mo64

I think that Hughes could play Petterd's mid-sized forward role. I can understand why Petterd's being used as a defensive forward, but I'd hate to see him play that role for the whole season. And as you pointed out, there's no logic in re-rookieing Hughes unless the football dept. believed he had potential to be a senior player. If his Casey form continues, he may get elevated sooner rather than later.

If you lose an uncontracted player to GC17 against your will, the club will be compensated with a draft pick. The position of the draft pick will be determined by the status of the player, ie; salary, finishing position in b&f. The club still has the choice to trade an uncontracted playet to GC17.

Young players get rested in their rookie season, regardless of whether the team is in contention for the finals or not. In Bennell's case, his exclusion is a "body management" issue, not "list management".

QUOTE (Hannabal @ May 15 2009, 07:58 AM) Depth evolves, you can't target or earmark players for depth. And yet you believe that Valenti was retained as a rookie purely for "depth" reasons. You flip flop when the argument suits you.

Whelan, Valenti and Cheney were probably Casey's best 3 players in their last outing, and have been rightfully rewarded. And obviously the selectors have considered the strengths of the opposition, and selected the team accordingly. All 3 inclusions are positives IMO. And so much for the nuffies on the "delistings" thread who believe that at this early stage of the season we should be selecting the team with "list management" as a consideration. Clearly the football dept. don't share your view, and have selected players based on form and the structure of the opposition.

We'll agree to disagree. This early in the season, players should be given game time purely based on form, regardless of whether we're likely to play finals or not. What message does it send to the playing group? What does it do to the morale of a player whose form warrants a game ahead of another, but doesn't get picked for "list management" reasons. At least by round 16, every player would have had the opportunity to prove their worth, and the club would be justified in selecting teams with list management in mind. I agree entirely with what HT just posted.

We are 7 weeks into a season. The coaching department should be focussing on getting the best out of the players and player development. If a list management committee (which I assume would include the coach), are discussing the future of players right now, it would undoubtedly influence the team selection process. The 3 players that everyone is bringing up as being under the gun, Newton, Dunn and Bell, were all re-signed to 2 year deals. As far as their respective careers go, nothing has changed in 7 weeks. They're are all still struggling to command a regular spot in the side. In their cases, what the hell will having a list management committee achieve? The list management process should commence no earlier than round 16. Recruiting managers would have a true idea as to the depth of the draft and the number of picks required, whilst the list managers would be able to make a fair assessment of where a players' career is at, and which players have potential trade value.

Finally, a voice of reason. And I find this post ironic on 2 counts: 1. The masses who lauded McDonald's appointment as captain, want him pensioned off after 7 rounds. 2. The masses who bleat on about how bad our list is, are struggling to find players to delist other than proven elder statesmen in Wheatley and Whelan, or contracted players in Dunn, Bell and Newton.

But Rhino's in his element discussing under 9's football.

Excellent post, particularly your point of the minimal improvement of our mid age players. A majority of the posters on this site put our insipid performances down to youth and learning the game plan. Having a young list may translate to inconsistency of performance, however Essendon's inconsistent performances go from a rating of ordinary to excellent, whereas ours go from a rating of insipid to ordinary. Our president comes out last week and states that he doesn't expect us to play in finals for 3-5 years. You wonder why we haven't got a winning culture at the club.

I've re-read your post and nothing's changed. You said that he may survive if he plays well. IMO, he should survive if he plays well, particularly when you have said that our midfield is crap. Get off the fence and say what you've always believed. You don't rate Valenti, and don't believe that he's up to it.

Hannabal, 5 of the players that are always under the gun by supporters on this site are forwards in Bate, Sylvia, Dunn, Miller and Newton. Even Davey was under the gun before he was moved into the backline. Over the past 30+ games, we've had the lowest inside 50s of any team by a considerable margin, primarily because our ball movement is pathetic. And it's my opinion that our ball movement is pathetic because our forward structure is pathetic. I'm prepared to cut these players some slack until i've seen them perform in a properly functioning team that is playing with confidence.

