Axis of Bob

I was looking at STAR key forwards, not simply long term key forwards. Cloke is no star (and was F/S), Thompson is no star, Bradshaw was drafted a looooong time ago (1995) and I don't think is a star (but is probably closest of your list) and Burton is a small forward, not a key forward. If you want to stretch the boundaries you could claim Brad Miller who was picked at 55. I'm talking about star key forwards that you can build your side around. You can't build a side around any of the players you mentioned. However you could build a side around the players I mentioned. My list is supposed to be exclusive, because there are not many around. But let's add your players to the list (well, not Burton as he isn't a key forward, and assuming Cloke would have been drafted after pick 12, and assuming that they are star key forwards). That means that only 5 out of the 12 star key forwards were drafted outside the top 5. Still incredible. I don't think everything can be explained by stats, but that many star key forwards drafted inside the first 5 would be a pretty freakish coincidence.

Good point. OK well let's say that, in a draft like we have these days, Fevola was ranked at 12 like Hall then we could say that all star forwards in the AFL in 2008 have been rated in the top dozen players of their draft year. Hmmmmm............

Newton did play in the ressies, along with Petterd, Weetra and Zomer. The conditions were very difficult for a key forward, although I didn't think he was too bad. Competed hard for the ball despite the slippery condtions and rather lacklustre delivery. I though Weetra was very good and Ricky was just cruising around, albeit in a different class to the rest.

You don't need to use a top 2 pick to get a clearance winner. But try picking up a star key forward outside the top 10. I don't think you'll find many. Star key forwards- Brown - Father son Riewoldt - 1 Pavlich - 3 Franklin - 5 Hall - 12 Fevola - 30s Richardson - Father son Lloyd - Compensation Lucas - 5 Given this, only Fevola was outside the top 12 in the draft. And only 2 out of 9 were outside the top 5!! It just shows that if you want a star key forward then you have to pony up early when you have the chance.

The biggest question is - What do we need from a ruckman? Everybody raves about Dean Cox. Why? Because he is very good around the ground in a way that you don't see very often. He is rare in this ability. But how important are those possessions around the ground? I don't think that they are especially important because he is simply getting possessions that a midfielder would normally get, ie the cheap kick coming out of defence, the wide handball etc. No matter how good Cox is at this, 'for a ruckman', the fact is that you would still prefer to have the ball in the hands of a midfielder that can break the lines and be damaging with the ball. I think Cox's influence is overstated due to the novelty of having a high possession ruckman. Hawthorn is excellent at clearances, but Taylor and Campbell are just honest toilers. But they are honest toilers who clear space for midfielders and work really hard to use their respective bodies. These ruckmen don't need to be talented to get the job done. The ruckmen that have thrived in finals footy are the big, strong, aggressive ruckmen who clear a path for their midfielders. It's the reason why Mark Blake was dropped for the Grand Final for Steven King. The intensity of finals footy is higher, so the value of a ruckman getting the footy is much lower. The ruckman only slows the ball movement down. The value of a ruckman is in the body work to create the time for smaller players who have the speed to capitalise on it. Jamar isn't particularly talented and doesn't get near the ball around the ground, but I think he could possibly be our most effective ruckman. He offers something on our list that few others can, competitiveness in the stoppages. That's what wins finals footy and he is our only player (other than perhaps Spencer) that thrives on the competition of a stoppage. I don't think that there is any value in trading White. We won't get anything of value for him and it will only serve to alienate parts of the playing group. I would be happy to pick up Warnock, but I actually don't feel that a ruckman is the most pressing of our needs at the moment.

When you have younger kids then you have an inconsistency in your play between games and within games. The older players have experience and with that experience generally comes greater consistency. A big call from Bailey all year has been maintaining the competitiveness for longer periods of the game. Yesterday we were competitive for 3 quarters, but completely uncompetitive for a quarter which cost us.

So our midfield is desperate for pace - I thought that being quick of mind was more important! (Joke Jack) I think that midfielders that use the ball well are far more important than ones with a lot of pace. If Nathan Jones had elite skills then he'd be first tagged each week. Geelong's midfield is not fast, but they are so clean with their skills that they transfer the ball easily. And they are quick enough to do their defensive work. So, in short, no it doesn't affect it.

Like Trent Cotchin? Like Ryan Griffin? Daniel Wells? Most of these top junior players have not been heavily tagged before. Suddenly they get a heavy tag from good players and take some time to adjust to it. Look at Nathan Jones. The juniors don't get the help from team mates that AFL players get. Rich has been playing WAFL seniors so has not been getting tagged at all, so this is new for him. Rich apparently still had 18 touches against SA, so he was hardly disgraced. I want Rich because he's exactly what you can't get at pick 70 - quality, skillful genuine midfielder. Ruckmen can be picked up anywhere, and Naitanui is also a risk. Plus I believe that star midfielders are infinitely more important than star ruckmen, as shown by past premiership teams.

