Saturday talking point: Intraclub and the State of the List

[needafullback 82]

48 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Had a bit of an argument with a pretty pathetic Dees supporter, who basically these days just rubbishes us. Well I suppose he is not a real supporter.

I tried to explain to him that our list has been turned over in the last couple of years,  but all he could answer was he had heard that for the last 10 years.

Again I tried to explain that our list was crap over the last 10 years and we have done something about it.

In summary though, even though he says he is a Dees fan, he is like many in the AFL world.

Until we produce, many will think we are just making up the numbers.

Go Dees and produce and stick it up the condescending and arrogant, clubs and individuals who make up the AFL.

Not even the most pessimistic supporter could argue that we're not heading in the right direction after Neeld. 7 wins and a percentage of 77 is a lot better than 2 wins and 54%. People who continue to have this attitude in the face of undeniable improvement should stop pretending to be Melbourne fans at all. 

[beelzebub 22,225]

43 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I hate this argument.  I understand the last decade has been tough, but the old 'I've seen it all before' argument doesn't wash with me.  If you take 5 minutes to compare the club to now you'll see there is a huge difference... but some, I guess, are too far gone to realise that.

If you didn't know it was Melbourne you wouldn't recognise the club today its changed that much. 

Just one thing left to change...losses for wins

[Late Draft Pick 48]

What really highlights the state of the list for me is when looking at everyone's Round 1 teams  -  the players, barring injury who would be available for Casey. Imagine Casey's first game and you have Spencer, Trengove, Oliver and Petracca in the centre, Grimes, OMac, Bugg, Lumumba and Wagner down back, Hunt and ANB on the wings and Newton Michie JKH, Weideman and Hulett up front  -  just as an example from someone's team. I''ll certainly be getting to the occasional Casey game this year.

 

[Lucifers Hero 37,004]

The State of Our List?

Overall Picture:   

- We have 17 players from the Neeld era or prior

-Roos has insulated us from the ‘go home’ factor: 78% of the list are from Victoria or other clubs.  The only notable risk is Jesse (discussion in another thread).

-From an article this week:  the Demons believe they have 20 to 23 "good" players, up from "13 decent players" in 2013… Their analysis shows the top-four teams have about 27.  

List Profile:

-We are much taller than ever before: 2 x 200+cm players and 13 x 190 to 199 cm players.

-Our average age is 23 (and for those who prefer the Median, it is 22).  No one is over 30; 5 are 28+; only 12 in the critical 24 to 27 age group. 

-Our average experience is 51 games (the Median is 32).  Only 9 players over 100 games and 7 players in the 50 to 100 game range.

Conclusions:

-I would expect any player who still has ‘mental demons’ will not get a game.

-Only a handful of players will be a walk up start in the 22 each week but given Roos’ history to date once in the team the spot will be a players to lose.

-Quality of our list is catching up to that of top 4 teams.   Experience is the big gap...experience not just no of games but also in winning and finals.

-No elite players yet but it would be staggering if a few don’t develop from the ‘20- 23’ good players we do have.

-A very young, very inexperienced team so we will have inconsistent results, maybe some bad (not crushing) losses but also more surprise upsets. 

-Team solidarity and enthusiasm seems to be at an all time high so may sneak in an extra win or two.

-If we get to finals this year we are really ‘punching above our weight’. 

-On this climb of Everest we are at Base Camp...all resources ready for the climb up!

Edited February 20, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero
changed 'mean' to 'median'

[beelzebub 22,225]

Good summary LH

[PaulRB 5,919]

Surely, if the Demons believe they have 20 to 23 "good" players," then it will be these 20 - 23 "good" players who'll be getting a game...?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,394]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The State of Our List?

Overall Picture:   

- We have 17 players from the Neeld era or prior

-Roos has insulated us from the ‘go home’ factor: 78% of the list are from Victoria or other clubs.  The only notable risk is Jesse (discussion in another thread).

-From an article this week:  the Demons believe they have 20 to 23 "good" players, up from "13 decent players" in 2013… Their analysis shows the top-four teams have about 27.  

