Rhino Richards

I guess that is my issue. I dont call it wrong. I just want to know why they did it with these two. And your point on Jurrah is very valid. The guy has proven he has got something special. I would be more excited if proven talent made a commitment to MFC. At this stage they are unproven.

Once again you get it wrong! That is exaclty my point. We dont know if Tapscott will be any good. My comment is not a criticism of the player. Just wondering why offered them three years and not the standard two years. If we were truly worried about interstate raids or go home factor, why didn't we do the same with Cale Morton who came from WA? The guy is a big talent and sure to be chased. Surely Morton is susceptible to the go home factor or interstate raids as a quality player. And given our stockpile of quality talent where you would hope most if not all will flourish then MFC are going to be hit by other clubs raids whereever a contract expires. I got no issue with the Club doing what it did. Its a fine gesture from the players to accept. I am just wondering why they did it for those two and not others.But I would be keener on their 2nd contractual commitment when they have shown they are or have made it and are keen to further develop with MFC. And its interesting all the posters who state this is a real positive without providing a real substantive basis as to why it is so positive. Such is life.

In this case Yes. And I was not inferring what you thought I had by your question. My original post was clear and straightforward asking why were they offered three years contracts to those players (and not others) who at this point are unproven at AFL level. And beyond the symbolism of the action, what advantages does a three year contract provide MFC over offering them a two year contract.

Re read my post (s-l-o-w-l-y) and where have I said that? A dismal fail on both the wit and the wisdom there Nut.

While the headlines give a warm and fuzzy, why are we seeking to have Trengove and Tapscott on a 3 year contract and not other first year players like Scully? I thought all first year players get a 2 year contract first up. Was it a special deal for out of towners? While I am sure the recruiting dept have done their sums in getting Trengove and Tapscott and both boys have come with big raps from junior football neither have got any AFL pedigree yet? While its unlikely with JT that he does not make the grade, what if Tapscott turns out to a recruit that does not perform and we have given him three years?

Carp. Lose a couple of wickets earlier, when you bat first and you have no momentum. 20/20 is all about runs runs and more runs. Its about creating momentum with the bat and maintaining it. When you win the toss why wouldn't you bat and set the momentum? Equally if you dont win the toss, you still got the same 20 overs in the same conditions to bat. Its a shoot out. I noticed the Vis losing the toss the other day to Tassie did not hurt them. Brilliant analogy. Little has been amusing so far. I think he is more dug down than the Beaconsfield miners. And with less chance of rescue too.

Environments usually are great when you are winning and things did look positive for a while when we had the wind in our sails. I am not sure how much can be attributed to Ratten. He was most fortunate to have two critical players performing at the one time that other midfield coaches did not have. And as for his contribution to the environment. Well, I am not sure how positive his contribution to the environment is at Carlton. Maybe their environment ambassador is not the only leader who should take some paste for their situation. I completely agree with not overcooking the players. But we are unlikely to see the fruits of the talent we have until they mature as footballers. This will take a couple of years I used 50 games as benchmark. And given we have so few players at the mark at the moment highlights the challenge. We have so many players to bring forward in terms of development that it will be impossible not to have a number of inexperienced players playing at one time. Its also likely that as we open these players to the AFL that we will have to watch them stumble at times in order to reach their peaks. Naturally some of the development of these players will involve Casey in their formative years but there is a need to get them to be hardened talented footballers and the AFL is the only avenue. This process has to be done judicially on a player by player basis. Some may mature quickly (eg a Grimes or Trengove) while some make take some years (eg Watts or GAWN)

