MikeyJ

As an aside: Wayne Carey is perhaps the best example of a young captain being a successful appointment. When he was appointed for the 1993 season, aged 21, he'd played 60 games for 112 goals. He polled 14 votes in the Brownlow Medal in 1992, finishing equal fourth with Hawthorn's Darren Jarman after booting 46 goals for the season from centre half-forward, including a bag of 7 in the last round to defeat Fitzroy. And you think appointing a six-game youngster in his second season, who is undoubtedly talented but is yet to prove anything, is a good idea? The mind boggles.

When Neitz was made captain, he was 24 years old with 137 games and 217 goals under his belt. He was already an All-Australian player (1995) and had represented Victoria. He had led Melbourne's goalkicking three times. My memory tells me he was already the club's vice-captain. History shows he led the club into the Grand Final in his first year as captain. Grimes is 20, he's played six games with an average of 18 possessions off a half-back flank. He hasn't been nominated as a Rising Star (just about the only honour he's been a chance of receiving). If Neitz "wasn't ready" for the captaincy, what does that makes Grimes? Junior was the best choice for skipper at the start of this season and his appointment has allowed us the chance to select a younger skipper for 2010 - which is exactly what you're calling for. The only viable "young" candidate at the start of 2009 was Brock McLean and his off-field misdemeanours and constant injury precluded him from being selected. Had we appointed Bruce or Green - the only other viable contenders - we would be stuck with their leadership for a number of years yet and the chance to "go young" would be even further away.

Masten didn't dominate the U18 championships like Scully's doing this year. Masten also had the luxury (as did Cale Morton) of playing in an utterly dominant WA side in his top-aged year. Now it can be argued that Morton benefited more from his side's superiority as he is more of a finisher than Masten, but the fact remains that it's easier to look good in a dominant team. In contrast, Scully's Vic Metro team has won just one of its three games and Scully has been head and shoulders his team's best in two of those games. One a win in the first week of the championships, the second in last weekend's heavy loss to WA. They might be similar sorts of players, but Scully excites me much more than Masten ever did.

For teams that believe they're a chance of contending in the next three years, I agree. But for clubs that are down the bottom and looking to rebuild, I suspect they'll be willing to roll the dice and draft youngsters or recycle players from other clubs. Either way, they're going to cull their lists harder than they might otherwise choose to. I agree. West Coast is the only other side that could be deemed better off, given the presence of A-graders in Kerr, Cox and Glass.

He's a lot of things - quick, strong, a long kick and creative - but 'gun' isn't one of them. FWIW, I think we might retain him for a year to see what he can do when he's not cruelled by injury. Pace is a valuable asset in today's game and I think there will be sufficient turnover of the list without dropping Bucks as well. Junior, Wheats, Robbo, Whelan, Bell and perhaps PJ (trade for picks or delist) are ahead of him in the queue. As a side note, those who say the draft isn't deep are right; there's a whole host of bottom-aged kids ineligible due to Gold Coast's draft concessions. However, this year's draft is far less compromised than the 2010 and 2011 drafts, so expect most clubs to cull their lists hard at the end of 2009, regardless of the draft's perceived depth.

They've split the games 5-3 - you'll still have plenty of footy to watch, especially this weekend. Anyone else confused by the OP?

I've got no issue with Petterd being played in the forward line - you tell me who he'd have replaced in our back six this year. My issue with him is his inability to get himself involved in the play. Good players (and I'm not suggesting that Petterd isn't one) find ways to get involved, regardless of their position. Morton is a clear and pertinent example. Others have already highlighted the obvious contradiction with your post regarding Maric.

I think in the long run, that's probably going to be his best position. There may be room for him in that role with Melbourne, once Grimes moves off HB into the midfield. But then you've got the dilemma of where to play Green, with Bennell taking one flank and a surplus of tall, mobile defenders to fit into the mix. Not to mention Strauss eventually coming into the team, where it seems he's best suited to HB as well. I don't know that we'd suffer greatly from losing Ricky to GC. But if I had to choose, I'd probably rather keep him as he has something to offer in a 22.

Good thread. Positives Colin Sylvia: Fantastic to see him playing with self-belief and the vigour that comes with trusting one's fitness. He's a damaging player when in this sort of form. Jamie Bennell: Looks a keeper on exposed form. Fast, skilful and has the sort of frame that will carry some weight. Kyle Cheney: I've been very impressed with his composure and courage in defence. Even if this is what we get for the next seven years, he's been a good selection. With luck, he'll continue to improve. Whelan's replacement. John Meesen: Like many, I thought he was toast at the end of this season but some encouraging performances in the ruck have softened my stance. Not a definite long-termer yet but he's shown enough to warrant his third year. James Frawley: Looks like he'll become the strong, fast, composed key defender we've lacked for many years. It's always a relief when high-end draft choices show why they commanded selection. Aaron Davey: It was time for Flash to pull his finger out and he's done so in spectacular style. However, he's starting to get tagged out of half-back, a la Luke Hodge, and he needs to show he can cope with the attention. That's his challenge for the second half of the year. Brent Moloney: Strong, tough and a leader. I had a moment of apoplexy last year when I declared to the TV that I didn't care if he played for Melbourne again after a series of selfish, undisciplined acts in an early-season game against Carlton. Glad no one of note was listening. Negatives Michael Newton: Showed very little when played at AFL level early in the season and while his VFL form has been excellent, he needs to translate that to the elite level sooner rather than later. His skill set is enviable but he needs to get his head together, and soon. Paul Johnson: Played a couple of strong games when asked to carry the ruck but his disposal and decision making has let his teammates down too often. I suspect he'll remain on the list but he needs to improve several aspects of his game to be a damaging player. Happily, his workrate isn't one of them. Brock McLean: Only half a negative here because his new, mature attitude is a welcome development. I'll bet London to a brick that OP or something similar curtailed his disposal in the first half of the year but that looks to be behind him now. Like Nathan Jones, he needs to sharpen his decision-making in the second half of the year as the speed of the game continues to increase. Ricky Petterd: He's got courage in spades and never stops working. But skills have let him down and he's yet to make a position his own. A likeable player with considerable upside but I don't know where he fits in this team. I suspect the Gold Coast will be looking very closely at him at the end of next year. James McDonald: Not a negative per se, but it's unfortunate that Junior's body hasn't held up to the rigours of the game this season. Fingers crossed he can get himself right for the second half of the season and lead our victorious boys off the field on no more than three occasions. Injuries: Garland, Meesen, Wonaeamirri, Blease. A pity in three of these cases, but it could be a blessing in disguise for Blease. It will give him a chance to put on some much-needed size, but as Freak said, it would have been good to see him at VFL level.

