Scoop Junior

Obviously you are entitled to express your opinion on Neeld's speech. But the one thing I don't get is how you can label him a failure up to now if, as you say, he has done his job if we make the eight. So if his job is to make the eight, then how can he be a failure at this point in time?

I agree with others on the overall flatness of the night – definitely a different feel to past AGM / member information nights. I think there are two related reasons for this. Firstly, most of those who were there last night were probably also there in the early 2000s when Danners spoke of how young the list was and where it was on the premiership clock and how the group would mature and get better, only to witness the roller coaster years that followed. They would also have been there before the 2007 season, which was supposed to be our year in the premiership window, as well as last year's pre-season event which sold so much hope and promise only to turn into the year from hell. In fact I would have rated last year's night as probably the most exciting and promising information night that I'd been to. So I think most of us are just a bit more cagey by now, not wanting to hear about all the positives of the pre-season, but just wanting us to walk the walk when it matters once the season starts. Secondly, I think the club probably feel the same way. After selling the vision and the hope over the last couple of years, which understandably was needed at times to help explain the direction of the club during difficult times, it has now reached a point where the club wants to sell itself by actually performing when it counts – on match day. Last night did feel really flat and was not what you'd call a memorable event, but it did feel that it was a product of both supporters and the administration wanting to 'get it out of the way' and to look forward to what really matters.

Old I don't necessarily think that those examples are particularly relevant to our current circumstances. Firstly, Reid and Fisher are not their respective sides' best tall defender. As for Tarrant taking the most dangerous opposition forward as opposed to Reid, well I think that's because Tarrant is a more experienced and (currently) better key defender than Reid. He also has the body to match the number one opposition tall. If you were coaching Collingwood, who would you select as your number one tall defender? Sam Fisher to me is not really a one-on-one defender. He has always played as an attacking backman, a player who likes to peel off and take intercept marks and then rebound with excellent foot skills. He defends more like Rivers than Frawley. I don't think he's ever been regarded at St Kilda as their 'go to' tall defender and rarely (apart from injuries) has he been asked to be the primary tall defender. As for Scarlett, I think you're only looking at the last few years when Scarlett has been the wrong side of 30. For 10 years he was the number 1 Geelong defender, regularly picking up the big names. I remember going down to KP on a number of occasions during the 2000's and watching Scarlett towel up Neitz. He plays a different role now but I don't think it should be ignored that for the majority of his career he was the number 1 tall back at Geelong who played on the number 1 tall forward. I also think that Scarlett and Fisher kick the ball better than Frawley and are more dangerous offensively. I understand that Dawson and Lonergan are no more than 'adequate' tall defenders and have done the job for their teams on the number 1 forward. But Dawson was playing in a side that pushed numbers back to support and played a defensive brand of footy as good as any in recent times. Lonergan too is part of a team that has one of the best midfields and backlines in recent times. Using Dawson or Lonergan as our number one tall defender last year would have been a very different story – IMO they would have been terribly exposed. At the moment our team is not strong enough in midfield or defence to afford an 'adequate' player as our number one tall defender. Hopefully if we can develop a midfield and backline as good as Geelong's or a defensive capability as strong as St Kilda's then we can afford this 'adequate' defender. It's a luxury I'm not sure we can afford at the moment.

I don't agree with this theory. Frawley's primary value to us is his ability to beat his opponent. Yes he is clearly a good attacking defender because he has the pace and strength to take players on. But at the end of the day he's in the side for his defensive ability more so than his attacking rebound. I don't think the value of a tall defender who consistently performs against the oppositions' best tall forward should be underestimated. It's not easy to find a gun tall defender who can match opponents for strength and speed. IMO it would be a bigger waste of his talent using Frawley as a rebounding, attacking defender. It's much easier to play the Heath Shaw role than it is to match up on Jack Riewoldt or Jon Brown. Unless another player steps up as a gun tall defender, I think the loss of lock-down from freeing up Frawley would outweigh his attacking benefits. And just because he plays a defensive role doesn't mean there isn't scope for run and rebound within that role.

