Welcome back #15

[DemonDoug 0]

Petterd in his first game showed up many of the other player's deficiencies - he was accurate in disposal. How can professional footballers like Bell & Jamar miss shots at goal from 30 m directly in front. Bell at least justifies his inclusion with his endeavour, Bate kicked a great goal with a long kick. Davey's disposal was miles above the rest of the team, apart from Petterd.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

We forget very quickly. Sylvia is a good footballer and will show us this year once he gets match fit, same with Byron. These two players are very underdone, Sylvia didn't join the main group until late Feb. Once again we play him deep forward and no forward would excel with our current skill levels through the midfield. Sylvia looked OK when he was able to push up the ground and play as a midfielder, but he is still 2-3 weeks away from spendig look periods on the ball. We were all crying for him to be included a few weeks back now we get on his back.

Good point Doctor. Sylvia is barely matchfit and is still being treated for residual OP.

[Gouga 566]

They will mistakenly argue Pettard vindicates their case but overlook Garland who struggled.

Agree RR. In fact, despite the fact everyone here was calling for it, i think the decision to play Garland was a poor one.

He hasn't shown the form Petterd has at Sandy.

It was obvious in one instance ND got it 100% right and in the other he got it 100% wrong.

I would have had Buckley next in the pecking order. I think he may have been able to break a couple of lines tonight.

[Gorgoroth 12,947]

also when sylvia was at FF he did have barry playing on him and lets face it he has towelled up many a great FF not a guy playing there due to we had no one else

[Jaded No More 68,903]

They will mistakenly argue Pettard vindicates their case but overlook Garland who struggled.

Don't think Gardland is a case for or against really.

The ball never got down to the forward line, and when it did, it went straight to Miller or Dunn. His inclusion was a bit strange, and I would have rather seen Buckley play instead, given our midfield is getting belted each week. However, given the lack of opportunities, you can't take anything out of his performance.

He chased and tackled which is a good sign, but I doubt he spent more than half the game on the ground. Very difficult to have a forward debut when the side is getting smashed. I think it would have been different if he lined up next to Neita, and hopefully he'll get that opportunity before Neita retires.

IMO we lost nothing by playing him tonight, but we should have probably dropped one of Jamar or PJ. Too many talls on the bench doing nothing, yet again.

[beelzebub 23,347]

They will mistakenly argue Pettard vindicates their case but overlook Garland who struggled.

yes and no..

the argument all along has been to get these guys into the mix as early as some signs are showing.. They wont all shine like Pettard... On that basis we had a win tonight..we know pettard is up to it... but had injuries not been the case we could still be wondering ten rounds later having played quite a few other past there use by date.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Don't think Gardland is a case for or against really.

The ball never got down to the forward line, and when it did, it went straight to Miller or Dunn. His inclusion was a bit strange, and I would have rather seen Buckley play instead, given our midfield is getting belted each week. However, given the lack of opportunities, you can't take anything out of his performance.

He chased and tackled which is a good sign, but I doubt he spent more than half the game on the ground. Very difficult to have a forward debut when the side is getting smashed. I think it would have been different if he lined up next to Neita, and hopefully he'll get that opportunity before Neita retires.

IMO we lost nothing by playing him tonight, but we should have probably dropped one of Jamar or PJ. Too many talls on the bench doing nothing, yet again.

You're probably right.

I put it forward just to balance the illogical case being put on Pettard.

Garland was on a hiding to nothing and could not be expected to do well from where he was playing given the game.

And Gouga, I dont think ND necessarily got it 100% right or wrong. I think the state of the season and current list of revolving injuries to key players is probably change some perceptions on the season's potential outcomes.

Things are different 0-4 as opposed 0-2.

At 0-5 with whats coming up, our current form and the crippled state of our list we could conceivably be 0-8. If the other first gamers dont play by then they should be expected to play alot of AFL from then on

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

yes and no..

the argument all along has been to get these guys into the mix as early as some signs are showing.. They wont all shine like Pettard... On that basis we had a win tonight..we know pettard is up to it... but had injuries not been the case we could still be wondering ten rounds later having played quite a few other past there use by date.

Pettard was one of those injured during the pre season after a very promising start. Had he not been injured he would have been in the mix for round 1 and would have replaced Bartram soon after.

[Guest dee'viator]

Ricky certainly played very well in a losing team. Since i was unable to go to the game, i was listening on the radio, he certainly has the potential to be our next superstar in the red and the blue

Oh, superstar? Who was our last "superstar" then? Please don't use that word so loosely, Tony Lockett was a superstar, Gary Ablett snr was a superstar, only Judd, J Brown & just maybe Kerr are approaching that status, too many premature accolades only hinder the development of our players.

