You Be The Judge

[Slartibartfast 17,264]

At Mark Riley's press conference after the game against Sydney last year he referred (not for the first time) to injuries, settled teams and confidence. Myth or reality I thought? So for nothing more than a point of interest these players didn't play in these weeks (with apologies for errors):

Round 1 v Saints Loss 93 v 62: Frawley, Sylvia, Rivers, Wheatley, Pickett. McLean, Whelan injured first half, someone early second half.

Round 2 v Hawks Loss 116 v 94: McLean, Frawley, Sylvia, Yze, Bartram, Pickett. Injured Neitz first half and Robbo last quarter.

Round 3 v Geelong Loss 109 v 57: McLean, Frawley, Neitz, Sylvia, Bartram, Robbo, Rivers, Pickett

Round 4 v Freo Loss 137 v 92: McLean, Neitz, Johnstone, Bartram, Moloney, Robbo, Rivers, Frawley.

Round 5 v Swans Loss 109 v 60: Jones, McLean, Frawley, Neitz, Green, Bartram, Robbo, Wheatley, Whelan

Round 6 v PA Loss 76 v 71: McLean, Frawley, Green, Bartram, Robbo, Wheatley, Whelan.

Round 7 v Bullies Loss 112 v 106: McLean, Frawley, Green, Bartram, Robbo, Rivers, Wheatley, Pickett, Whelan

Round 8 v WC Loss 137 v 60: McLean, Frawley, Bartram, Moloney, Robbo, Rivers, Wheatley, Pickett, Whelan

Round 9 v Kangas Loss 79 v 78: Bate, Sylvia, Yze, Bartram, Moloney, Rivers, Wheatley, Pickett, Whelan

Round 10: v Adelaide Win 89 v 72: Miller, Yze, Bartram, Moloney, Rivers, Pickett, Whelan

Round 11 v Collingwood Win 94 v 81: Miller, Yze, Bartram, Moloney, Rivers, Pickett, Whelan

Round 12 v Richmond Loss 124 v 75: MIller, Neitz, Johnstone, Bartram, Moloney, Rivers, Whelan

Round 13 v Essendon Loss 125 v 123: Miller, Frawley, Yze, Bartram, Moloney, Pickett, Rivers, Whelan

Round 14 v Carlton Win 124 v 101: Neitz, Yze, Johnstone, Green, Bartram, Bell, Moloney, Rivers, Bruce, Pickett, Whelan

Round 15 v Lions Loss126 v 82: Neitz, Yze, Petterd, Johnstone, Green, Bartram, Bell, Moloney, Rivers, Bruce, Pickett, Whelan

Round 16 v Kanga's Loss 126 v 62: Yze, Petterd, Johnstone, Bartram, Bell, Rivers, Pickett, Davey, Whelan

Round 17 v PA Loss 163 v 74: Yze, Petterd, Johnstone, Bartram, Rivers, Pickett, Davey, Carroll, Whelan

Round 18 v Swans Loss 112 v 64: Frawley, Sylvia, Yze, Petterd, Johnstone, Bartram, Robertson, Rivers, Bruce, Whelan

Round 19 v Bulldogs Win 129 v 87: McLean, Bate, Yze, Petterd, Bartram, Rivers, Bruce, Whelan.

Round 20 v Collingwood Loss 81 v 70 : Frawley, Yze, Petterd, Bartram, Moloney, Rivers, Bruce, Whelan

Round 21 v Freo Loss 144 v 85 : Bate, Frawley, Yze, Petterd, Bartram, Bell, Moloney, Mc Donald, Rivers, Wheatley, Davey, Whelan

Round 22 v Carlton Win 139 v 108: Frawley, Neitz, Sylvia, Yze, Petterd, Bartram, Bell, Moloney, Rivers, Wheatley, Davey, Whelan

This listing is intended to give a “flavour” and not for a moment list players who would have played if uninjured or fit, or even players that were fundamental to the team. Nor does it attempt to list all unavailable players.