GWS think they can mount a case that Phil Scully's employment is not directly linked to them acquiring his son? Fat chance.

Labelling his decision to leave MFC as a 'more courageous decision' than staying is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. So leaving for money is more 'courageous' than ignoring the big bucks to stay with the team that selected you in the draft? Give me a break. It's kinda like running back with the flight of the ball with the opposition's power forward charging at you on the lead, ducking out of the way instead of keeping your eyes on the footy, and then saying ''well, I actually think it's more courageous not going for the footy, because I knew by not going for the ball I'd cop it from the coach, the fans and the media and I'd be singled out as being a coward, so it was courageous for me to accept that that public backlash would result. The less courageous option would have been to simply keep my eyes on the footy and then not having to face the public scrutiny''. Good one Tom. But no one's buying that trash. He has shown courage on the field, but not much courage off it.

There is no doubt we have been poor on the field over the last five years. There's a fair argument that for many of the past 47 years we've been ordinary on the field. And IMO the Bailey sacking was handled terribly. I've got no problems with an opposition supporter telling me this because it's true. But Denham's comments go beyond this. His constant focus on Melbourne and his repeated negative generic comments are vindictive. He has it in for the MFC for some reason and can't get enough of sticking the boots in at every opportunity. Can I cop a bit of stick from other supporters? Of course - you couldn't be a Melbourne supporter without having a thick skin. But do I have to listen to Denham making ridiculous comments like "I'd be embarrassed to be a Melbourne supporter" and "The MFC stands for nothing" and then justify it by saying, 'yeah, we have been ordinary for a while, he's pretty much on the money there'? No way. I'll never be embarrassed to support Melbourne.

Sorry but how can Bartel not be classified as a star? Courageous, wins the hard ball, excellent overhead, uses it well, regularly kicks clutch goals, consistently performs in big matches and lifts at key moments in games. He isn't as flashy as other stars but there aren't too many midfielders you'd have above him if you were picking blokes to play in a Grand Final side. Judd and Ablett are the next level - superstars of the game. There's not many in that category. I understand such classification is a definition issue, but if we are talking about trying to bring in another star midfielder then you'd be pretty happy if you got a young Jimmy Bartel on your list.

But a player is always given additional value when he has yet to display that he is ordinary at AFL level

Agree Big Red and Old. Watts and Clark will play as the two key talls. Can't play too many mid-sized half forwards as we will be too top heavy, reducing our crumbing ability, pace and ability to apply forward pressure. Two of Green, Howe and Jurrah to play as the mid-sized marking forwards. This makes it difficult for Bate - hopefully we can secure a trade deal for him in the next two days. I think Petterd needs to become more of a midfielder who can go forward, rather than a forward who can go into the midfield. He has played a couple of great games for Casey in the midfield and I think he has the talent to develop into this type of player. None of our small forwards have established themselves as a guaranteed starter. This position is up for grabs and I would be happy to look at drafting a small, quick forward in the National Draft / Rookie Draft.

Old I've only been critical in relation to the MD. The fact is this was our main focus, we had a strong hand and we came home with nothing. If Crouch is as good as Harrington and others have suggested (i.e. a top 5 draft pick and an elite midfielder), then I would have been happy dealing a compo pick and pick 12 for Crouch without pick 25 in return.

The bloke seems to want to go home to WA - there's really not much more we could have done. At least we had a crack at it. I'm disappointed with our MD trading strategy but in relation to Clark it seems we did everything possible. It's not a poor reflection on the club as he wants to go to his home town.

So do you think that we didn't do the MD deal because of the slight chance that Clark would decide to go to Melbourne rather than back home to Perth. I find that very hard to believe.