List Profile:

-We are much taller than ever before: 2 x 200+cm players and 13 x 190 to 199 cm players.

-Our average age is 23 (and for those who prefer the Mean, it is 22).  No one is over 30; 5 are 28+; only 12 in the critical 24 to 27 age group. 

-Our average experience is 51 games (the Mean is 32).  Only 9 players over 100 games and 7 players in the 50 to 100 game range.

Conclusions:

-I would expect any player who still has ‘mental demons’ will not get a game.

-Only a handful of players will be a walk up start in the 22 each week but given Roos’ history to date once in the team the spot will be a players to lose.

-Quality of our list is catching up to that of top 4 teams.   Experience is the big gap...experience not just no of games but also in winning and finals.

-No elite players yet but it would be staggering if a few don’t develop from the ‘20- 23’ good players we do have.

-A very young, very inexperienced team so we will have inconsistent results, maybe some bad (not crushing) losses but also more surprise upsets. 

-Team solidarity and enthusiasm seems to be at an all time high so may sneak in an extra win or two.

-If we get to finals this year we are really ‘punching above our weight’. 

-On this climb of Everest we are at Base Camp...all resources ready for the climb up!

When I went to school, I'm sure I was taught that the average and the mean were the same thing. So, can you tell me what the difference is so I can understand your post better.  (Good post, by the way.)

[Lucifers Hero 37,004]

38 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Surely, if the Demons believe they have 20 to 23 "good" players," then it will be these 20 - 23 "good" players who'll be getting a game...?

True.  I took that to be a medium term/potential type comment. 

Most of the 20 to 23 are still very young and will need to be managed and be rested at times.  Would expect their performance to drop off as they will not be able to sustain 120 min for 22 games. 

Maybe a 'handful' understates it and it is probably closer to about a dozen will be walk up starts.

[mo64 5,209]

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

Had a bit of an argument with a pretty pathetic Dees supporter, who basically these days just rubbishes us. Well I suppose he is not a real supporter.

I tried to explain to him that our list has been turned over in the last couple of years,  but all he could answer was he had heard that for the last 10 years.

Again I tried to explain that our list was crap over the last 10 years and we have done something about it.

In summary though, even though he says he is a Dees fan, he is like many in the AFL world.

Until we produce, many will think we are just making up the numbers.

Go Dees and produce and stick it up the condescending and arrogant, clubs and individuals who make up the AFL.

Sorry Redleg, but that's the sort of mentality that makes us an irrelevancy within the football world. We are where we're at through no fault but ourselves. I'd love us to be an arrogant club that other clubs want to "stick it up".

Looking at our list from the outside, we won 7 games last year and lost to St.Kilda x 2, Essendon and Carlton. Our 2nd half of the season was abysmal. We didn't trade in anyone of note, and the only draftee who could potentially be selected early in the season is Oliver. 

I loved the draftees from the previous year, and if they all build on their debut seasons and Petracca lives up to his hype, we may climb the ladder. But every club bar Essendon will be thinking the same thing at this time of the year.

Until we start winning games consistently, we need to suck it up, and accept that people will rubbish the club. That's sport.

 

[DeeVoted 582]

Just now, Whispering_Jack said:

It was reported (apparently incorrectly) elsewhere that he did. Thanks.

I might have to put him back on the list of no shows then.?

100% did not play.  I should have asked why not.

[Whispering_Jack 27,962]

11 hours ago, robbiefrom13 said:

Overlooking Melksham's status seems to me to be a mistake suggestive of a wrong attitude.  Not saying WJ has a wrong attitude, but his inclusion of Melksham on his list makes it sound like he is not respectfully aware of the enormous black mark against Melksham's name for the duration of 2016.  All of us should, in my opinion, be very conscious of MFC having become implicated after the event (quite unnecessarily) in something disgraceful.  

Well, actually, I didn't overlook Melksham's status because if you read my text it's very clear -

"There is a group of players who comprise about a quarter of the club's list who were unavailable either through injury or because they were rested (and in Jake Melksham's case because of suspension for the year) ..."

