Rhino Richards

Mainly by the sycophants on internet forums. He had a number of off field matters which with his lack of performance dimmed his star somewhat. I think that was another reason why Brock chose other pastures. Both TJ and Brock could earn their position and given our midfield woes would still rank as worthy of a game. TJ was cut for cultural reasons and the fact that we should move to get "value" for his inconsistent talent now before it dissolved as he got older. McLean was given a new contract but was not happy with that or the prospects put to him for his future. He wanted out and we again sought to get value. It not because either was not good enough to get a game. They were. But neither were viewed as mission critical to the LT plan of building a flag challenging side in a 5 to 6 year period. Hell TJ had 40+ possessions in his last game so it was not his form. And if we have two of our senior players do lose form and cant even get a game with us, which Club would realistically trade for them?

Fair rnough. But the direct comparison of North and MFC at this point in time is apples and oranges when it comes to experience. I dont think we were good enough to win but it would have curbed the downside. This is the crux of the challenge for Bailey and supporters do we play the young players like Strauss, Scully and Trengove who will make mistakes in the early days but will get better or do we play the Bells and Bartram that have AFL experience which may curd the downside but they sure as wont get much better than they are and neither will our talent develop. There is going to be some pain before the gain and the improvement we long for wont be a linear line.

Some food for thought...... I have pulled this off another site where there was a game experience comparison of MFC with Freo on Sunday and North Here is MFC vs Freo I've just done a quick calculation but our (MFC) 26 players had 1354 senior games of experience against 22 of theirs (I can't remember who the other 4 were) having 1798. And Davey only played half the game. We had 17 players with under 50 games, 7 with under 10 and only 4 with more than 100. It was an extraordinarily inexperienced list and just the reason why you can't play too many young players at once. Freo had 10 players with more than 100 games and 6 with more than 150. And now the Kangas.... The Kanga's, who did really well, had 18 players who had played 1877 games (for comparison our entire primary and rookie list of 46 only has an additional 141 games on it, or put another way 7 rounds). I can't remember who the other 8 Kanga's players were but it wouldn't make much difference as only 3 players on their list who have played 30 or more games DIDN'T play - Wells (130), Edwards (40) and Lower (34) (although he might have played, I can't remember). They were at full strength effectively. The average age of that 18 was over 25. They had 13 players with more than 50 games and 8 with more than 100. Some telling information there about where MFC is at. It should correct some chronic misconceptions around here.

Agree. However the issue goes beyond just sub standard facilities. It includes medical personnel, fitness and development personnel and all off ground support. For example about 12-24 months ago MFC had a staff of about 50. WCE had a staff of nearly 200 fulfilling the same or greater functions. Some support upside there

In the short term it is a real concern. Regardless of how you see him, McLean was a mature AFL player who was prepared to be in and under the contest. Its one less senior player in a Club that you have bemoaned that we dont have. Get it. McLean was on big $$$$ during 2007 to 2009 following the promise of stepping up in the 2006 season. Whether injury or form, he did not deliver over that period. Given the performance to date and the recruitment of future midfield champions the Club took the decision to offer him a new contract that was less than he was previously on and what he expected. He did not want to stay and wanted to leave to Carlton. MFC did the constructive thing and sought to get it sorted quickly. It was not a sign that he was not a significant loss. It was more a situation where there was never going to be agreement between the parties. Dont mistake it for something other than it is. MFC were prepared to re sign McLean for a further term but not on terms Brock wanted.

Aside from Davey most of our players are honest B at best, but regularly C graders. North had one of the top teams of the 1990s lead by Wayne Carey. However, this should not underplay that they had some really great players like Archer, Longmire, Blakey, Simpson and Bell during that period. Harvey is the last of the proud vintage which has served them well in the 00's. I think if anything there is greater belief in the future than I have seen at the Club in the past 20 years. There is greater focus on the targets on and off the ground. I think the Club has the belief. They are prepared to look long term rather than some poster entrenched in the now.

