GARRY LYON IN THE HUN

[Jarka 767]

Ps: Bullshoy. Welcome back! How long you sticking round for this time?

I shan't be, Smithee. Chess beckons - gameknot.com. But any mug can challenge me

Good to see you on the forum again.

[Hannabal 4]

Good to see you on the forum again.

Thanks, Heart. I still read.

[deanox 9,896]

I'll tell you why Frankster....

Oh, and as for the triumvirate you mention ? I too would free up their careers.

i understand your post hannabal but too me godders is in a group with holland, ward, brown, bizzell, pickett, ferg, jamar, and a couple of others that are in the firing line for one reason or another. while godders disposal is poor he performs better, imo, than many listed above. while he will always be one of the group to be culled, when he performs like he has this year he saves himself. you can't delist 1/4 of the list.

[Doggo 32]

I'll tell you why Frankster.

Much like the greatest and most strategic board game in the world - chess, football games are won by the teams that make the least mistakes. Sure, Godfrey has some boxes ticked, as has been recognised on D'Land, and they're plain for all to see, but his weaknesses; ie lack of class, pace, skill, as well as the numerous turnovers, are too detrimental to a team's well being and reduce the chance of his side winning.

Pressure, perceived pressure, tackling, strategies, turnovers, set plays, one percenters, etc, are all designed to cause the opposition to fumble, make poor decisions, poor execution, and allow one's own team to enhance their scoring opportunities. Footy scribes often speak of the best 'team' in the league as opposed to individual brilliance. Great teams work for each other, pressure the opposition into 'mistakes', and capitalise by superior movement of the ball. In essence, the good teams make the least amount of 'mistakes'. It's not measured by the clanger count, but mark my words, the team that wins will have made the least mistakes. The better gameplan will lose if the mistakes are too many.

I'll remember Godfrey as a fine servant of the MFC. A player who eeked out the most of his ability. But going forward, I want to start turning this list over. If it means two steps back and one step forward and closer to the only thing that counts (a flag) then I embrace it. And there's no better time than now. The time of good honest servants is over for me.

Agree totally Hannabal.

I guess the very fact many people believe him to be in our top 5 B&F this year further confirms your points.

We are going to finish in the bottom 3, again.

Much like 2003, Godfrey's other good year..(He finished 5th that year, didnt he?).

When he is in the side and is playing well, we generally are not.

[Hannabal 4]

you can't delist 1/4 of the list.

True, and imo the MFC has been tardy in turning their list over in recent years. Too much faith and too long on the list for too many. However, I know many disagree.

[Jaded No More 68,855]

True, and imo the MFC has been tardy in turning their list over in recent years. Too much faith and too long on the list for too many. However, I know many disagree.

Long term contracts have killed us.

IMO, most players shouldn't be given a 3 year contract, not unless they are young and showing a lot of potential. Even superstars can get cut down by injuries (imaging if a club gave Judd a 10 year deal and he spent 3 years at the physio trying to recover from OP!).

Players like Yze, Bizzell and White got 3 year deals when in reality, they should have only got 2.

The other thing we haven't done, is planned ahead. Too many similar players all come out of contract in the same year, however as we can only delist so many, we end up signing some players out of pure necessity. We should have got rid of 2 or 3 more players last year, in a draft that was considered quite good. We didn't because guys like Bizzell and Ward were contracted.

This year, we have a big group of 'depth' players coming out of contract, but again, how many can we afford to delist and just how deep is this year's draft?

Planning, like in any business, is vitally important. And in this industry, where things evolve and change so quickly, keeping one hand on the pulse at all times is crucial. Clubs that don't plan ahead, stay on the bottom for a long time. We need to be ruthless in order to ensure that we bounce back quickly.

[Doggo 32]

Just read the article in its entirety...

Thought Garry was harsh on PJ in saying he had already 'failed' to capitalise on the position left vacant by Jolly, when he had been injured for all of last year, and is ever improving and can only show so much in 60% game time or less. His development this season has actually been one of the real positives so far.

Also, in saying we had been passed by Hawthorn, Kanga's, Collingwood and Bulldogs this year, whilst true... he did not once mention injuries to key players having played a huge role in the demise of MFC in 07, and the effect equivalent injuries to key players would have had to the sides 'passing' us.

A very narrow article if you ask me. Very much for the mass public, with the view of 'what the average AFL punter might think' in mind... and not addressing the core issues of why this season has been so bad.

Typical HUN article, really...

