Just deleted 16 posts out of this thread. It'd be good if we could all play nice please.

In the last ten years we are the only club to have not developed a consistent key forward, and a ruckman too.

Jeff White came to us in 1998 with only one year of AFL under his bet.

Darren Jolly and Troy Simmonds comes to mind too.

Richmond has develop neither. Carlton have not developed a ruckman.

Sydney paid bags of gold in draft picks to get Hall and Jolly and Everitt.

Hawks had had to crash and burn to develop either and they have just started.

Kangas have not got a name forward and have only started to develop a ruck.

Essendon has not been tested for a forward and are still battling the ruck issue.

They are just a few.

Neither spot is easy to fill.

P.S. I suggest you tone you manner down to other posters. You are becoming the epitome of what you criticise. Be careful.

Jeff White came to us in 1998 with only one year of AFL under his bet.

He was already considered a great talent before coming to our club

Darren Jolly and Troy Simmonds comes to mind too.

Pity they no longer play in the red and blue. Do we have a problem with recognising this type of talent?

Richmond has develop neither. Carlton have not developed a ruckman.

I'll give you Carlton, but as they are the worst handled team in the modern era that's called damning someone with faint praise. We're at the same level as Richmond and that's something I'm not proud of.

Sydney paid bags of gold in draft picks to get Hall and Jolly and Everitt.

Jolly huh? Which stupid club let him go? We've given away our fair share of good picks eg Holland for an early round 2 pick

Hawks had had to crash and burn to develop either and they have just started.

Alot of their first round spicks were swapped for players, they were smart enough to trade away older players not up to it, we still have them on our list <_<

Kangas have not got a name forward and have only started to develop a ruck.

McIntosh and Hale are miles and miles in front of PJ and Jamar, and we don't have anything closely resembling Petrie in our team (Newton perhaps)

Essendon has not been tested for a forward and are still battling the ruck issue.

Laycock showed White how to play desperate footy.

Neither spot is easy to fill.

I agree, but that's why coaches and footy staff get paid alot of money. If we want to be successfull we have to get this right.

P.S. I suggest you tone you manner down to other posters. You are becoming the epitome of what you criticise. Be careful.

You of all people should realise that I'll defend myself and not be intimidated

...

jarka do you not agree that we have been trying to develop tall forward targets with the drafting of Miller, Molan, Breese, Rogers and Smith in the past decade? were schwartz and lyons careers not cut a little short by injury? you cannot say our drafting and development of ruckmen has been anything short of phenomenal. with simmonds and jolly at other clubs and white rucking for us we have donw a fantastic job over the years. white was a better ruck than both simmonds and jolly at the time they were traded. these other players wanted to leave to be a first ruck. our problem has been succession - right player, wrong time. and perhaps the attitudes of these other players who couldnt wait to leave.

i think the stats of newtons performance demonstrate why it took so long for newton to be played. he did nothing year 1 and was injured. last year he dominated in the sandy reserve but couldnt buy a goal in the seniors. it wasnt until round 4 this year that he kicked a bag for sandy and he made his debut for the mfc 8 weeks after he kicked his first haul for the sandy seniors. 2 months of good footy, is all he has played including 3 games of 5 goals or more. after kicking multiple goals for sandy for the first time, he was forced to play 6 more games for them before he got a run at melbourne. he has only been named in the sandringham best 3 times this year.

do you think he should have been promoted on the back of one week? or do you admit that the mfc might have done the right thing and make sure he was ready to give him a run...?

do you think he should have been promoted on the back of one week? or do you admit that the mfc might have done the right thing and make sure he was ready to give him a run...?

Your logical post is a disgrace. Stop it!

A forward is as only as good as his supply. Our forwards didn't cause us to lose our first 9 our midfield got smashed, just look at the inside 50's we couldn't get the ball forward enough to score enough goals. Maybe we went into our shells in the midfield because no Neitz and Robbo and tried to maintain possession accross half back, but if you look back at the past 5 years when we lose it is because our midfield gets beaten and our supply up forward is llimited. Even if Newton played earlier it wouldn't of made a difference, in fact could of had a negative effect on him.

Our spine does look weak but we don't have an star in our midfield. We have good hard workers, one paced midfielders in Bruce, Green, McDonald, Mclean, Jones, Moloney but we don't have any explosive fast top skilled midfielders that can continually get the footy and hurt teams. Mclean may do this in time but is very muched a work horse one paced but hard at it. We need to add speed and polish to our midfield

do you think he should have been promoted on the back of one week? or do you admit that the mfc might have done the right thing and make sure he was ready to give him a run...?

