deanox

I like this post a lot because it shows that the dumped 4 players who weren't paying AFL for 3 blokes who should play 15-20 games, and one who could play a few. In that way we have added depth, because we have an extra 4 mids to choose from because last year, with those 4 on the list, we were effectively 4 mids short. Our depth is now done of the mids that played in 2013 Add pick 9 and Riley and we have 6 potential players as depth (ie outside our best 22 that we may actually select).

This is fantastic discussion. Congrats guys. Genuine debate and discussion in good spirits! Can I throw a spanner in the works with the stats? You can't measure some thing, and some of them are the things I don't think Jamar does well. Shepparding and bullocking and blocking at stoppages is important; Sandilands is the master of this. Jamar sort of taps then stands there.

I expect Jones to be there too but more because he will be there to lead by example. Now that he seems to have had a leadership epiphany (I.e. suddenly realised he try to improve others as well) I hope that Roos and co can help yeah him to lead and develop those skills. He may never be a comfortable public face of leadership, but if he can learn how to use his great onfield example in a way that encourages and improves others, he could become a very strong leader for the club. In many ways a humble reluctant leader will make a better than someone who has decided/told that they should/must lead even though they don't have the skills.

Find me another player on our list who has history of leadership in different environments like Jack Grimes has: He has repeatedly proven himself a man of outstanding leadership qualities. Jones, on the other hand, only realised at the start of this season that he needed to encourage others and help them improve. Further, I am not sure what you mean by "stood up on the park". As far as I can tell you are trying to pick the "best performed MFC player" not a captain. I'd argue that if anyone at the MFC was ever going to fly the flag for a team mate it would be Grimes, Dawes or Clark before Jones, who had a tenancy to walk away and let others sort it out. Jones displays prowess at the game of football but until this season had rarely shown any leadership on the field.

It's an interesting angle that the reason the much maligned (on here, and by me included) 'donuts'Jamar could actually look average because he doesn't have the midfield to work with. Not an idea I've seen brought up on here before. I think it is partly right; some great midfielders around him will improve his value as a tap ruck. What it won't improve are his efforts around the ground or his handballs to stationary players because he was scared to kick it. The reason I like Gawn is because I think he is the most complete player of the three ruck options, however I admit he is the last developed, particularly when it comes to centre Square rucking. He chases and tackles, he presents, he looks dangerous drifting forward, and his attack on the ball a a second or third effort at stoppages is great. Jamar rucks well and that's it; even at his AA best that's all he did (in only 6 of his 13 seasons has he averaged more than 7 disposals per game, and over 10 in only 3 seasons). Spencer rucks Ok, is Ok around the ground and second efforts but doesn't rest forward and isn't particular strong in making contests. If Gawn can get fit over preseason and continue development he will easily be the best of the three given his potential attributes and his age.

I don't mind judging him against his promise. He looked the goods in Juniors, he started well and we looked like having a 200 game player bit he stalled for various reasons. He had been unfairly maligned though, there is a reason why he got to that many games. RE Tappy I can't remember a good game either. A few good bumps, yes. Pretty sure I've seen some long kicks in highlights. But that's it. Potential might be there but we haven't seen it at AFL level. Apart from the fact that he is big and Morton was skinny, Tappy hasn't shown half as much as Morton had at the same stage in their careers.

Short memory apparently. http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pc-west-coast-eagles--cale-morton 76 games, career average 19 disposals. 2009: 21 games, average 22.6 disposals, not a bad second year is it? In fact he played 50 games in his 1st 3 years and averaged 18.3, 22.6 and 20.9 disposals in those three seasons. In season 3 he injured his knee on the NAB cup, missed about 10 weeks including the first 8 of the AFL season, struggled to regain form but found some at the end of the season and obviously finished with getting a bit of it. In season 4 (2011) he injured a finger tendon and never regained his form as he was asked to play a more defensive role. 14 games average 16 touches. In season 5 it was clear he and Neeld were not going to work and he was traded. I'm not claiming he was a superstar, but when should we have cut him? After a fantastic second year? After recovering his form following injury and notching up game no. 50 in his 3rd year? Don't compare him to Blease who has 31 career games in 3 seasons at an average of 11.2 disposals (and this season 10 games at 7.5 disposals) or Tapscotts 45 games at 10.5 disposals. I could go on. Stats are similar for Strauss, Jetta and friends. If we had Cake Morton circa his first 2 seasons this year we would have been a better team, and that reflects pretty poorly on the rest of the list. Also Newton played only 28 games and Hughes played 2. Not sure how they could be compared to Morton.