[Guest dee'viator]

Pettard was one of those injured during the pre season after a very promising start. Had he not been injured he would have been in the mix for round 1 and would have replaced Bartram soon after.

No Rhino, your wrong, Pettard was not ready at the start of the season, & has slowly started finding his feet at Sandy about 3 weeks ago & has ratcheted up every match since. His timely introduction to the 1sts is just right for him.

Frawley was the one who shone throughout preseason & was looking @ a rnd1 Callup...

[mauriesy 7,287]

But that not what the masses have been arguing here.

Some of the masses here were arguing in the last draft for picking up Polak. Remember the moans about our lack of activity in the trade period?

We would probably have traded the pick we used for Petterd.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

No Rhino, your wrong, Pettard was not ready at the start of the season, & has slowly started finding his feet at Sandy about 3 weeks ago & has ratcheted up every match since. His timely introduction to the 1sts is just right for him.

Frawley was the one who shone throughout preseason & was looking @ a rnd1 Callup...

Pettard did a thigh in the first MFC intraclub match and limped off the ground after a promising start. He missed a number of weeks of the pre seaon

I agree with him finding his feet at Sandy and your comments are valid and consistent with his recovery from injury.

However some would have had him playing from round 2 underdone and not match fit.

I agree he has perfectly brought given his development. His performance was even better when you consider the game he debuted in.

[Jaded No More 68,903]

We would probably have traded the pick we used for Petterd.

I still think we should have thrown everything we had at Kingsley. To think we missed out on that superstar... what a damn shame!

Melbourne did well to resist the temptation of trading for used-up duds again. We tried it with Heffernan and that other horrible little man from Essendon whos name thankfully escapes me. Read, Bizzell and PJ haven't proved to be real winners either.

I rather we kept picks 14 and 29 (rough guess???) in those drafts. In fact, I'm all for holding onto your draft picks at all costs, unless something truely great comes along (or a bargain like Pickett was). You just never know what gems you might find, like Bartram for example.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Some of the masses here were arguing in the last draft for picking up Polak. Remember the moans about our lack of activity in the trade period?

We would probably have traded the pick we used for Petterd.

Maurie, they are still there.

There were also calls for Kingsley as well.

Mind you there were quite a few who said we should have gone for the 200cm tatttoo show Everitt. Cost you a Pettard....and hasn't he set Sydney on fire.

[Jarka 767]

Some of the masses here were arguing in the last draft for picking up Polak. Remember the moans about our lack of activity in the trade period?

We would probably have traded the pick we used for Petterd.

You mean like trading a second round pick, let's say pick #21 for example, for an immobile KPP who has a turning circle bigger than the QEII?

Nah, Melbourne wouldn't do anything like that

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I still think we should have thrown everything we had at Kingsley. To think we missed out on that superstar... what a damn shame!

Melbourne did well to resist the temptation of trading for used-up duds again. We tried it with Heffernan and that other horrible little man from Essendon whos name thankfully escapes me. Read, Bizzell and PJ haven't proved to be real winners either.

I rather we kept picks 14 and 29 (rough guess???) in those drafts. In fact, I'm all for holding onto your draft picks at all costs, unless something truely great comes along (or a bargain like Pickett was). You just never know what gems you might find, like Bartram for example.

It depends on what your timeframe is but generally you're right.

However Sydney have traded their early picks for the past three years for "ready" players like Jolly, Richards and Everitt to capitalise on a list spearheaded by Hall, Goodes and O'Loughlin. Their spend on now and their lack of investment for the future will cost them if their depth is tested due to injury and will punish them in the next 3 to 4 years as their current cream retires and the cupboard is bare. Roos wont hang around for that.

[occo 2]

Dont forget about Garland who i thought had an ok game with all the pressure. Pettard was excellent but dont get too carried away...its 1 game.

[Demonic_Inferno 17]

Rhino, you mention that it is mistaken to claim that playing these youngsters is the right thing to do, citing Petterd as an example but claiming that Garland didn't perform so well.

The benefit now so obvious in playing Pettard well outweighs the fact that we have seen that Garland isn't quite there yet. It's always a risk mate, but you have to roll the dice at some stage, especially in this team's current situation. To do otherwise is irresponsible in the extreme.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Rhino, you mention that it is mistaken to claim that playing these youngsters is the right thing to do, citing Petterd as an example but claiming that Garland didn't perform so well.