I was prompted to do this summary as there is some genuine pessimism on both Demonland and Demonology when looking at 2008. There seems to be a belief that a top 8 finish will be a very good achievement. Then I read a thread on Demonology call "What happened in 2006" and gsmith responded by saying:

"we were third after round 17 then lost to Carlton in (18) Sydney in (19) and Adelaide in (22) to finish 7th.

A great win over the Saints in the EF before bowing out to the Dockers."

Hmmm, here we are at the beginning of 2008 with a team that people believe will be lucky to make the 8 and that was 3rd after 17 rounds in 2006. Now 3rd is a bloody good effort. We'd have played every team once and two twice so it's a pretty representative sample of opposition. So are we really as bad as people are making out? The listing above shows the seriousness of our injuries. In summary we lost Whelan, Rivers and Bartram for virtually the whole season. Bruce (16), Johnstone (15), Sylvia (16), Moloney (10), Wheatley (14), Yze (9), Robertson (15), Neitz (15) and Petterd (9) were others to miss sizable slabs of the season who would normally have played. Missing a couple of these players in normal circumstances is not so bad but when there are so many of them missing the team is severely weakened. So hence Mark Riley’s comments.

And yet in 2007 we won 5 games, lost 4 by a kick or less and one by 11 points to Collingwood when we had 18 fit players for most of the last half.

From the list of 2006:

The following are gone: Neville, Ferguson, Brown, Godfrey, Travis, Pickett, Ward, Bizzell, Motlop, Nicholson, Read, Smith.

The following have arrived: Petterd, Frawley, Garland, Weetra, Warnock, Meesen, Morton, Grimes, Maric, McNamara, Cheney, Martin, Bode.

In the "gone" list those that matter are TJ whose skill we will not replace immediately and Pickett who many thought made a significant impact in 2006. No arrivals have "made it" other than Petterd who I would have thought was in our best 25 or so.

Comparing 2006 and 2008:

The following players will not be as good: Carroll (I doubt he'll produce a close to AA performance again), Neitz.

The following will be the same: Bruce, Davey, McDonald, Rivers, Robertson, Whelan, Green, Yze, White, Wheatley, Holland

The following will improve: Bartram, Bate, Jones, McLean, Sylvia, Bell, Dunn, Newton, Frawley, Meesen, Petterd

The following will probably not make a significant difference this year: Bode, Buckley, Jamar, Johnson C, Johnson P, Miller, Moloney, Garland, Warnock, Weetra, Martin, Morton, Grimes, Maric, McNamara, Cheney

Here is the team that played in round 17 against the Bullies in Yze's 250th game in 2006:

Bartram, Bate, Brown, Bruce, Carroll, Davey, Godfrey, Holland, Jamar, Johnstone, Jones, McDonald, McLean, Neitz, Pickett, Rivers, Robertson, Sylvia, Ward, Whelan, White and Yze.

Injured who would normally have played were Green and Bell.

Gone from that team are Brown, Godfrey, Johnstone, Pickett, Ward.

Suggested replacements: Bell, Dunn, Petterd, Green and Moloney. Frawley and Meesen can be slotted in the mix to make up for our two injured players in 2006.

Now where is all this going? In my opinion TJ is a huge on field loss of talent that we haven't replaced. Neitz is not what he was and Carroll unlikely to reproduce. Pickett is a wildcard and probably unreplaceable which would worry some but not me. His output in 2006 was influential but erratic and unreliable.

11 players should improve under normal circumstances and of course there is a bunch of talent in the "insignificant difference" group that could impact; but any impact is a bonus and shouldn’t be relied upon.

Does this make us a worse team now than that which was 3rd in 2006?

You be the judge.

One thing is interesting. If you conclude "no we are about as good" (which I think is quite reasonable) and you expect us to finish outside the 8 in 2008, Daniher must have been a very good coach.

Further I think that this analysis presents a couple of points:

o We clearly don’t have the experienced depth this year that we’ve had other years. A similar run of injuries this year will be even more disastrous than last year.

o Injuries are significant, particularly when they are to key players and you have a lot of them. For example many would argue that Yze would not be in our best 22 and therefore his loss last year was not overly influential, but clearly with the number of other injuries we had his injury became important.

o Whilst it is easy to quantify the players injured what can’t be quantified and can’t be ignored is the impact that these injuries have on confidence, motivation, cohesion, teamwork and enthusiasm.

