Axis of Bob

If the two goals Butcher kicked in the first were 'lazy' then I'd hate to see how he would have kicked them if he was trying! One of these was a ripper, where he pushed hard up to the wing to mark on the lead, then played on and kicked the ball 40 metres to a team mate and then pushed past that contest to receive the ball and kicked a goal running through the 50m arc. The other came from a strong mark, with the 'fluke' being a left foot finish receiving a handball from a contest about 40 metres from goal. He played at CHF and contested the ball very well, often having to deal with Metro dropping extra players back into his space. And, BTW, Scully is very handy.

It's not about being shifted, it's about looking at the current AFL problem and finding a way that the MFC can use that problem to its benefit. In this case, we could offer the MCG to them for a large sum of cash.

I think it's a good idea to make some money for a game we will probably lose money on. If the AFL guarantees us to make $100k rather than lose $100k, then I don't see what the issue is. It seems like the benefits of the interstate home game without the problem of having to move it interstate. The only benefits I can see are in the fields of chest beating and cliches. God knows we need more of that.

Newton has problems that are currently stopping him playing AFL footy, but this season his defensive pressure is definitely not one of those problems. He's been very good with that this year even at AFL level. He does need to work on his conversion because it has hurt his chances at playing more AFL footy this year.

Ha ha ha! Flawed kicking action ....... like Gary Ablett Jnr. How is Jason Akermanis' kicking action? Flawed like Ablett's? He also keeps his head over the ball in a crouched fashion. Please tell me his action is flawed. Calling people 10 year olds does nothing to cover over your highlights tape assessments. Psuedo intellectual.

I find that Rioli's current output has been over rated. He is a young kid who does some very good things within games, but has yet to actually start putting together a full game. His output is just OK, probably due to his poor endurance. Morton is actually able to put performances onto the park which is remarkable at his age. Freak, don't focus entirely on highlights tapes. It shows your arguments to be very shallow.

Mitch Morton is a known problem. Worsfold wouldn't play him because it was poisonous to the team. It's not Wallace's fault that Morton is a [censored], but it is his fault for bringing Morton to his club. We're developing a young team and Bailey is is developing a strong culture of competitive team oriented football. IMO, we wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole.

He was worn very close by Schoemakers who played a totally defensive game tagging Watts. Between them they would have had about 20 touches, maybe 10 each. It was funny watching Schoenmakers continually jump at shadows whenever Watts moved, but Jack just doesn't yet work hard enough to break into space. He's playing very high up the ground and is lost, but also not working hard enough for the footy. He's relying on being clever rather than pushing himself to win the footy. The game was also very tightly contested with no free space around, which doesn't suit the way Jack currently plays.

In the reserves, I personally thought that Healey was really good. He was Casey's best player by the length of the straight (possibly two straights). His work in close was excellent and it was noted by the coach that when he came off the Hawthorn reserves.... errr, Box Hill managed to gain total ascendency around the stoppages despite Spencer's dominance in the ruck contests. He is very clever with his hands and his use by foot was improved this week. Also, Bell was good. His defensive pressure was fantastic and that's the sort of role he should/would be used in at AFL level - a defensive midfielder. He's a strong body and a very, very good tackler and he used both very well yesterday. He also wasn't caught out with the ball at all yesterday and did well giving the ball off to the first option quickly Freak, what was wrong with McKenzie? His work in the clearances was very good, especially given that he was playing a shut down role too. Very good hands in close and was one of our few winning midfielders for the day.

Bell didn't play on Williams. It was Luke Williams.