I would be disappointed if the Club sacrificed player development and the LT future of the Club with the short term fix on "winning" games. MFC needs to get development and game time into younger players. As part of that learning process, these players will be talented but green. The sooner we can responsibly get at least 50 games into each of the players who will be our future the better our path to a flag will be. We have a younger list this year than last year and expectations of more than 8 wins may be fanciful. We are on the move but we have to have patience. There is alot of fantasy about Ratten's time at MFC. When Ratten was midfield coach, he was blessed with Scott Thompson who was fit and firing for the first 17 rounds and had Jeff White as an AA ruckman single handedly dominating the centre bounces until he tired in late August that year. White and Thommo made the others around them much much better. When Thommo got injured and White tired toward the seasons end, the wheels on the midfield fell off well and truly. Neither were fit in 2003 nor were they together and firing in 2005. Thommo left a huge hole as a first dibs inside midfielder when he departed to the Crows. In 2005, MFC were forced to throw an inexperienced midfield of McLean, Sylvia and Beamer in the fire. They were gallant but lacked Thommo's class. White was neutered in the centre and our first possession advantage was lost.

People have a fixation that the GC will be a family reunion program for Qld footballers who have ventured south. Ricky is from Qld and too many posters have been suckered into parroting that he is MUST KEEP without ever defining why. And then again neither have you. He has been here 4 year he is not in your best 22 and he is hugely important TO KEEP. Seems like you have been caught up in the hoopla. He has kicked 4 against weak opposition which in the role he played in FP. He finished off the good work of others. He has not made a position his own and his talents to get the ball are countered by his ability to torch it. A somewhat lazy player who I am not sure is any certainty to make it as a best 22 this year. And if he doesnt thats 5 years and still a fringe player. If that the outcome then the tom tom drums are sounding. AS BRFE has said well, a player in his 4th year and is not best 22 really needs to step up to show his value.

While I dont think its a make or break year for Ricky,I have never seen any "respected footy heads" on here or elsewhere have him in our most important 10 players. On the basis of where he is at presently if he is in our top 10 then we have issues on our list. Despite the odd cameo, Ricky has yet to string one game together where he has really hurt the opposition let alone maintain the standard. A talented player who has yet to deliver at the top level.

He was???? Lyon was an AA in 1993-95 as a HF. In his early career and at his peak I remember Lyon playing forward and not back at all. This is not to say that he was not good enough to play both ends of the ground but he definitely made hia mark up forward with little time up back. Hardly the swingman.

More than they would hit a big score.

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh Test performances would prove otherwise

They would not be a bad bowling attack then. I think the whole issue is that you may not get 20 wickets because you dont set the opposition enough runs. And in most cases, WYL, when a team wins the toss they bat.... Why? Jason Krejza's noteworthy effort in India in 2008 was a case of an ordinary bowler having a good day or should I say Test out.

They are still arguably in the best six of a side atm with no stars. This may well change over this year with performances. But its a fair assessment of where the side is at and not an overstretch on individual players.

And when they were off.... they were abominable and destroyed the team. Saw it enough at Freo with the Wiz. Loved them at their best. But the gap between their best and worst was the grand canyon. And you never know what you would get on the day. The day the Wiz blitzed the Pies in the 2nd half of a game after being putrid and dragged in the first half evidences the see saw output. In their later years there was too much of their worst and not enough of their best. Both Farmer and Jako were indifferent trainers and Jako lifestyle off the ground did little to sustain him for a long football career

Can you name a Test team that has had sustained success over a 2 year period where they have not had at Least one batsman who average 50+? The evidence would suggest not Over the past 35 to 40 years, Test Cricket has been dominated by Australia, West Indies and then Australia. They both possessed fantastic bowling attacks but also intimidating and commanding batsmen over that period. These great sides prove hands down that you need both to be a great side without one being more important than the other. I can name a number of teams who had a great attack but crumbled for success because they could not chase or set runs with class batsman. Pakistan and Sri Lanka during the 1990's And in limited over ODI and 20/20 its totally about runs and batting so much its not funny. The fielding and the bowlers have been absolutely neutered out of the game (as they are in Tests) in the flashy show for runs. I would always go with a masterful batting line up and a competent tight bowling attack in these fixtures. I have seen some bowlers at Test level who were very pedestrian work out a successful ODI career because of the one sided blunted nature of the game. Possibly WA in the 1980s. Former Aust Wicketkeeper Tim Zoehrer was a very handy leggie and played and bowled for WA. I think he even took a 5 for somewhere amongst that. I dont think he ever bowled for Australia though. I might be wrong on that. Mark Boucher

Its not the Dockers being nasty. They are the carcasse. I am not sure where that clause came from HT. But I think you would be on the money. It seems a reasonable get out clause for all parties to maintain face and partly mitigate the execution by media.

