Based on their games to day, Newton and Buckley will get a run shortly without a doubt.

Rhino, I am not buying into the discussion on Neale playing youngsters.

I am happy to hear you say that you think Newton and Buckley are close after their games today.

Unfortunately I couldn't make it to see the Zebras today but from what I have read and been told both boys played well.

I think everyone naturally gets excited at the prospect of the new boys playing as we finally get a chance to see them.

It is probably more important in the current climate while we are losing and all feeling low. Seeing a new boy make his debut adds excitement to a game that otherwise may be somewhat flat the way we are performing.

The fact that a boy like Petterd does well is a real bonus. It heralds the start of a new career. I personally am not too upset if a debutant doesn't play well, as in the case of Garland, as the upside of a game under the belt is beyond estimation.

That said I hope Newton gets a game very soon and that Buckley is not far behind him.

Unfortunately, Rhino, ND is too conservative in his approach to play youngsters, unless there's absolutely NO other option. We've suffered as a result.

JJP I posted this in January this year. IMO it's not true to say Daniher doesn't give youth a go. He may not play youth as much as supporters want, but how does he go compared to other coaches? Have a look at this remembering "first year" is 2006....

Melbourne

First year players got 30 games. Bartram 22 and Jones 8. Neville and Buckley didn't get a game.

2nd year players (there were only 3) got 25 games last year. Bate 14 and Dunn 11. Newton, didn't get a game.

Of the 2002 recruits Bell 12, Smith 1, Rivers 22 and Ferguson 3. Hunter has been delisted.

Of the 2003 recruits McLean 18, Sylvia 17, Johnson 9 and Davey 22.

159 total games awarded to 15 players still on the list recruited in this period (2002, 2003,2004,2005 ). 10.6 games per player.

Brown, Bizzell, Nicholson, Wheatley, Motlop and Read, as mediocre experienced players, spent long periods at Sandy.

Not all "medicore" players got games and not all youth got games. There was a sensible mix.

For the Western Bulldogs the following happened:

2002: B. Murphy 0, Wight 8, Faulkner 3, Walsh 0, Minson 13. Total: 24 for 5 players

2003: Cooney 24, Ray 21, Iszac Thompson delisted. Total: 45 total 3 players

2004: Griffen 24, Tiller 0, McCormack 4, Wells 0. Total: 28 for 4 players

2005: Higgens 5, Addison 2, Baird 3, West 0. Total: 8 for 4 players.

I chose WB for comparison as they finished in about the same place as us on the ladder and they have a highly respected coach.

Of the 105 games given to their (young) recruits of the last 4 years Cooney, Ray and Griffen got 69 of them. They also have 15 on their list recruited in this period. Average games per player - 7.

Melbourne gave 51.4% more games to "youth" than the Bulldogs last year.

Also you compared us to Swans. For most of the year the Swans were in a similar ladder postition to us. Yet they played little or no youth.

I'd contend that the myth that Daniher doesn't play youth to be one of the commonly accepted misconceptions of supporters.

JJC I'd invite you to do the research and show that compared to other coaches Daniher doesn't give youth a go rather than just guessing with no research support.

Also, excellent analysis of the Collingwood situation RR. Malthouse really was brave wasn't he. Where is his bravery in relation to his two high first round draft picks, Reid and Brown? They were taken at 8 and 10. We've blooded 2 who were taken at 30 and 46.

Pesky facts....

Pesky facts....

After a hard tiring day at the office you have brought a smile to my face.

After a hard tiring day at the office you have brought a smile to my face.

No problem Redleg, happy to do so.

Cheers

Fan

Good points Redleg and Fan.

I think your analysis Fan is spot on and I have yet to see any analysis from the "ND does not play the kids" faction.

I guess if one person states a misguided opinion often enough it get adopted as fact by those that dont care to do the analysis.

Thanks for the run-down on Collingwood, Rhino. I still think it was a gutsy move to bring in three debutants for such a BIG GAME, with a crowd of 90000 expected, when almost a full list was available. AND it was successful! My question.....would our selection panel have had the guts (?stupidity) to do that? OK, we played two first-gamers v. Sydney, but our list was drastically depleted, and we were expecting a hiding.

Thanks, FAN, for the put-down with the "pesky facts", and I was suitably chastened. You're right, we've been identical to the Bulldogs with respect to giving new players a chance(15 each). Ihad a look at Collingwood (with the limited amount of time and information at my disposal)and found they were pretty similar, too. Working full time, I do not have time to research the other 13 teams. So on the face of it, it seems your statistical contention is correct, we probably are as inclined as any other team to play youngsters.