[Jarka 767]

The best way to judge a team is to see how it peforms under pressure, and finals footy is the most pressure a team will face. Our record in finals is as poor as you can get, recently we've won only one which was against an injury depleted saints. Of course this could just be a symptom of one very basic problem, we've ended up with a list of extremely poor mature leaders.

Sadly, Daniher wasn't a good coach and CAC's list management could have been better.

[grazman 7,432]

The best way to judge a team is to see how it peforms under pressure, and finals footy is the most pressure a team will face. Our record in finals is as poor as you can get, recently we've won only one which was against an injury depleted saints. Of course this could just be a symptom of one very basic problem, we've ended up with a list of extremely poor mature leaders.

Sadly, Daniher wasn't a good coach and CAC's list management could have been better.

Fortunately for Geelong, their football department had a bit more knowledge than the average punter at the start of 07 when a lot of their supporters were calling for major overhauls of their list that lacked any quality leaders, that were too slow and had only won two finals matches since 2000. I wonder how many during the course of the year admitted to eating humble pie?

I'm not necessarily expecting to see us make the finals this year (though it wouldn't necessarily surprise me) simply because a new coach brings new game plans and philosophies that can take a few players a bit of time to adjust to and for it all to gel.

As Fan has very nicely pointed out though, injuries do count. Interestingly we weren't the worst club on the injury front, Brisbane lost more games to players injured than we did, but I suspect we lost more players injured during matches than anyone else. In modern footy losing more than one player a match injured is just going to smash you out on the park.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

The best way to judge a team is to see how it peforms under pressure, and finals footy is the most pressure a team will face. Our record in finals is as poor as you can get, recently we've won only one which was against an injury depleted saints. Of course this could just be a symptom of one very basic problem, we've ended up with a list of extremely poor mature leaders.

Or it could be a symptom of being the 7th or 8th best team in the competition Jarka.

Fan, thanks for the analysis. It's been a bit slow around here lately and I hope this thread can generate some discussion. In a desperate bid to encourage my wife to take a little more interest in the Dees I took Sportsbet up on their generous 4 - 1 odds on Melbourne making the finals and gave the ticket to her. Your post above should be sent to the betting agencies. I've always thought myself overly optimistic when it comes to all things Melbourne and can always find reasons for us to have a good year and 2008 is no exception. The new coach factor shouldn't be underestimated. 1998 amyone? Comparisons to Geelong also offer hope but I feel our list is in a slightly different position to their 2007 line-up. The excitement, as highlighted by many comes from the u/23 contingent on our list. Despite the ignorance of opposition supporters, Craig Cameron has done a particularly good job over the past 4-5 national drafts. Whilst many of them are still speculative, I've never been more excited by our youth. The Newton, Dunn, Bate trio give every indication of making it. Jones is a given. Petterd and Frawley looked destined for long careers and Bartram will hopefully put his injury plagued 2007 behind him. I certainly haven't given up on Sylvia and McLean will no doubt be working hard to regain his lustre. Combine the above youth with the rejuvenation of Bruce, Green, Whelan, Wheatley and Davey under a new coach and the return of Rivers and Moloney and we're surely looking better than wooden spoon contenders. And surely the 150 year celebration is worth a win or two.