Saw the ressies and the first half of the seniors. Conditions were horrendous. A bit of rain, but the wind was very powerful. It was impossible to kick the ball any further than 25 metres into the wind, but goals were regularly kicked comfortably from 70 metres with the wind. Zomer's goals were from about 70 out and would have gone through about 3/4 post height. Watts played the first quarter at full forward but didn't really get into it at all. After that he played as a defensive wingman, often setting up behind the ball and on the defensive side of stoppages. Was pretty good there, especially with his use of the ball which was the best in the side alongside Bail. Has very good hands, but didn't go into many marking contests. Only would have played about 75% of the game. The best player on the field was Bail by a country mile.Last game I saw him play he was BOG for the VFL seniors, so he is a cut above this level. So much more classy than any other midfielder on the field and won a stack of it too. Buckley played a half. Wrecker got through a full game and was very solid down back. Healey came into the game more as it went on. He's very clean inside stoppages and is very good and quick by hand. Zomer rucked and really boke the play apart with some big inside runs which broke play up. Showed excellent speed, but needs to use that in a key position to dominate.

Melbourne Squad Backs: J.McDonald, M.Warnock, J.Rivers Half backs: J. Frawley, S. Martin, B.McLean Centreline: J.Bennell, A.Davey, C.Bartram Half forwards: M.Bate, C.Sylvia, C. Morton Forwards: B.Miller, R.Petterd, B.Moloney Followers: P.Johnson, C.Bruce, B.Green I/C From: J.Meesen, K.Cheney, N.Jones, L.Dunn, N.Jetta, J.Spencer, M.Newton

So how many goals would he kick?

I actually quite like the topic as a hypothetical. Yes, it's completely hypothetical, but it makes you use your own imagination and really think about how being in a strong team can influence individual results. Personally I think that Newton, playing as a deep third tall forward, would probably slot a goal or two a game. I'd say that he'd kick about 30, but with their delivery and couple of blow outs through the year 40 odd goals would not be completely out of the question. Even when he plays for Melbourne he still finds a way to kick a goal or so a game, even when he's playing like rubbish (1.5 goals a game last year - extrapolated = 33 goals in a 22 game season). Hell, Matthew Stokes, kicked 38 goals for Geelong last year! They share the goals around a lot. Pringle asked an interesting question and most people haven't answered it. If you don't care about the question, don't respond. But if you don't have an interest in hypotheticals don't tell us the reasons why it won't happen - after all, it's a hypothetical!!!

I haven't had a chance to see the Dees game yet, so I don't know who I'd drop to bring playeers in. However, from what the illuminated scribes with me at Casey were saying, I'd be pretty confident that Maric would come in for probably Jetta. Bail deserves a go based on his game today, especially the way Melbourne have been trying to play the game with hard running a good kicking. In the past I would have been embarrassed to see Meesen at AFL level. But if he does what he did today then I'd be quite comfortable. His follow up work was very good and he linked up well around the ground. Newton was played much higher than he often does, although conditions didn't suit him at all. I was happy with the defensive effort snd, while he's not perfect, I think people will just persecute him because they're too lazy to think of anything different. That's why I wanted to make sure it's written down.

Clint, I disagree with some of your player summaries. Jurrah is still some time away from playing AFL footy, IMO. He is doing a few good things, but is not getting as involved as he needs to. He definitely looks like he needs more fitness, although he does show a lot of promise. He doesn't seem to play like a key forward as such, but more of a very dangerous mid sized forward. Whatever the case, he makes things happen when he gets the ball. Meesen played the best game I've seen him play by a massive difference. He was genuinely good against two ruckmen with AFL experience. He palmed the ball well, was aggressive in the ruck contests and was very good around the ground. Bail was BOG for mine. Would have had the ball about 20 times in the first half and used the ball very well. He played as a defender/midfielder and rran the lines really well, as well as being pooised with the footy. It wouldn't surprise me if he was considered strongly to debut next week. Dunn was good today. Played midfield and used the ball well. Newton's chasing and defensive pressure put Robbo to shame. I didn't think Newton was too bad and feel that his defensive pressure has increased 10 fold since his first year. He was a bit stiff with that 50 metre penalty and the tackle came from a good chase. McKenzie didn't star, but he does some wonderful work with his hands in contests. What may hold him back is his work with his kicking, which is a bit hit and miss. Maric was quiet early but did his best work in the last half, especially the last quarter. Did everything that you expect of Maric, although maybe didn't kick as well as usual. Is able to cut apart teams with his vision, though, as he did today in patches. Has probably done enough to push for selection next week. Zomer was good in defence and actually looks far, far more comfortable there than he ever did up forward. It was an easy day to be a tall forward, given the wind and slippery conditions, but he was still very good.

