MikeyJ

Yeah, that was my reasoning on Bruce. by the club's model, players in his age category should be looked at on their historical output, rather than what they produce now. On reflection, I should probably have had Green as Cat 6 because in a good team, I think he is capable of an AA jumper in his current form. He has been unlucky not to win a B&F and should go very close this year. Had we been a good side in the past three years, I suspect Green would have at least one AA jumper in his cupboard. But, facts are facts. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Putting any of our current players in Cat 7 is gilding the lily somewhat!

I was going off debut dates on the club's official website, so that would be where the differences lie! FWIW, here's the correct ones if one goes by years at the club: Garland - fourth year Bate - sixth year Dunn - sixth year Newton - sixth year Bell - eighth year Rivers - eighth year Jamar - ninth year (2002 Rookie Draft was actually held at the end of 2001; similarly, the 2010 Rookie Draft was held in Dec 2009) And I reckon it's tough on Bruce to move him down one category. Say what you like about his kicking in recent seasons but he's won a B&F and has produced some stellar form over his career. I reckon his output over his career has been a bit better than some of the other Cat 5 players. Similar thoughts on Jones and Bate.

Yeah, they were tough ones and there's plenty of room for movement. I basically ranked it thus: Cat 7 - stars of the comp Cat 6 - capable of multiple AA jumpers and B&Fs Cat 5 - capable of high B&F finishes The reason I've got so many of the developing guys as Cat 5 is because Schwab described Cat 4 as being a player who needs to play to their utmost ability to be guaranteed a senior game. If you take Schwab's Cat 5 (poss B&F) and Cat 4 (must produce best every week) literally, there's a huge gap between the two. In all reality, not many players are capable of winning a B&F, and those who are, are also generally capable of winning an AA jumper in a good year. However, I reckon most players who are senior regulars are capable of a top-5 B&F finish in a good year. To label the likes of Gawn, Aussie, Tapscott and Bennell, among others, as Cat 4 player seemed too pessimistic at this early stage of their careers. As their careers progress, I've no doubt that group will fragment considerably. What would your assessment be, HT?

My version of the matrix is attached. For those who haven't watched the video, note that players in the 30+ range are graded on their historical output; players in the 8-11 years range are graded on their actual output and all others are graded on their potential output when they reach the 8-11 range. In our current team, I only ended up with six players in the target range for a premiership team (Bruce, McDonald, Davey, Sylvia, Green, Rivers) and none of those were category 7 players. The only players set to move into the premiership target range of the matrix in the near future were Bate, Frawley and Jones - again, none as cat 7 players. However, I had 16 of our 25 "development phase" players ranked from category 5 to 7, as follows: Cat 7: Grimes, Jurrah, Morton, Scully, Trengove, Watts Cat 6: Garland, Gysberts, Strauss Cat 5: Bennell, Blease, Gawn, Maric, McKenzie, Tapscott, Wonaeamirri By my sketchy reckoning, we are only set to lose three players from the premiership range of the matrix in the next five years, while as many as 16 or 17 players are set to move in (pending form and fitness, of course). At best, we would end up with 20-odd players in the target range and five or six of those could be genuine stars of the competition. It's going to be a very interesting few years. Emotion aside, I reckon watching the Dees in the next five years will be an instructive case study in list management for years to come, regardless of the outcome.

You've hit the nail on the head. We need to have a midfield that will at least break even with the opposition before our gameplan will come to fruition. It's a hoary old chestnut but all the other problems are a function of having a losing midfield. Given that our best clearance midfielder is currently 18, we've got a little way to go before we get to the stage where we can win enough of our own footy to allow the forwards to play to their structure.

I thought he was being more than generous by responding to your tweet.

What gives you the idea that Fremantle's facilities are average (and by average, I suspect you mean poor if you call Richmond average)? Like any of the non-Victorian clubs, Freo is very well off in terms of the facilities available to its players. If I had to guess, I'd say the clubs' facilities could be roughly ranked thus: Elite - Adelaide, West Coast, Carlton, North Melbourne, Hawthorn, Collingwood Excellent - Sydney, Brisbane Lions, Fremantle, Port Adelaide Adequate - Essendon, Geelong, Western Bulldogs (unsure if their development at Whitten Oval is complete yet), Below standard - St Kilda, Richmond Third world - Melbourne Anyone who might be better informed, fire away.

