The most exciting part this announcement is the famous number 13 being available. OOOOOZzzzzzzzzzzzzzeee. Jako. Gee they were good.

Prestia's new number?

With Fitz going it appears as if Frost and Oscar Mc are the preferred spare talls. Haven't heard any news about King, so he might be another tall preferred over Fitz. It also hints at the recruiting of another 'depth' tall in trade or draft.

https://twitter.com/melbournefc/status/644730240866975744

In the words of the Dolphins from a hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy

"Thanks for the fish"

or...thank your mother for the rabbits

yeah, interesting that, as it was him who delisted him from the swans

And back then, with the Swans having a much much better list, Terlich was more expendable.

I don't mind having a few hard-at-it types as back up depth. Just about every club keeps at least 4 or 5 NQR types because they have no other choice ... there's just not that many 'AFL ready' players in the system.

Getting rid of 10 players will almost certainly not mean those 10 players will be replaced by another 10 good players ... it doesn't work that way when a number of the replacements (recruits) are speculative picks.

However, in the last 2 off-seasons, we're getting more hits than misses than in many of our previous off-seasons. Our strike rate is improving and we need to keep trending that way to build a good list.

He's not going to be on huge money, mate, no. But as a turnover merchant, he should be gone. He manages to limit his horrible, game changing turn overs for one or two games a year, the rest of the time he kills us. Why not get another runner in there that can do the same job, without E grade disposal?

Ugh... You know there's such a thing as average players right? Wouldn't have picked you as one of the typical Demonland spud or star types. Matt Jones is not as bad as you're trying to make out. 75% DE, is not great but it's not terrible (it's better than a lot of our players most consider better). He should never be regular 22, but he's fine as a depth player.

Just FYI, here's a few players who are ranked lower for disposal efficiency:

Garland, Salem, Tyson, Vince, Nathan Jones, Hogan, Viney, Brayshaw, vandenBerg... (There's a fair few more, but those are the most significant).

Sometimes here perception becomes the reality. The reality is his disposal isn't that useful, but it's not that bad.

Ugh... You know there's such a thing as average players right? Wouldn't have picked you as one of the typical Demonland spud or star types. Matt Jones is not as bad as you're trying to make out. 75% DE, is not great but it's not terrible (it's better than a lot of our players most consider better). He should never be regular 22, but he's fine as a depth player.

Just FYI, here's a few players who are ranked lower for disposal efficiency:

Garland, Salem, Tyson, Vince, Nathan Jones, Hogan, Viney, Brayshaw, vandenBerg... (There's a fair few more, but those are the most significant).

Sometimes here perception becomes the reality. The reality is his disposal isn't that useful, but it's not that bad.

I'm not saying a MFC player has to fit into one of those two narrow categories, but I am saying Matt Jones fits into the former. A player that's middle of the road is someone like Garland or Dawes or Kent. So there is grey.

If you've read many of my posts, you'll know that I don't rate the DE stat, it's useless, so that won't win me over here. IMO, Matt Jones is easily in our bottom three or four players on the list. The way you're talking about him here is as though he's in our best 30 or so. I don't think he should be on the list at all. I think we can do better for depth and should do better for depth, otherwise we won't be ascending the ladder very far.

We just share a different opinion on this one, mate.

I'm not saying a MFC player has to fit into one of those two narrow categories, but I am saying Matt Jones fits into the former. A player that's middle of the road is someone like Garland or Dawes or Kent. So there is grey.

If you've read many of my posts, you'll know that I don't rate the DE stat, it's useless, so that won't win me over here. IMO, Matt Jones is easily in our bottom three or four players on the list. The way you're talking about him here is as though he's in our best 30 or so. I don't think he should be on the list at all. I think we can do better for depth and should do better for depth, otherwise we won't be ascending the ladder very far.

We just share a different opinion on this one, mate.

Fair enough. Respect your opinion AF, and agree with a lot of what you post.

I would place him more into the 35-40 range if I had to put a number on it.

Ugh... You know there's such a thing as average players right? Wouldn't have picked you as one of the typical Demonland spud or star types. Matt Jones is not as bad as you're trying to make out. 75% DE, is not great but it's not terrible (it's better than a lot of our players most consider better). He should never be regular 22, but he's fine as a depth player.

Just FYI, here's a few players who are ranked lower for disposal efficiency:

Garland, Salem, Tyson, Vince, Nathan Jones, Hogan, Viney, Brayshaw, vandenBerg... (There's a fair few more, but those are the most significant).

Sometimes here perception becomes the reality. The reality is his disposal isn't that useful, but it's not that bad.

To me a good an analogy for disposal efficiency would be high jump.

Matt Jones attempts to clear 50cm and does it 75% of the time.

Some of the others mentioned try to clear 1m plus and are successful less than 75%.

There are some more sophisticated measures out there that take into account difficulty of disposal.

Matt Jones is very fit and follows instructions to the best of his ability, his OKish disposal efficiency has nothing to do with him being on the list.

No real surprise there I thought Fitzy might get another run.

