deanox

Snozberry flavour?

Perhaps it is a case of the players in the VFL not getting direct one on one review with Roos or the senior coaches? I can't imagine for a minute that some of the development coaches aren't speaking with those players to discuss their game, but it might not be Roos or Stone.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-07-08/draft-age-to-stay-at-18 The interest in lifting the draft age seems to be about better preparing players for life after AFL, which is admirable and paramount given that most draftees do not make it. What about going the other way and lowering the draft age to 17 with the following provisions: - Create a new national Under 20's competition which all drafted 17 year olds play in, the teams will be made up of both AFL listed drafted players and "top up" players, basically a combination of the under 18's competition with additional players. - The draft contract is lifted to 4 years for all 17 years, 3 years for all 18 years - The AFL runs a structured 3-year program for all 17 and 18 year old draftees which involves them completing VCE equivalent studies over the course of 2 years, followed by the start of an apprenticeship r higher education during the third year. This would give clubs the opportunity to develop the best kids against the best kids, yet still put them into the AFL when ready. Kid's who aren't ready at age 18 will get a couple of years in the elite systems to develop. And the structured program will ensure that all kids involved are ready to move on in life if they don't make it to the AFL. More kids will get professional development in the system.

I don't mind hearing "his attacking and ball use has been great but he needs to work on defensive transition" or "needs to improve his. .." but I object to "2 fumbles and 2 missed tackles" "he's making no real signs of improvement". I was actually uncomfortable this week for the first time. Normally they read like a summary of some of the things the coaches and played work on bit I thought this week was very harsh. I am very surprised that apparently the coaches don't show these to the players first and discuss in detail during a review. It makes me think we have already marked the cards of these players as not good enough. But if so that really seems to go against Roos' style of player empowerment and leadership.

I'm off the opinion that the MRP sanctioned Petrie as a way to compel him to give evidence. He had already backed away from his initial comments "he almost put me to sleep". If his trial is heard before Lake, he will need to explain why he eye gouged of he wants to get off. Lake, in my opinion should get at least a month. It was an ugly assault that had no place on the football field and to me was 100% worse than any of the bumps we've seen suspended this year.

That I could never understand.

While there have been numerous discussions about the worth and quality of the allignment recently, in light of the above couple of posts, I think there are other ways the "reserves" could be improved, not only through how Melbourne competes. I understand the VFL is a competition in it's own right, but now it is practically acting as a reserves competition. Given that the AFL fixture is released very early (late October), surely the VFL fixture could be organised so that the majority of teams/matches don't clash. For example, if the VFL alligned teams played on the same day, or the day after their AFL teams, it would mean players don'thave to sit games out as an emergency. Surely that would improve the VFL by having 10 of its best players playing every week, instead of sitting out just in case.

Jaded, I don't expect one, but if the requirement now is that we 'apply' for one, rather than get given one, I'd be dissapointed if we didn't apply. Wewill finish the year between 4 and 6 wins, depending on the outcomes of our games against Brisbane and GWS. It is unlikely we'll win more than that. That means we will have on 38-40 matches in 8 years, less than 5 matches per year. Apparently the new formula is based on: premiership points that a club has received over a period of years (with greater weight to recent seasons), a club's percentage (points for/points against x 100) over a period of years (another indication of on-field competitiveness, with greater weight to recent seasons), any finals appearances that a club has made in recent seasons, any premierships that a club has won in recent seasons, and a club's injury rates in each relevant season. To me, we clearly qualify in all of those criteria over the past 8 seasons. Average of 19-20 premiership points per season over 8 years, and average of 13-16 in the past 3 years (recent results). Our percentages in those 8 seasons have been (rounded) 75%, 54%, 67%, 85%, 95%, 75%, 63% and 78%. 5 of 8 were below 75.0% over eight years,while the most recent three are quite poor, particularly the 54% No finals since 2006 (8 years, or a whole football generation). No premierships in recent seasons. No particular injury rates that have caused us to have a bad year (the West Coast rule). To put into context how bad we are: In their last 5 seasons, Fitzroy won 27 games at an average of 5.4 per season, better than our last five seasons. In Fitzroy's last 8 seasons they won 50 games. 25% more than we have! If we don't qualify, no one ever should. I would argue that we have done the right things of field, put a good team into place in the admin side of the club, and that we have put together a fantastic football operations department including coaches but that we only have a limited window to get it right. If we aren't seeing results in another 12-24 months with the current coaches, and within the current period of club stability, then it will be all for nothing. Also, while we have improved on field, we have recruited players like Cross and Vince who have only a limited window, thus the normally slow rebuilding process will not be fast enough to see significant improvement, let alone maintain the status quo, as we need not only turn over the players who aren't up to it, but find/develop replacements for those older guys who are clearly in our top 10. We need to turn over 50% of our list, but you can only realistically improve 10-15% of your list each year, the other 10-15% of changes are either effectively swapping like for like or are drafting for development; it may improve your list but not for 2-3 years. A priority pick now, that we can trade, will give us the opportunity to improve our list by 20% this season and allow us to be competitive immediately. That's how I'd be framing it.

