mo64

If hitailed means that I had to leave for work rather than continue a senseless debate with yourself, then so be it. As pointed out by dandeeman and jacey, players like Peter Bell, Greg Williams, and Sam Mitchell were either discarded by their original club, or overlooked in the draft because of their perceived lack of pace and height. That's why we are making comparisons with these players, because Valenti is at a similar stage in his career. And if Shaun Hart was at Melbourne today, you'd consider him a fringe player. In his early years at Brisbane when they were a mediocre team, he was a fringe player. Under Matthews, when the side was full of champions, he was able to fulfill a role within the side. That's why it's ludicrous to suggest that Valenti isn't capable of playing in a good finals team. I get the impression that you weren't around when Greg Williams and Shaun Hart were starting their VFL/AFL careers. And btw, height is an irrelevancy in the modern game.

Correct.

Exactly.

Sam Mitchell. Next question....

I don't rate Valenti as an ordinary footballer, so what's your point?

If Valenti is a very ordinary footballer, why have we retained him on our rookie list?

In your own words "he played some great games last year", yet he's not worth a spot on our list? And anyone who uses the argument "He will never play in a serious finals side", has no credibility. If you happen to watch the game, premiership sides are made up of all types of players, especially ball winning mids with good decision making skills.

You're comparing the statistics of a club captain and an established star in Mitchell, with a 1st year player who's played 9 games. I agree with everything else you've said, and it just reaffirms my belief that Bailey's game plan is fraught with failure. He basically needs to turnover our complete list, and hope like hell that we can acquire a truckload of elite, skillful, pacy midfielders and defenders through the draft. Good luck!!!! A counter attacking gameplan is high risk imo.

How do you know whether the tram driver was questioned over the incident by the police?

Once again you've proven your lack of knowledge of the game. You've had it in for Valenti the moment he was rookied. There is no comparison between Godfrey and Valenti. Valenti wins his own ball and makes good decisions. He may not have pace over 20 metres, but gets caught alot less frequently than Jones. Godfrey on the other hand was a tagger, that's it. He was not necessarily slow in body, but slow in mind. He had poor disposal and decision making kills. They are complete opposites in in football terms.

Well said. Who would have thought that a fat Stewie Dew, who'd been out of football for 12 months, would have the impact that he had. I wouldn't be surprised if Brisbane pick him up.

It was a promo for a charity auction of a house for the Reach Foundation. They also asked him about the potential Richmond/Polak/Cousins issue. No news on the MFC.

It's a nice quality to have. Plays similar to Ben McKinley or Paul Medhurst. Some people, including recruiting officers, get too caught up in physical attributes and upside. A footy brain will take you a long way. And Rockliff seems to have a footy brain.

He was invited to train at Pt. Adelaide but declined. I'm hoping that we got into his ear about our intention to draft him in the PSD.

Thanks Theo. I hope you are right about Rockliff. Can anyone explain why Rockliff wasn't on the official AFL "permission to train" lists?

Thanks snakey for the report. And for those who can't read, there is nothing in the report that is not factual.

We have very few, if any, players who have good hands and wins the footy. Valenti has good vision by hand and foot, and lack of penetration in his kicking should not be an issue with the way Bailey wants us to play. That said, I don't think we should forego no. 1 pick in the PSD. I'd imagine that Robbo would be on the long term injury list, hence Valenti would be available for selection come round 1 if he's deemed good enough.

Getting back onto the topic, for those interested in sports books, there's a fantastic book called Moneyball. It's about the drafting and recruiting of the Oakland A's baseball team. In the early 2000s, their GM Billy Beane, realised that they couldn't compete with the bigger clubs like the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox, whose salary costs were about $60m more than the A's. In short, Beane devised a recruiting scheme which flew in the face of what was considered modern convention. He recruited purely on statistics of college or minor league players, and ignored the athletic prowess of the player. He uncovered numerous champion Major League players, who normally would never have been given the chance. Under Beane, the A's went on an American League record winning streak. Unfortunately for the A's, once the player becomes an established star, he usually goes to the bigger clubs for more money. But Beane's recruiting scheme has now been adopted by many other clubs who don't have the resources. I found that there are similarities between the A's and the MFC. If we are to compete with the big boys, we need to think outside the square, rather than trying to emulate the previous year's premiers.

The psd/rookie drafts are only a week away, so maybe the players have been told to lay low for a week with the promise of being selected by a particular club. I'd also presume that we are not interested in either player for the psd, otherwise it would make no sense not to have them training with us as early as possible.

I would hope that Redleg is right. I don't see how we can make an assessment based on 2 weeks of training, when the cream of the potential psd/rookies aren't all training with us. I'd also hope that we've already got into the ear of the player who we intend to pick in the psd, and have him training with us. FWIW, reported on Bigfooty that Rockliff will be training with us.

Haydo, was it you on BigFooty who said that BP wanted to take Sibosado with our last pick, but Bailey overruled him because he has an issue with Sibosado's manager, Ricky Nixon?

In other words they got it wrong in the first instance. A quarter of the list had no experience of the on-field leadership capabilities of the players they were voting for.

Backline looks top heavy. Part of the reason for having the least inside '50s this season, was that lack of creative attack from the backline. I don't see Frawley providing any creative run. I'd rather have Petterd or Grimes as a half-back, and Garland ahead of Warnock as full-back.

His decision making skills, rather than kicking and handballing skills, don't look all that flash.

With the immaturity level of our list, it's beyond me why we're continuing with the policy of the players voting for the leadership group. I'd imagine that the players are instructed to vote based on certain leadership attributes of possible candidates. If that's the case, surely the football dept. are in the best position to judge these attributes. If the players are voting without any set criteria, it ends up being a popularity contest. Either way, the football dept. should be making the decision.