7 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i know. But this Club has long form at changing over the list, the wrong way. 

We need to replace about 5-6 players at years end. 

The right players need to be moved on, sentiment must not be a factor

Sure, which is why I used the examples of Lewis and Vince under the current club leadership.

 

.

Edited July 4, 20195 yr by Lord Nev
Accidentally posted twice. Need a 'delete post' function maybe?

5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Sure, which is why I used the examples of Lewis and Vince under the current club leadership.

 

But they are top up Players, I am talking more “Melbourne” Players who need to go...

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

But they are top up Players, I am talking more “Melbourne” Players who need to go...

Ok then, so which 'Melbourne' players have we kept on too long from an age perspective over the last 5-6 years?

 

On 7/1/2019 at 9:38 PM, Macca said:

Jones isn't the problem even though he is in his twilight years.  The most obvious problem is that we have any number of C & D graders who haven't given any real service to the club in terms of standout performances.  And to my eyes they probably never will. 

So 12-15 players could go before Jones and I wouldn't bat an eyelid.  Keep the good players and get rid of the rest - it isn't rocket science.

We've got about 12-15 decent players along with about 5-8 up and comers and that's about it.  And many of those 12-15 decent players have struggled this year (for one reason or another) thus the poor W/L record.  It isn't just the coach or the coaching staff.  We are falling short in a number of areas.

So I would definitely keep Jones around as we are a long long way from having a decent replacement for him.  He is doing ok across half back anyway which is a lot more than can be said about numerous others. 

Macca...the most truly unfortunate thing about your post is that you are right...any of 12 ought to go before Jones.  The difference for mine is that Nathan ought to hang up his boots  as well. Ought to...but he may not. The game has gone past him and how many other teams would he be considered best 22 ?? My guess..NONE.  His position at Melbourne is as much about our own malaise as it is about his own effectiveness.

We need to stop continually running up the flagpole the ol' gem of he's a stalwart of the club. Even if he is, that doesnt mean you get a gig. It meas you get a thankyou and a place in our History.. You get our thanks for being there when it was indeed pretty woeful. I am always reminded it's a professional sport. Men aren't volunteering for the front...they are getting paid to perform on the highest stage this sport provides.  Im sorry all it comes down to bang for buck.  He's only been able to provide a glimmer because SO MANY are out. In a fashion he's doing his own Bradbury !!  That and he epitomises a very basic style of game which the  "Brains Trust " ( and I use that very loosely) seem very keen on.

If we are to advance we need better disposers of the ball.Regardless of anyone's persuasion this has never been Nathan's forte.

Irrespective of all of this , if the same folk are running our ship ( into the ground ) then he'll more than likely get another year.

Other have..and I will too...you have to wonder if Clarkson would pander to him ??

10 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Ok then, so which 'Melbourne' players have we kept on too long from an age perspective over the last 5-6 years?

 

I am more worried about Attitude and long term injuries than age, at this stage. But i will be disappointed if Jones, AVB are playing next year  Stretch is a great trainer but is very average on match day  

Omac has got 8 weeks to prove himself...

The rest i need to think about...

 

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I am more worried about Attitude and long term injuries than age, at this stage. But i will be disappointed if Jones, AVB are playing next year  Stretch is a great trainer but is very average on match day  

Omac has got 8 weeks to prove himself...

The rest i need to think about...

That's not what you've been arguing though mate. You've been saying we've held on to 'Melbourne' players too long out of sentiment.

We've had huge list changes over the last 5-6 years if you're going to start talking about general trades and delistings rather than older 'Melbourne' players.

 

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Macca...the most truly unfortunate thing about your post is that you are right...any of 12 ought to go before Jones.  The difference for mine is that Nathan ought to hang up his boots  as well. Ought to...but he may not. The game has gone past him and how many other teams would he be considered best 22 ?? My guess..NONE.  His position at Melbourne is as much about our own malaise as it is about his own effectiveness.

We need to stop continually running up the flagpole the ol' gem of he's a stalwart of the club. Even if he is, that doesnt mean you get a gig. It meas you get a thankyou and a place in our History.. You get our thanks for being there when it was indeed pretty woeful. I am always reminded it's a professional sport. Men aren't volunteering for the front...they are getting paid to perform on the highest stage this sport provides.  Im sorry all it comes down to bang for buck.  He's only been able to provide a glimmer because SO MANY are out. In a fashion he's doing his own Bradbury !!  That and he epitomises a very basic style of game which the  "Brains Trust " ( and I use that very loosely) seem very keen on.

If we are to advance we need better disposers of the ball.Regardless of anyone's persuasion this has never been Nathan's forte.

Irrespective of all of this , if the same folk are running our ship ( into the ground ) then he'll more than likely get another year.

Other have..and I will too...you have to wonder if Clarkson would pander to him ??

