to this club.

It's a bit of chicken and egg though isn't it. It's very hard to have overexposed young players when you have a quality team of experienced players.

If we had strong solid leaders in the first place then not only would've some youngsters not have been exposed too early but the older players still around would've appreciated the talent of the young guys instead of sulked.

I mean as much as Watts, Trengove etc etc was a mistake because they weren't ready to play under Bailey some of the problem has to go back to Green, Bruce, Yze etc being the leaders at that time and all the mid level players who got swept away. Which then goes back to the way the club has been run for years.

Sitting Salem and Kennedy-Harris in the two's all year won't necessarily make them better players, especially a guy like Kennedy-Harris who in my mind has done enough to have a shot at a fair bit of senior footy when compared to those challenging him for his role. It's becoming clear playing young guys too much too early isn't good but it still remains young guys need games to get better hence Geelong turfing a few veterans of late. A few games here and there with time in the sub vest shouldn't overburden him with fan hype.

If I had to describe the 3 biggest problems of why we can't develop players I'd say there were

1. The recruiting - they players simply were no good

2. The culture and leadership which go hand in hand and as you spelled out and are influenced by list management

3. The coaching - the ability to actually teach the game and enhance skills and remedy errors

[Whispering_Jack 28,004]

It's a good post and something that I've been thinking about for a while. I also don't have experience in this field.

Development, to me, is the ability to improve a player's game to its highest possible level. In some areas this scope is virtually zero, and in others it's immense.

Skill deficiencies are definitely able to be developed. You can't turn Jayson Daniels into Darren Jarman, but you can turn Jack Fitzpatrick into Nick Riewoldt.

Game knowledge can be developed. Look at the number of Irish players who become high possession getters. Look at Anthony Koutoufides. Look at Daniel Merrett.

Athleticism is unlikely to be developed, especially speed. You might get bigger and you might get a bit more endurance, but if your role requires speed then you'd better already have it.

Coaches are responsible for developing the former, but recruiters are responsible for the latter. This is through tutoring and training good habits and educating the player to recognise these things himself. That's what I believe it to be.

To expand on your topic somewhat, I think that the poor return on our drafting has been a combination of both poor drafting and development, but I think different players have not met expectations due to either. In sort, though, I think it boils down to 1) selecting players who will improve greatly with development and then 2) ensuring we develop them well.

First of all, to analyse where our issues have been, let's look at some of the success stories of our (relatively) recent drafting. I'm not talking in terms of player X vs player Y, but some of the players we have drafted who have turned into good AFL players.

N Jones, Grimes, Frawley, Garland, McDonald. Hmmm, it's not a particularly long list!

These players all have 2 things in common:

1) The first thing that I look at that these players have in common is their mental strength. They are, what you call, 'teacher proof'. That is, it doesn't matter who was in charge, they were always going to get the best out of themselves because they would do extra work, look at their own game, do research and make sure they improved.

2) The second thing is that they all have athletic attributes that suit the role they are expected to play. What do I mean by this? Jones and Grimes are midfielders who have better endurance and gut running than most others in the competition and have passable speed and strength. Frawley and Garland play near goal and are blessed with what is most important in that role - speed. Frawley has power and Garland has agility, which are important in their roles. McDonald is a negating defender who plays further from goal, but he has exceptional endurance and good size. His poor kicking is not a big issue because of his role. You could throw McKenzie in that group too from the rookie list.

Each of these players had issues. But they were all issues that could be improved with development.

Jones was an outside midfield who had to be taught how to play inside. But he had the athletic attributes and the mentality to do this.

Grimes had injury issues and robotic kicking. The kicking issue could have been improved with development, but instead we found him a role where it was less of an issue.

Frawley came as a poor kick and a bit 'green' (ie, didn't know how to get involved in the game). Kicking could be developed from poor to decent and he could be taught how to play (because he was instinctively good in contests).

Garland had played little footy. Development could teach him this.