So Grimes is rubbish because he can't kick, but you rate Petterd highly? Hmmmm.......

I rate Fisher. I think he's a great player and rate him well above Westhoff and Gill. I don't think he's a key forward in the same way that I don't think Ryan O'Keefe is a key forward. If you want me to remove Miller as being AFL standard then it's fine. I don't care who is in or out, as the detail of each specific player is not the focus of the comment. The focus is the rarity of key forwards that make it in the rookie draft. The other point, as we've discussed before, is that simply playing games of AFL football isn't necessarily the best way to judge whether a draft pick has made it or not. I have made no comment about whether or not I thought we should look for a ruckman in the rookie draft. I simply said that drafting a ruckman in the rookie draft as cover against injury and other short term issues is the wrong way to look at it. These issues are separate.

I wasn't addressing the issue with ruckmen. Sibosado is not a ruckman. Ruckmen can come onto the list from anywhere. It's my belief that the more skill a player needs, the less likely you are to find them late in the draft. So ruckmen and full backs are more likely to be successful being picked late in the draft than key forwards etc. Oh, and if you are trying to rookie a ruckman as injury cover then you are barking up the wrong tree. And since you wanted to punt on talls with 'X-factor', how many ruckmen do you know with 'X-factor'??

I originally had Westhoff in my list, but removed it at the last minute. He's only played a year and a bit of AFL footy, but I'll include him for the sake of the argument. He was drafted as a mature age player and is still very skinny. Brad Fisher, on the other hand, I think is more of a running flanker than a key forward which is why he wasn't considered. Nick Gill is not an AFL standard key forward, as much as I love watching him play. He's also been drafted 3 times and delisted twice, and I certainly don't think that Gill is a player we should be aspiring to draft with a rookie pick. Still, none of those came from the rookie list (unless you count Gill when he was drafted the second time to the Roos).

Name me the key forwards that were picked in the rookie draft. Name me the AFL standard key forwards that were picked up in the rookie draft. I suggest that a quick look through this list would show you that key forwards of any note are able to show their talent at junior level first, as demonstrated by the short list. To my knowledge there are only 3 AFL standard key forwards on a list that have come from picks higher than pick 40: Brad Miller, Daniel Bradshaw and Cameron Mooney. And there are no AFL standard key forwards on a list that were picked up after pick 60 (including preseason and rookie drafts). Key defenders (specifically full backs) are different in how they end up getting on an AFL list. Glass was a first round draft pick. Rutten was a key forward that they turned into a full back as a rookie, Hudghton was a 21 year old, Scarlett was father son, Lake/Harris was a 20 year old late pick, Presti was a first rounder, Wakelin was delisted, Michael was a rookie, Merrett was a 2nd round pick, Thornton was a rookie, Egan was a mature late pick, Croad was pick 3, Firrito was a rookie, Garland was a 3rd rounder, Martin was PSD, Carlile was a rookie, Thursfield was a rookie, Barry was a midfielder turned full back. But the likelihood of picking an AFL standard key forward in the rookie draft is, to this point, zero. We have an identified need for AFL standard inside midfielders on our list. We have taken two kids with upside who are able to win the inside footy at stoppages and use it with good vision. We have a poor midfield and we are trying to bring in versatile running players into the side. We have the makings of a good spine, with key defenders (Rivers, Garland, Warnock, Frawley, Martin) and key forwards (Watts, Jurrah, Miller, Newton, Bate). In a successful side you don't need many key position players. The game is won through our ability to dominate the midfield, and in order to do that you need a lot of them. It's not 1975 anymore!! The reason we were a clear 16th in inside 50s was sure as hell not becasue of our key position players!!