[Rogue 585]

Thought Garry was harsh on PJ in saying he had already 'failed' to capitalise on the position left vacant by Jolly, when he had been injured for all of last year, and is ever improving and can only show so much in 60% game time or less. His development this season has actually been one of the real positives so far.

While PJ is ahead of Jamar at the moment he hasn't yet cemented himself as an AFL ruckman IMO. Injuries last year don't change that fact.

I do agree that his development has been a positive.

Also, in saying we had been passed by Hawthorn, Kanga's, Collingwood and Bulldogs this year, whilst true... he did not once mention injuries to key players having played a huge role in the demise of MFC in 07, and the effect equivalent injuries to key players would have had to the sides 'passing' us.

A very narrow article if you ask me.

I actually think that your POV is quite narrow. Lyon conceded that we could have done alright again this, but that our run of finals appearances has masked problems with our list.

A shorter injury list would have meant we could have performed okay, but another good average year would have only served to continue to mask issues that can't be rectified by having better luck with injuries.

EDIT: Fixed double quote tag.

[old55 23,349]

Probably true. And I'd delist him at year's end. Would you ?

...

less mistakes

...

True, and imo the MFC has been tardy in turning their list over in recent years. Too much faith and too long on the list for too many. However, I know many disagree.

Daniher had his time and his plan, even if it was held together by duct tape (not his fault we couldn't afford a welder) and as a result he turned the list over too slowly. But it was California or bust for him.

Now we can turn the list over and we've got plenty of options. We could turnover at least 10 without getting to Godfrey and that would be enough. Therefore I'd retain him. Same with Jamar altho no-one will agree with me. If White and PJ both get injured next year and Holland is delisted then I don't want to ruck Neaves for 120 minutes. That's assuming we don't pick up a ready-to-go ruckman - if we do then Jamar can go.

I'd definitely retain Wheatley.

[Gouga 566]

Totally agree Old55, Jamar must stay on our list.

[Hannabal 4]

I'd definitely retain Wheatley.

Wheatley is an interesting one. In a good side he could be a very damaging footballer. In an average side he goes missing. Unlike most he has some trade value. There are many I'd let go before him.

Godfrey has been blessed by Bartram's injury. Like Daniher, he's run his race. But if I was a betting man I'd say he'll stay. He's lucky I'm not an applicant

[Rogue 585]

Wheatley is an interesting one. In a good side he could be a very damaging footballer. In an average side he goes missing. Unlike most he has some trade value. There are many I'd let go before him.

Godfrey has been blessed by Bartram's injury. Like Daniher, he's run his race. But if I was a betting man I'd say he'll stay. He's lucky I'm not an applicant

Agree with both those comments, although I feel Wheatley's progress has been hindered by playing in defence rathan than on a wing.

[occo 2]

That article was garbage. Want a good read? Gerald Healy wrote a wonderful article in the Herald Suna month or so ago which also dived into the wasted draft picks we made and the trades which cost us draft picks too. A complete waste of time reading it.

As for Godders, he deserves to be in the 22 next year the way he has played this year.

5 Years down the track

B: Bell ? Carroll

HB: Rivers Frawley Pettard

C: Sylvia Jones Dunn

HF: Bate ? ?

F: Davey Newton ?

R: ? (Kruizer) McLean© Buckley*

I.C: Bartram, Garland*

* Not sure whether these players are actually future long term 22 players

[Whispering_Jack 29,753]

you can't delist 1/4 of the list.

I'd like to challenge that proposition or at least qualify it.

A club's list comprises 44 players (including rookies). Let's say you have 11 players who you believe are simply not going to figure in your team's next premiership assault. Why not for example, seek to trade the best two of those players away on player/player trades, upgrade two rookies, draft six players in the National Draft and introduce three new rookies. That would constitute a turnover of 1/4 of your list and allow you to release players who you think aren't up to it. After all, why keep a player on the list if you don't have faith in his ability? By releasing him, you eliminate the possibility of a repeat of previous failures. This is what I would expect from a new coach who has made a thorough study of our list and who, from the minute he steps through the club's doors, is not prepared to put up with mediocrity.

I purposely haven't named any names here because I expect the person appointed to the new job to be well versed about the weak links in our list. If he isn't then we've chosen the wrong person to coach the club.

To those who would argue that it's better to keep an older player on the list rather than to draft deep into the draft pool, I'll cite the example of Port Adelaide which drafted Gray in the 50's and Westhoff in the 70's.

[Rogue 585]

I'd like to challenge that proposition or at least qualify it.

A club's list comprises 44 players (including rookies).

Excluding rookies you need to move on 10 players to make the 1/4.

Not impossible, but quite unlikely.