mo64

Without meaning to offend KC, do Casey have a problem attracting talented aspiring young players from the Melbourne suburbs, due to the travel and the Casey Fields itself. Call me soft, but I'd hardly want to train and play there. And just putting it out there, does Casey Fields impact on the development of the players?

I hate the term versatile. Francis could be another Goddard, who took years to establish himself as an impact player, and has again lost that ability at the Dons. Or Francis could be another Andrew Mackie, a highly dependable back flanker. We are craving for mids and key forwards. And I want the best that are available in those positions.

That's ridiculous. You're basing their talent levels on where they were drafted, not their deeds at AFL level. Personally, I don't want either of them. I wan't a legitimate classy mid or a key forward.

Which means that he wants a better club to offer the same deal as Melbourne.

Port Adelaide and Adelaide players have endured tragedies that have hit far closer to home, and their collective performances have been unaffected. As an employee, if my performance is being affected by the issues you raise, I'd be looking for a new employer. IMO, you're using the club as a copout for Garland's lack of form. IF, and that's a big IF Garland has been mentally affected, surely it's in his interests to move on. The AFLPA can also provide counselling if required.

Most people work to live, and would kill to be a highly paid sportsperson. If you can't handle the pitfalls that go with it, then get out. You're making alot of assumptions about Garland's headspace. Maybe he's just not as good a footballer as you think. And making comparisons to the EFC debacle is drawing a long bow. The primary concern of the club is success, so players will come and go. Clubs won't retain players out of sympathy.

You can't blame his mindset on the club. He's in the wrong occupation if he can't self motivate. If he's mentally cracking, cut him loose for the sake of both parties. I didn't have Garland in our best 22 at the start of the year based on his form last year, and what I saw of him during preseason. I found his lack of drive during match simulations underwhelming, and he hardly struck me as a leader as some have suggested. His ineffectual disposals were evident back then, and nothing has changed throughout the year.

Lack of consistency of effort by the players falls back on the coach. End of story.

If the usual suspects get delisted/traded, and we don't get a plethora of quality mids banging our door down wanting to sign-up, Michie gets another year. At this stage he's depth, but with some development, hopefully he could be part of our inside midfield rotation.

I think that Rob Waters is clutching at straws with the Jack Watts friendship factor. Lynch was originally drafted by the Saints and went to Adelaide. Lynch is Dangerfield's closest mate at Adelaide, and I doubt that the lure to come to Melbourne would be so that he could be close to Dangerfield, when he goes to Geelong.

Howe has learn't the Henderson lesson, and is playing a straight bat (lying). That article says that Garland could command $500 per year. Gimme a spell.

We are not a destination of choice, so we need to offer massive overs to entice players (Clark, Dawes).

Have you looked at our record over the past 8 years? Identifying flaws in players is part and parcel of supporting a poorly performed team, and questions need to be asked of the players that have been there during that period. Gawn is a poor example, because he showed something before constantly battling injuries. Would you prefer that we sit on our hands list wise, and hope that all the average performers improve?

Great summation, especially your point on Suckling. Our backmen need to be assessed on how they play two-way football. In recent games, Grimes has actually tried to take the game on, but his disposal and decision making are poor. Garland rarely does, so he doesn't draw obvious criticism.

He is one of the worst decision makers by foot in the team. And that's not because he constantly turns the ball over to the opposition. It goes beyond that. He usually takes the soft option (15-20m kick sideways or up the line), and he rarely takes the opposition on even when he has space. If Roos/Goodwin decide that it's time to have a more offense minded gameplan next year, Garland will be let go.

In fairness, the doubters weren't informed that his foot injury was greatly impacting his performance. Everyone assumed that the weight of captaincy was the trigger of his form decline. Seems like a high quality bloke, and would love him playing close to his best next year.

Brisbane have said that he's not required, so he'll be a DFA. He's been a solid player, but not a damaging one. I'd rather keep Cross, and groom one of the younger players to fill the half back role. At 30yo and injury prone, I'd pass.

You make a really good point. As much as we desperately need some additional midfield rotations, we equally need some class and polish running off half back and wing. I've always thought that playing a spare man in the backline is pointless unless they were creative. We tried it this year with Salem who unfortunately has been injured. I'd love to see the likes of Salem, Brayshaw and Vince as our half backs, but we need some quality mids to replenish that area. The acquisition of Redden would help.

And I wonder if the Dogs would be in that position if McCartney was still the coach. Whilst McCartney did build a list of exciting youngsters, it's their fringe players that are having career best seasons, that has been the difference. Picken, Dahlhaus, Wood, Grant, Johannasen and Wallis are all playing at a higher level under Beveridge. The same can't be said with our fringe players under Roos. Every time I hear a Melbourne coach being interviewed (senior or asst.), they talk about long term. I find that depressing, because free agency and a freer trade market will allow clubs to top up more readily, making it more difficult for bottom teams to rise.

Lynch is 4th on the Adelaide goalkicking with 25 behind Betts, Walker and Jenkins. He also has 25 goal assists. Vince and Dawes are equal 3rd our goalkicking list with a grand total of 10 each. Yeah, your right. Lynch is superfluous to our needs.

Melksham would add nothing to our list. Next!!!!

You just don't get. You probably get 4 weeks paid annual leave and paid sick days, and you want additional days off. Small Business Owners are lucky to get a week off a year, and casual workers can't afford to lose shifts, like I will because of this inane holiday. BTW, our business isn't price based, so your theory is redundant.

Which is why it's bad for casual workers. The business that I work at will be open, but run by the owner because he can't afford the staff penalty rates. Unbeknownst to Andrews, small business owners also have families, and require family time. It will also ruin Grand Final Eve functions. A mate of mine has organised a charity function for the past 15 years, but will have to change the date to the Thursday because of the penalty rates. Everyone I know who attends will be unable to do so because they can't afford to take the Thursday off. It's the must non-sensical public holiday ever thought off.

The cost of speculating with a young draftee at picks 65 or 85 is that they are guaranteed 2 years. A speculative rookie pick only costs you 1 year. I'd prefer to go with a mature aged former AFL player or an outstanding State League player with latter picks.

Pretty good summation. My question marks would be: Garland - As a RFA, if there's interest from other clubs, there's no way he'd accept a 1 year deal. I hope he goes. Riley/Michie - Both play a similar role so I'd only re-sign 1 of them, and retain M. Jones. Hunt - Worth another year of development, and a preferable option than pick 65/85. Our record of trading for fringe players from other clubs (Riley, Michie, Newton) hasn't borne any fruit to date, though I've still got hopes for Newton. Conversely, our rookie list selections over the past 2 years have been more promising, so we may go down this path.