Fans post didn't consider the premiership claims of the other 15 teams. Again in my opinion, this is an area of hope. Reasons can be given for all of our opposition to struggles. It's widely accepted that Sydney and Adelaide are on the slide. Surely the Kangas can't replicate 2007. Essendon's midfield is weak. Richmond is Richmond. Port may take some time to recover mentally from a GF hiding (think Melbourne 2001). Judd or not Carlton are still building. West Coast will still be strong but a team simply can't replace two of the best midfielders of the past decade departing simultaneously. Collingwood have their own departures to deal with and are one of two midfield injuries away from really struggling. Footscray still don't have a September spine and Freo remain mentally questionable. St Kilda don't seem to have the midfield depth necessary given the injury prone nature of many of their key palyers. Even the three teams I really rate as big chances in 2008 (Geelong, Hawthorn and Brisbane) have question marks. The reigning champs are basically the same line-up that showed their mental inadequacies in 2006. If ever a team could suffer a premiership hangover its the boys from sleepy hollow. Hawthorn are progressing nicely but yet to prove their September worth and Brisbane rely heavily on 5 or 6 stars, lacking their previous depth.

[grazman 7,432]

Fans post didn't consider the premiership claims of the other 15 teams. Again in my opinion, this is an area of hope. Reasons can be given for all of our opposition to struggles. It's widely accepted that Sydney and Adelaide are on the slide. Surely the Kangas can't replicate 2007. Essendon's midfield is weak. Richmond is Richmond. Port may take some time to recover mentally from a GF hiding (think Melbourne 2001). Judd or not Carlton are still building. West Coast will still be strong but a team simply can't replace two of the best midfielders of the past decade departing simultaneously. Collingwood have their own departure to deal with and are one of two midfield injuries away from really struggling. Footscray still don't have a September spine and Freo remain mentally questionable. Even the three teams I really rate as big chances in 2008 (Geelong, Hawthorn and Brisbane) have question marks. The reigning champs are basically the same line-up that showed their mental inadequacies in 2006. If ever a team could suffer a premiership hangover its the boys from sleepy hollow. Hawthorn are progressing nicely but yet to prove their September worth and Brisbane rely heavily on 5 or 6 stars, lacking their previous depth.

I'm glad you rate Brisbane Vibes (and I know it's not just because you're a banana bender) - I do too. I think they're a real smokey, but I think their weakness maybe one of our strengths and that is their U/23 runners. Experience is invaluable, but old legs are easily tired and easily injured.

I think Danners problem was that he became so focused on trying to replicate a winning premiership formula he lost sight of the intrinsic strength of our list. I simply raised the Geelong comparison, not because I think our lists are the same, but to demonstrate the old adage that a week is a long time in footy, a year is even longer. It's still January and I'm getting excited already.

[mo64 5,874]

Great post Fan.

I don't believe that our list is nearly as bad as most pundits are saying. Injuries were certainly a factor last year, but I also believe that lack of quality midfield depth was a major factor. When I looked at the Sandy side that won the 2006 GF, with the exception of Jones, there were no Melbourne players in that side that were potential AFL midfielders. Hopefully we've addressed that with our current draft crop.

But for mine, the great unknown between this year and last, is our game plan. It seemed that either the players didn't embrace ND's new 2007 game plan, or we didn't have the type of players to adopt it. I'm actually looking forward to the NAB Cup just to see what style of game DB has brought in.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

I'm glad you rate Brisbane Vibes (and I know it's not just because you're a banana bender) - I do too. I think they're a real smokey, but I think their weakness maybe one of our strengths and that is their U/23 runners. Experience is invaluable, but old legs are easily tired and easily injured.

You may well be right Graz - you usually are. But in regards to Brisbane's u/23's I think they're in reasonable shape. Adcock stepped into the midfield nicely in the second half of 2007 and Rischitelli is developing nicely. Sherman (4th I think in their B&F in 2006) should rebound, Hooper showed a bit late (has a massive engine) and the youngest and possibly most promising of all their midfielders, yet to be given a real chance is Albert Proud. I really expect him to step up in 2008. That's a reasonable batch of youngsters to add to Black, Power, Lappin and Johstone. Throw in Copeland, Selwood and Stiller for depth and they're looking pretty good. The best power forward in the comp, plenty of developing key defenders, an 'X' factor in Brennan and Charman and Leuenberger in the ruck, make Brisbane a genuine chance in 2008.