McDonald was a poor kick who didn't know how to play. His kicking and knowledge could be developed.

What about the ones where they have disappointed us:

Watts, Trengove, Cook, Blease, Strauss, Tapscott.

These have disappointed for different reasons, but generally one of two reasons - either they are/were athletically unsuited to their role, or there were not developed well (and weren't 'teacher proof').

Trengove, Cook, Tapscott, (maybe Blease) are all athletically unsuited to their roles at AFL level.

Trengove was recruited as an all around midfielder who could deliver the ball forward when in space, but does not have the speed to get on the end of the ball in space. He is athletically well suited to being an inside midfielder, but isn't the role that he plays. He needs development of his inside game (which should be possible) to be a top level player. At the moment it's like recruiting Lenny Hayes to play on the wing.

Cook is a key forward who's big strength was his ball use and endurance. Unfortunately he was very slow and very slight, which meant that it was almost impossible for him to get the footy in his role. His strengths were great, but irrelevant when he was so athletically unsuited to his role. This can't be developed and is not to blame.

Tapscott is small in AFL terms, but big in juniors. His strengths at junior levels don't translate to AFL level. So we need to look for his other AFL strengths, which are ...... his kicking which, like Cook, is irrelevant if your athletic failings mean you can get the ball. His downfalls can't be adequately developed and therefor is not to blame.

The others (Watts, Blease Strauss), are what I would call development related problems. Each of these has athletic strengths (with one major weakness for Blease) that are very, very well suited to their roles. However, the development has failed them.

Watts has the speed, skill etc etc to make him dominant in most AFL roles. But he came to the club needing to learn how to play, the expectations and how to influence AFL footy. He was given games and told to develop. But he isn't 'teacher proof'. He played roles that were easy for him to use his skills, but he didn't really learn anything. Now he's 5 years into his career and he is still needing to be taught how to play football. This is a development problem.

Blease has speed and skill (with awful endurance), which is a great skill set for a small forward/back role. Unfortunately he is still playing like a kid, rather than an AFL player. He doesn't get involved in games because he hasn't been developed properly. And he certainly isn't 'teacher proof'!!

Strauss has great athletic attributes and a great kick, which is perfect for the small back role. But he's not that bright and not 'teacher proof', so he needs help. He can be developed to play a role in defence, but he hasn't been taught how to play footy yet. This is a development problem.

There are certain things that you need to be able to do to be successful in your role at AFL level, and certain things that you can get by without. But these all relate to your role. In junior football these things aren't necessarily limiting to your performance, but at AFL level they do. We have drafted players who are athletically unsuited to the role we expect them to play, and we have also failed to develop players who should otherwise be able to be good footballers.

Good to see you back in town AOB.

For the record, do you think there's still a hope under Roos for the trio of Watts, Blease and Strauss who have been so disappointing to date?

[old dee 22,926]

Good to see you back in town AOB.

For the record, do you think there's still a hope under Roos for the trio of Watts, Blease and Strauss who have been so disappointing to date?

IMHO there is still a chance for Watts, forget the other two, lots of injuries but they are barely AFL standard.

[Ted Lasso 16,823]

IMHO there is still a chance for Watts, forget the other two, lots of injuries but they are barely AFL standard.

I agree OD the best thing Blease and Strauss can do for us is somehow get us a couple of extra 3rd or 4th round picks at the trade table

[Hannibal 5,814]

I mean as much as Watts, Trengove etc etc was a mistake because they weren't ready to play under Bailey some of the problem has to go back to Green, Bruce, Yze etc being the leaders at that time and all the mid level players who got swept away. Which then goes back to the way the club has been run for years.

Sitting Salem and Kennedy-Harris in the two's all year won't necessarily make them better players, especially a guy like Kennedy-Harris who in my mind has done enough to have a shot at a fair bit of senior footy when compared to those challenging him for his role. It's becoming clear playing young guys too much too early isn't good but it still remains young guys need games to get better hence Geelong turfing a few veterans of late. A few games here and there with time in the sub vest shouldn't overburden him with fan hype.