Melksham is a member of our playing list and that's a fact. It's also a fact that he's not on our active playing list because he's currently serving a suspension along with 33 other Bomber and former Bomber players who were found guilty of ingesting TB4 in 2012 whilst part of his club's "supplements" scandal. 

I have my view about the suspension and recruiting Melksham while he was facing the charges but that doesn't "implicate" us in the offence and its not really the point in the context of this discussion which is about who happens to be available to play and how that list will perform in 2016.

[Lucifers Hero 37,004]

56 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

When I went to school, I'm sure I was taught that the average and the mean were the same thing. So, can you tell me what the difference is so I can understand your post better.  (Good post, by the way.)

Quite right Lad-vC! 

My bad...I meant to right 'Median'...will go back and correct

[beelzebub 22,225]

A point, pedantic as it is WJ , is your list supplies the names from which you rightly suggest we need to get as many as possible playing in 2016. Now there's the rub. Pointless Melksham being on your list even if he's on our list because he WILL NOT be playing at all in 2016. As you like facts, that's another . 

This year Jake is an irrelevance.The others aren't as they might/ought play.

Cheers

[robbiefrom13 877]

3 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Well, actually, I didn't overlook Melksham's status because if you read my text it's very clear -

"There is a group of players who comprise about a quarter of the club's list who were unavailable either through injury or because they were rested (and in Jake Melksham's case because of suspension for the year) ..."

 

Labouring a point, but...   WJ you rightly command a lot of respect on here, but you put your thoughts out there on a discussion board, and what should other posters do when they find something not quite right?  Let it go? - and then there comes that old Demonland chestnut "if you read what I wrote..."  

 

The bit of your post that I was commenting on said -

There is a group of players who comprise about a quarter of the club's list who were unavailable either through injury or because they were rested (and in Jake Melksham's case because of suspension for the year) and, judging by some of the names of those missing, it will be an essential to get as many of these players up and running as possible if we are going to see major improvement in 2016. They are -

2. Nathan Jones

5. Christian Petracca 

6. Chris Dawes

8. Heritier Lumumba 

9. Jack Trengove 

18. Jake Melksham 

19. Ben Newton etc

 

How can getting Melksham up and running this year be an "essential" for the club?  I didn't think you should have had him on that list.  Melksham cannot be part of "They are.."  For a supporters' discussion board to suggest the club should be doing anything to get Melksham up and running this year seemed to me to look like ignoring the decision of CAS.  Plenty of others around the AFL appear to be inclined that way - I'd hope we clearly and visibly are not.  I thought your post was open to misinterpretation, and could influence somebody's impression of how Melbourne supporters view the CAS decision.  Hence I clumsily weighed in.  I'm sorry I did - but I still think that on this occasion you posted carelessly, on a point that is not trivial.

[Willmoy1947 3,772]

Jake Melksham is a signed, good,  Melbourne player. For all we know he could have been a reason Essendon's woes were resolved as they were.

[DEE fence 4,448]

9 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

I hate this argument.  I understand the last decade has been tough, but the old 'I've seen it all before' argument doesn't wash with me.  If you take 5 minutes to compare the club to now you'll see there is a huge difference... but some, I guess, are too far gone to realise that.

I am not going to be kind to anyone when we are good again. I further plan to be particularly vicious to any of the patronising ar$3ss I know from Essendon Carlton and Collingwood - Doggies and Saints get a pass.

 

Edited February 20, 2016 by Ingeniokinetikey
Spelling

[Whispering_Jack 27,962]

1 hour ago, robbiefrom13 said:

Labouring a point, but...   WJ you rightly command a lot of respect on here, but you put your thoughts out there on a discussion board, and what should other posters do when they find something not quite right?  Let it go? - and then there comes that old Demonland chestnut "if you read what I wrote..."  