Here you go, because I had nothing better to do. Adelaide – 2 (Dangerfield, Davis) Brisbane Lions – 7 (Brennan, Johnstone, Clark, Henderson, Leuenberger, Power, Rich) Carlton – 7 (Gibbs, Judd, Kreuzer, Murphy, Russell, Walker, Yarran) Collingwood – 7 (Brown, Didak, Fraser, O'Bree, Pendlebury, Reid, Thomas) Essendon – 7 (Gumbleton, Hurley, Laycock, Lucas, M McVeigh, Myers, Ryder), 8 if you count Lloyd (compensatory selection) Fremantle – 9 (Bradley, Drum, Hasleby, Headland, Hill, McPharlin, Palmer, Pavlich, Tarrant) Geelong – 6 (Bartel, Corey, Mackie, Ottens, Selwood, Tenace) Hawthorn – 8 (Croad, Dowler, Ellis, Franklin, Hodge, Lewis, Roughead, Thorp) Melbourne – 5 (McLean, Meesen, Morton, Sylvia, Watts) North Melb – 5 (Hale, Hansen, McIntosh, Power, Wells, Ziebell) Port Adelaide – 7 (Boak, Butcher, Carr, C Cornes, Hartlett, D Motlop, Salopek), 10 if you count three zone selections (Tredrea, Lade, P Burgoyne) Richmond – 8 (Brown, Cotchin, Deledio, McMahon, Oakley-Nicholls, Polak, Tambling, Vickery) St Kilda – 9 (Ball, R Clarke, X Clarke, Gardiner, Goddard, Koschitzke, McEvoy, Ray, Riewoldt), 10 if you count King (compensatory selection) Sydney Swans – 2 (J Bolton, J McVeigh) West Coast – 3 (Kennedy, Masten, Naitanui), 4 if you count Wirrpanda (compensatory selection) Western Bulldogs – 4 (Cooney, Griffen, Williams, Grant), 6 if you count Akermanis and Eagleton (zone selections) And to rank them in order: St Kilda – 9 Fremantle – 9 Richmond – 8 Hawthorn – 8 Brisbane Lions – 7 Carlton – 7 Collingwood – 7 Essendon – 7 Port Adelaide – 7 Geelong – 6 Melbourne – 5 North Melb – 5 Western Bulldogs – 4 West Coast – 3 Adelaide – 2 Sydney Swans – 2

Both are sufficiently injured (Burgoyne with a hamstring and Rioli with ongoing groin soreness/OP) that a game now would do little to assist their round one preparations. Rioli has been ruled out and you would think that Burgoyne, having twinged his hammy on March 3, would be touch and go for round one given that he hasn't played a single practice match. Any more conspiracy theories I can dispel for you?

In Adelaide's case, they nominated the likes of Sellar and Porplyzia just in case they came up fit this week. They were very unlikely to do so, but the Crows were covering all bases. I can also assure you that the Swans believe that their potential squad for round one does not need another hitout. The rest of their list can get their match fitness up in the AFL Canberra comp when the season starts. In general, clubs base their preparation around four NAB Cup/Challenge games and a weekend off before the season proper. In an ideal world, there would be no AFL listed players in action this weekend as they would be recuperating before having a red-hot go in round one. However, injuries and niggles can derail the perfect preparation and sometimes there are players on the cusp of match fitness who would benefit from a hitout at a lower intensity in a lower league. I repeat, there is no mysterious criteria. If clubs wanted their players to be eligible for a lower-league practice match this weekend, they applied for permission. Whether those players actually play is another point entirely.

There's no mystery about it. Clubs determine which of their players might benefit from a practice game this weekend and then apply to the AFL for permission for those players to take part in a VFL, SANFL or WAFL game as appropriate. If players aren't on the list, they're either unfit or they are still such a distance from senior selection that one extra game now won't make an iota of difference.

While RudeBoy (see above) is more than capable of looking after himself on these forums, I also implore to you go and research his previous posts before you embarrass yourself any further.

Nah, Dunn played against Adelaide last weekend. See AFL Photos pics for proof.

So to summarise the changes from the side which actually played against Adelaide... In: Bate, Sylvia, Moloney, Bruce, Wonaeamirri, Davey, Hughes, Bennell Out: Bartram, Grimes, Bell, Jurrah, Macdonald, Rivers The only known injuries of the outs are Jurrah and Bell (both shoulders). Presuming Grimes, Rivers and Macdonald are only being rested, it appears we might have something close to our best line-up (minus Morton and Jurrah) come round one. Not a bad result from a pre-season, all things considered.

Take it from someone who lives here - it would be quicker to get from Brisbane to Carrara than from Sydney's eastern suburbs to Rooty Hill, which is where Blacktown Olympic Park is. Don't be fooled by the shorter distance involved.

What "issue" should have been looked at prior to recruitment? That Watts was a bottom-aged schoolkid who would spend his first year on the list completing year 12? That a 196cm (and probably still growing) 18-year-old has got some muscle soreness in his back after increasing his training load in his first full pre-season? I'm not seeing any "issue" with Jack Watts. The only issue with you and others who have posted similar twaddle is your impatience. I know who needs to toughen up and it's not our young players or the football department. As for your laughable assertion that no other clubs "treat their players like children", you couldn't be more wrong. Ask Sydney Swans fans what Lewis Johnston looks like on match day. Ask Essendon fans if they wish the Dons had treated Scott Gumbleton's back injury differently. Ask St Kilda from 2001 why they hardly played Nick Riewoldt in his first season. Ask North Melbourne what they've been doing with Lachlan Hansen for the past three years Or ask Carlton and West Coast what they were doing with Josh Kennedy, who is starting to show real signs in his fifth season on the list. Some of the hysteria in this thread would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

The club has just issued its first injury list of the year and it's likely that an injury list will be issued the week before each competitive hitout between now and the end of the season. I think anyone expecting anything more than that is being unreasonable. I don't really understand what you're talking about with regard to the injury list being accurate or otherwise, but I suspect direct quotes from Chris Connolly telling supporters that Watts has a back injury will convince the sceptics. Finally, with regard to Aussie - he simply acknowledged that he was more prone to injury when he was carrying excess weight. It's not exactly rocket science. His NAB Cup hamstring injury healed in the expected time and then he suffered a bad knee injury playing for Casey. I'm unsure what that has to do with a questionable medical department, as you seem to be intimating.