But they are all NGE

do a nev jetta ??? rookie, or is he simply not competative enough ?

To me a good an analogy for disposal efficiency would be high jump.

Matt Jones attempts to clear 50cm and does it 75% of the time.

Some of the others mentioned try to clear 1m plus and are successful less than 75%.

There are some more sophisticated measures out there that take into account difficulty of disposal.

Matt Jones is very fit and follows instructions to the best of his ability, his OKish disposal efficiency has nothing to do with him being on the list.

Ok, so these guys play footy... On the same ground, against the same opposition, so not sure high jump is the best analogy. Although I agree Matt is a very "safe" footballer, and that is the reason i think he is on the list. Does what he's told to, is predictable in output, and particularly likes the boundary line, that's why Roos has kept playing him.

The reason I brought up his disposal efficiency was because someone else used it as a reason to bag him, not because I was saying that's why he's on the list, or he's better than the players I listed. The post for that is on the previous page so maybe you missed it.

I reckon Matt Jones is okay.

If Jones and Terlich are contracted, perhaps the club prefers to see what comes in (through trade) before paying them out. Can't see us taking any more than 3 draftees, and can see Harmes & maybe White being promoted.

It's not necessarily the year for a mass cleanout, not much in the draft to replace that many.

Might be prudent to go with a few less on the primary list and extras on the rookie list this year.

geez chaser, we have a lot of similar thoughts.

I too like the extra rookies this year, in a speculative draft year, so a poss max or 3 draftees,,, unless we get extra top 30 picks in.

However I'm not against shedding up to 9 off the list, & replacing with outside depth, just for changes sake, Re the culture. To rotate the current culture on the old pottery wheel, fashioning it as it spins, into the more practical creation.

I reckon Matt Jones is okay.

He gets games at least. Happy for him to be kept as depth and moved on next year.

Terlich did not play a minute of AFL. He should be paid out and moved on.

I really don't care who we delist or trade.

I used to but now all I want is for us to improve.

I like certain players but really don't have a fav any more.

It's a business especially with FA and any other player who is under contract and asks for a trade half way through their contract.

I don't give a shitz we need to get better so that better players WANT to come to us.

yeah, interesting that, as it was him who delisted him from the swans

The coach isn't the only person involved in list management decisions.

I reckon Matt Jones is okay.

As much as I've been on his case over the past two years, reevaluating his season this year, he's done his job. With little to no fanfare (barring the Geelong game).

As of right now, I'm OK with keeping him on the list. Sure, ideally I'd prefer someone more skilled, but we need to deal with reality here. He's trying his hardest, and as long as everyone on the list does the same, we'll improve.

To be blunt, he's better than these 4, and better than the equivalent pick we'd get by delisting him. Trade 'week' is a long time, and he's one of those expendable, but if our list doesn't undergo massive changes by October 31, I'll understand if he's still at Melbourne in 2016.

I reckon Matt Jones is okay.

Played a good game against geelong. Was very ordinary in his other games.

Gives away silly frees and kicks out on the full too often.

Still is useful for depth in a poor draft year.

I'd get rid of Terlich though

Prestia's new number?

Petraccas new number! 26 sucks!

I was not really surprised that we delisted Fitzpatrick. I look at it a little differently. With the introduction of the sub rule teams had only 3 interchange players for the bench and the sub. This lead to the demise of the second ruck as a role. There was a need for a standing to take the rucking duties when the No1 needed a rest. This lead to a lot of trial and error as to tactics. Ritzy at 200cms and able to play either end of the ground fitted the bill pretty well and was being developed as a versatile tall. With the axing of the sub and the lowering of the number of rotations I think the game will evolve in a different direction. With the sub rule the game changed, some of it for the better and I can see coaches realising that and adapting the use of the new situation to use what came out of the last couple of seasons.

Hence the return of specialist big men to a degree and the need for well conditioned runners. Bad luck Pig-Dog. Bail was given a good run at it but could not make the step up. MacKenzie did his job when required but has a step behind the level required. All the best to all four of them. You are all,part of the rich history of the club.

I reckon you're way over-analysing it CHF. Without meaning to pan a bloke whose career has just been cut off, I'd say Fitzy has been delisted for more "traditional" reasons, and I've been surprised for quite some time about the amount of love he gets from MFC fans.

I'd love for one of our 'spuds' that we retain for next season, such as a Matt Jones, to really turn their career completely around and become a very important best 22 player. Doesn't happen very often at the MFC, but this would just show how much our development has improved in the last couple of years.

I'm backing the Doggies to grab Fitz as a delisted Free Agent. I'm not at all happy to see him go. There are others I would have had out the door well before him.

I'd love for one of our 'spuds' that we retain for next season, such as a Matt Jones, to really turn their career completely around and become a very important best 22 player. Doesn't happen very often at the MFC, but this would just show how much our development has improved in the last couple of years.

Can't see it happening with M Jones and Terlich. They have been in the system for a long time now without improvement.

Matt lacks awareness, can't put the ball to advantage and rarely kicks a goal. His kicks really lack penetration.

I really can't see how he keeps going around.