Why would you tag Baker? I'd love it if he was the one who was getting the ball.

Hurley didn't impress me like I was expecting to be impressed. He played on resting ruckmen up forward so he didn't have much to beat. His kicking skills are very good and he appears composed, but what role would he play at AFL level? I would want him to play on running forwards (ie, talls that lead) before making any call on him because I'm not sure how good his athleticism is. As a strong body I would have liked him to play on the more mobile Rockliff rather that playing on chumps. On the other hand, Watts was very impressive. Really lead well at the ball, seemed to have good speed and very good hands. More of an AFL style of player. Was very impressed with his kicking too. Also impressive, to me, was Sidebottom. I thought his class, hands and decision making were excellent. It's my first time seeing a lot of these players, though.

I think that it's simply exploiting the fundamental weakness of Hawthorn - they lack a gorilla defender, and bringing in Holland forces Croad to him or else a total mismatch. I don't have any problem bringing in older players for specific roles, but preference should be given to the kids. We don't have a young gorilla to expose Hawthorn. I'd very surprised if Holland was selected to play in defence

Yes, but players don't hear what a couple of mates say to each other in the pub. Hence why a lot of clubs stop players going onto these websites. At least most players would have the good sense to know that most people on these sites don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I care to stop the inanity on an otherwise interesting thread, since Nasher has already cleaned up the thread of this crap once already. Take a hint!! :angry:

Seriously, who cares?

A team of slow players can move the ball quickly if they have quality skills. But a team of slow players cannot defend. That is where the biggest issue with leg speed is.

I think that Valenti was rookied because there was a) nothing of any real note available at that stage and, B) a possibility that an AFL preseason could give him the opportunity to be an exceptional player of his type that could force his way onto the list. Unfortunately he is not exceptional, he is just very good. My personal thoughts are that he was a waste of a pick, which are the same thoughts that I had at the time.

Wheatley suits the way we are now playing very well. He has the things that we are looking for in players: running ability, skills, poise.

It's exactly the same game plan, we simply did it better. What we did in the second half is move the ball faster. It wasn't that we tried to move it in a different way, we simply did it faster. When we stopped with the ball we'd turn it over because the opposition had time to move their numbers back, which resulted in a turnover due to their pressure of numbers. We simply ran, and ran and ran. The ball never stopped moving. That's what we've been trying to do. In the first half we still kicked long into the forward line. The difference was that we moved the ball so quickly from defence that the final kick was to a one on one, or two on two, rather than giving Freo time to get numbers back. A prime example was when White took a mark on the boundary in front of the Southern stand. Normally he would have gone back and then kicked (either short inside or long to the square). Instead he immediately played on and hit the hot spot where we marked. The difference between the first half and the second half was 15 seconds. But 15 seconds all over the ground.

I was surprised when Crowley went to Jones. Very surprised. Jones doesn't hurt enough with the ball to warrant being tagged yet and the number 1 tag, IMO, should always go to Brock. I don't think that the coaching staff were enormously distressed that Jones wasn't getting much of it, since that meant that our more damaging midfielders were being allowed to run free.

I think it's a great idea. It encourages us to buy the 150 year guernsey, it also gives something to charity, plus it gets all of those old Melbourne jumpers onto people around the city. Supporters win = cheaper 150 guernsey Charity wins = more clothes to keep people warm MFC wins = sell more 150 guernsies + have more exposure/supporters with kids wearing Melbourne jumpers around the place. I really like the idea and will probably be bringing down all the jumpers that don't have any personal value.

Errrr............. maybe a bit of creative license. Naitanui had 27 hitouts (out of 39) and 10 touches, while Warnock had 25 hitouts (out of 48) and 8 touches. Given that Guy Richards (Swan Districts' other ruckman) was out of the team and the second highest hitout count was 6 (by Tony Notte, a rake thin 192cm key forward), I would assume that Naitanui rucked pretty much all day. Keunen for West Perth had 13 hitouts (which is standard for him) so I assume that Warnock shared the ruck duties.

