Rhino Richards

When the Jolly deal was done, Jolly had spat the dummy at MFC and wanted more game time in a year when he was competing with a dominating AA ruckman. Jolly sulked towards the end of 2004 to the extent that his performances resulted in an ordinary raw ruckman in Jamar being preferred in the 2004 EF. Jolly was traded to the Swans Jolly took 3 years to establish himself as a competent AFL ruckman at Sydney all be it with limitations. Given Jolly wanted to leave MFC in 2004 we would have still had the ruck issues anyway. This should have been address by recruiting another ruckman through trade, draft or rookie at that time. Good competent rucks are hard to find!

Thanks. I reckon its a bit over the top. If they had it in 2006 when WCE won, Judd would have given his RDB medal to Cousins. <_<

Just one of the issues MFC have with merchandising!

And you string wins together by........?????

What would it be for? We already have the Norm Smith medal for the BOG in a GF.

Its a good effort considering all three sides you mention have played finals for the past two years and are creating expectations that they will be challenging the Cats and the Hawks this year. I knew the North membership figures last year were swelled by a one off can rattle that could not be perpetuated

This is an issue between the MCC and the AFL (on behalf of a number of clubs). Its important that two of the major financial backers of MFC can work this out sensibly. Hopefully for the good future of the AFL.

Big deal. So what? I dont know why you want you to back up an original puerile post of yours. Dont knock yourself out in the process.

Correct. Its important to at least create a link and connection with these supporters than have none at all. I doubt it. Given its a perennial problem, they would not have budgeted too much from such merchandising last year. Its a hit but not a significant one compared to some of the bigger ticket issues.

With Our Kimmy coming back to join Our Jelena, Channel 7 commentators will gush that Australian womens tennis is flush with home grown talent!!

I think this has been a longer term issue for MFC.

Give him space HT. He doesn't get out much. Well done on the winners.

Agree. The other point that is relevant in the membership mix is how much marginal benefit is derived by the Club beyond the membership numbers. For example how much does each member spend on merchandising and entertainment while at or connected with the football where all or part of the revenue stream flows to the Club. I suspect that multiplier effect is smaller for MFC than other Clubs.

Agree. Re-read my posts. That is what I have been arguing re the lead time for a ruckman and where the problems first arose that have lead us to where we are now. My initial response was to Hoopla was that drafting/rookieing a ruckman now would not have addressed the problems we have now. He then changed his initial assertion from the now to three years. I have no qualms. Agree its diabolical. But even if we drafted/rookied one more we will still be thin now but potentially better in 3 years time if they work out. You are arguing the situation that is now and apply solutions that flower in 3 years time. Our situation now is a shambles and has been so for 3 years. The solution back then was to bolster ruck stocks. We didn't and we are paying the price Its doubtful that a drafted or rookied ruckman would have addressed that problem. What would you have done in this situation? What were the alternatives? Traded for MacIntosh (NM) and what would you have given?? Pick 1??? Or would you have used pick 1 on Natanui or Vickery?? Unfortunately, Niknat wont be platying for a while. The issue is not numbers of rucks but the quality. Richmond have six on their list. Aside from Simmonds they have a real problem with their ruck quality. Be good if you actually followed the argument. My concern is that he may get limited development time because IMO Meesen is a VFL 2nds quailty ruckman that may compete with the 2nd rookie for game time in his first year. The interest of MFC in blooding the rookie may not be the same as Casey that may prefer to use a fallen "star" like Meesen. Meesen's failure has exacerbated an already pressing problem Clearly

It will depend upon the actual mix of member types against what was budgeted and not just the overall membership numbers.