Thanks for clearing that up, RudeBoy. Like many others, I am getting mighty sick of people posting rumour as fact, simply to big-note themselves. Strawbs, you might want to read all of RudeBoy's past posts to get an accurate history of Jurrah's remarkable journey to an AFL list.

Good idea! Let's pick one passage of play from each young player in our side and condemn them on that basis. I've got one: Jack Watts will be a spud because he missed a shot from 40m out in the second quarter that any No.1 draft pick should nail. [/sarcasm] If, as supporters and critics, we allow our opinion of young players to be clouded by errors of judgement, we're doing both ourselves and them a disservice. What about the time in the first quarter (I believe, or it could have been the third) that Cheney backed into a congested Collingwood forward line to mark over his head, without flinching? Or the clever kick out in front of Bate to find the boundary line when there were no options ahead of him during the second half? Or the poise he showed working the ball out of defence on several occasions? Should we just forget about those good pieces of play because he made a mistake on one occasion? Being a critic means thinking critically - not negatively.

I reckon Kyle Cheney is a good chance of playing 200 games for the MFC. Plenty to be pleased about with his game today.

This is why fewer and fewer people pay any attention to what you say, Freak. Keep it up, your comments will be completely irrelevant soon. If Newton consistently displayed Miller work ethic at AFL level, he'd be a fixture in the senior team by now. No doubt he's a better kick than Miller; it's arguable he's a better mark. But when it comes to working for the team, Miller's got him covered every time. I know who I'd rather have beside me in the forward line at AFL level, and it's not the 2007 Mark of the Year winner. And as for your assertion that you'd have picked Rioli over Morton, great. Going by your logic in promoting players from the VFL (see Watts v Newton), Rioli would STILL be languishing in the twos because you'd have selected Valenti in the forward pocket for the past 18 months.

Thanks for clearing that up, Japaljarri. sticksmorton, you're better off saying nothing at all if you don't have all the facts to hand.

I loved the way Bailey made him look like a tool in front of all his colleagues. Great stuff.

He's in. Watts set to make his debut

And my top five choices from that draft would be: 1. Cotchin daylight 2. Morton 3. Rioli 4. Kreuzer 5. Palmer

It's unlikely the Swans will be unhappy with taking Veszpremi. He's going to be a very, very good player for them. Injuries have cruelled his output thus far, but wait until he gets fit again.

Mal Michael's from Papua New Guinea. No indigenous Australian there...

At the time he was asked (in the rooms after the Dogs game), Bailey's intention may well have been to play Valenti again. Clearly, that changed during the week. However, it is completely irrelevant whether Valenti's feelings have been hurt by Bailey contradicting his earlier public statement with his actions at match committee. Let's be clear - that's the only issue that posters here are getting worked up about. No one has argued that the side would be better with Valenti in it, because it wouldn't be. If Bailey starts selecting teams on the basis that he said he'd give so-and-so a game, that's just a return to the Daniher era that so many people complained about. Bailey is charged with developing a squad of players that will win premierships. As part of that, selection MUST be based on form. Given that no one can argue that Valenti deserves to be in the side, I cannot for the life of me work out why so many posters are calling for Valenti's inclusion just because Bailey said he'd pick him six days ago. Harden up, people.

I respect Valenti and what he's achieved. He's a good footballer. But Moloney, Jones and McLean are bigger and better. Tough luck. I don't care if Dean Bailey appears to have gone back on his word or not. Can anyone actually argue that the named team would be better for Valenti's presence? I sure can't.

And none of the players you mentioned were considered as pre-season draft candidates. O'Keefe was the most likely, but he was never going to leave the Swans in the lurch. If any of those players were going to move (and Judd was the only one who did), it was via trade week. What's more, only two of those players are genuine A-graders (Judd, Kerr), with O'Keefe on the cusp. As others have said, Stevens was the last player approaching A-grade talent to move in the PSD and he didn't even make it to his preferred destination. I'd rather focus on getting our drafting and development processes right, and then plug holes where required through trade week.

It's 5cm according the AFL's season guide to 2009. Having stood next to both ROK and Riewoldt in person, I can assure you there's a significant difference.

Yep, Kerr's two whole centimetres taller. Makes a huge difference....

Er, our first game against Carlton in 2007 was at the MCG in round 14 and the half time margin was three points. Don't know why you would have turned the TV off at that stage. And Neale Daniher wasn't even coaching - his last game was the previous week against Essendon. Not sure which game you're recalling, but it's not our first game against Carlton in 2007.