Roos has already said that young players play on merit, so it's not a matter of sitting them in the two's all year. Hannebery played 7 games in his first year under Roos and the older Jetta played 20. He gives games on merit and when appropriate exposes them for a taste. I have no doubt Salem and Jay will get games this year.

We have a host of reasons why players haven't developed. The whole tanking fiasco and psyche of the group at the time MOST certainly wouldn't have helped either. The place was a shambles.

[DeeSpencer 23,189]

IMHO there is still a chance for Watts, forget the other two, lots of injuries but they are barely AFL standard.

I also think only the best young players can learn to play in teams getting belted by 100 points. When you are getting swarmed and belted by that much it's just too hard. Senior players struggle enough when they have to play one out as such. Whenever I see the demons playing hot potato with the ball whilst getting blasted at clearances on in their own backline OR geting the ball on the wing and having absolutely nothing to kick to I note that the game has gone from a team game to a series of individual moments for our players. And the way footy is played these days unless you are a top player you need your team mates.

I'd give all 3 of Watts, Strauss and Blease some chance if we are in a competitive side. If not then I don't hold high hopes for any of them even Watts. All 3 rely on the ball getting moved to actually use their strengths

[Axis of Bob 10,250]

Elite running, game sense and knowing your role enables this.

Hannebery isn't fast, but he's an elite runner in a good team. Brock McLean isn't fast, but he's reinvented himself with a fit body and improved running and now gets many of his touches in space.

Trengove's lack of preseasons has curtailed his running, but I believe he'll be able to develop his inside and outside roles the fitter he gets and within a stronger on-ball unit.

I didn't say Trengove was a bad player, but he was a player most were disappointed with.

Trengove is playing as an outside midfielder with an inside midfielder's athletic set. Brock McLean has an inside midfielder's skill set while playing as an inside midfielder. Lenny Hayes is similar. Both win ball inside and outside because they are smart players (like Trengove). They start inside and move outside. That's what Trengove should do.

But this relies on two things. Either:

- Trengove develops his inside game enough to be a genuine inside midfielder who can then use his class on the outside to be damaging, or

- Trengove develops his speed to beat his direct opponents (other outside midfielders) in open space.

The former is entirely possible, while the second is near impossible. The former is a product of development while the second is not. The worst case scenario is that neither thing happens and he just ends up as a good player for us.

As for Hannebury, he is much faster than Trengove. He's also an exceptionally good anaerobic runner (think Dane Swan). Trengove is more similar athletically to McLean, Bartel and Hayes than to Hannebury. This is the style of game he should be playing, being able to intelligently work into space rather than have to beat his man in a race out there.

Good to see you back in town AOB.

For the record, do you think there's still a hope under Roos for the trio of Watts, Blease and Strauss who have been so disappointing to date?

I've been away, plus I've also been lurking around.

Watts has every chance of making it under Roos. If we can teach Watts how to play football (and he has improved markedly in his first few games this year) then he'll be an absolute jet. Strauss is the least talented, but he has the attributes to make it, even if it requires a simplified role for him. I think he could become a decent player in the back line, provided that he is given a job to do and very, very clear instructions on what that job is and extensive education on how to play exactly that role. Blease is a bit more tricky because his lack of endurance makes him very vulnerable. He could only play as a deep forward or back, but I don't think he is clean/agile enough in those confines to do it. I'm not sure that development will make him the player everyone thinks he could be, but rather he is a luxury in a team that is already really good.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I didn't say Trengove was a bad player, but he was a player most were disappointed with.

Trengove is playing as an outside midfielder with an inside midfielder's athletic set. Brock McLean has an inside midfielder's skill set while playing as an inside midfielder. Lenny Hayes is similar. Both win ball inside and outside because they are smart players (like Trengove). They start inside and move outside. That's what Trengove should do.