The concern with McGann is that he "choked" under the pressure and did so across a number of spells. At 37, how long will it take to get over that? Regretfully it was one of the worst bowling performances since Johnny Watkins and Chris Mathews. We dont have the luxury of giving McGann another innings without giving him a five test tour of England! It would be like giving Meesen a 4 year contract! You are right. A good wrist spinner is valuable anywhere. McGann is a looonnnnggg way from that. We dont have a good wrist spinner. But be careful about Warne comparisons, not since Benaud had a leg spinner had an impact in England. Warne was a freak. Unless you can bowl good wrist spin, I think one Monty is enough for either side in this series.

Australia's answer to Ashley Giles.

Good to see bouquets given when things go right at the Club. A memorable pass to Corporate though of Kaspersky. Great stuff.

So is our midfield and we need more of them. The weakness in our rucks is now and and the time for developing a ruckman differs and its not clear that the extra year will help that process significantly when they may be relegated to 2nd ruck in Casey. The failure to date of Meesen has complicated what is already a difficult to solve problem.

Agree. I would be surprised that they would do it as I have seen Jurrah mentioned as a "project" player on and off the field.

Redleg, Doing that deals with 3 to 4 years down the track but with limited development opportunities in the first year. And you deny the possibility to explore an opportunity for a potential midfielder.

I have. My bet is still open for the benefit of the Club. Otherwise you believe what you want to believe Fork.

You were complaining about the state of our rucks now and I agree. But rookieing one 3 to 6 months does not address that issue nor does it create a good development point for the 2nd rookie ruckman. Hopefully Spencer will mature in that time and we will take two others at the end of this season which will provide us with options. Agree. The problem was 3 to 4 years ago in the making. 12 months ago we took Meesen as a speculative trade and Spencer as a speculative rookie. Not all rookies progress like Spencer. MFC have had Van Schaik who was tall and nothing else. We had another rookie ruckman who just got cut last year. If all rucks are fit then the 2nd rookie wont get a look in at Casey 1sts. We needed to see what Meesen can deliver us this year. Unfortunately we have got him for 3 years. He has not made any headway thus far. To be fair most 18yo rookie ruckman can barely distinguish their left and right foot. Lets not over play their capabilities early on. IMO I think Spencer is being pushed along too quickly. he could be very good for us but he is 19yo and still raw. However, as you have pointed out, he is already equal to /better than some of the options in front of us. We have started last year to address this problem. I would suggest that depending on relative form, fitness and opportunities that Jamar may be in his last year and that they will consider paying Meesen out at season's end and focussing on getting a ruckman later in the draft and/or another rookie.

Given Katich and Clarke have injury concerns then it is plausible that Hauritz may get an Ashes berth. Its not a great scenario unless the planets (and the umpires) line up and he gets stacks of wickets.

Jamar still is not good enough and his absence does not make him any better. We are crying out for a competent competitive ruckman. I am hoping Spencer develops into that. How will taking another young, raw and inexperienced player correct the problems we have right now? Thats not the argument that is being given. The problem with our rucks was when we did not take another ruckman (draft, trade or rookie) three or four years ago. The current administration has sought to address this last year by rookieing Spencer and recruiting Meesen for a 3rd round pick. Meesen will be gone at year end(paid out) and we will rookie/draft a ruckman than. White was finished as a ruckman and Holland played KPF or KPB and was not used last year so he was not a ruckman. Again, what good would rookieing another 18-19 beanpole do to fix our current problems? If all our ruckman are fit the rookie would struggle for game time at Casey 2nds. Richmond have Simmonds (Good), Pattison (Ordinary), Graham (Awful), Vickery (talent but raw), Putt (very raw with uncertain future). Unless there are injuries then they have either have alot of useless goal posts in order to elevate Browne. Their position only makes us look better. We have Meesen. They have Pattison, Graham and Putt in that basket. Richmond are pressing for the finals in Wallet's last year of his contracr. They have Simmonds. If he goes down injured then they have nothing. Its a case of desperation that they are doing what they are doing because Simmonds aside their rucks are worse than ours. And there actions does not address the current problem because ruckman take a long lead time to be established in AFL Dont hold your breath!