Agree on the media impact. However, Harvey should only get a 12 month extension if the Club believes it is in the Clubs interest to do so. I am not Freo will want Harvey beyond this year. I understand it is usually a term in an AFL coaches contract that if their club is not going to be re hire him on a new contract or an extension to an existing contract then the Club must inform the Coach by an agreed time mid term in his last year and the Coach may have the choice to leave. If Freo are not going to offer another contract to Harvey either they will sack him or Harvey will walk at some pressure point during the year. And you can bet the media will goading and flaming the slaughter. The article already shows they have the scent of blood in their vulture like nostrils and are circling. Unless Freo perform miles above expectations, I reckon Harvey wont last until the end of May 2010 and will be gone one way or the other.

The tom tom drums have started on January 20 for the first sacked coach story: FREMANTLE captain Matthew Pavlich will not let the fact that coach Mark Harvey's contract is up at season's end affect the way the Dockers go about their 2010 AFL campaign. Harvey being off-contract has inevitably led to speculation about his future, but Pavlich says he and his players won't be letting that enter their thoughts as they prepare for the season. ''From our perspective, it's always business as usual from the playing group and it's certainly not discussed at any level,'' he said. Source: The Age.

So you thought the 2nd Test was a classic but you did not enjoy Hussey's effort! Yup. After Hussey was dropped early three times, he was solid on a 4 and 5 day wicket. So Hussey was wobbly but no shots Siddle was solid for three hours. Gotcha. I can only suggest you gathered little from the Ashes Tour then. So being bowled out for 127 on the first day of a Test and being 200 runs behind is not pressure!! If you had a little more nous you would have worked out that next years Ashes will be played at all the Test venues (bar Hobart.) It should have been illuminating to a sharper mind about the capabilities of the Australian XI on Ashes Test venues We had Siddle, Johnson, North,Hauritz, Haddin, Hughes, Watson, Bollinger and Hilfenhaus all with under 2 years or 25 Test experience. We had a very inexperienced team this summer with 9 junior players. This was countered by Punter, Katich, Hussey and Clarke. Many of the aforementioned were still be blooded. Which other players were you expecting to come in?

And who bats 3 WYL better than Ponting? Who would be better than Punter at the moment? Careful think about this one. B) Dont apologise WYL for what you cant see. Its been a difficult summer for you to assess the Australian XI. Obviously very difficult. Who would you replace him with on current respective form that would be better leading into the Ashes? And he did show some sterling qualities in that knock that you alone cant see. Nothing new WYL. And as he has scored a century in his second last test. But you missed that. And you do want to smash the Poms dont you?

Thirty years of following cricket....wasted! The number of times being dropped is irrelevant. Both Australia and Hussey made the most of opportunities and won. Of course Australia won it. They took advantage of an opponents weakness. It happens all the time. Its called Test cricket. When the game was there to be won on day 3 and 4, Asif was pedestrian and was toyed with by a tailender. Of course Hussey's knock changed the game. It won the match. The keeper was neither here nor there after he dropped Hussey early. You have proved that. And who do we have to replace him at 4 within 12 months and 4 tests?? If you had your way the your axe grinding would cut Ponting as well. And you want to smash the Poms!!

Off the top of my head... B: Wight, Ingerson, A. Johnson HB: B Lovett, Hardeman, S Febey

You can if the opposition have declared in the first innings B) I see your point. I dont think you can have one without the other. While the Windies and Australia had great bowlers they were also blessed with some great batsman and good keepers. Windies: Richards, Haynes, Greenidge, Richardson, Lloyd with Dujon as keeper. Australia: Hayden, Langer, Taylor, Waughs, Border and Ponting. Healy and Gilchrist as a keeper. I guess the alternate view is you wont take 20 wickets in a test if you can set enough runs for the opposition to chase.