I doubt it comes into it. Public holidays don't mean anything in the world of footy any other time of year, I can't believe they would even notice that one. It is only a public holiday in Melbourne, not Geelong or any other states. It might not even be one in Casey, we could just train them there!

BH getting a couple of pass mark midfielders is all we need IF we can get the group paying with confidence, self belief and intent. This is Roos' biggest challenge. If we get smashed out of the blocks before we gel as a unit and we don't get that confidence together we could struggle all year. A strong shoeing in the first few rounds (regardless of wins, but a couple would do wonders!) could set us up for a good year and develop a belief that may enable us to halt an opposition run-on or fight back the week after the inevitable smashing. I hear lots of supporters saying "they believe it when they see it" about improvement under Roos, and/or with new players but I bet the odds 40 players on the list thinking/feeling exactly the same thing, even if they are hopeful that something will improve.

Surprised they didn't do an open session on cup day, bit of kick to kick in Melbourne gear in front of a crowd who have the day off already. Good PR and also good way to get the members involved early.

Interestingly while agreed we have a good and potentially better than average back line, I would argue that we have a great defensive back line but an average attacking back line. We don't have creative and decisive players setting up attacks as part of the rebound from D50. Is this the fault of the players in the D50, or is it the result of our very average midfield not running to position to provide those attacking options? It will be interesting to see if adding some quality to the midfield improves the perceived decision making skills of Grimes, Dunn, McDonald and Frawley on the way out.

I thought it was $5,100 pet day that you fail to comply. Cumulative. ?

At some point ASADA will release the final report. They will interview Dank or we will hear about then trying to. After we will know. Until then we have no idea. Neither does AD.

Yep always enjoyed watching him, absolute workhorse. Underrated because he isn't flashy. And he is exactly what we need! Of only he was 3 years younger, but I'll take a couple of years from cross as a mentor to our young mids and as a stop gap to help us be competitive.

Ok I may have been a bit harsh on NDS and maybe he was pushed by the saints bit while cross was clearly pushed the scenario looked like NDS chose to go. I agree North will be more successful than the saints and will likely play more finals in the short term but my point was more that sylvia has had no success and is trying to find some while NDS has had a good share of success but instead of giving back to his club is now chasing more minor (finals not flags) success; even if not chasing money. I don't believe north are a genuine top 4 side but then I may be wrong. If NDS had any interest in staying he certainly didn't really show it assist from ofh gosh it was a hard decision", which is expected in our media trained world. On a different not I think it was disgraceful that the AS FL let them void a contract to allow st Kilda to get FA compo. In return for letting North get him for nothing, North accepted pick 77 for Delany instead of demanding full value. As far as I'm concerned that is draft tampering. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the AFL allowed it so that they can show how compo is flawed and subsequently scrap it.

Cross' situation is completely different to Dal Santo and I think sylvia is different again. I have no problems with Cross paying on elsewhere. He moved to another club because he was delisted as opportunities were limited. His club had other played on the list that had either gone past him or were about to. He has moved to s club where he can help mentor the next generation. Sylvia left for opportunity. To this year's runners up. How many finals had he played in at the MFC? He gets his first chance at real success. Dal Santo left to chase money. He played in grand finals at the saints. He is moving to North, a club who might make finals but aren't real challengers, instead of trying to stay and mentor and develop his clubs next generation.