We picked up Jolly and Simmonds in the rookie and preseason draft respectively. If White wasn't there then one of those two (the less talented one is a premiership ruckman) would have stepped up to be our number 1 ruckman. White was better than them, which is why we kept him. But he is not a premiership ruckman and his style has not been influential in finals. In fact his best final was against St Kilda's non-existant rucks in our 2006 final win. His talent did not shine out in finals because the pressure in finals requires the bullocking work which can be done by less talented ruckmen. The reason Collingwood and St Kilda struggled so much in the ruck is because they failed to understand what role a ruckman needed to perform. They both had 'around the ground' ruckmen who would pick up possessions, but were uncompetitive in the clearances. McKee/Fraser were runners not bullockers, while Blake/Rix are useless inside packs due to their lack of size/muscle. Losing the ruck is fine as long as you are competitive and can throw your body around the contest. The extra aspects of the ruckmen are not as relevant under finals pressure, hence their role can be filled by less talented ruckmen. However finals can not be won without class midfielders. Look at Brisbane, with their lion hearted ruckmen (I'll also add Beau McDonald to the list with Keating and Charman), but their superstar midfield of Voss, Black, Akermanis, Lappin, Power etc. Look at Port with the hard working Lade and Brogan, with a midfield of Francou, Cornes, Cornes, Burgoyne, Burgoyne, Carr etc. Look at Sydney with the bullocking Jolly and Ball, with a midfield of Bolton, Goodes, Kirk, Williams, Kennelly etc. (arguably the least talented of the premiership midfields). The West Coast flag was on of the few to have the combination of talented ruckman and exceptional midfield. But even Cox can't win them games without Judd and cousins this year! Rucks are important, but their role is to provide support for their star midfield. You don't need to sacrifice an A grade midfielder for a player that will simply provide finals support for the remaining B grade midfielders. You are arguing whether or not he's a good player. I'm not arguing that he's a bad player, because he clearly isn't. I am arguing that his relative importance in a premiership winning side is less than a midfielder like Rich. I think our premiership chances in the future will be better enhanced by picking Rich than Naitanui. I'm afraid that people are looking at his 'uniqueness' rather than looking at what is needed in a side that will win a premiership. I'd be afraid that the benefit we get from Naitanui would be well exceeded by the opportunity cost of missing Daniel Rich.

A) Johnstone is one of the most talented players I have seen. He is a dead set freak. He was drafted at number one because he was the most talented and should be the best player in his draft. But he's a head case, and that's what has kept him back. There are headcases who are tall and small, so that doesn't really come into the argument. It's like using Angwin as an example of why you shouldn't draft 197 cm key forwards who run like the wind. He's a head case, so you can't tell. B) You do need a ruckman. But what do you need from a ruckman? Look at the past and you will see that they need to be strong, honest and lion hearted, but don't necessarily need to be superstars. Collingwood's ruckman was Josh Fraser. A "once in a generation player" as he was touted. A ruckman who could play like a midfielder. In a Grand Final he was found out because his talent was less important in the role he played, but instead it was all about being strong and honest. C) Paul Johnson is strong and honest. If Jamar plays the way he did yesterday then he is the same. I'm not saying that our ruck stocks (aside from Johnson) don't need improvement, but we can get those players in other areas rather than pick 1 of the National Draft. Maybe Warnock in the PSD. Maybe from a rookie list or a late selection. It depends who's out there. The type of player you need for the ruck can be found in strange places!

Yes, I have seen play but only last year. Have you seen him play? I don't doubt that Naitanui can do the bullocking work needed. Afterall, he's a good player. A very good player. But is that something that can't be done by someone else? Look at all those ruckmen I listed, and only one of them was a top 20 pick in the last 15 years (Ottens at 2, although King was a compensation 16 year old). My point is that you don't need to use a number 1 pick to get a premiership ruckman. However nearly all the top midfielders are top 10 picks, as it's far easier to see which ones are good and which ones are duds. All Australian team midfielders last year: Ablett (father-son), Bartel (8), Corey (8), C Cornes (9), K Cornes(20), Kirk(rookie), Hodge(1), Dal Santo (13), Foley(rookie), Kerr (18), Lappin (2), Ling (38), Mitchell(36). So, overall: 1 to 10 = 5 (of 13), 10 to 20 = 3 (of 13), > 20 = 4 (of 13). Plus Ablett, who would have been in the (conservatively) 10-20 range. So the good midfielders (70% of last years AA team) are in the top 20, while only 2 of the last 12 premiership ruckmen were (17%). So do we need to risk a number 1 pick at a type of player whose role could feasibly be played by a less expensive alternative? Especially when history has told us that if we want a gun midfielder then we will probably have to use a top pick to get him. That's the point I'm getting at. Naitanui will be fun to watch, but is spend pick 1 to get a ruckman really a wise way to get us to a premiership? IMO, there are better ways to do it.

Bailey has continually said that he we lack skill as a team, which is needed to play the type of football we are trying to play. So I would think that we will go for the number 1 pick with elite skills, rather than the athlete with suspect skills. Looking at all the players we drafted last year, they all have very good skills. We need good skills under pressure to play the football we are trying to play, so my money is on Rich. If ND was still coach then maybe it would be different. But there is still a lot of time left until draft day.