But this relies on two things. Either:

- Trengove develops his inside game enough to be a genuine inside midfielder who can then use his class on the outside to be damaging, or

- Trengove develops his speed to beat his direct opponents (other outside midfielders) in open space.

The former is entirely possible, while the second is near impossible. The former is a product of development while the second is not. The worst case scenario is that neither thing happens and he just ends up as a good player for us.

As for Hannebury, he is much faster than Trengove. He's also an exceptionally good anaerobic runner (think Dane Swan). Trengove is more similar athletically to McLean, Bartel and Hayes than to Hannebury. This is the style of game he should be playing, being able to intelligently work into space rather than have to beat his man in a race out there.

No, I know you never said he was a bad player.

Brock McLean wins most of his footy in space, not as an inside mid. He's doing this on the back of his fitness/running.

Yes, Hannebery is an elite runner. He was doing triathlons at 16. He doesn't get footy from his pace, which is slowish, he gets it from his elite endurance, game sense and the benefits of playing in a good team.

Trengove will develop his inside game, which he clearly needs to, and when his fitness improves he'll be quite capable of getting on the end of it in space. I don't see this as an issue.

Bartel is another who's slow, but is always getting on the end of it.

[Axis of Bob 10,250]

Brock McLean won 43% of his 467 disposals last year in a contested situation.

Jack Trengove won 35% of his 356 disposals last year in a contested situation. Melbourne's team average was 39%.

In other words, Trengove is being played as an outside midfielder at the moment. This is a role that he is not suited to athletically. Unless you think that he is athletically suited to being an outside midfielder then I'm not really sure what your point is. Nor do I think it is the most important part of my post. If you would like to have a discussion specifically on Trengove then I would be happy to start a new thread about him and we can talk about it there.

Did you have any thoughts on the rest of it? In particular the general ideas behind it and the point it was trying to make?

[Ted Lasso 16,823]

Brock McLean won 43% of his 467 disposals last year in a contested situation.

Jack Trengove won 35% of his 356 disposals last year in a contested situation. Melbourne's team average was 39%.

In other words, Trengove is being played as an outside midfielder at the moment. This is a role that he is not suited to athletically. Unless you think that he is athletically suited to being an outside midfielder then I'm not really sure what your point is. Nor do I think it is the most important part of my post. If you would like to have a discussion specifically on Trengove then I would be happy to start a new thread about him and we can talk about it there.

Did you have any thoughts on the rest of it? In particular the general ideas behind it and the point it was trying to make?

I always thought Trenners needs to be at the stoppages and centre bounces! he has always been a luke ball style inside mid

[Pennant St Dee 11,324]

Good God, Lucas Cook taken before Jack Darling!!

Reading that can cause heart failure.

Meanwhile at the same time the previous CEO was designing a club school blazer.

I cannot blame opposition clubs for not taking the MFC seriously before PJ stepped in.

Lucas Cook was a shocking pick in fact probably one of our worst but every club passed Jack Darling over, even Meth Coast who did not take him until their third pick.

Those who think we are the only club who make bad picks are fools, it is not an easy exercise and I still say the way we develop these kids and our culture has a lot to do with it.

As the master said we were on a bit of an upward rise under Bailey but decisions to off load players who provided leadership around the club and put so much pressure on the younger guys well before they were ready was a disaster from the end of 2010 to now

[Hannibal 5,814]

Brock McLean won 43% of his 467 disposals last year in a contested situation.

Jack Trengove won 35% of his 356 disposals last year in a contested situation. Melbourne's team average was 39%.

In other words, Trengove is being played as an outside midfielder at the moment. This is a role that he is not suited to athletically. Unless you think that he is athletically suited to being an outside midfielder then I'm not really sure what your point is. Nor do I think it is the most important part of my post. If you would like to have a discussion specifically on Trengove then I would be happy to start a new thread about him and we can talk about it there.

Did you have any thoughts on the rest of it? In particular the general ideas behind it and the point it was trying to make?