The benefit now so obvious in playing Pettard well outweighs the fact that we have seen that Garland isn't quite there yet. It's always a risk mate, but you have to roll the dice at some stage, especially in this team's current situation. To do otherwise is irresponsible in the extreme.

You are wrong.

I have clearly spelt out my position. Go and re read it.

[Gorgoroth 12,947]

i will pray and hope garland stays in for atleast 1 more game to have a shot at the G and see how he goes with some more space to work in

[Courtney_Fish 183]

I thought Ricky had a lot going for him but I'm sorry I have a problem with him - that hairdo!

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

That debut for Pettard was better than any game i have seen Sylvia play yet.

If true, how sad is that?

I still stand by my disappointment about Bizzell being dropped because he is a good kick and very good under pressure.

I reckon there's room for him in the current 22, especially tonight.

Who has rated Jamar highly before?

:D

But that not what the masses have been arguing here.

If many had there way they would have played Pettard plus Newton, Buckley, Weetra (ignoring he has been injured), Frawley (likewise) from round 2 regardless of their readiness.

Geez, Rhino. The masses here don't argue that all 4 of those players hould be played at once. There's a tiny minority that argue a stupid point like that. What the masses ask for is to fill a hole at a time with players that can fit in those holes. ie, Newton at FF, Buckley BP, and Petterd obviously. These masses are individually asking for these young guys to be played as soon as is reasonable. Playing 4 at once? NOT reasonable.

And just so you see I can raise BOTH debutants, Petterd was right to go, as you point out. Garland was NOT. CLEARLY not in my book. Now we have our disagreements in regards to Newton, but in my book I can't for the life of me understand why Garland was brought in. He must be doing wonderful things at training because at Sandy he's done very little. Sure he's looked like he has a future, but injuries or no injuries he was nowhere near ready to take on the runners up from last year. Perhaps he was played to get an appreciation of how hard he has to work? I dunno. But if your arguement condoning the holding back of Newton stands, how do you feel about this kid getting games? Surely his development could be hindered in the same way? And if you're going to play a guy before his time, surely the taller, stronger, bulkier guy who's had 3 years in the system is the less risky prospect?

And BTW, honest question here, I assume you're spelling Petterd PettARD deliberately. Why so? I realise that according to MMM he prefers the pronunciation PettARD despite the spelling. Do you know something we don't?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If true, how sad is that?

I reckon there's room for him in the current 22, especially tonight.

:D

Its hardly a vindication of a player to be selected that others were worse than him last night. Who would he have manned up on? Its these sort of games in 2004, 2005 where we were getting flogged that Bizzell gets exposed as unaccountable, too slow and unable to proivde an effective second up foil for other defenders.

Bizz would have neither here or there in the mix and he and Ward's omission is a telling insight into where the FD see the list and the rest of the season

Geez, Rhino. The masses here don't argue that all 4 of those players hould be played at once. There's a tiny minority that argue a stupid point like that. What the masses ask for is to fill a hole at a time with players that can fit in those holes. ie, Newton at FF, Buckley BP, and Petterd obviously. These masses are individually asking for these young guys to be played as soon as is reasonable. Playing 4 at once? NOT reasonable.

.......

And BTW, honest question here, I assume you're spelling Petterd PettARD deliberately. Why so? I realise that according to MMM he prefers the pronunciation PettARD despite the spelling. Do you know something we don't?

There be a number of threads and posts by "experts" who could not believe that Newton, Buckley, Petterd, Garland and Frawley would not be selected and played from round 2 onwards.

Your slant was not what they (who were numerous and in the generally vocal) were in general arguing. You are right it is not reasonable unless they are ready but that did not stop them..or you (re Newton).

Spelling was a slip up and I will get it right for game 2. Not as bad as those who will say "I watched and analysed Neil Daniher closely and he blah blah.."

blah"

[mauriesy 7,287]

And BTW, honest question here, I assume you're spelling Petterd PettARD deliberately. Why so? I realise that according to MMM he prefers the pronunciation PettARD despite the spelling. Do you know something we don't?

Someone is going to be hoisted?

[Demonic_Inferno 17]

You are wrong.

I have clearly spelt out my position. Go and re read it.

LOl. You have mentioned, quite arrogantly, that I am 'wrong', insinuating that I have difficulty comprehending the written word. This is a message board where opinions are expressed, and you seem to believe your opinion is gospel. Far from it.