But I was not alone in my impression that we have a tendency to hold back before giving players their first chance. Many other Demon Fans, most much more knowledgeable than I,have expressed the same opinion. Such opinions , based on impressions, must be interpreted with care.Evidence-based opinions carry more weight. However statistical information must be inspected carefully. It has been said that you can prove what you like with statistics. For example, your "pesky facts",really were a very limitedsample which may, in fact, hide the truth. You looked at 2 teams out of 16, in a period of 3 years out of the nine years ND has led the footy dept. But, I'll admit it, I may have been unfair in my criticism of the selectors.

Do I take it that you agree with my other oft -proffered contention(that our footy dept underestimates the importance of point kick-in tactics)? You haven't quoted any "pesky facts" to squash me on that one(yet). I'm a brave man to suggest the MFCfooty dept is anything but perfect on this forum.

i thought i read that last year we had one of the highest rates of scores direct from point kick ins. i laughed out loud when i read that thats why i remember. but it might not be true. does champion data have a site where you can get anything you want?

Any "pesky facts" about point kick-ins, Fan? Redleg wants another good laugh.

We're being VERY cvonservative in our approach to playing Newton and Buckley. Yet, curiously, we threw Garland to the lions.

yeah i was thinking that too. it does suggest that maybe garland was mentally ready for those types of challenges whereas newton isnt and bucklys small body might not stand up to it? maybe the coaching and selection staff put more thought into this than we give them credit for...

bucklys small body .

Can't exactly call that a small body. Looks about the same as Jonesy in that picture.

I might just go examine it further <_<

Can't exactly call that a small body. Looks about the same as Jonesy in that picture.

I might just go examine it further <_<

lol fair enough...i have always thought of him as a little bit slighter than some of the other mids we have...

buckley h 189cm w 87kg

maloney 182 88

CJ 188 87

the above is from the melb website, he is smaller than maloney but about the same size as CJ...tbh i didnt realise buckly was so tall...

Do I take it that you agree with my other oft -proffered contention(that our footy dept underestimates the importance of point kick-in tactics)? You haven't quoted any "pesky facts" to squash me on that one(yet). I'm a brave man to suggest the MFCfooty dept is anything but perfect on this forum.

JJC I'm not here to go scrambling to the record books and stats sheets everytime you or anyone else makes an observation about our club.

But I have long contended that Daniher, against popular belief, does give the kids a go. So as I had presented that view I sought to back it up with some research. Same number of players as Bullies, many many more games. We are not equal with them, we are ahead of them in terms of playing youngsters.

Jack there are many many people on this site wanting to vent their spleen on the club at the moment. And fair enough, we are all bitterly disappointed. But why are you critical that a couple of posters want to try and present the other side of the argument that supports the clubs approach?

Of course there are areas of our club that are not perfect and need improvement. That's stating the bleeding obvious. But don't expect me to come on here and indulge in the kickfest. I don't want to and I don't intend to.

Anyway it's your turn now JJC, you can do some work and come up with some "pesky" facts to back up your contention that our kickins are as bad as you say. You might be right or you might be wrong. At moment we just don't know and I don't have a strong view on the issue. But I await your research with interest.

.Quote "Fan" ....." But why are you critical that a couple of posters want to try and present the other side of the argument that supports the clubs approach?"

Far from being critical , I'm honoured that you take the time to reply to my humble suggestions.

I admitted I may be wrong on the youth policy, but I gave a timely warning on the use of statistics in arguments, suggesting they can be used mischievously.

I know of no statistics that prove or disprove my impression that we enter a mode of desperate defence after our point kick-ins.Yet opposition teams seem to regard a point by Melbourne as an opportunity to break into attack. It seems we are slow to kick in, where other sides seem to think it important to get the ball back into play quickly.

My opinion that the footy dept underestimates the importance of point kick-ins is not just based on what I see, but what I heard from a footy dept leader at a pre-season interview. He stated that point kick-ins are not a vital aspect of footy. In any one match, there are probably less than 35 PKI's , compared to 100-odd stoppages, and that is where it is more important to concentrate one's efforts.

As for your suggestion that I'm part of a "kick-fest" on this site, I think that's grossly unfair. If you read my posts, you'll find I'm desperately trying to think of positive suggestions. I don't involve myself in criticising players like Yze, Johnstone and Godfrey, as many people do, both on and off this forum. OK, I had a negative opinion of Pickett's tackle(which left me with same sickness in my gut I felt with the Long/Simmonds incident), and I did say his form was bad. But he seems above criticism on this site.I probably should have kept my thoughts to myself on Byron.

Don't hold your breath waiting for my research, Fan! I'm allowed to voice an opinion based on an impression, just as you, and any other poster is, and does. Often my impression will be wrong, but just occasionally, there could be something worth heeding.

Remember....."strategy without tactics".....etc......applies to point kick-ins, too!

Don't hold your breath waiting for my research, Fan! I'm allowed to voice an opinion based on an impression, just as you, and any other poster is, and does. Often my impression will be wrong, but just occasionally, there could be something worth heeding.

there should be a stat about goals from point kick ins both for and against. i get the feeling that we score pretty highly direct from these but we also have quite a few scored against us. im not sure where to find these, but maybe someone can help us out.

