2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I read the 'it’s what it’s going to get done for' as related to Langdon. 

Morris is at the shallow end of the media pool.  The last sentence has so many qualifiers it is so not credible.  It seems he is padding out his story.

Yeah that's what that bit is about, just wasn't able to copy an paste the whole article (we're not allowed to).

I don't think he's going to be traded, but the talk still just gives you that little bit of doubt I guess.

Edited October 8, 20195 yr by Lord Nev

Hay reporters GUS, is a much loved player for our club so, go and report on somthing else.

Lets turn this around, and say, we are going after Andrew Brayshaw for our club, so both bothers can play togther.

 

19 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I read the 'it’s what it’s going to get done for' as related to Langdon. 

Morris is at the shallow end of the media pool.  The last sentence has so many qualifiers it is so not credible.  It seems he is padding out his story.

Its ridiculous. How about Morris mention he recently signed a 4 year contract extension that sees him at the club until 2022. If thats not comittment and satisfaction with the club then I don’t know what is. You don’t sign something that big knowing you’re going to leave at the end of the season as many “journos” have been speculating.

I think even Freo know that their list is pretty cooked and are way off a premiership by axing their coach and offloading Hill + Langdon. They’ll take the picks they have to the draft to reset and afford Longmuir some breathing space while they develop. Giving up picks for Brayshaw right now just wouldnt make sense from their point of view. Maybe we’ll be hearing about this again in a few years when he’s nearing the end of his contract but I can guarentee Gus will be here to stay.

Edited October 8, 20195 yr by AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey

 

17 minutes ago, deebug said:

Hay reporters GUS, is a much loved player for our club so, go and report on somthing else.

Lets turn this around, and say, we are going after Andrew Brayshaw for our club, so both bothers can play togther.

 

Here, Here.

18 minutes ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

Its ridiculous. How about Morris mention he recently signed a 4 year contract extension that sees him at the club until 2022. If thats not comittment and satisfaction with the club then I don’t know what is. 

Problem is that if you follow the machinations of the trade period it should become fairly obvious that in the language of the AFL, a binding contract isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on to many players and their managers.

 In the case of Angus Brayshaw, we’re taking him as a person of higher quality and better standards than the pack and therefore moving this thread out of the trading and drafting board.

And given that he’s next cab off the rank for our 2019 player reviews, it will shortly be closed altogether.

1 minute ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Problem is that if you follow the machinations of the trade period it should become fairly obvious that in the language of the AFL, a binding contract isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on to many players and their managers.

All a contract does is guarantee income.

If for example Brayshaw was to leave Melbourne for Fremantle then at a minimum he would get the same length and size of contract at Fremantle that he had at Melbourne.

The AFL need to change draft rules so that players do not need to give permission to be traded. That way a player's contract can become a traceable asset to the club.

Therefore, in the case of Brayshaw his contract means he has this guaranteed income but it also means Melbourne can trade him in that time.

Then once Brayshaw qualifies for free agency he can choose wherever he wants to go. This would restore the balance and stop contracted players nominating where they go all the time as if they are free agents.

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I do!

Not so long ago a team structure was based around 10-12 'on-ballers'.  The 'on-ballers' rotate midfield/forward/back during a game. 

Vince, Harmes, Brayshaw, Petracca, Salem, Oliver, AvB, Stretch, ANB were recruited on that basis.  We also had Viney and Jones as 'on-ballers'.  Clearly our game plan has changed from when Roos' recruited them altho I don't think the logic of 10-12 'on-ballers' should be jettisoned. 

Our mix of 'on-ballers' is not right.  We are rectifying up/down the wing pace issue with Langdon and to some extent Tomlinson.  There is still the issue of spread from the stoppages and that is more to do with set ups and positioning than pace.

Brayshaw is one of our smartest midfield/onball players.  I would say he has more footy smarts than all those named above except Oliver and Salem.  And Brayshaw is one of our best.

I think the conversation needs to be around 'on-ballers' not 'midfielders'. 

imv Petracca, Viney, Oliver, Harmes and Brayshaw can play 'on-ball'.  They typically play about 80% game time so that at any given time one is on the bench.  Another can play forward or back during their 80% on the ground.  That also helps keep them fresh to run out quarters and the game which is important with our ballistic, play on at all costs game.

tbh, I think our weak link is Viney's lack of flexibility.  He has only one position which reduces Goodwin's tactics.  He is our captain and toughest so isn't going anywhere.

imv the issue isn't which of the 'midfielders' is 'surplus' I think the coaching challenge is to work out how to use our best talent now and in the future. 

I completely agree with having 10+ mids rotating through the middle and around the rest of the ground. The problem with Gus is exactly the same problem Viney has. Gus only has one position, maybe two at a stretch like Viney does. 

Gus has shown he can't play on a wing or up forward, leaving only the midfield and maybe half back as places he can't play. Likewise, Viney can only play middle and perhaps defensive forward, but he has more versatility in the middle than Gus does (inside or run with).

I reckon we overrate Gus a bit. He really struggled at the top of 2018 before really getting going from the 5th or 6th round. So he's yet to put together even a full consistent season yet. 

13 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

All a contract does is guarantee income.

If for example Brayshaw was to leave Melbourne for Fremantle then at a minimum he would get the same length and size of contract at Fremantle that he had at Melbourne.