But back to the Dees. I firmly believe a top 4 run with injuries will see us finish in the bottom half of the eight - maybe higher. Does that make sense? The keys for me include, Sylvia getting fit, our second ruckman (whoever it may be) providing genuine competition for White and Rivers and Bartram successfully returning from injury. I'm confident that enough of our regularly identified u/23 talent will step up - particularly under Bailey, it's just a question of how many and how quickly. The ruck and our defence are regularly identified as weaknesses - and for good reason. A fit Rivers will go a long way to improving that department and will provide Frawley with the third up support he was missing when given a chance last season. Meesen could be anything but we certainly need him to be something. Sylvia for me is the most frustrating player on our list. I don't know how people can be critical of him - he's clearly been operating well below his optimum in terms of health and fitness. What we have seen are glimpses - the brutal tackling, bursts of speed (when fit), booming kicks, an eye for goal and sound decision making. If (and I know it's a big if) he gets some confidence in his body he could well be the champion midfielder we've all been waiting for. If we never see Colin Sylvia 100% fit and firing it could be up there with David Schwarz doing his knee after his deeds of 1994 in terms of footballing tragedies.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Hooley Dooley Fan... Got some time on your hands?

the more I think about it, the more I reckon recruiting players who are NOT injury prone is gaining in importance... However...

Despite the wealth of information you offer, I reckon it still comes down to whether or not you look at the glass half full or half empty. With a good run of injuries in a couple of season, the absolute best we could do was to make he bottom half of the 8. I thought in '06 particularly we had a real run at it mid season, like everyone else, but in the end we were found wanting in not just one, but a few departments. And that was when we were at FULL strength, with an experienced coach, working with a list that he'd had his hands on for 8-9 years, with few injuries and basically everything in place as well as it could have been.

I also dismiss the fact that our list is in "deceptively" good shape. I disagree that it's the same list that gained all that success as the players that did most of the work have either retired, been traded or just plain gotten old. SO MUCH of our hopes next year comes down to whether or not these guys that are up to 23 can take the next step, and given the vacuum of experienced players, too much will come down to whether or not players like Brock and Sylvia can handle a tag.

Ultimately I'm comfortable with the list going forward as I think CAC left us with some gems, but I'm of the opinion that to delist 12-15 players in one go was impossible, but was what was needed to eradicate the problems. It was always going to take 2-3 season to systematically get rid of the weaker players on the list.

[drdrake 3,163]

Like any of the 16 AFL clubs we will need a little bit of luck, to win the close games to keep your best 25 players fit. I am a firm believer that if our best 22 are playing well we can beat any team in the competition, my main concern is consistancy we need to play well all season and not have the tradition period when we are rubbish. Our best footy will win games our worst is terrible and we get flocked. For the past 10 seasons we have had no in between we are either awesome or rubbish.

Dean Bailey has to narrow that performance gap so when we are off we can still be competitive if he can do that we will make the 8.

One last thing, I don't want to hear in the media this year from any MFC player, coach, official that 2008 is about earning back respect 2008 is about winning games, every year is about winning games

[Jarka 767]

Fortunately for Geelong, their football department had a bit more knowledge than the average punter at the start of 07 when a lot of their supporters were calling for major overhauls of their list that lacked any quality leaders, that were too slow and had only won two finals matches since 2000. I wonder how many during the course of the year admitted to eating humble pie?

I'm not necessarily expecting to see us make the finals this year (though it wouldn't necessarily surprise me) simply because a new coach brings new game plans and philosophies that can take a few players a bit of time to adjust to and for it all to gel.

As Fan has very nicely pointed out though, injuries do count. Interestingly we weren't the worst club on the injury front, Brisbane lost more games to players injured than we did, but I suspect we lost more players injured during matches than anyone else. In modern footy losing more than one player a match injured is just going to smash you out on the park.

In previous years Geelong had proven that they were capable of performing well in finals, we on the otherhand haven't shown anything since 2000. All Geelong had to do was rejig their team a bit in 2006, they took a step backwards to improve that extra 5%, and it paid off for them. Our problems are completely different though. No obvious successor for Neitz and White, and we continue to struggle against the better forwards, these problems haven't been isolated to 07.