Say what? You continually bemoan how bad our midfield is, yet even if Valenti plays well, you don't believe that he'll survive?

Not sure of the financial implications of elevating a rookie, but I've rarely known of a rookie being elevated and not immediatley being selected in the seniors.

That would suggest that both will play this week.

Bobby, most of us were aiming our vitriol at petjud's assertion that Bruce's tackle made a statement, rather than Bruce's tackle as such.

The introduction of the Gold Coast has all player managers licking their lips. GC have a higher salary cap, and once you factor in the number of kids on their list on base salaries, they will be able to offer big dollars to the uncontracted players that they will be targeting.

As Nasher said, it wouldn't matter if they were all fit, we'd still get smashed in the hit outs. It's a chance for PJ to show his athleticism, and run with Cox. Martin to do the ruckwork in the forward line.

You've focused on keeping players who can carry out our game plan in the future. So what happens when that game plan becomes redundant in 3 years time, because it's been superceded by another visionary coach? The games forever evolving if you haven't noticed. And I find the term "NQR" to describe a player as meaningless. As Dapper and others pointed out, even the elite players have flaws in their game. If you're looking for a team full of faultless players, you'll be disappointed to know that it'll never happen. Look at the current St.Kilda team, who most believe are in the running for a flag. Ray, McQualter, Dawson, Gardiner, Milne, Schneider, Blake, Gram, Gwilt would all have been considered NQRs at some time during their career. The key to success is getting the best out of the players you have at your disposal, with an eye to the future.

DD, you've hit the nail on the head. RR assessment of players swings like the wind. He'll assess every player as NQR and C-graders, when in actual fact the team is down on confidence, and the individual player performance reflects that. This is why I mentioned in a previous post that our focus should on the development of the 21-25 year olds. If we throw them on the scrapheap as is RR's want, we'll be doomed for failure for the next 5 years. And there's no guarantee that the next generation of players will be any better. We'll end up being another Richmond. In RR's eyes, Cooney was a NQR in 2007 when the Bulldogs were having a bad year. Leon Davis would have been shown the door at Collingwood 2 years ago. Every football department would have confidence in their ability to get the best out of their players, which is why they'd look at the players' upside, rather than downside as RR does. I agree that there will be minimal changes to our senior list at the end of this year.

Thanks for your nonsensical support of the original post. Firstly, I'd challenge your assertion that Phelps isn't an elite endurance athlete. Swimmers train for hours on end, swimming lap after lap. We've seen individual swimmers compete at distances ranging from 50m to 1500m, which doesn't occur in athletics. So thanks for your zoology lesson, but it's irrelevant. And are you suggesting that occasional consumption of junk food leads to illness, regardless of whether you're an elite athlete? Hmm, I'll have to rethink my dietary habits over my bacon and eggs.

McLean doesn't lack awareness and isn't slow. He and Jones both struggle with our gameplan, because we have very few options forward of the ball, and they're are the ones who are made to look slow and lack awareness because they are trying to find the right option. The instincts and natural game of both players is to look up and kick the ball, not handball sideways or backwards. They don't have the evasive skills of a Judd or Ablett. As I've said all along, the gameplan doesn't suit the natural instincts of our key midfielders.

So he didn't answer the question. In a TV interview he was asked when he expected Melbourne to be playing in finals, and his response was 3-5 years. I was dumbfounded by that response. Is he going to perservere with Bailey until we make the finals?

Sellwood made a statement with his mark running with the flight of the ball. Bruce's coat hanger was a cheap shot that inspires nobody.

You are kidding me????? You really think that Bruce displayed bravado by giving away a needless free kick? The courageous thing to do was tackle Chapman and force a throw-in. It was either a lazy or a gutless act, that doesn't display leadership.