mo64

I think you'll find that Martin first came to prominence in the Ammo's under 19s as a ruckman. He got something like 8 bogs in 9 games, and won the comp b&f. And I don't see the relevance of Brennan, who's physique and height is totally different to Martin. So in answer to question, yes, I'd groom Martin for a ruck position.

It's a strange list actually. I don't know how they define "tough". Ditterich and Lockett - I don't think of them as tough. They tended to dish out the pain rather than put themselves in a position to be hurt. Flower - Courageous, but not necessarily tough. Ablett, Brereton, Carey, Archer and Matthews were all tough primarily because of their physique. Tuddenham - Probably the toughest on the list. Pound for pound, the toughest player I've seen is Ken Hunter.

Jarka, there's a difference between expressing a realistic assessment that we are unlikely to win 6 games this season and the benefit associated with that, and boldly stating the losses required to achieve the priority pick. I don't derive any pleasure with our losses, regardless of the reward.

You really are clueless. How many of your so called C graders were 1st round draft picks like Watts and Blease? Until a player has played senior football, you can't say what impact they will have at AFL level.

Correct. It may be realistic as Calabrese points out, but it's pathetic that 2 games into a season, and supporters are already looking at priority picks. It's also pathetic when posters talk about players who aren't on our list (Butcher and Scully), and players who haven't played a game (Watts and Blease), as being the saviours of our team.

I find this perverse and pathetic that supporters are promoting losing...........

I've been stating how I want our side to play for the past 15 months, but you just get caught up in your own drivel to comprehend what people write. Case in point, I wrote 24 games, not 24 months. Statistically, over the past 24 games we've been the worst performed side since Fitzroy in their final season. I don't believe that our list is that bad, so it's pointless to continue the argument. And your response to Kit Walker re: Roos is laughable. You can't comprehend that coaches can make an enormous impact on a club.

I'll ask you one question, and I want a simple yes or no answer: Have our results over the past 24 games reflected the ability of our list?

I can't see why people are calling for Bate to be dropped. He was impressive in the 1st quarter when we moved the ball quickly and systematically into the froward line. The facts are that we've had a pathetically low number of inside 50s in the first 2 rounds, so whoever plays in the forward line will fail to impress.

Bolton is not quick and was up for trade last year, Kirk is neither quick nor an elite midfieldfer, and prior to last season, McVeigh was a fringe player. And Goodes doesn't always play in the midfield. So are you suggesting that talent wise, Sydney have an A grade midfield? The difference between Bailey and Roos is that from day 1, Roos was able to get the best out of his players. IMO, Bailey hasn't.

Agree. The idea of playing Davey out of the backline is a sound one (I proposed it before the season started), but it will only be effective if he can run the lines. And I too have been a critic of Morton, but was really impressed with his game.

Once again Rhino, you don't let the truth get in the way of your posts. Point 1. Roos did not inherit the nucleas of a premiership side. He orchestrated their success through brilliant coaching. So get it through your head, coaches do make a difference. Point 2. Sydney do not play run and carry in the style that West Coast and Port Adelaide played, and what Bailey is trying to implement. Sydney play contested football by getting numbers to a contest in all areas of the ground. They will kick to a contest and back themselves to win the contest. Flooding and running the ball from the backline does not equate to run and carry. Point 3. Sydney's midfield is as pedestrian as ours, so why are they competitive?

After watching the Roos/Bulldogs game, I don't know why teams wouldn't kick to the top of the goal square if there are no obvious leading options. Under the new rule whereby defenders can't deliberately knock the ball through for a point, if you force a contest at the top of the square, the defending side has very few options. During the Roos/Bulldogs game, a Bulldogs defender tried to escort a touched ball over the goal line rather than pick it up or knock it through. Ed Lower came running through and got a boot on it just before it crossed the line. The kick to the top of the square now becomes a high percentage play.

If it wasn't Davey on the end of a backwards or sideways pass, it would have been someone else. And the subsequent 15 metre chip is in accordance with our gameplan. Davey played his given role to perfection. BTW, you are 100% correct. Davey wasn't an influential player.

Sydney don't have the cattle to play a run and carry gameplan, so Roos hasn't adopted it. It's simple, why implement a plan that your players are incapable of carrying out?

Totally agree. But it begs the question, what is plan B? For a majority of the past 24 games, the opposition have been able to smash our gameplan, which has led to blowouts. Why, because as I've said all along, we don't have the cattle to sustain it over the course of an entire game. It all revolves around our midfield. We have a blue collar midfield in McLean, McDonald, Jones and Moloney attempting to play a gamestyle that is beyond their capabilities. They'll never be able to break the lines, let alone baulk opposition players in traffic. So it's little wonder that the players readily lose confidence.

Probably out of frustration. In the first quarter, we were able to pinpoint passes due to the lack of pressure from the Pies. When the pressure is applied, we resort to over possessing the football, with an inevitable turnover. And when we overpossess the football, we struggle to score. It's been a common theme under Bailey. The senior players probably feel the need to stop the rot by applying scoreboard pressure. You can't score without getting the ball inside 50. How many inside 50s have we had in the first 2 games? Unfortunately another common theme under Bailey. How about playing with a structure and system that gives us more options in the forward 50? How about allowing the mids to push forward and provide an option? How many goals have our mids kicked in the last 2 seasons? Our sole goal scoring plan is to hit a leading target. What are plans B, C and D?

Well said rpfc. It's hard to know what form our forwards are in because they don't get quality service, and are invariably outnumbered when the ball does arrive.

Wrong, I do. He has shown nothing to suggest that he's an adequate match day coach. He states in his press conference that errors sap the players' confidence. Dean, the errors are occuring because the players are indecisive when the opposition apply pressure. Why? Because option A, B, C and D is to handball when under pressure. There is no structure forward of the ball that allows for a medium to long kick.

This post qualifies for the worst of the year. Just taking cheap shots, and grossly inaccurate.

You left out Bell and Nick Smith. And I won't mention Molan.

My info came from an interview with GC's recruiting manager Scott Clayton, so I'll take it as gospel.

The compensatory draft picks would be in addition to the normal draft, sought of like the priority picks. So GC won't be giving up their draft picks as compensation. GC can however trade draft picks for contracted players. And you are right. GC will either be targetting superstars or promising youngsters. So Petterd will definitely be on the radar, but Miller won't.

Of course clubs can re-sign players to new contracts before they expire, but player agents will be using GC17 as a bargaining tool to inflate the salaries, and will invariably tell the player to hold out. Clubs that lose uncontracted players will be compensated by a draft choice determined by the standing of the player, ie; b&f results and $contract. For example, if Cam Bruce was out of contract and was being pursued by GC, based on his current salary and B&f results, we would probably receive a 1st round draft pick for him. So it may well be in the interests of a club not to re-sign an uncontracted player. BTW, at the end of the day, all players do have a say as to whether they go to GC. It's just that they will have to either re-sign with their club or have their club broker a trade deal with another club. They will only end up at the GC against their wishes if they nominate for the PSD, and the GC want them.

Whilst I understood your logic, I don't think that Scott Clayton will be setting his sights that low as to draft Miller as an uncontracted player. GC17 have access to draft up to 16 uncontracted players. Given that they'll have a core group of young talent on low salaries, they can utilise their salary cap benefits to target some high priced recruits. Clayton has stated that they won't be specifically targetting ex-Queenslanders.