deanox

It has been a tough year for fringe players at the MFC. We have had virtually no injuries, particularly to the midfield group, we've had a couple of kids come on, and we've competed most weeks. Usually the guys on the fringe (ANB, Grimes, Trenners, Newton, BenKen) would all play 8-12 each and we'd be taking about how important it is that we have depth. With our best 6 available almost every week and kids rotating through the last couple of mid spots, these guys just haven't been given the opportunity. Unless we get upgrades, I hope we have some stability. Dumping good depth performing at tier 2 for the equivalent incoming from the opposition won't help us.

It's rough but it comes with the territory of a $60k per year job straight out of high school in an industry where you are the focus (everything is done for you and tailored personally to you: coaching, fitness, personal trainers, massages, specialists looking after you), with a chance for that to jump to $200k plus within a couple of years.

I suspect the crowd will stop obsessing about draft picks once: a) we play some finals so we have other things to get excited about b) we play finals so we don't have a top 10 pick (less exciting than pick 3) c) we have 25+ regular senior players who everyone thinks are better options for round 1 than an untried 17 year old who gets drafted (will be accelerated if the 17 year old is ranked 10-15 rather than 1-7)

I really enjoyed his highlights clip. A couple of things really stood out. His ability and the way he avoided tackles obviously, but also the ways he gathered the ground ball so easily, particularly the way he freed his arms and got handballs out to advantage and the number of overhead marks he took. I'm assuming the potential knock on him is fitness i.e. endurance, and perhaps pace over 2-3 steps. Pretty happy.

That being said i have no knowledge of whether this year's top 10 is stronger or weaker than last year's or next year's. It may be hard to to compare because this year's best 10 players are playing in a weaker competition (i.e. shallower).

We are discussing the quality of the top 10-15 players and which options are available. That is unrelated to discussing the quality of players 30-60+, which is considered to drop off. Thus the draft is "shallow" i.e. not deep.

Shallow means not deep.

I think any second forward needs to be ruck capable. Weideman may be, I don't know, but for that reason I would be trying to fill the spot with a player who is a genuine ruck forward.

An extension until 2019 is enough for me. It ends any short term speculation. If we haven't come good (and by that i mean be regulaly competitive and playing a final or two) by the end of 2017, Goodwin is going to be under serious pressure in 2018. To have Hogan locked in for 2019 will mean over less distraction that year. If we aren't challanging in 2019, Hogan may as well go and so should we. Pumped by this article!

We struggled to bring him into the game. Amazing how this week, when we actually match the opposition through the midfield and with i50's, that we struggle to convert these to shots on goal.

I wonder if these 2 and 3 years deals were significantly front ended? We didn't have anyone to pay the salary cap to, so it is easy to front end the contact, pay the cap, save the cash for bigger fish in future years and it is reasonably cheap to pay players out later if needed.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-05-14/dawes-aims-to-expose-frawley-fitness “He’s [Frawley's] missed about a month of footy, so he’s going to be vulnerable, in terms [of his match fitness],” Dawes said “I imagine he’ll go to Jesse Hogan, [with] him being the No.1 forward, but if he comes to me, that’s certainly what I’ll be trying and do – work him around and try to exploit his lack of match fitness.”

Jackovich kicked 71.57 in 14 games in his first season. He also kicked 50+ in the reserves.

So is he AV or AB?

If he was a reasonable athlete (read good pace) with a big build playing rugby he would probably be playing no. 8. A good prop could potentially transition but a lot of them are just the big blokes.

Disagree. Out isn't just that. Though they are pumped to be together. The relationship Angus has with Roos is a plus. They are happy to be at Melbourne. It isn't Essendon. It isn't st kilda. It may not be getting drafted to Hawthorn BUT it isn't horrible anymore to come to roos and the dees.

"He's gonna kill me!" Fantastic clip. There was something about those two. I've never seen draftees come to Melbourne that just looked like they were going to make it. They oozed confidence together. I hoe we see that on the field. Amazing.

Early nomination for post of the year. Love it.

I had similar thoughts. He definitely isn't Rioli, but he had those evasive attributes. When you watch him play at AFL it makes you wonder why he was taken so late. Surely that evasiveness and quick thinking was evident last year?

Ok I really don't get this. He is a new draftee on an initial two year contract. He has shown a lot of promise over his first pre season and in the first five rings of the season he has looked like he has potential. Why the need to give him a 4 year deal? What benefit is there for Melbourne? Is he threatening to leave? Do other clubs want to take him? I appreciate the show of faith on our behalf but I'm not sure why it is needed.

You are kidding aren't you? He is a beautiful kick and some handpasses yesterday were very smart directly or in front of a running player who didn't have to miss a step. Yes he floundered a couple of times but that isn't his disposal. If there isn't an option, he can't create one: he can't kick to a lead of no one is leading, he can't kick to advantage of we are outnumbered. If he looks up and there is only oposition players forward it makes sense that he will back pedal to retain possession rather than blaze away because that is the type of player he is. If a teammate doesn't shepherd and give him space he will be under pressure. Displaying good disposal is reliant on a bunch of other factors, but that doesn't change the inherent quality of his disposal. When the team plays better footy and gets in better positions and runs harder, you will see what good disposal is.

I was thinking assistant coach

i was quite impressed with mcdonalds bowling actually. i thought he contributed to us getting wickets by keeping the pressure so tight at one end (ie about 25 overs for 30 odd runs). he kept things tight and on the spot, wobbled them around just a little to make him hard to play which built the pressure nicely. i am not saying he will be the first choice for that 4th bowling spot normally, but i imagine that if we had a spinner playing today he would have leaked runs like a sieve (ie kreja or hauritz). maybe mcgain is different, but he seems to be a 'wicket taker' not a tight bowler. thats where warne was different in that he could do both. including the spinner could increase our wicket taking ability, but it could also diminish our ability to tie down the batsmen, releasing some of the pressure on them.

re clarkes fitness, i understand the concern, how krejza was bowling well, and there was probably no need for him to bowl. i am surprised white didnt get another go either, i thought he bowled alright day one, but probably for the same reason clarke didnt. am wondering if clarke in slip could have been as much about getting hayden a rest from concentrating as it was for clarkes injury, but probably not. RE white, i think his selection could well help us win this because we bat down to 8. we really need to score as close to 600 as possible (300-350 today would put us around 500, but i think we want to bat into day 4 if we can and post a lead of about 150-200) so that we can then try and bowl them out without having to worry about needing 3 sessions to make the runs on the last day. we don't want to have to bat a second time, unless we are only chasing 50 or so, and even then we probably dont want to be doing that because time will be an issue.

cric info stats? lol cant believe hayden, what a waste, he was looking good too. i think the fact that he went for so many runs justified him not having a spot up til now. the reason he was successful is because he kept attacking and tossing it up. honestly, i think clark or kattich could have done similar, but they quickly went into trying to contain batsmen when they got hit. what i have found the most interesting through this series is the way that india have batted. they have lost wickets through arrogant and lazy shots when they looked like being on top, but the most interesting thing has been the old 'where theres one, theres two'. india have dominated for large periods of time and it is as if everyone but the two batting have switched right off, causing a couple of wickets to fall at a time. contrast that with australias innings in the 3rd test, where everyone made a few runs and contributed...india have often had lots of contributors, but have sometimes even lost the two set batsmen at the same time. very odd...