.Quote "Fan" ....." But why are you critical that a couple of posters want to try and present the other side of the argument that supports the clubs approach?"

Far from being critical , I'm honoured that you take the time to reply to my humble suggestions.

I admitted I may be wrong on the youth policy, but I gave a timely warning on the use of statistics in arguments, suggesting they can be used mischievously.

I know of no statistics that prove or disprove my impression that we enter a mode of desperate defence after our point kick-ins.Yet opposition teams seem to regard a point by Melbourne as an opportunity to break into attack. It seems we are slow to kick in, where other sides seem to think it important to get the ball back into play quickly.

My opinion that the footy dept underestimates the importance of point kick-ins is not just based on what I see, but what I heard from a footy dept leader at a pre-season interview. He stated that point kick-ins are not a vital aspect of footy. In any one match, there are probably less than 35 PKI's , compared to 100-odd stoppages, and that is where it is more important to concentrate one's efforts.

As for your suggestion that I'm part of a "kick-fest" on this site, I think that's grossly unfair. If you read my posts, you'll find I'm desperately trying to think of positive suggestions. I don't involve myself in criticising players like Yze, Johnstone and Godfrey, as many people do, both on and off this forum. OK, I had a negative opinion of Pickett's tackle(which left me with same sickness in my gut I felt with the Long/Simmonds incident), and I did say his form was bad. But he seems above criticism on this site.I probably should have kept my thoughts to myself on Byron.

Don't hold your breath waiting for my research, Fan! I'm allowed to voice an opinion based on an impression, just as you, and any other poster is, and does. Often my impression will be wrong, but just occasionally, there could be something worth heeding.

Remember....."strategy without tactics".....etc......applies to point kick-ins, too!

Jack I wasn't suggesting you were part of the kickfest. You raised, not for the first time, your concern over our kickins. My comment about the kickfest related to this site in general, not you. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. You are a constructive and a thoughtful contributor here.

I fully agree that you, and everyone else, is fully within their rights to voice an opinion based on an impression. I responded to you because firstly you are more thoughtful than others and secondly you were very strong in voicing your impression as shown by your responses below:

"Unfortunately, Rhino, ND is too conservative in his approach to play youngsters, unless there's absolutely NO other option. We've suffered as a result."

"We're being VERY cvonservative in our approach to playing Newton and Buckley. Yet, curiously, we threw Garland to the lions."

There doesn't seem to me to be much equivocation in those comments.

I'd be interested to know whether you have changed your impression as a result of the mischievous facts I presented and you now believe Daniher to be one of the more adventurous coaches when it comes to playing youth.

My impression is that we kicked in better this week. But I think I've found the consistent error in our defence of oppos. kick-ins. There's a repeated hole in our zone! It's at 55m, on the left side, hafway between the half-forward flank and the boundary,. The other sides have noticed this , and exploit it with the second kick, which often, after a run with bounces, lands well forward,often to a fast leading forward.

I have no doubt that the statistics would not back up this impression, but I've got a strong feeling it's correct.

BTW, "Fan", I've already said that my (and many others)impression on the youth policy could be wrong,though I pointed out that it may be misleading to generalise on 9 years,with 3 years' stats from 2 teams out of 16. But no, I definitely DON'T think ND is one of the more "adventurous" coaches in the AFL!(I don't think I'd want him to be).

Thanks for calling me a thoughtful poster. I DO think about the game, and watch replays of all thegames(including the ones I've attended, which is`all the Vic. games)even when we lose. For what it's worth, I find your posts interesting,well-considered and often illuminating. It'd be amazing if we always agreed!

this lovey dovey is almost as bad as dappa dan and jaded in the general disucssion forum JJC and fan

[quote name='deanox' JJC and fan

Sorry, Deanox. I didn't want to offend "Fan"(whoever he is), because I seemed to be getting under his skin, and I'm sure we both have the Demons' welfare very much at heart. I apologise if that last post seemed a little self-indulgent.

Thanks for your input to this discussion.I stand as possibly corrected on the youth policy!

But in answer to your suggestion about statistics on PKI's(point kick-ins)., forget it! You'll hear that this year we've scored something like 5.5 to the opposition's 6.3 from PKI's.(just a guess) But this won't reflect the number of times we've been left in highly pressurised positions after a PKI, when, after 3 kicks, the ball is still in the defensive 50m.

If you just watch the game(not from ground level), you'll see that our opponents are exploiting our lack of expertise in PKI's and defence of PKI's. Stats aren't necessary. Just watch the game!!!

was just joking dan! lol

was just joking dan! lol

What a schmuck I am. Deleted the offending post. Caught me on a bad day. Have PM'd you.

Cheers mate.