"Shouldn't take itself too seriously" The AFL TV rights were worth about $700 million dollars. Some players are being paid nearly a million dollars a year. This isn't the Darebin under 13s we're talking about. Also, the reason why Ramanauskas was allowed to be a rookie was because he would otherwise have been delisted. He was out of contract and so Essendon had the choice of keeping him on the list or not. Polak is currently contracted and the Tigers would have no choice about whether he stays on the list or goes. The entire decision is football club, rather that player, based. It's not about Polak's wellbeing, because he'll be on an AFL list regardless of what happens. The only thing that benefits is Richmond, not Polak. What Richmond are trying to do is to change up their last rookie pick for, what is effectively, a rookie draft priority pick. Pick 90 (or whatever) becomes PSD pick 7. Polak is completely unaffected by the decision, as he'll just get moved to the long term injury list anyway. It's only about which player replaces him on the senior list: rookie pick 90, or preseason pick 7. People need to separate the issues rather than simply saying "Polak was hit by a tram, so it's like Rama". It's not like Rama. Not even close.

Looking at the way we played last year, and also by the way we have drafted both this year and last year, we are trying to play a fast paced and precise counterattacking game. Mitchell does well in this sort of atmosphere because he is a wonderful clearance player with an average of 6.0 clearances per game. Valenti had 2.3 per game. But if you have a look at the players surrounding Mitchell there is a fair bit of pace, with only Lewis being in the below average category for speed. We have McLean (easily our best midfielder), Jones, Junior and Moloney (who was just behind McLean for clearances per game last year). So we probably don't need more of these types, but we need more quality in them. After this year it will probably be McLean, Jones and Moloney. If Valenti is going to break into the side then he will need to become a high clearance winner and displace one of those three players. Too many of these players will kill our counter attacking game. We're transitioning from a game style that required big bodies (like ND liked) to one that requires skill and pace. Valenti is not overly skillful and does not have a great deal of pace, the two prerequisites for our drafting so far. I'm happy to have him on the rookie list. I'd rather use our PSD pick as effectively a rookie draft priority pick.

Exactly how I read it, dan. He's giving CJ a bit of a public backhander by telling him that he isn't as good a player as the untried kid that we will pick up, despite the kid being passed by every club several times in the preseason draft.