In the context of major surgery a la Gumbleton and Winderlich, 3-4 weeks to ensure that any soreness or discomfort disappears is a drop in the proverbial ocean. I repeat, it's the middle of freaking February.

You'll also note that Jack Grimes was outstanding in last weekend's intraclub game and has completed an incident-free pre-season, two years after coming to the club crocked with said back injury. That's not the result of a medical department that has no idea what they're doing. I'm no doctor but I'm satisfied that Watts' injury is simply the result of a growing young man increasing his training workload by a considerable amount, and suffering a common setback. 3-4 weeks off the track is a small price to pay in the middle of February.

The club has released its first full injury list for the year the week before the first competitive hitout. How much more honesty do you want? A weekly update of who's got what little niggling injury in the middle of January? The club has better ways to be spending its time and energy. Members and supporters have been given the information when it counts. And as others have already suggested, if you'd paid a little more attention to the club's dealings in the off-season, you might have some clue as to where Meesen is at.

Here's what I consider a useful comparison, and an example of the virtues of patience for those who expect miracles. - Buddy Franklin kicked three goals in his second game. - It took him until his 24th game to kick a bag (six goals against Richmond, R12 2006). - He kicked another six-goal bag against Carlton in R19, 2006. That's two bags in 34 games. - He kicked three goals in a game a total of four times in his first 34 games. Apart from the two six-goal hauls against the cellar dwellers of the time, the rest were ones and twos. - Buddy's first 34 games reaped 51 goals at an average of 1.5 goals per game. It wasn't until Franklin's third year in the system that he kicked 73 goals and started heavily influencing games on a regular basis. Given Watts' first year was practically a write-off, this is for all intents and purposes his first year in the system. If Buddy only started dominating games - and he didn't dominate every game he played in 2007 - in his third full year, 2012 seems a reasonable expectation that Watts will really start hitting his straps.

That's not what I meant and I think you know that. Don't be disingenuous. You said you hadn't seen anything in the games you had seen live that gave you any confidence Bailey was capable of building a successful team. In response, I pointed out several patches of games in which the team had shown dramatic and significant improvement. Several others have agreed with my assessment. The intent of my last comment was to suggest that you hadn't seen them because 1) you didn't understand what you were seeing or 2) you refused to acknowledge it. No doubt the past two years have been frustrating and 2008 was an utter abomination. But to say that there have been no encouraging signs in that time paints you in a poor light as a supposedly intelligent football spectator. And finally, some might have blind faith in Dean Bailey's methods but I'm not one of them. I believe I understand what's he's been trying to achieve in the past two years and I'm excited about what is in store in 2010. However, there is no doubt that the team's performances need to improve significantly again this year if he is to survive past the mid-point of the 2011 season (presuming the mooted one-year extension is granted).

Really? Try the first quarter against Collingwood in round 2, 2009. Much of the first half against St Kilda, R22, 2009. The first half against Richmond, R4, 2009. Basically the whole game against the Western Bulldogs, R8, 2009. The whole game against Fremantle, R20, 2009. I'm not just talking about the scoreboard, although it's an undeniable indicator of improvement. I'm talking about the way the ball was moved, the structure of our team and the increased commitment to defence through all positions. If you honestly didn't see anything promising from those games - not even a skerrick of a fluid, coherent game plan or a consistent system of play - then I reckon you're the problem, not Dean Bailey.

I can't quite believe I'm agreeing with Freak but you're letting recent history cloud your view of McLean's ability. When fit (circa '05, '06) I rated McLean as the best kick to position in the side. He was never the longest or most penetrating kick, but if he had the footy and the forwards led out to him, he would invariably put it in the right spot. Issues with his ankle and his groin severely hampered his penetration and direction in recent seasons, much the same as Green's kicking went awry in '07 when he had a bung ankle.

Rhino, as of 2009, all clubs were allowed to elevate a rookie to the senior list after round 11, irrespective of long term injuries to other players. KS isn't quite right in saying that they can only be elevated because of LT injuries. To my thinking, Spencer and McKenzie would be the favourites for that spot, with McKenzie nosing in front. Of course, a serious injury to either Jamar or Johnson would improve Spencer's chances somewhat. I'm unsure of the rules regarding elevated rookies and the veterans' list, though. KS might be on the money with his suggestion that we can elevate one rookie for each veteran outside the senior list but I'm not sure.