 

The bit of your post that I was commenting on said -

There is a group of players who comprise about a quarter of the club's list who were unavailable either through injury or because they were rested (and in Jake Melksham's case because of suspension for the year) and, judging by some of the names of those missing, it will be an essential to get as many of these players up and running as possible if we are going to see major improvement in 2016. They are -

2. Nathan Jones

5. Christian Petracca 

6. Chris Dawes

8. Heritier Lumumba 

9. Jack Trengove 

18. Jake Melksham 

19. Ben Newton etc

 

How can getting Melksham up and running this year be an "essential" for the club?  I didn't think you should have had him on that list.  Melksham cannot be part of "They are.."  For a supporters' discussion board to suggest the club should be doing anything to get Melksham up and running this year seemed to me to look like ignoring the decision of CAS.  Plenty of others around the AFL appear to be inclined that way - I'd hope we clearly and visibly are not.  I thought your post was open to misinterpretation, and could influence somebody's impression of how Melbourne supporters view the CAS decision.  Hence I clumsily weighed in.  I'm sorry I did - but I still think that on this occasion you posted carelessly, on a point that is not trivial.

You're being pedantic.

I didn't suggest we needed to get Melksham up and running for 2016. I said we need to get as many of the players on the list up and running as possible. In other words, we need to get as many players on our list as possible fit and healthy. I had already flagged that Melksham was out so having him play was not possible.

[Slartibartfast 15,761]

22 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

 

I didn't suggest we needed to get Melksham up and running for 2016. I said we need to get as many of the players on the list up and running as possible. In other words, we need to get as many players on our list as possible fit and healthy. I had already flagged that Melksham was out so having him play was not possible.

I agree, and a profound observation I might add. 

Keep 'em coming Jack!?

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

When I went to school, I'm sure I was taught that the average and the mean were the same thing. So, can you tell me what the difference is so I can understand your post better.  (Good post, by the way.)

Pretty sure he means Median. 

[Its Time for Another 4,052]

I don't think you can underestimate the age profile and capacity to compete physically and particularly running capacity. 

I went to the 2011 B&F and spoke to Aaron Davey who said Bailey had been trying to get them to execute a game plan they just couldn't execute. He said as a group they just didn't have the ability to run both ways the way he wanted them too. 

I spoke to Neil Craig at the 2012 pre match function in Sydney and he said they were shocked when they arrived and discovered how poor the fitness levels were. He said then they thought they were 2 1/2 seasons away from being competitive fitness wise. 

At the Maroochydore camp this year the emphasis changed from still focusing on building fitness to now focusing on game plan. It's taken a very long time for the fitness level to be finally considered adequate to be competitive.  Under the Roos era another 32 players have been turned over so the fitness time line has taken a hit as so many players who should have been ripe by now have  had to be discarded and replaced with new players who we start from scratch all over again. It looks like this merry go round is finally over,however, when you look through the exciting young talent in the team we are still a few years away from the majority hitting that sweet spot of conditioning.

Judging by Jack Viney it looks like at a minimum players have to be in their 3rd season to really start to have a competitive level of conditioning. I suspect it is their 4th year when they are competitive with the best. 

So we still have a few years to be patient. I think we'll look back on last year's crop as being a vintage year which creates a major nucleus of players in the team but we have at least another 2-3 years before they are all at the required level to mix it with the best. 

I have a suspicion that because of all of the above there is going to be a greater step forward this year than people think who look at all the other teams and say every team is improving every year so we won't be much more competitive. 

In the past we might have got to  this point of development but still be non competitive because of poor development and poor coaching. But not this time. 

Looking at WJ's list, I totally agree with how essential it is going to be to have our best players on the park. The conditioned players like Jones Dawes and Lumumba etc need to be around to ease the burden as the younger stars develop their tanks. 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2016 by It's Time

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

30 minutes ago, It's Time said:

I don't think you can underestimate the age profile and capacity to compete physically and particularly running capacity...

 

Very good post.

What I find interesting however is how a team like Sydney seem be able to bring in young players like Mills and Heaney who fit the Sydney mold of being lean through the hips and waist and yet strong in the shoulders and arms.