With the exception of McLean none of the above have been worthy first round picks. Dunn and Bell are flawed footballers. The rest were all lower draft picks for a reason. If you cant see the difference and the disposition of the list then its over to you. Good luck,

Do the sums. This list is younger than any list we have had for two years. We have honest B/Cgraders in senior roles the rest are kids. We have not done a complete rebuilding like we have just done in that time period.

Roos was blessed with a list approach a window of opportunity and topped up players. He had a mature and talented list. He was at a different stage to where our list is and where its been. That's not knocking Roos as a coach. A teaching coach wont teach a player to make up for a lack of skills. A teaching coach will assist those players maximise their potential. Jack Dyer used to say in his own venacular that you cant make a silk slipper out of a gumboot. Good point. I think many posters have been given a wake up call that just having draft picks does not ensure you immediate success. Bailey and Connolly have repeatedly said that we have to be patient and there is a need to get at least 50 games into these new players. And you cant play the new players all at once although it seems like it. Our stock of talent is 22yrs and under. They are not going become mature hardened footballers overnight. I refer to my comments about development and where our list is at the moment. Average players are average because they are ..... B) The players you listed are footballers with one or more significant deficiencies in their game. They will always struggle. In many cases they are not good enough for AFL. The players who are going to carry us forward are the likes of Scully, Trengove, Grimes, Watts, Frawley, Garland, Grimes Blease etc. We need them to develop and we need 5 t 6 of these players to become stars. When you have stars, the average player looks like a good player and the good player may even become great. But its not going to happen overnight. Our list this year is younger than last year. As I said do the search of the site. Its all there.

I think the issue has been they have improved under Bailey and he takes that wrap. Davey's game has been remodelled as has Sylvia. Both have slipped up off the field both have been disciplined and have worked hard to correct that. The footy dept include Bailey should take credit for that. Bailey took over a train wreck of a list. In 2.5 years he has cleared off 27 players off the list of 44. That is a massive turnover. This include team leaders and icons of the past 10 years. As part of that some of the players still on the list will also go because their limitations preclude them from senior players. A good teacher will only assist a player get the best out of themselves. Newton, PJ, Bell, Dunn and Bartrum have skills deficiencies and will struggle to remain beyond 2010. None of those players currently are part of the blue print for success. After 3 years of injury and questionable performance, McLean has sought other pastures. CJ was a not good enough. So far both have given confirmation as to the MFC concerns about them as players. Buckley massacres the pill and was cut. Carroll was a cultural problem and an inferior defensive option to what we have. Do a search of "Bailey" on this site. The topic of extension has been done to death so often and its academic now as the Club will announce the extension this afternoon.

Its a Press Conference. A light fluffy presentation of limited information to fulfil the obligations of the media to report on what haqs already been leaked. There will be neither in depth guidelines of what has been agreed behind closed doors or any mea culpas (like Tiger Wood's bizarre apology. Its another staged event.

Never said it was a rule. Just showing it should not preclude Viney from the Clubs perspective and you acknowledge that. Well Viney should realise that he either faces that issue or expect to coaching against his son for up to 4 to 5 times a year.

Not in my book. That's one player out of a list of 44. If DB was not to be coach in 2012 and Viney was in the race for the senior coaching spot, I would certainly look seriously at him for the role. I guess Lindsay Gaze should not have coached the Melbourne Tigers all those years

I blame the previous administration for this problem. B)

There is a rumour that he is in his 2nd year of AFL football and may be like any other young footballer and has bad days. Remember this is only a rumour and yet to be substantiated by the Club....... Relax. 2nd year player in his 10th senior game puts in a shocker up forward as team gets pounded. What? Jurrah is human and he is going to have memorable days and crud days. Sunday was one of the latter.

How many teams go into a game with only six players with over 100 games of AFL footy, 5 first gsmers and the rest with less than 50 games of AFL? We started the game with a rookie ruck, two midfielders in their first game and our KPFs were a 2nd year with 9 games and another in his first game. Now how does that compare with the Swannies? Any chance being phyisically monstered in the first quarter shook the confidence of such a young side?