We need all the experience we can get.

Roos brought in experienced players because he could see the gaping chasm that the club had.

Jones is a keeper for that reason.  He plays if his form holds up and if not,  he'll have to play in the 2nds.  But that rule applies to all players.

I have seen your views on Jones previously and we are poles apart on how we view the player.  We can do a back and forth here but that will prove fruitless. 

Agreeing to disagree is the better way to end the conversation.  But you are certainly entitled to your view. 

Taking a closer look at the list tells me that there are about 20+ players I'd let go before Jones.  The talent levels fall away dramatically past the top dozen players or so.

We need to turn the list over but as always,  finding better replacements is a difficult assignment.  There just isn't that many good players in the system or players coming into the system.  The drafts tell us that.  And there are a stack of C graders who end up being swapped around the clubs too ... because of the above reasons.

I also think it's time to play the ageing veterans in a different way ... play them in selected games or blocks of games and then rest them up for the next lot of games that they might be required for.  It happens in other sports (soccer especially) so why not in the AFL. 

List spots are often taken up by any number of NQR's anyway so why not?

So I'm one for keeping the ageing talent around ... their experience is invaluable and they can be great for building a club's culture.  My playing days taught me all that. 

7 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

That's not what you've been arguing though mate. You've been saying we've held on to 'Melbourne' players too long out of sentiment.

We've had huge list changes over the last 5-6 years if you're going to start talking about general trades and delistings rather than older 'Melbourne' players.

 

I have said we have held onto players too long over 40-50 years. You have mentioned 5-6 years. 

I am waiting to see how strong the Board is NOW, after PJ and Roos have left and Bartlett is standing alone...

16 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I have said we have held onto players too long over 40-50 years. You have mentioned 5-6 years. 

I am waiting to see how strong the Board is NOW, after PJ and Roos have left and Bartlett is standing alone...

The people in charge now haven't been in charge for 40-50 years though, so to me that's irrelevant.

I've already given you the examples of Vince and Lewis as far as 'sentiment' v hard decisions goes.

I wouldn't have thought the board would be overly involved in list decisions? I'm honestly a bit confused about what you're even trying to say now.

 

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

The people in charge now haven't been in charge for 40-50 years though, so to me that's irrelevant.

I've already given you the examples of Vince and Lewis as far as 'sentiment' v hard decisions goes.

I wouldn't have thought the board would be overly involved in list decisions? I'm honestly a bit confused about what you're even trying to say now.

 

The MFC Attitude is what i am talking about. 

What is it now that “The Help” has been and gone?

are we any stronger or has nothing changed?

This Club has been starved a lot longer than 5-6 years. It’s all part of our history. 

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The MFC Attitude is what i am talking about. 

What is it now that “The Help” has been and gone?

are we any stronger or has nothing changed?

This Club has been starved a lot longer than 5-6 years. It’s all part of our history. 

So for you, if Jones plays next year (even though he's played every available game this year) then the board is weak?

 

22 minutes ago, Macca said:

I also think it's time to play the ageing veterans in a different way ... play them in selected games or blocks of games and then rest them up for the next lot of games that they might be required for.  It happens in other sports (soccer especially) so why not in the AFL. 

must say I thought something similar about Gary Lyon after 1987 with his back problems. Said to a mate why not start him midway through the season so his body could stand up at the business end of the season.

Was told it would never work. Of course lists in those days were much bigger than today so it was in a way easier.

Your thoughts could apply to Gawn as well with Preuss giving him a rest

@Macca  keeping the conversation interesting...

Experience in and of itself only has currency if it can translate into something meaningful. Agree/Disagree ?

If so...how does Nathan bring that experience to bear in any meaningful way  ( positive outcome ) ?

Yes we do have quite a chasm in thinking about Jones...but I truly have to wonder apart from the gusto what example he presents if he gets ball ... and then bangs ball somewhere  ( invariably to the opposition ) I really wonder what benefit all that experience is.

3 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

So for you, if Jones plays next year (even though he's played every available game this year) then the board is weak?

 

I would have moved him on at the end of 2017 at the very latest. 

So for him to be still playing on a Wing in 2019 is ridiculous 

So yes would be my answer. This year has been an absolute dogs breakfast disaster and i expect  big changes after Round 23 or i will not be financially involved in 2020

I have to make a stand....

6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

@Macca  keeping the conversation interesting...

Experience in and of itself only has currency if it can translate into something meaningful. Agree/Disagree ?

If so...how does Nathan bring that experience to bear in any meaningful way  ( positive outcome ) ?

Yes we do have quite a chasm in thinking about Jones...but I truly have to wonder apart from the gusto what example he presents if he gets ball ... and then bangs ball somewhere  ( invariably to the opposition ) I really wonder what benefit all that experience is.

Jones can teach the young kids how to lose with dignity....

that is all he knows...