Free kick for a good tackle? The game is dead.

"The club believes the AFL did not think through how much the penalties would have a multiplying effect on the Bombers list management strategies." Seriously? As of the AFL hasn't seen the magnitude of the effect of draft penalties to Melbourne and Carlton over the past 15 years? This was the best part of the penalties handed down. It closed their window immediately and almost guaranteed it would remain closed for a decade.

Did we have a light training run around 730pm this evening, just a kick to kick and a jog, get used to the ground and weather conditions that are expected? Or did we do our sessions during the day?

PJ I think you need to let this one go. It was clear to everyone that this was not a homophobic slur in any way. In addition it is clear that bum and bummer have many other meanings other than the one you thought of. I thought, if anything, it was just a childish pay on the word bum. Or perhaps a reference to homeless people. It is no different to other demonlanders call West Coast "wet toast", the cats the "pussys" (does anyone get angry about that being sexist?) or Calton "Carltank". I understand you took offence, and maybe a appropriate response was "sorry I didn't mean to offend you" BUT at the end of the day it was not intended as offensive, it was hardly even "accidentally" offensive and surely is something that could be let go pretty easily.

It was a good typo so I'll leave it there! Maybe he will go Ok on Demon master chef next season, who knows. GRRM I appreciate your comment. Not all players need to bulk up but they need to be strong enough to play. Hopefully his frame is suitable, I don't know enough about that sort of thing to pass judgement.

We are screaming for an outside player with food finishing skills who runs both ways. Sounds like stretch could be that player.

I think early in the season there was a big focus on defensive work for Jimmy. Now there seems to be a bigger focus on taking it back to basics. If I'm correct it seems they have tried to improve the defensive side of his game but are now trying to get him back to playing natural footy while doing the defensive things automatically instead of focusing solely on them. Note he played half back and there wasn't a knock on his defence like the was for other players. There is a spot on the half back line for him if this can click. I hope he takes his chance.

I don't disagree with that. I did state that his outputs were marginally better than career averages even with worse delivery. My argument was that we were getting similar, or better, output from him than expected.

Jaded while I agree with you somewhat, I think he had been playing his role "ok" without dominating. From 10 games this year he is averaging 12 disposals, 4 marks and 1.5 goals. Which is similar to his career averages of 12 disposals 4.9 marks and 1.2 goals. So really we are getting good output considering our midfield and therefore his delivery is significantly worse than the Collingwood premiership midfield he previously played with. Out of interest at 3.6 tackles he is tackling better than ever in his career. If you take out the 11 goals Riewoldt kicked against GWS, Dawes' stats are pretty similar to Jack Riewoldt season to date. I'd love him to take more marks too. I hope they are working on his hands out in front because he gets to a lot of contests and could be a gun. But he is a servicable CHF/FF in a poor team. Hopefully he can hold his current form when Hogan comes in.

Perfect example was Matt Thompson on the AFL.com MRP video describe the Beams incident as "we can't have people missing the brownlow for that can we?" The suggest was anyone else would have got weeks but nota big name player in the running for the Brownlow. Now I always thought the Brownlow was for best and fairest. If at some point during the season you punch someone in the guts on purpose you aren't worthy of a Brownlow.

Yeah both of Morris' were "negligent" but Jettas was "reckless" can someone else explain why?

Would love to combine pedos hands with the rest of Dawes.

Out of interest don't the VFL clubs have a salary cap? That means, outside of the MFC listed players, Casey can technically pay $ x on their other players and all clubs are in the same situation. If the poor quality Casey list was because Casey is struggling financially, AND the MFC thought that an improved VFL list would be of strong benefit to our AFL players playing with Casey, it would only cost the MFC a small amount (<$150,000) to top up the Casey player payments to the salary cap. IF it was a big deal, it is a relatively cheap fix. Especially given or development coaches already have some influence and the coach is at least MFC approved. Unless, of course, there is strong resistance from Casey internally off field preventing the MFC getting involved in that way.

Could go anywhere

Should have rushed it over but we're to scared after earlier.

What was the 50 for?

Terrible from Garland.