Well said Deanox......

The club did, to my way of thinking anyway, what they believed was the best for both the individual player and for the team.

Maybe he could have debuted earlier, and given the way he has played in his first couple of games that could be a valid argument, but we have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and just because we saw a player we believed was physically ready for the big step didn't automatically make him mentally ready.

As has been said there is more to playing AFL than skill alone, and as I understand it Newton's skills were never in doubt.

But the point is moot now anyway, he has started what will hopefully be a long, prosperous, and successful football career with the Demons. He may have made his debut at exactly the right time for him (and that is the important part - every players has capabilities and that must be tailored for) and hopefully for the team.

jarka do you not agree that we have been trying to develop tall forward targets with the drafting of Miller, Molan, Breese, Rogers and Smith in the past decade? were schwartz and lyons careers not cut a little short by injury? you cannot say our drafting and development of ruckmen has been anything short of phenomenal. with simmonds and jolly at other clubs and white rucking for us we have donw a fantastic job over the years. white was a better ruck than both simmonds and jolly at the time they were traded. these other players wanted to leave to be a first ruck. our problem has been succession - right player, wrong time. and perhaps the attitudes of these other players who couldnt wait to leave.

i think the stats of newtons performance demonstrate why it took so long for newton to be played. he did nothing year 1 and was injured. last year he dominated in the sandy reserve but couldnt buy a goal in the seniors. it wasnt until round 4 this year that he kicked a bag for sandy and he made his debut for the mfc 8 weeks after he kicked his first haul for the sandy seniors. 2 months of good footy, is all he has played including 3 games of 5 goals or more. after kicking multiple goals for sandy for the first time, he was forced to play 6 more games for them before he got a run at melbourne. he has only been named in the sandringham best 3 times this year.

do you think he should have been promoted on the back of one week? or do you admit that the mfc might have done the right thing and make sure he was ready to give him a run...?

deonox, once again it's not just about Newton, I don't know how many different ways I can say it so you'll understand.

However I believe that the MFC has failed dismally over the last ten years, and the way Newton has been handled is just another example. The club has miss managed a number of our better players, and there is only one way to prove either of us right, and that's to look at what the club has achieved in that time. Do you admit that the MFC has wasted the last ten years?

He was already considered a great talent before coming to our club

Pity they no longer play in the red and blue. Do we have a problem with recognising this type of talent?

I'll give you Carlton, but as they are the worst handled team in the modern era that's called damning someone with faint praise. We're at the same level as Richmond and that's something I'm not proud of.

Jolly huh? Which stupid club let him go? We've given away our fair share of good picks eg Holland for an early round 2 pick

Alot of their first round spicks were swapped for players, they were smart enough to trade away older players not up to it, we still have them on our list <_<

McIntosh and Hale are miles and miles in front of PJ and Jamar, and we don't have anything closely resembling Petrie in our team (Newton perhaps)

Laycock showed White how to play desperate footy.

I agree, but that's why coaches and footy staff get paid alot of money. If we want to be successfull we have to get this right.

You of all people should realise that I'll defend myself and not be intimidated

White was lack lustre in his one year performance at Freo. Hardly a great talent.

Jolly is a pedestrian tap ruckman at best in a disciplined capable side. He is no loss. Simmonds went when we brought on Jolly.

Petrie has had one good game (quarter) recently. Up to then he had been pedestrian. Hale (#7 in 2001) and MacIntosh (#9 in 2002) were first round picks which have taken 5 to 6 years to come good. PJ was #24 in 2002 and has missed about 2 seasons of AFL since through injury. Jamar was a rookie. Hardly in the same calibre of the Kanga pair. And by taking those ruckman with first rounders they have denied themselves elsewhere in the list.

Edited July 11, 200718 yr by Nasher

A forward is as only as good as his supply. Our forwards didn't cause us to lose our first 9 our midfield got smashed, just look at the inside 50's we couldn't get the ball forward enough to score enough goals. Maybe we went into our shells in the midfield because no Neitz and Robbo and tried to maintain possession accross half back, but if you look back at the past 5 years when we lose it is because our midfield gets beaten and our supply up forward is llimited. Even if Newton played earlier it wouldn't of made a difference, in fact could of had a negative effect on him.

Our spine does look weak but we don't have an star in our midfield. We have good hard workers, one paced midfielders in Bruce, Green, McDonald, Mclean, Jones, Moloney but we don't have any explosive fast top skilled midfielders that can continually get the footy and hurt teams. Mclean may do this in time but is very muched a work horse one paced but hard at it. We need to add speed and polish to our midfield

Having good forwards straightens up midfields. How many times have we seen them turn the ball over because of over using the ball?