We made the finals, but so what? Half the teams in the competition get to play which means some mediocre and average teams get through, and sadly we were in that category. I believe that we've overrated our list for the last 4 years (the results prove my theory) and mature leaders has been our achilles heel.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,817]

Fantastic post. It gives me hope that with a better injury run, we won't be the laughing stock we were last year.

It's not a coincedence that out two best performances of the year (V Coll and Adelaide) contained our shortest injury list of the season.

A better injury run combined with 13 games at the MCG and only 5 interstate trips will surely see us double our win tally for next year.

N.B - Round 19 v Bulldogs Win 129 v 87: Frawley, Sylvia, Yze, Dunn, Petterd, Trav, Bartram, Robbo, Rivers, Bruce, Whelan

The blokes in bold played in that win. I can remember Dunn kicking a pearler of a goal from inside the centre, Robbo kicked 3, Sylvia got about 6 free kicks against McMahon, Trav controlled the wing while Frawley copped a season ending injury.

[Slartibartfast 17,264]

N.B - Round 19 v Bulldogs Win 129 v 87: Frawley, Sylvia, Yze, Dunn, Petterd, Trav, Bartram, Robbo, Rivers, Bruce, Whelan

The blokes in bold played in that win. I can remember Dunn kicking a pearler of a goal from inside the centre, Robbo kicked 3, Sylvia got about 6 free kicks against McMahon, Trav controlled the wing while Frawley copped a season ending injury.

Out that day were McLean, Bate, Yze, Petterd, Bartram, Rivers, Bruce and Whelan.

Don't know where I got my original list from but thanks for picking it up.

[Jarka 767]

Or it could be a symptom of being the 7th or 8th best team in the competition Jarka.

No [censored], that was my point. Being the 7th or 8th best team makes us average and hence we've overrated ourselves over the last half a decade.

[Guest fatty]

Does this make us a worse team now than that which was 3rd in 2006?

You be the judge.

I have no idea what this analysis tells us. Not many people would argue with our spate of injuries in 2007.

Regardless, Bailey has said himself that he’s going to build a team around the under-23’s. He’s also said that players will get a game on merit alone and not on past form. Based on that, then anything that actually happened in 2006 is irrelevant. Whether Bailey actually does what he claims is anyone’s guess.

But if he does play a team built around under-23’s then you’d expect a fair bit of inexperience and inconsistency in the team. I think this is why I would anticipate a low-ladder position in 2008 and beyond.

If Melbourne does have a good 2008, I don’t think it would prove the case that we always had a good team and last year was a wipe due to injuries. Hopefully, it would mean that a developing, young side has played good football.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

No [censored], that was my point. Being the 7th or 8th best team makes us average and hence we've overrated ourselves over the last half a decade.

Ease up turbo. You were trying to make a point about finals being the ultimate test of a teams ability. And I was supporting what you were saying by suggesting we've been in the 6 - 8 range over the past 4 years (with last year an inury-plagued exception) and as such most of the finals we've played have been against better teams. The better team normally wins. I don't think Fan was presenting his analysis to suggest we're going to win the premiership in 2008 but merely pointing out that things aren't quite as bad as many around here are making out.

[Demonophile 0]

No doubt a real key to any team's season is to be relatively injury free, particularly to that team's key players. Additionally, the first half dozen games set the tone for the rest of the season.

In '07 we not only lost key players each week, we lost a high proportion in the first half of those games. We consequently lost all flexibility to rotate players, change match ups, rest players, etc., and duly never recovered in those games or ultimately for the rest of the season. A combination of lost morale, key players (including loss of fitness on return in several cases) and loss of depth took their toll.

As has been said by others our best 25 is as good as any (perhaps one key defender and a back-up ruck short - All teams have one or two weaknesses, Geelong 07 notwithstanding).

Our problems in '08 will be injuries, early losses and the lack of depth or experience to turn around such adversity in the latter two-thirds of the season. This combination will prove almost insurmountable next year I fear.

I believe that Bailey will also play youth over more experienced 'depth' players wherever possible. This will result in short term pain - which I am prepared to accept at this time in order to promote the young guys.

