MikeyJ

I agree, to a point. I suppose I think he's got some value playing deep forward as a third tall because he'll make the opposition worry. He requires a good third defender to mark him. You're right about his struggles with a contested grab, but I can see him playing that Robbo-style role when we have two tall targets (Watts/Butcher) for the opposition defences to worry about. He becomes a problematic player in that scenario when played deep. If he is forced to play as a second tall, he's certainly better off playing high half-forward, as you suggest and I opined. Regardless, I'm still buggered if I know whether he'll make a fist of any of those roles.

Interesting thread, with some interesting viewpoints. I'll add mine, for what it's worth: - Daniel Bell is living on borrowed time. No awareness and can't turn. Love his endeavour and his discipline and they're qualities that may give him some value when the Gold Coast comes calling. However, we've got better options in Bennell, Strauss and Frawley in his position now. - Lynden Dunn is in a similar situation to Bell, except that I think he's more of a genuine footballer. That is, he reads the play a whole lot better and his skills are more natural. He's got issues with putting his head where it might get squashed, but he plays a natural forward's game, he's got a huge tank and he's got height. Again, these are qualities that might see the GC come calling. He's the sort of player that we could afford to lose for compensation without greatly affecting the quality of our side. - PJ's lost me this year. An inability to compete in the ruck, around the ground as a follower OR up forward makes me despair. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he got the boot at the end of the season. I thought he'd shown some encouraging signs last year but he's taken several steps backwards, if that was possible. - Brock McLean is clearly crocked with what looks to be a groin complaint. He's struggling to kick over 30m at the moment and it's a bit sad to watch. I suspect he's managing himself through it because he's sick and tired of NOT playing football. I still contend that Brock is the best kick to a leading forward in our side and he's a clearance machine. Great qualities, both. However, Brock needs more pace around him to work at his best. Davey in the mids is a start, Bennell will be important and Grimes should take some heat off him, even though Jack's not quick. Brock was a potential star in a game that relied more on stop-start footy than the merry-go-round zone stuff that we see today. If he ends up with a career like Jude Bolton's, I think all parties should be grateful. I, for one, think that's where he's headed. A very good, ordinary player who can have big days. - Buggered if I know where Matthew Bate's going. He's valuable as a third forward, playing deep, because he can take a grab and he's very quick with his hands when he gets hold of the footy. It's the getting hold of it part that he's struggling with. He's got pace when he gets moving, but it can take a while. High half-forward could be an option, working in tandem with Miller and delivering to the likes of Robbo and Watts. Searing left boot when he wants to deliver to a forward's chest. Not a midfielder, but I reckon Bailey and co see enough in him to persist.

Right you are! My apologies for the error. Freo's reputation comes to mind more quickly than reality when one casts one's mind back... ! Dee-luded, your summation was correct.

No. If both Freo and Richmond finish below us with four wins or less, presuming Richmond finishes bottom, and presuming we win four and a half games or more... Freo would get a priority pick at ND pick #1, Richmond would get ND pick #2, Freo would get ND pick #3, we would get pick #4. Richmond's priority would come at the end of the first round, at #18. The Tigers won too many games last year to qualify for a priority pick before the first round. Freo, West Coast and Melbourne are the only teams that can earn a priority pick before the first round this year.

If Buckley and co. are "naughty boys", what do you think of Dale Thomas and the Pies getting stuck into post-game pizzas and hot dogs? In the rooms? Supplied by the club? Or the gaggle of Swans players necking 600ml bottles of Coke after a hard-fought win against the Tigers yesterday? These are athletes. Nutritionally, this food mightn't be the best but it's all energy and they'll more than burn it off with training and games. I'm not going to begrudge our players a pie and chips at the footy. For all we know, it might be Buckley's one dietary indulgence of the week.

He does nothing of the sort. If anything, Morton spends more time trying to find an option than most players on our team. I've posted before that I'd rather Morton continue to try to find options and create with his kicking - a la Travis Johnstone - than revert to robotic decision-making. See Nathan Jones for an example of getting rid of it as soon as he gets a kick in the centre - although he's much improved this season. I'm all for having a debate about the merits of a player and his actions, but both sides have to be grounded in fact. You're struggling on this occasion, Freak.

You don't think Cale Morton takes risks by trying to be creative with his kicking? Oh dear.

DangerousDemon, Ever heard of the spell check function and the enter key? You know, the one that allows you to create paragraphs? I found your post unreadable. Regards, MikeyJ (another Michael, not a Micheal).