I think the key point is what we believe our list needs. IMO a midfield star or two is paramount. So with this in mind, you develop your strategy, which is putting the club in the best position to get these midfield stars. The question then is are you more likely to get a midfield star with pick 1 or 2 in the MD or with picks around the 12-16 mark in the ND? Recent draft history shows that you're more likely to get a midfield star in the top 10 than picks 10-20. Likewise you are even more likely to get a midfield star in the top 5 picks. I haven't seen Crouch and O'Meara play but am happy to defer to the opinion of the recruiters who have indicated that O'Meara and Crouch would be top 5 picks in the draft. I'm not interested in recruiting more midfield foot soldiers and would happily trade away a number of foot soldiers for a midfield star. Now what do we give up for a crack at one of these top 5 players? Given our need for midfield stars, I would have thought the MFC would be prepared to pay above market value. Carlton wouldn't, Melbourne would. So given our needs and recent AFL drafting history, it seems to me that pick 12 and one compensation pick is a deal that makes a lot of sense. Even giving more than that makes sense. In most draft years you'd probably find that clubs would be willing to trade say picks 12 and 15 for a top 5 pick. Of course pick 12 and the compensation pick may turn out to be midfield stars (and gee I hope they do), but it's a game of probability and having a bird in the hand. We had a chance to get that midfield star now rather than relying on the luck of the draft and other variables such as where we finish next year, how many teams get priority picks, which teams use their compensation picks, etc. I can understand there is always a price ceiling, but to me it seems our ceiling was too low and typically too conservative.

From the Melbourne FC website: MELBOURNE general manager of list management Tim Harrington said it was in the best interests of the club to step away from a deal to secure highly-rated youngsters Jaeger O’Meara or Brad Crouch. Harrington said a suitable trade to acquire either O’Meara or Crouch via the Greater Western Sydney trading scheme was unrealistic in the wash-up for the Demons. The Suns have now committed to selecting O’Meara with their first pick in the upcoming ‘mini draft’ and Crouch is set to be claimed by Adelaide.

If Adelaide get that pick it's a pathetic effort from the MFC. We had a very strong hand coming in to the trade week but it seems our ability to use that hand to get the deal done leaves a lot to be desired. It's all very nice to say we didn't want to pay too high a price etc. but the fact remains that the market determines the price and sometimes you need to pay what you consider to be 'overs' in order to get something you really want. And I think there is no doubt that we really wanted MD pick 1 or 2 because TH mentioned it on Monday and the news all week has been about Melbourne being keen on securing 17-year-olds in the MD. But surprise surprise yet again we fail to achieve something we set out to do. I thought the season of rubbish performances from us was over after losing to Port in Round 24. Seems like we have managed to squeeze in another before the end of the year.

I haven't seen the rules, but if they say that GWS cannot use the mini-draft picks but can only trade them away to other clubs, then I can't see how the AFL could uphold any GWS scheme to use the mini-draft pick by acquiring it back via a trade. If the rule says that GWS cannot use the mini-draft picks, then to me it is irrelevant whether they have re-acquired the picks via a trade…they still cannot use the picks. If the rule is framed differently then I can understand there may be a literal argument that GWS are not prevented from trading the mini-draft picks and then acquiring them back. However rules cannot be interpreted purely on a literal basis. It would seem to me to be pretty clear that the purpose of the rule is for GWS to be allowed to trade the mini-draft picks to acquire picks/players from other clubs to help their list build and that the mini-draft picks are not to be used by GWS. Therefore even if there is some possible 'loophole' in the wording of the rules I would have thought that given the purpose of this particular concession the GWS scheme would not be allowed.

Impossible to be happy or sad as we don't have any information on him. Yeah the Collingwood players talked him up, but every assistant coach who is looking for a senior gig is talked up. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. We cannot possibly know. What I hope is that he has a senior coach personality. It's one thing having a great footy knowledge and being sound tactically, but it's another thing to have the right style and personality to be able to get the best out of your players individually and as a team. Most aspiring coaches don't have this and that's why it's bloody hard to find the right one. I sure hope Neeld does. I also wouldn't mind a nasty streak. The top three coaches in the league are currently seen as Lyon, Malthouse and Clarkson - nasty, fiercely competitive and ruthless individuals.