In my view if we scrape into the 8 - a possibility if we have a good run - so be it. Either way we need to continue with the youth policy started this year. I believe we only have 12 - 14 players, in position, that will form the nucleus of the 2010 - 2012 team. We need to 'mine' the next two drafts (if that means trade off some of our tradeable 26 - 30 age group I'll accept that as well) to fill the current gaps.

We also need to get ahead of the game in some area instead of following the trend of the current premier, ie 'bigger bodied Brisbane midfield' 'player accountability Geelong' etc. Following trends 2 - 3 years too late gets overtaken by the next premiership model. You forever chase your tail.

Late starts to several key players does not inspire me with confidence at this point in time - Rivers, Whelan, Davey, Moloney, Bartram, Sylvia, nor does the age and injury susceptability of key forwards in Neitz and Robbo.

Pessimism aside, i'll be there in 08 cheering the boys on in a very important year for the dees. Lets all get on board in 08 - join the club and attend matches.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,817]

Late starts to several key players does not inspire me with confidence at this point in time - Rivers, Whelan, Davey, Moloney, Bartram, Sylvia, nor does the age and injury susceptability of key forwards in Neitz and Robbo.

Does anyone know the latest on this kid.

Is he training?

Will he ever play again?

I understand his injury was a shocker.

[Whispering_Jack 30,036]

At the Demonland/Demonology function in December, Chris Connolly commented on Geelong's performance during 2007 and how things started to gel for them about half a dozen games into the season. From there, the team's confidence kept building with every week and once they got their momentum going they were hard to stop. Of course, the Cats had everything going for them by that time and generally were able to keep more or less the same squad together for a long period of time. There is an element of luck involved but the most important ingedient for winning performance over a whole season is the development of the right mental attitude which is something at which the great coaches from Norm Smith to Kevin Sheedy and Leigh Matthews have managed to excell.

[Nasher 33,613]

But if he does play a team built around under-23’s then you’d expect a fair bit of inexperience and inconsistency in the team. I think this is why I would anticipate a low-ladder position in 2008 and beyond.

I actually think the "playing a team based around under-23" gets far more air time than it deserves, because the sheer fact of the matter is we've got no choice. Besides a few strays like Wheatley, all our players are either in the under 23 age range, or they're near or on the wrong side of 30. What Bailey is saying to us by saying "we'll playing a team based around the under-23s" is that "Neitz, White, McDonald, Robertson Yze and Holland are all on the decline so we won't get that much more out of them". To quote Jarka, "no shit".

The only way he could possibly mean having an under 23s policy is if he excludes older guys like Neitz and McDonald and middlers like Green and Bruce. Does anyone honestly think that those guys won't be part of the regular senior 22 this year?

[Guest fatty]

I actually think the "playing a team based around under-23" gets far more air time than it deserves, because the sheer fact of the matter is we've got no choice.

I agree Nasher. “Playing the young kids” is the well-worn cliché of a new coach. But it may mean giving these kids more game time rather than sitting on the bench. Neitz/McDonald/Green/Bruce will most likely be a part of the best 22 in 2008. However, Robertson/Holland/Yze etc. may be expendable in the process to the benefit of youngsters not playing regularly in 2006. How well “the kids” step-up is an unknown.

My point was that the 2006 best-22 will not be the same team that ends up on the field in 2008 taking into account the turnover that Fan mentions.

I have absolutely no idea what Bailey’s intentions are. I can only go on what he has already said. But I do think the 2008 team will be vastly different to the 2006-rd17 team. So I’m not so sure that you can look at that team, forgive 2007 for injuries and then claim that the current team is as good as or better.

He’s done an honest job in trying to counter-act the pessimism clouding 2008 on these boards. However, I don’t think his argument holds water because, at this stage, there’s no telling what Bailey is going to do.

But, remember, I’m not very good at analysis!!!