I've seen a lot of comments about how bad the game was, but I'll venture a different view. I live in Sydney and I watched it on Fox and it was one of the most interesting games of footy I've seen in a long time. Wet weather footy, a tactical challenge against a well-drilled opponent and conditions that made hitting a target nearly impossible. It was enthralling viewing. I think you tend to find out a lot more about players in those sorts of games than you do in a free-running, high-scoring, visually attractive goalfest. Thus, plaudits must go to Frawley, Davey, McLean, Moloney, Junior, Petterd and Bennell. All showed the requisite skill, thought and courage to excel in patches during the game. The Meese also showed plenty. I'd written him off before this season but he may yet show something. Michael Newton was god-awful and Brad Miller is Brad Miller: limited but effective at his role (which is not, and should never be, playing deep forward). It was just about Paul Johnson's worst game for the club and Nathan Jones was exceptional in close, but the composure he showed with his disposal last week was mysteriously absent. He's good enough to learn from that but Johnson, I fear, is not.

WHO?? Try Drew Banfield.

As long as everyone who sits in that area is either an MCC member or has purchased a visitors' ticket, sure. Otherwise, no chance in hell.

Agree with all you say about the misuse of the contraction, but given that Dapp hasn't been around to defend himself, I thought I would... You're aware that he was simply quoting someone else's post from Bigfooty, aren't you?

Jared Rivers is 24, turning 25 in October this year - if only he was still 21!

:lol: :lol: One of the best things I've read in weeks.

This will be my last post in this thread, as I've outlined my views elsewhere, but those stats cannot be taken at face value in this context. We don't know know many of those 38 clearances were won BECAUSE we had players pushed up from the forward line. How many clearances did we win when we were going head to head with the Power at the stoppages? I suspect it was less than our fair share. How many did we win after more players pushed up into midfield? I suspect it was the majority of our final total. Now, without the detailed quarter-by-quarter stats, it's hard to prove either case. But it's impossible to use the final clearance totals as evidence that the forward structure was to blame for the loss. Rather, I contend that it was the inability of our forwards to convert their opportunities in the early part of the second quarter that was more costly. And there was no doubt we had a functioning forward structure at that stage.

He took a good one against Port on Sunday. Third quarter, I think. Timed his leap better than everyone else.

We had a 100-post discussion on THIS VERY POINT last week! It has nothing to do with structure and EVERYTHING to do with our ability to win clearances! There's no point in having a stacked forward line brimming with options when the midfield is getting smashed and there's one-way traffic to the opposition forward 50. WHEN we get a competitive midfield, THEN and ONLY THEN will you see what the team's forward structure is. Think Q1 against Collingwood, for a start. And as Jaded said, if you can't realise that it's impossible to discuss the lack of players in the forward line without discussing the ability of players elsewhere on the ground, you're better off saying nothing than to prove yourself a fool.

I've read somewhere that they're yet to map out exactly where he will play his footy during this season. It will be a mix of Brighton Grammar and Casey, but the club is yet to negotiate with the school from what I read. Regardless of where he plays his footy, he'll get a debut at some stage with the Demons. You'd imagine the earliest opportunity would be during the June school holidays, after he's done his mid-year exams.

I'm confident it's just a matter of getting more talent into the team. Bailey has the courage of his convictions and he's learned from some of the best. A lot of that talent is now around the club, the challenge is to develop it. No doubt the coaches are addressing our midfield deficiencies; no doubt they know what their preferred forward structure is. Adding more forwards into the midfield doesn't assist either objective and it's not what they're doing on a long-term basis. But they're forced to do it during matches to attempt to prevent massive defeats - which don't help ANYONE. It will take years for this problem to be rectified and in that time, you'll continue to see examples like the second half on Saturday. Start getting worried when we don't see more examples of the first quarter.