It seems to take our players three or four years to get like that (if at all), and yet Sydney can do it in the space of a few months. I realise those two players have come through their academy, but it was the same with Hannebury and Parker.

[Gator 16,891]

1 hour ago, It's Time said:

I don't think you can underestimate the age profile and capacity to compete physically and particularly running capacity. 

I went to the 2011 B&F and spoke to Aaron Davey who said Bailey had been trying to get them to execute a game plan they just couldn't execute. He said as a group they just didn't have the ability to run both ways the way he wanted them too. 

I spoke to Neil Craig at the 2012 pre match function in Sydney and he said they were shocked when they arrived and discovered how poor the fitness levels were. He said then they thought they were 2 1/2 seasons away from being competitive fitness wise. 

At the Maroochydore camp this year the emphasis changed from still focusing on building fitness to now focusing on game plan. It's taken a very long time for the fitness level to be finally considered adequate to be competitive.  Under the Roos era another 32 players have been turned over so the fitness time line has taken a hit as so many players who should have been ripe by now have  had to be discarded and replaced with new players who we start from scratch all over again. It looks like this merry go round is finally over,however, when you look through the exciting young talent in the team we are still a few years away from the majority hitting that sweet spot of conditioning.

Judging by Jack Viney it looks like at a minimum players have to be in their 3rd season to really start to have a competitive level of conditioning. I suspect it is their 4th year when they are competitive with the best. 

So we still have a few years to be patient. I think we'll look back on last year's crop as being a vintage year which creates a major nucleus of players in the team but we have at least another 2-3 years before they are all at the required level to mix it with the best. 

I have a suspicion that because of all of the above there is going to be a greater step forward this year than people think who look at all the other teams and say every team is improving every year so we won't be much more competitive. 

In the past we might have got to  this point of development but still be non competitive because of poor development and poor coaching. But not this time. 

Looking at WJ's list, I totally agree with how essential it is going to be to have our best players on the park. The conditioned players like Jones Dawes and Lumumba etc need to be around to ease the burden as the younger stars develop their tanks. 

 

 

Good post.

Some players, like Hannebery, were elite runners as juniors, so they have a natural advantage to get to the right fitness levels quickly.

Brayshaw, Oliver and Petracca aren't naturally aerobic, while Stretch and ANB are, so it's not cut and dried as to where our fitness levels are.  Viney isn't a natural runner either, but he has willed himself to get where he has.

[Its Time for Another 4,052]

31 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Very good post.

What I find interesting however is how a team like Sydney seem be able to bring in young players like Mills and Heaney who fit the Sydney mold of being lean through the hips and waist and yet strong in the shoulders and arms.

It seems to take our players three or four years to get like that (if at all), and yet Sydney can do it in the space of a few months. I realise those two players have come through their academy, but it was the same with Hannebury and Parker.

I live in Sydney and go to most of their home games. Mills and Heeney are freaks of nature. There are an awful lot of recruits at Sydney that weren't like what your saying when they came in and quite a few that still aren't. Heeney also did his share of fading during games and just like most young players will take time to develop a competitive tank.

Sydney have such an established list that young players are given time to develop before they are thrown in the seniors. When they do arrive they are in a team where everyone else is at the competitive level of development so they aren't under nearly as much pressure as our young guys. Plus they get micro coaching on field from all the experienced players around them. I've seen players running on to the field and being told where to stand to the centimetre, when to stay on their man when to run off, picking out which option to kick to etc etc etc. We haven't had that, although it sounds like there is finally a growing on field leadership developing.

[What 18,810]

in Matt Burgans latest article he did a best 22 of players who didnt play vs the Pies

 

B: Terlich, Garland, Grimes

HB: Neal-Bullen, O.McDonald, Melksham*

C: Trengove, Petracca, Stretch

HF: VandenBerg, Dawes, Newton

F: Kennedy-Harris, Weideman, Garlett

FOLL: Spencer, Vince, Michie

I/C: White, Max King, Mitch King, Hulett, Smith

 

I would comfortably back that team in against the 2012-2014 MFC teams