How many did we have in the side who had at least 100 games experience? Junior, Miller, Green, Beamer, Davey (played 1/2 a game), Joel Mac. Possibly Sylvia. Six players who are not game breakers and you are blaming them solely for the result. They are definitely a contributor. However Junior and JoelMac played well against the odds. The other 18 players were inexperienced kids with 50 games or less. 5 players were playing their first games of senior football. Put another way. Our first ruck was a rookie, we had two first gamers in the guts, our KPFs were a 2nd year with 9 games experience and another in his first game. Get the hint of something WYL??? Another case of your hysteria without a clue. You would be wrong on both accounts. Its a good summary from an opposition supporter better than most here could conjure on Essendon. But our midfield is a 6.5 but our defence is a 5. And the midfield has had a massive loss with McLean. Would he given a third world midfield an 8 with Brock in it? You are kidding. Even you could see this furphy. Further you moan about our senior players and lack of leaders then you state that McLean's loss in the midfield is not a big loss. In the LT I dont expect it to be when Grimes, Trengove and Scully mature. This year itr exacerbates the lack of senior bodies at the contests. Getting Gysberts could be great for the future but in the short term it makes our list younger and more vulnerable. As for Brock, he was slow from when he started AFL. The game has got quicker and Brock hasn't. That's his problem. Get the drift?

The list is young and they will stumble before they walk. our senior players are few and none regularly impose themselves on matches. Its alot that falls on young shoulders They had two AAs. They had a number of capable players with 100+games experience plus they have some good youngsters. I am not sure why Freo cope the carp they do. I dont rate their coach but their list is not as bad as it seems. They have cut alot of dead wood in the past two years. Seems MFC have suppporters have developed some unearned hubris as to how good its list is. Its 2 to 3 years away.

Rather than pontificate with the cliche "leader" what we need are players that can regularly and consistently play competitive consistent football.We dont have that. Our senior players are few and are B graders are best and C graders at average. Junior was the best of them. I am not surprised you are shocked. It would not have dawned on you that given the list and side we went in with it was an uphill battle. Do you understand why Bailey and Connolly preach patience? 18 to 20 years dont become 25 year olds overnight. I'd suggest that Norm Smith wont take your call as he would say "He's wanted back on Earth"

Junior McDonald for one. You should have left off when I corrected your silly statement "How far we climb up the ladder this year will depend on how many true leaders we have on the list." Its a matter of quality players. Blokes like McDonald, Moloney, Miller and Green are just not going to win you games. Its the development of the sub 23 yo group. they dont have to leaders at this point but develop into constructive AFL players.

Agree. Watson was the ACB Cricketer and 1 day cricketer of the Year. Katich was the Test Player of the Year Award. Go figure

Like Fevola, Lovett, Carroll, Houlihan, Didak, Betts, Hurley, Stokes etc. Our "leaders" are too few and not good enough to impose on games. In fact we are demanding a hell of them and they are not up to. So you are saying the AFL competitive players are leaders and as we dont know who are leaders are, we therefore dont know who our AFL quality players are? Cute logic. The issue is lack of quality players. Dont know why you bothered. Who are the many on here that would argue our rucks stocks are not that bad? No one in their right mind. They have been deplorable for years. I think you stated for you own edification if you seriously thought otherwise.

How about quality players that can physically compete at AFL level? A case of stating the bleeding obvious about our ruck stocks. Its been like that for 3 years.

Its all a bit academic now to argue this as Bailey has been signed for 2011. Given we have such a young list, 2010 was always going to be a rocky road. Sunday may have been the first bump.

Absolutely spot on but Bailey and brains trust need to work with the list to getting them plkaying with the confidence they had last year to run and back themselves. There was little of that happening yesterday. Another case of missing the point WYL. On one hand you dont disagree with 45's point and on other hand you completely miss it.