On the contrary, a coach can decide to make a team play a certain way. Bailey's doing it right now. Clarkson did it with Hawthorn four years ago and look where it got him. The players you've listed as "core" are on our list right now, but not all of them will play in our next premiership. Those that are present when we win our next flag will be the ones who have shown the necessary adaptability, skill and nous. Those who don't make the grade will be moved on - either delisted or traded. Keep in mind that we've only seen a glimpse of the players that Bailey has drafted. Morton and Aussie are the only ones to have made an impact. Martin has shown a little. But to my mind, most of the core of our next premiership team has barely played AFL football. A large chunk of that untried "core" represents the silk we need to win a flag - Grimes, Maric, Watts, Blease and Strauss. All are elite talents and they have been drafted with Bailey's gameplan in mind. While not elite talents, Cheney, Bennell and Jetta have all shown a little and could well make the grade. I also think Tom McNamara will make it, but I'm not sure in what role. Add Garland, Rivers, Frawley, Warnock, Miller, Davey, Moloney and McLean to that list and you've got the bones of a team that, with four or so years of effective development, could challenge for a premiership. I doubt that Bruce (too old), Green (ditto), Bartram, Bell, Dunn, Sylvia and PJ will be among that group. I also have my doubts about Nathan Jones and Matthew Bate, but they could be MFC premiership players if they improve. I think Bailey is on the right track, and we saw a glimpse of how he wants his team to play in the first quarter against Collingwood. Give him time and look at the big picture.

I agree that those players alone didn't win Sydney a flag. But the fact is that the nucleus of a premiership side was already on the list when Roos took over from Eade as senior coach. Bailey doesn't have that luxury. I agree that there is no one best gameplan or tactic, but I contend that it's not always about matching the plan to the team. Sometimes, the best way to engineer long-term success is to match the team to the plan. When Dean Bailey took over, he made a conscious decision to match the team to his plan. No one in their right mind could suggest that Melbourne's list at the end of 2007 was capable of winning a flag, so there was no point in devising a gameplan that would enhance that list's prospects of success. Conversely, Roos had the nucleus of a squad that WAS capable of winning a flag. Thus, he was able to tailor a game plan to his team.

By moving up the ground to support a losing midfield, the forwards will always close down space that the opposition might use to break free. They might not touch the ball, but it's unlikely that a losing midfield will be able to A - shut down the space and B - win the ball, without assistance of players from further up field. To compound matters, a defender will allow his forward to move up the ground in the knowledge that when the ball comes into the F50, he can play the loose man role to cut the ball off. It's a classic case of "six of one, half a dozen of the other". If the forwards don't move up to support a losing midfield, they don't get supply and we don't kick goals. If the forwards do move up to support a losing midfield, we win the ball but we are short of options in attack. Either way, the ONLY solution is to improve the midfield's performance to the point where they can regularly win at least an even share of contested possession.

I've tried my very best to stay out of this thread, but I can't hold back any longer! A few points: - 1858 and others have it right: it all comes down to our midfield. The positioning of the forwards is dictated by the performance of the midfield. If the forwards can rely on the midfielders winning the ball and using it effectively, they are able to maintain their ideal structures and present a range of options. Clearly, this is not happening on a regular basis at Melbourne. When the midfield begins to regularly lose possession, the forwards move up the ground to increase pressure on the opposition midfielders. This generally allows Melbourne to win a greater share of possession in the middle of the ground, but the pay-off is that there are less players to present ahead of the ball. If, as some are suggesting, our forwards maintained their ideal structure when our midfielders were getting flogged at the clearances, the games would be a complete blowout because there would be less pressure on the opposition. Like it or not, there are times that our current midfield needs assistance and the forwards need to provide it. Thus, the problem of having limited attacking options ahead of the ball is a direct result of having a losing midfield. It's nothing to do with incompetent forward structures. When Dean Bailey and co. develop a winning midfield - and I believe they are on the right track - I guarantee you will see a marked difference in the forward structure. Take a look at the first quarter of the Collingwood game for a clear-cut example. - Secondly, about the Swans. When Paul Roos took the helm for his first full season in 2003, the following players were among those at the club: Adam Goodes, Barry Hall, Michael O'Loughlin, Paul Williams, Brett Kirk, Leo Barry, Ryan O'Keefe and Jude Bolton. At their peak, every one of those players would walk into any AFL team's starting 18. There were several others, including Craig Bolton, Ben Mathews, Tadhg Kennelly, Jared Crouch, Adam Schneider, Lewis Roberts-Thomson and Nick Davis who all played important roles in the Swans' successive Grand Final campaigns in 2005-06. There is no doubt that Roos's coaching has been exceptional, but don't make the mistake of underplaying the quality of the list that he inherited. Its top-end talent was far greater than that of most other teams, and remains so, even as they undergo a transition. Don't confuse the Swans' blue-collar game plan with a lack of talent. They have more genuine stars on their list that our club has seen in 40 years.

Agree with those who reckon Rivers is on the money with his spraying of opposition players. PS. It's CLOTHES-lined, for goodness sake.

Why would you say that, CforC?