A forward is as only as good as his supply. Our forwards didn't cause us to lose our first 9 our midfield got smashed, just look at the inside 50's we couldn't get the ball forward enough to score enough goals. Maybe we went into our shells in the midfield because no Neitz and Robbo and tried to maintain possession accross half back, but if you look back at the past 5 years when we lose it is because our midfield gets beaten and our supply up forward is llimited. Even if Newton played earlier it wouldn't of made a difference, in fact could of had a negative effect on him.

Our spine does look weak but we don't have an star in our midfield. We have good hard workers, one paced midfielders in Bruce, Green, McDonald, Mclean, Jones, Moloney but we don't have any explosive fast top skilled midfielders that can continually get the footy and hurt teams. Mclean may do this in time but is very muched a work horse one paced but hard at it. We need to add speed and polish to our midfield

Perceptive post Dr Drake. Our midfield issues are even more beguiling when you consider that against Richmond and Carlton we won the centre bounces but lost the clearances.

Having good forwards straightens up midfields. How many times have we seen them turn the ball over because of over using the ball?

Yup.

The Round 1 game against St Kilda was a perfect example of this.

jarka do you not agree that we have been trying to develop tall forward targets with the drafting of Miller, Molan, Breese, Rogers and Smith in the past decade? were schwartz and lyons careers not cut a little short by injury? you cannot say our drafting and development of ruckmen has been anything short of phenomenal. with simmonds and jolly at other clubs and white rucking for us we have donw a fantastic job over the years. white was a better ruck than both simmonds and jolly at the time they were traded. these other players wanted to leave to be a first ruck. our problem has been succession - right player, wrong time. and perhaps the attitudes of these other players who couldnt wait to leave.

i think the stats of newtons performance demonstrate why it took so long for newton to be played. he did nothing year 1 and was injured. last year he dominated in the sandy reserve but couldnt buy a goal in the seniors. it wasnt until round 4 this year that he kicked a bag for sandy and he made his debut for the mfc 8 weeks after he kicked his first haul for the sandy seniors. 2 months of good footy, is all he has played including 3 games of 5 goals or more. after kicking multiple goals for sandy for the first time, he was forced to play 6 more games for them before he got a run at melbourne. he has only been named in the sandringham best 3 times this year.

do you think he should have been promoted on the back of one week? or do you admit that the mfc might have done the right thing and make sure he was ready to give him a run...?

Afternoon all.

Player development is a uncertain and inexact science. For every rule there is an exception.

On the one hand, a player identified as 'having the goods' can and probably should be played at the highest level ASAP. Afterall if it is determined that he is 'going to make it' then the sooner he can come to grips with the speed and physicality of the game the better....right?

A few examples include...... well any number one draft pick (Murphy, Gibbs, Delidio etc. etc.).

On the other hand, a player considered to have 'something' and 'might' make it, may need more development time in a lower grade to determine whether he WILL make it.

Quite often these players nowadays are high draft picks or rookies. Names like Robbo, Bruce, Carroll come to mind.

FWIW

Everything published by the club and its officials, not to mention a lot of what has been posted here and at ology, would put Newton into the second category.

I personally don't think that getting named in the best players makes a difference to whether a young player should be selected on not. Carrying out what is asked of them by the coach is the most important thing, and doing this may not put them into the best players but may just fill a role for the team (see Bartram last year).

Overall I think the club has done a good job with Newton's development, but let's not forget that he also played a month on a wing at Sandy before going forward where he started to kick bags of goals.

I would have like to have seen him in the team earlier too seeing we didn't have a recognised forward, however, doing so can backfire, just look at the result of Garland being played, or Zac Dawson last year. (not all experience is good experience).

Go Dees - "Juice anyone?"

Do you admit that the MFC has wasted the last ten years?

How have we wasted the last 10 years? What do you classify as wasting?

If it's not winning a premiership, than nobody can disagree, but have we ever actually been good enough to win a flag?

We drafted some very good players, and some KPPs which failed for one reason or another.

Your argument that we don't develop players properly has no backing whatsoever, because for every player we apperantly managed poorly, I can name 3 or 4 we managed well. And for every club whos list is better than ours, there's a club with a worst list.

You've carried this argument despite the fact that it completely lost all logic.

Show me which club rushes their young players into the senior team, and how many of them have been successful...

Yup.