[grazman 7,432]

I actually think the "playing a team based around under-23" gets far more air time than it deserves, because the sheer fact of the matter is we've got no choice. Besides a few strays like Wheatley, all our players are either in the under 23 age range, or they're near or on the wrong side of 30. What Bailey is saying to us by saying "we'll playing a team based around the under-23s" is that "Neitz, White, McDonald, Robertson Yze and Holland are all on the decline so we won't get that much more out of them". To quote Jarka, "no [censored]".

The only way he could possibly mean having an under 23s policy is if he excludes older guys like Neitz and McDonald and middlers like Green and Bruce. Does anyone honestly think that those guys won't be part of the regular senior 22 this year?

I think you're right Nasher, and I think Fan is too, I think back to 2000 and think Neale missed one of the fundamental reasons why this was his most successful year. Rather than try to build on what got us to the grand final he adopted a negative mind set of avoiding being belted again.... anyway I digress, you can achieve very good results by playing younger players, particularly like in 2000 when our hand was forced by the loss of key older players.

U23s from that year and the games they played were: Bruce (19), Farmer (22), Green (19), Grgic (21), Johnstone (13), Collins (13), Nicholson (15), Robertson (24), Simmonds (21), Wheatley (12), Whelan (16), White (23), Yze (24) { McDonald (17) and Woewodin (24) were 24 years old} That's a very large chunk of your side....

So to answer your last question... I'd be very disappointed if a number of our U/23s don't go past our over 30s to become the core of our side (only Bruce, Green, Wheatley and Whelan are true mid age players on the current list) ... history alone would dictate theres a good chance that a number of older players are likely to be struck down with injury.

I am very excited about the prospects of our juniors. I rate many of them more highly than others I guess...I certainly think there's better quality there than in 2000.

[Jarka 767]

Ease up turbo. You were trying to make a point about finals being the ultimate test of a teams ability. And I was supporting what you were saying by suggesting we've been in the 6 - 8 range over the past 4 years (with last year an inury-plagued exception) and as such most of the finals we've played have been against better teams. The better team normally wins. I don't think Fan was presenting his analysis to suggest we're going to win the premiership in 2008 but merely pointing out that things aren't quite as bad as many around here are making out.

I've just reread my post and it did sound alot harsher than intended so I apologise, that wasn't my intent.

The point that I've tried to get across (poorly) is that this current team (or analysing it over the last half a dozen years) has achieved very little. My interpretation of fan's opening post was that the 2007 results can be dismissed because of injuries and that we should base our ability on the 2006 results. Well, I was completely underwhelmed at the end of 2006 (if you want proof read this thread http://demonland.ugbox.net/forum/index.php...c=4769&hl=), if we start looking at 2006 then we really are going backwards. I'm hoping that within two years we'll be a completely different team to back then.

Finishing 6 - 8 is absolutely nothing to be proud of, but what was more concerning over the three years you're referring to was our ability to completely drop our bundle in pressure games. Fan is saying that those results show that we're not as bad as people are making out, I'm saying that they definitely prove our reputation which is that we're a skilled team, but as soft as butter.

[Tim 3,418]

"Finishing 6 - 8 is absolutely nothing to be proud of"

It sure as hell beats finishing 14th, on all counts except draft picks.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,817]

"Finishing 6 - 8 is absolutely nothing to be proud of"

It sure as hell beats finishing 14th, on all counts except draft picks.

Agree.

I actually enjoy going to the footy when we win frequently ala 2006.

[timD 994]

Jarka, your theory is that 'we drop our bundle in pressure games'. If your theory is worth anything, it will stand up to the rigor of looking at pressure games that we did win as well as two finals that we didn't. Now, we beat sydney in sydney in 2006 - again injuries playing a heavy part against us, beat we gt up an got up well. We beat geelong on the MCG at night with another injured team playing a first and second-gamer. These were both pressure games that we desparately needed to win in order to stop our season disappearing before it started, played against heavily favoured oppositions. I think that if we were to look at it closely (depending on what we define as 'pressure' games), we'd be at about 50% win/loss.

It is the variability that infuriates me; i don't think it is right to say that we 'drop' the bundle at pressure games, but rather that we cannot sustain our level of required performance across a season. So, we'll win some pressure games and lose others.