I think anyone suggesting that Jack Grimes' appointment as captain was undeserved (ie that it was influenced by anything other than his leadership abilities) hasn't really been paying attention. Juniors: -Captain of Vic Metro under 16s -Captain of Vic Metro under 18s -Captain of Northern Knights in the TAC Cup -Won the "Ben Mitchell Medal for his leadership and role-model potential" while at the AFL/AIS academy Under Bailey: -He was elected to the leadership group in 2011 age only 3 years on the list and 26 games. -He won the 2011 Club leadership award despite playing only 6 games for the season. Under Neeld: -He was made captain in 2012 after the players and coaches rated his leadership qualities -He won the 2012 Club leadership award Grimes was not made captain for political or marketing gimmick; he had repeatedly proven himself a man of outstanding leadership qualities as shown above. Regarding the appointment of Trengove as Co-captain, I thought that at the time that was "insurance" in case Grimes couldn't get on the park so we'd still have a captain on field. It may have been engineered by Neeld. We'll never know. But if you think he wasn't deserving, you'd have to believe Neeld lied to the media, us supporters and to the players: The selection process has been well documented elsewhere, but given Grimes' clear and demonstrated leadership skills and ability, if Trengove was truly on par with or close to Grimes in this, then he too must have sound leadership ability. I'm not sure that anyone has ever really talked about Jones or Garland as leaders until the second half of this year apart from fans on forums. Jones was added to the leadership group in 2011, his 6th season on the list. Garland stepped up in 2012. To his credit, Garland has really stepped up to win the club leadership award this year. I think both are growing as leaders and may be ready to take a more senior role in club leadership in the future. But I don't think that either should have been, or were ready to be captain, in the past 3 years. Captaincy is about leadership. It's about culture change. It's about not only inspiring but leading and supporting others. On field performance may be one facet of inspiring others, but it certainly isn't the only and it is necessarily the best. edit: fixed quote and spelling.

I expecting Grimes as captain. others in the leadership group in no particular order will be: Trengove, Jones, Garland, Dawes, Frawley, Viney, Clark and depending how really in the preseason the decision is made, Cross may be in too.

At the time I too thought Schwartz would have been more inspirational as captain, however since then we've all seen why Schwartz was probably not even considered. He isn't that smart and he made terrible life style choices. He could not have been asked to lead others while he couldn't get his own life straight.

you just missed the last one but keep your eye or there is usually one just before the start of the season!

and Morton never regained his pre injury confidence.

Played a season of under 9s outer Western suburbs. Rubbish club apparently, my parents wouldn't let me go back the next season. Moved house shortly after and took up Rugby at an eastern suburbs private school. Tight head prop for about 10 years for school then club, including a few games for the Victoria schoolboys team (which sounds great but it's a bit like getting picked in the AFL schoolboys team for New Zealand's South Island!). Umpired footy on Sunday's for a few years during school days while playing rugby on the Saturdays. (The rules as they are written are very rarely the rules that are played!) Gave it away for a few years after tearing knee cartridge in a freak crowd surfing accident. 2 games for demonland, including 3 goals on debut. Thinking going around next year in a club 18 side somewhere with mates! My Rugby club had a girls side and I'll back up the girls footy stories. Training with/against them was scary! Damn they went hard. My theory is blokes playing footy/Rugby might do it because they also have or because they like footy with mates. Nothing says they need to be committed. The girls who decide to play are the few who are willing to go hard.

I actually disagree. I really don't think anyone could think we paid overs. In many years there is a standout group at the to of the draft. Top 2-4 players, or maybe a top 2 followed by 3-6 players who could go anywhere. In this draft there is a stand out pick 1, then a bunch of players (some rated higher than others but it's a sliding scale, not a clear cut step ahead, and the difference is arguably based on needs and player development level). We swapped pick 2 for a previous top 3 pick and a second bite at the cherry on pick 9. Where would Tyson go off he was to nominate for the ND this year and said "I don't care who takes me?" Pick 2? Pick 5? Pick 10? I would trade picks 2 and 20 for pick 5 and 9. Even for picks 9 and 10 is a good deal given the flat nature of this draft. We just got two top 10 talents for one top 10 pick. The rest is just maneuvering to make the deals a bit more even.

Think of it as pick 2 for Tyson (the 2011 number 3 pick) plus we upgraded pick 20 to pick 9 and pick 72 to pick 58.

I still can't get over this post. It really sums up our last 10 years.