As I see it there are three possibilites: 1) We are well down the track of getting someone we want more than Ross Lyon and were therefore not overly keen on going after Lyon. 2) We were keen to speak to Ross Lyon but he indicated that he had no interest in us and we therefore didn't take it further. 3) We were keen to speak to Ross Lyon, he didn't rule himself out but we backed off when his management said he was likely to stay at St Kilda. If it's 1 then it doesn't refelct poorly on the club. If it's 2 or 3 then it does reflect poorly. For Lyon to have no interest in us would be yet another rejection of the MFC by an outsider. If it's 3, then we obviously didn't pursue him aggressively enough as Freo have done. Nice guys finish last.

I have posted this in another thread: We must absolutely go after O'Meara if he is as good as they say he is. The best teams always have elite midfielders and we need to replace Scully with an elite midfielder. We should be in a reasonable position with our compensation picks. The compensation picks can be used any time over a five year period so this would give GWS a chance to build their list through a number of different drafts, rather than just relying on the 2011 draft (which is reportedly not that strong) to build up their talent. Gold Coast would be the big threat given their compensation picks, but other than them we should be able to offer GWS more in terms of draft picks than other clubs could offer. If we couldn't get O'Meara but we believed that there would be an elite midfielder available at say pick 5 this year who we think would be better than someone available at pick 11 next year, we could look to trade one of the compensation picks to GWS for pick 5 in this year's draft and pick up that elite midfielder in 2011. BTW What was with Garry making those comments on FC about GWS? Pretty stupid comment IMO given GWS will potentially be the key to us getting adequate compensation for Scully. We need to do a trade with them and need a good working relationship.

We must absolutely go after O'Meara if he is as good as they say he is. The best teams always have elite midfielders and we need to replace Scully with an elite midfielder. We should be in a reasonable position with our compensation picks. The compensation picks can be used any time over a five year period so this would give GWS a chance to build their list through a number of different drafts, rather than just relying on the 2011 draft (which is reportedly not that strong) to build up their talent. Gold Coast would be the big threat given their compensation picks, but other than them we should be able to offer GWS more in terms of draft picks than other clubs could offer. If we couldn't get O'Meara but we believed that there would be an elite midfielder available at say pick 5 this year who we think would be better than someone available at pick 11 next year, we could look to trade one of the compensation picks to GWS for pick 5 in this year's draft and pick up that elite midfielder in 2011.

Bruce was a very good players for Melbourne over the years and represented great value from a pick in the 60's. However, there were signs last year that he was coming to the end and I fully support the club offering him a one year deal rather than two. His form at Hawthorn this year supports this view. He has lost pace, his kicking is poor and there are much better options at Hawthorn in midfield and defence. He would have got more games at MFC this year but I'm not confident that he would be a best 22 player next season.

Can't disagree with any of that. Good post.

Agree with old dee. If he goes we need to develop an 'us versus them' mentality and really use this to try to generate the kind of anger and passion that has seemed absent from our recent performances on the field. In terms of compensation, my understanding of the Ablett compo was that Geelong got one mid-range first round pick and one pick immediately after its first round pick. Let's say we finish 11th next year as an example and that Port, GC and Brisbane don't get priority picks pre-Round 1. If the compensation was the same as Ablett, we would get pick 9 (i.e. the pick after our first round pick) and roughly pick 11 (i.e. the mid-range first round pick). While I would want an early pick for Scully (i.e. top 5), at least this would be fairer than say two late first round picks. You wouldn't use the compo picks in this draft as they'd be picks 13 and 21 (or something like that) as the compromised 2011 draft pushes us further down the order. You would though consider trading the compo pick(s) to GWS for access to O'Meara. While other clubs can offer higher draft picks in the 2011 draft than us, what they can't offer is compo picks which can be used in the next five years and therefore have more value than picks in the 2011 draft. I would agree with members and supporters standing up to and challenging the AFL if we didn't receive fair compensation.

Nah it's not like that at all. Terrible analogy.