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I would have moved him on at the end of 2017 at the very latest. 

So for him to be still playing on a Wing in 2019 is ridiculous 

So yes would be my answer. This year has been an absolute dogs breakfast disaster and i expect  big changes after Round 23 or i will not be financially involved in 2020

I have to make a stand....

So now you won't renew your membership if Jones is on the list next year?

Sorry mate, love your passion, but that's a bit silly.

Up to you though, we'll wait and see I guess.

Cheers.

Just now, Lord Nev said:

So now you won't renew your membership if Jones is on the list next year?

Sorry mate, love your passion, but that's a bit silly.

Up to you though, we'll wait and see I guess.

Cheers.

Jones not being on the list is only one of many problems. 

But he no longer has any pace, so yes i do not want to see him playing next year. 

He wants at least 2 more years. 

So how strong is the Club after the disaster of 2019???

14 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

@Macca  keeping the conversation interesting...

Experience in and of itself only has currency if it can translate into something meaningful. Agree/Disagree ?

If so...how does Nathan bring that experience to bear in any meaningful way  ( positive outcome ) ?

Yes we do have quite a chasm in thinking about Jones...but I truly have to wonder apart from the gusto what example he presents if he gets ball ... and then bangs ball somewhere  ( invariably to the opposition ) I really wonder what benefit all that experience is.

If we go on current form Jones might have found a niche for himself at half back.  But he could play forward as a tryout. 

Our forward line is full of non achievers and is largely dysfunctional so why not?

As previously stated,  I'd keep him on and if his form holds up he plays,  if not,  he plays 2nds.

It's not like we have a long list of ready replacements.  Our depth is deplorable.

21 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

must say I thought something similar about Gary Lyon after 1987 with his back problems. Said to a mate why not start him midway through the season so his body could stand up at the business end of the season.

Was told it would never work. Of course lists in those days were much bigger than today so it was in a way easier.

Your thoughts could apply to Gawn as well with Preuss giving him a rest

Agreed ... the game is now so taxing on the body that I'm surprised that there hasn't been a call for bigger lists.

The salaries would be spread furthet but once the transition is made,  you don't have to do it again.

The lists were much bigger back in the day probably for good reason.  The past can teach us a lot sometimes DJ.  And footy can learn from other sports.  For instance, Soccer is a lot about squads rather than best 11.

 

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

If we go on current form Jones might have found a niche for himself at half back.  But he could play forward as a tryout. 

Our forward line is full of non achievers and is largely dysfunctional so why not?

As previously stated,  I'd keep him on and if his form holds up he plays,  if not,  he plays 2nds.

It's not like we have a long list of ready replacements.  Our depth is deplorable.

is he a roaming leading small forward you suggest ?   amazing myself by thinking thats not the worst thing that could happen   But the bar is set low at present.. who knows...his mates might just kick it to him

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

is he a roaming leading small forward you suggest ?   amazing myself by thinking thats not the worst thing that could happen   But the bar is set low at present.. who knows...his mates might just kick it to him

I would have Jones over Garlett,  Hannan or Spargo any day of the week.

At least you know Jones is going to provide a contest and he can win his own ball.  And he is a more reliable kick for goal.

Not exactly a small forward per se but why do we have to follow convention?

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Ok then, so which 'Melbourne' players have we kept on too long from an age perspective over the last 5-6 years?

 

I its longer than 5-6yrs ago but david neitz played on to long his last year he couldnt take a simple mark.His body was gone,but the club got him to 300 games and he deserved it.Great leader and great club man,so let jones play out his time ,he will know when to go

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Agreed ... the game is now so taxing on the body that I'm surprised that there hasn't been a call for bigger lists.

The salaries would be spread furthet but once the transition is made,  you don't have to do it again.

The lists were much bigger back in the day probably for good reason.  The past can teach us a lot sometimes DJ.  And footy can learn from other sports.  For instance, Soccer is a lot about squads rather than best 11.

 

Bigger lists are the way to go,clubs could rotate more players through the seconds ,i rekon it would take a lot of body and mental stress off the players and reduce injuries,considering the game has changed so much,and is played at such a pace and higher impact to bodies

Just now, forever demons said:

Bigger lists are the way to go,clubs could rotate more players through the seconds ,i rekon it would take a lot of body and mental stress off the players and reduce injuries,considering the game has changed so much,and is played at such a pace and higher impact to bodies

Add 6 players and dispense with the whole rookies thing.  Make them full list players.

I year contracts as the clubs see fit too ... 2 year deals for the top 36 draft picks.  After that,  a player takes what he can get.  So lists of about 50 is my call.

We're looking at about an extra million per club per year but the whole process could be done incrementally.  The clubs & the AFL could find a way.

But we're dealing with an AFL that are poor custodians and they too often have got their eyes set on the $$$$'s.