Well I’m not going to do the quoting everything post, because it will just bored everyone to tears. Firstly, tell me where I believe that the Bulldogs have the perfect model? I don’t want the Bulldogs’ model. Besides we don’t have a team that would fit in with the Bulldogs’ model, as we have stronger bodies as a result of the Daniher years. Yes, I do need something. I would like the answer to my question. Name 5 fast and super skilled players we’ve had in the last 10 years. I’ll divide into categories: Not fast and not good kicks- Bruce, Powell Good kick, but not fast: Green, Johnstone Borderline for both (but I’ll pay it): Sylvia Only 4 more to go. Sorry, had to get that out because it was really grating on me. So is it “unquestionably an ironclad rule”, or is it a “out of vogue”? The last team with a great CHF to win a premiership was Sydney. Since then 3 teams have won a flag with out classical CHF. It is clearly not an “unquestionably ironclad rule”. It only seems like that because it used to be far more important and now people are relating current day football back to a period when it was far easier to analyse. Where there were more kicks to contests and the midfielders and ball moved more slowly. The game has changed, is changing and will change. You just have to try to be ahead of the trend. Furthermore, don’t continually use every instance where I back a player as me having a hard on about someone. Just because a player plays for a bad team doesn’t mean that they are a bad player. By the same token, there are some very poor players that play for good teams, but get carried by their success. Brad Miller is a good player at what he does, and took several giant strides this year from promising player to genuine AFL key forward. To think that he would not have been able to get a game at the Bulldogs this year is just self serving. Actually, this is the only statistic you have given me for your argument. And it isn’t even being used to support a point. If your point is that you must do what Hawthorn is doing to be successful, then I very much disagree. Interestingly, if you want to see which way the game is heading, look at the teams that did well against Hawthorn this year. The main one I think of is Richmond. They have a quick rebounding defence and a lot of outside runners and their one big monster forward (Richo) playing on the wing. They are generally a bit of a rubbish side too. But they beat Hawthorn once and ran them really close another time, despite not being as good a side. How did they do this? They would maintain possession of the ball whilst Hawthorn were zoning by switching it from side to side. This required good skills to keep the ball. This would force the zone to shift sides constantly. If they got over quickly enough then Richmond would just keep possession and switch it back over the other side. But when the zone didn’t move quickly enough Richmond would run like buggery down the opposite wing and completely bypass the zone, to get the ball into their forward line. To do this is requires fast, skilled runners. The point is that we shouldn’t be trying to copy Hawthorn just because they have “1 flag”, but we should be trying to play a game style that will defeat Hawthorn. There’s a distinction that hopefully people can see. I also take solace from our very good performance, despite being undermanned, against Hawthorn mid season. I think it’s a big tick for Bailey’s plan. But you don’t do that. Forwards are supposed to beat their defender, and viceversa. You are supposed to build a ‘team’ that outscores the opposition team. Sydney did that by shutting down the opposition. You can’t look at the side like it’s on BigFooty and you are comparing Team X forwardline to Team Y forwardline. You don’t draft for the present. I believe, from the players we have available and at the stage of development that they are at, that we have one of the more promising groups of young key defenders in the competition. This one the main points where we differ. You believe that because we were 16th that all players we have on our list are incapable of being involved in a premiership team. I think that we have some promising players who require some development but have already shown enough in their short careers that they are likely to form a strong AFL defence in the future. I don’t glow in praise for all players, as I started the “Trade Yze” thread in 2003. I didn’t rate Miller until this year. Against a lot of opinion on this board I don’t rate either McNamara or Cheney. I don’t rate Jones. I think Rivers has many limitations defensively that others ignore. There are others, but they come immediately to mind. But we’re talking about whether or not we draft another KPP (after Watts) instead of a midfielder. I say that the key defensive posts are the least of our worries, whilst you say how they are not part of a ‘great’ spine. These things take time, and we have obviously evaluated our stock of talls and decided that it looks promising. I agree. As for Buddy, he is an exceptional player. That’s why you’re not being realistic with your expectations for our young key position players. However, it is also no coincidence that both Garland and Hudghton are very similar types of player: key defenders that spoil well and have super speed. And bang, we have it right here. What other people’s opinions are means nothing. Who cares what others think? Finding solace that you have the same opinion as other people is a reflection on you and not your opinion. If you’ve got the same opinion as a lot of people, many not overly intelligent and so will just follow the leader, and it’s wrong then all you have is a lot of people who are wrong As far as recruiting DeBoer or Gaetner, I wouldn’t recruit either and I doubt Bailey will either. Why? Because their skills are too poor. That won’t improve, especially to the level required of midfielder (DeBoer). I would recruit a player with speed that could kick, and work on the other deficiencies in their game because they already have the non-negotiable assets. You have not offered proof. You have only said that Hawthorn won a flag and then offered opinion around that. If you cannot back up the claims you make then do not pass it off as ‘fact’ or ‘proof’. All I want you to do is back up your opinion, otherwise you will just be yelling at a brick wall. I don’t post as often as I once did. Mainly because I’m getting better at ignoring people whose baseless opinions annoy me. I’ll listen to any opinion, even ones that I don’t agree with. Their opinions may change my opinion. But their opinions must be based in fact and logic. Who knows, you may end up convincing me that we should have drafted another key position player. Alas it seems highly unlikely. But until you offer me something that isn’t just empty words, you’ll have no hope whatsoever. And only 2 references to me being in love with a player and only 4 references to me masturbating over our players. Classy.