The Round 1 game against St Kilda was a perfect example of this.

I guess having Neitz and Robbo does not constitute good forwards.

The game was a clear example of the MFC midfield being smashed by another midfield.

How have we wasted the last 10 years? What do you classify as wasting?

If it's not winning a premiership, than nobody can disagree, but have we ever actually been good enough to win a flag?

We drafted some very good players, and some KPPs which failed for one reason or another.

Your argument that we don't develop players properly has no backing whatsoever, because for every player we apperantly managed poorly, I can name 3 or 4 we managed well. And for every club whos list is better than ours, there's a club with a worst list.

You've carried this argument despite the fact that it completely lost all logic.

Show me which club rushes their young players into the senior team, and how many of them have been successful...

How many key forwards and quality ruckman have we developed over the last 10 years?

It has been a major problem with the club, as well as leadership problems.

I guess having Neitz and Robbo does not constitute good forwards.

The game was a clear example of the MFC midfield being smashed by another midfield.

At 187 cm Robo does not constitute a key forward. The game was a clear example of poor leadership and the club going backwards, but that's a different argument entirely.

How many key forwards and quality ruckman have we developed over the last 10 years?

It has been a major problem with the club, as well as leadership problems.

We've developed 5 ruckman.

One is an AA, one went on to win a premiership, one is the number one ruckman at another club, while the other 2 are still developing.

As I said before, we drafted a number of KPPs who, for some reason or another, didn't make it. A combination of talent and injuries.

On the other hand, we also got Carroll off a rookie list, Miller with a pick in the 50's, Rivers is all class and was a steal, plus Newton, Bate, Dunn and Garland who are still learning.

We drafted what we really needed, which at the time was mostly midfielders. The risk of failure is far greater with big men, and we're not alone in being short on KPPs. I think you'll find most clubs are too.

Are West Coast a failure because they haven't found and developed a decent tall forward?

At 187 cm Robo does not constitute a key forward. The game was a clear example of poor leadership and the club going backwards, but that's a different argument entirely.

Robbo plays a key forward role has done so for some time. His height is not relevant. Your comment was about good forwards and as he took 5 marks and kick 3 that day from a flogged midfield it would fulifil your statement.

We've developed 5 ruckman.

One is an AA, one went on to win a premiership, one is the number one ruckman at another club, while the other 2 are still developing.

As I said before, we drafted a number of KPPs who, for some reason or another, didn't make it. A combination of talent and injuries.

On the other hand, we also got Carroll off a rookie list, Miller with a pick in the 50's, Rivers is all class and was a steal, plus Newton, Bate, Dunn and Garland who are unknown.

We drafted what we really needed, which at the time was mostly midfielders. The risk of failure is far greater with big men, and we're not alone in being short on KPPs. I think you'll find most clubs are too.

Are West Coast a failure because they haven't found and developed a decent tall forward?

Yoy think Jamar is a quality ruckman?

Regardless, I've already addressed this issue in a previous post

Robbo plays a key forward role has done so for some time. His height is not relevant. Your comment was about good forwards and as he took 5 marks and kick 3 that day from a flogged midfield it would fulifil your statement.

No, it was about Key forwards, Robo may occasionally kick goals but he is not a Key forward

Yoy think Jamar is a quality ruckman?

Regardless, I've already addressed this issue in a previous post

He is a quickly tap ruckman yes, useless footballer around the ground, but a quality ruckman he is.

And you didn't answer my question about West Coast. Their forward line is shocking, to the point where Judd and Kerr having 37 possessions each is still not enough for their forwards to kick a winning score. So are they, or are they not a failure?

And Robbo is a key forward. He'd be the number one forward at a number of clubs.

Robbo averages more goals per game over his career than Brad Johnson, so I'm not sure exactly how you maintain that he occasionally kicks goals.

No, it was about Key forwards, Robo may occasionally kick goals but he is not a Key forward

"Having good forwards straightens up midfields."

I responded to CB.

Robbo kicked 75 goals in 2005. Pity he is not a key forward.

Thanks

Thread cleaned again, this is getting dull. Next time it's closed, don't have time to sit here and delete posts all day.

He is a quickly tap ruckman yes, useless footballer around the ground, but a quality ruckman he is.

And you didn't answer my question about West Coast. Their forward line is shocking, to the point where Judd and Kerr having 37 possessions each is still not enough for their forwards to kick a winning score. So are they, or are they not a failure?

And Robbo is a key forward. He'd be the number one forward at a number of clubs.

How many premierships have they won in the last 10 years?