The AFL need to change draft rules so that players do not need to give permission to be traded. That way a player's contract can become a traceable asset to the club.

Therefore, in the case of Brayshaw his contract means he has this guaranteed income but it also means Melbourne can trade him in that time.

Then once Brayshaw qualifies for free agency he can choose wherever he wants to go. This would restore the balance and stop contracted players nominating where they go all the time as if they are free agents.

Please feel to put that interpretation of a contract to any competent court in the land and we’ll see how far it gets you.

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I do!

Not so long ago a team structure was based around 10-12 'on-ballers'.  The 'on-ballers' rotate midfield/forward/back during a game. 

Vince, Harmes, Brayshaw, Petracca, Salem, Oliver, AvB, Stretch, ANB were recruited on that basis.  We also had Viney and Jones as 'on-ballers'.  Clearly our game plan has changed from when Roos' recruited them altho I don't think the logic of 10-12 'on-ballers' should be jettisoned. 

Our mix of 'on-ballers' is not right.  We are rectifying up/down the wing pace issue with Langdon and to some extent Tomlinson.  There is still the issue of spread from the stoppages and that is more to do with set ups and positioning than pace.

Brayshaw is one of our smartest midfield/onball players.  I would say he has more footy smarts than all those named above except Oliver and Salem.  And Brayshaw is one of our best.

I think the conversation needs to be around 'on-ballers' not 'midfielders'. 

imv Petracca, Viney, Oliver, Harmes and Brayshaw can play 'on-ball'.  They typically play about 80% game time so that at any given time one is on the bench.  Another can play forward or back during their 80% on the ground.  That also helps keep them fresh to run out quarters and the game which is important with our ballistic, play on at all costs game.

tbh, I think our weak link is Viney's lack of flexibility.  He has only one position which reduces Goodwin's tactics.  He is our captain and toughest so isn't going anywhere.

imv the issue isn't which of the 'midfielders' is 'surplus' I think the coaching challenge is to work out how to use our best talent now and in the future. 

I wouldn't put Salem, JKH & ANB as genuine on ballers LH.

Can play there and have but as for their effect (inside)?  More outside than inside.

My issue with the on ballers we've had until now, aside from Gus, Harmes and to a lessor degree Tracc (more time at HF until second half this season), is their outside work.  Mostly inside grunt and to play three similar through there (Chunk prior to this season, Clarry & Viney) made us too predictable and inside focussed.

To me this was the case in the initial part of 2018 until Viney's absence through injury, with Gus and Harmes forced to spend more time at center bounces (prior to 666) and stoppages, resulting in a more balanced inside / outside mix.

By the time Viney returned we were on a nice winning streak and sure, he fitted in ok, but i still thought the mix was better when he wasn't on the park.

And i'm certainly not inferring Viney isn't worthy etc, just that we looked and imv performed better when we were only playing one or a max of two genuine inside mids in the mix around stoppages during his absence, rather than all three at once ie; Jones/Viney/Clarry vs say Jones/Clarry/Gus or Viney/Jones/Harmes (ie, at least one inside/outsider in the starting on ball mix).

Having said all that we should see a better balance in the mix assuming Tracc's time here is being upped significantly in 2020 and Gus is unimpeded by injury and somewhere back to his 2018 form.  Jones moving mostly elsewhere.

Edited October 8, 20195 yr by Rusty Nails

15 minutes ago, A F said:

I reckon we overrate Gus a bit. He really struggled at the top of 2018 before really getting going from the 5th or 6th round. So he's yet to put together even a full consistent season yet. 

I don’t think he played a senior game until round 5. I can’t remember why he didn’t but I don’t think it was injury. 

5 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I don’t think he played a senior game until round 5. I can’t remember why he didn’t but I don’t think it was injury. 

Did alright in the preseason games and was left in the 2s for the first few rounds if I recall correctly, leaving nearly everyone puzzled and speculating on his future at the club

6 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I don’t think he played a senior game until round 5. I can’t remember why he didn’t but I don’t think it was injury. 

He was 'dropped' at the start of the season due to poor training standards.

Missed the first 3 games.

7 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I don’t think he played a senior game until round 5. I can’t remember why he didn’t but I don’t think it was injury. 

That's right. He couldn't break his way into the side. Werridee would have called him a depth player. 

20 minutes ago, rumpole said:

Please feel to put that interpretation of a contract to any competent court in the land and we’ll see how far it gets you.

Brilliant post from a poster called rumpole!

Reports coming out that Simon Garlick wil be appointed Freo CEO.

That whole thing likely wouldn't have any effect either way anyway, but can just imagine the panic if Brayshaw Snr had got the job.

 

When Hogan left I hoped that would be the end of the annual rumour mill about one of our players leaving.....I fear Brayshaw is now that new player. 

8 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Reports coming out that Simon Garlick wil be appointed Freo CEO.

That whole thing likely wouldn't have any effect either way anyway, but can just imagine the panic if Brayshaw Snr had got the job.

 

The Brayshaw rumour was killed days ago. 

Why persist?

12 minutes ago, McQueen said:

The Brayshaw rumour was killed days ago. 

Why persist?

This thread wasn't started as a "Brayshaw to Fremantle" thread mate, and not sure where I said he was being traded there in my post anyway?