You said, "Trengove was recruited as an all around midfielder who could deliver the ball forward when in space, but does not have the speed to get on the end of the ball in space."

i disagree, which is why I brought up McLean, Hannebery and Bartel. I watched McLean a lot last year and he was always getting footy in the clear. It was one of the noticeable things about his year. His improved fitness and running allowed that.

Trengove won't have any difficulty getting "on the end of the ball in space" in a better team with improved endurance and collectively a group with better running patterns. No problem whatsoever.

To answer one of your questions, no he doesn't have an "outside" mids body and yes needs to improve his inside ability. I still see an all-round role. He doesn't need an outside mids body to gain outside possessions.

The rest of your post was OK.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Hannibal

[Pennant St Dee 11,324]

There was nothing wrong with Darling, it was a one off incident that Meth Coke exaggerated beautifully.

It beggars that these recruiting morons we had could command a salary. Put the club back another 15-20 years again.

That is just BS WYL, one incident my arse. The incidents had little to do with it. He dropped off dramatically at senior level after being outstanding at underage level, he did not train well in his last years at West Perth and had to be pulled in at Meth Coast very early days as his attitude had not improved. A few harsh words were exchanged and from there he knuckled down and he registered what he needed to do and talent alone was not going to get him a gig alone

[Alcho Dee 269]

Everybody has a role in the team, but their is a difference between being able to play their natural game compared to an emphasis on role playing. Look at Trengove's first and second year he was given freedom to play how he was drafted ie. be tagged instead of tagging. But over the last couple of years he has been concentrating on a role for the team and his defensive side of his game, which definitely affected him negatively. There is fine line between getting people to play a role for the team and letting them play naturally....

[Dr. Gonzo 22,487]

Good post. I put it down to basically we have recruited poorly. Why do some recruits come in from round 1 and play good footy, that is not development.

Some recruits come in and play good footy from round 1, but for other clubs they go on to improve and find consistency whereas at Melbourne they rarely go beyond the level shown in their first game/year and rarely find consistency - this has been the case for as long as I've been watching the Demons (since the late 80's) - look at guys like Bruce, Yze and Green for instance all burst on to the scene in their rookie seasons but never developed beyond that level and never found the week in, week out consistency that saw them drag the team up with them in big games.

[DeeSpencer 23,189]

You said, "Trengove was recruited as an all around midfielder who could deliver the ball forward when in space, but does not have the speed to get on the end of the ball in space."

i disagree, which is why I brought up McLean, Hannebery and Bartel. I watched McLean a lot last year and he was always getting footy in the clear. It was one of the noticeable things about his year. His improved fitness and running allowed that.

Trengove won't have any difficulty getting "on the end of the ball in space" in a better team with improved endurance and collectively a group with better running patterns. No problem whatsoever.

To answer one of your questions, no he doesn't have an "outside" mids body and yes needs to improve his inside ability. I still see an all-round role. He doesn't need an outside mids body to gain outside possessions.

The rest of your post was OK.

I agree with you Hannibal. Add Steele Sidebottom as another very good predominantly outside player who relies on endurance more than speed. Even add our own Daniel Cross who's good inside but this year will probably play just as much outside.

If we can win some contested ball and get the midfield working as a unit then we can see the positives of Trengove and Watts I hope. We need them being proactive in getting the ball and then it wont matter about their limitations. Trengove is one who suffers from always having to chase his opponents who are often faster than him. If we start controlling the possession balance we will start seeing Trengove getting the ball and using it well in space as well as hopefully getting involved in the packs.

[Hero1 74]

Forget about inside and outside its nonsense. Just play the game.

[rjay 23,925]

Brock McLean won 43% of his 467 disposals last year in a contested situation.

Jack Trengove won 35% of his 356 disposals last year in a contested situation. Melbourne's team average was 39%.

In other words, Trengove is being played as an outside midfielder at the moment. This is a role that he is not suited to athletically. Unless you think that he is athletically suited to being an outside midfielder then I'm not really sure what your point is. Nor do I think it is the most important part of my post. If you would like to have a discussion specifically on Trengove then I would be happy to start a new thread about him and we can talk about it there.

Did you have any thoughts on the rest of it? In particular the general ideas behind it and the point it was trying to make?

I hope he was not is given they're last years stats and the new coach may adjust his role.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,462]

As I understand it, Brad Miller has been appointed, for want of a better title, as our Development Coach. Has he any specific qualifications for the role? (Note: Please do not interpret my question as implying criticism of him or those who appointed him. I'm just curious to know how an ex-player moves into this role).

[jazza 1,323]

. Has he any specific qualifications for the role? (Note: Please do not interpret my question as implying criticism of him or those who appointed him. I'm just curious to know how an ex-player moves into this role).

generally some players get very little education and go for simple qualifications.

footy clubs know most younger players will listen to an ex afl player .rather than a "nobody".

some ex players have no other life plan and stick around for awhile and hope to climb the greasy ladder of coaching,

staying "involved at afl level stops them from missing the game and is a win win for club and ex player.

[DeeSpencer 23,189]

As I understand it, Brad Miller has been appointed, for want of a better title, as our Development Coach. Has he any specific qualifications for the role? (Note: Please do not interpret my question as implying criticism of him or those who appointed him. I'm just curious to know how an ex-player moves into this role).

See below:

BRETT ALLISON - HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT

Brett Allison, Melbourne’s head of development, was the first coach to join Melbourne following Paul Roos’ appointment as senior coach.

Allison, who played in the 1996 and 1999 flags for the Kangaroos and was a member of the Sydney Swans’ premiership coaching panel in 2005, came to the Demons after being an assistant coach at North Melbourne since 2010.

He was in charge of the forwards at the Roos in 2013.

Allison spent nine years as a development coach with the Swans, where he oversaw the AFL NSW/ACT program and later became the Sydney reserves team.

He played 219 matches with the Kangaroos from 1987-99 and made nine appearances with the Swans in 2000.

Allison, the son of former North Melbourne player Tom (who played 106 matches and kicked 61 goals from 1963-70), was originally recruited from Belconnen in the Australian Capital Territory.

A classy half-forward/forward pocket, Allison was a sharpshooter around goal and excellent at crumbing off the pack.

He played seven State of Origin matches and took one of the greatest ever marks in 1991, when he sprung over Collingwood’s Gavin Crosisca at the MCG.

BRAD MILLER – DEVELOPMENT COACH

Miller rejoined Melbourne as a development coach in September 2013, as part of Paul Roos’ new look coaching panel for 2014.

He played 133 of his 157 matches at the Demons from 2002-10 and added 24 games with Richmond from 2011-12.

Miller was originally drafted from Mt Gravatt (Qld) at No. 55 in the 2001 AFL Draft and made his AFL debut against Fremantle at Patersons Stadium in round eight, 2002.

A tall key position player, who mainly played up forward, but could also play down back, Miller led Melbourne’s goalkicking with 26 goals in 2008.

Miller was widely regarded as Melbourne’s best player in its most recent finals appearance against Fremantle in the 2006 second semi-final loss at Patersons Stadium. He played in four finals with the Demons.

He was highly regarded for his leadership and team oriented play during his 11 AFL seasons.

So Allison has significant and successful experience as both a development and line coach. Miller looks like being his deputy. I don't think he has particularly strong experience or qualifications but he is coming in at the entry level position. He would've completely his coaching accreditation for whatever it's worth and I think he did some coaching at local level last year. I think his recruitment was partly because they think he'll make a good coach but also because they know he'll be a good guy around the club and he brings back some club history from a tumultuous time. He's good for the club culture that Roos is so reknown for as well as being appropriate for the role.

Andrew Nichol (a development coach under Neeld) has been retained as player development manager. I presume that uses his skills as a former teacher to help Allison and Miller coordinate the development.