Axis of Bob

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.

What if we draft Rich because he's the best player? We could have taken a risk and picked Kepler Bradley instead of Brock. Just because they're different doesn't necessarily mean that they're the best player. I'm waiting until the under 18 championships to get a better idea.

I get a feeling that we'll get pick one, but not Natanui. I just think that, at the moment, the hype is so big that people are overlooking what his effectiveness would be in relation to a gold plated midfielder. Look at the ruckmen of the past 10 years. Barnes/Alessio, Keating/Charman, Lade/Brogan, Ball/Jolly, Cox/Seaby, Ottens/King. If you look at them they are not leaping ruckmen aside from Barnes. They are all big, strong ruckmen who clear traffic in the contests rather than run wide around the ground. Is this all something that Johnson can't do? Look at a lot of the rucks and they generally come from far further down the draft order. There is so much development left in ruckmen that you have to guess, so you just don't know. The real top shelf midfielders are easy to spot and they are almost always picked very early. Look at the midfields of each of those teams and they are top shelf. I think that the midfielder is a) a sure bet and, b) comparitively more important in building a good side and, c) something we are missing more in our future side.

Actually that's Jamar with 7 Clearances and 11 contested possessions. He led our clearances with his excellent follow up work.

But we moved the ball the worst when the players regressed to the kick based plan of years gone by. Maybe the sting had gone out of the game late, but we could see what we're trying to do and it got us space inside 50.

Dunn - lazy and unaccountable? He kept Johnstone to 15 touches, which doesn't seem to be too lazy and unaccountable. Jamar has been underwhelming in his career to date, but he was excellent yesterday. Exceptional work around the stoppages. McLean has generally been good this year. Bailey seems to like playing players who have a really strong work rate. Bartram certainly does.

It was interesting that the period where we moved the ball the worst was when the players regressed to the old kick-based style of moving the ball in the second quarter when they lost confidence. We moved the ball best when we ran with the ball later in the game.

If you don't remember it then it is because you have a very short memory. The whole football media were criticizing Clarkson's handball crazy gameplan. They would handball so much that it became a common joke. They sucked int heir first year of it, but slowly got better at it and are now playing the style very well. But you are irrational so this won't make a lick of difference to you.

My comparison with Brennan is not fair, just as the comparison with Buddy isn't. Naitanui doesn't appear to have the issues that are associated with Buddy and Brennan, so the comparison is more likely to be between Buddy and Brennan without Naitanui. I suppose it comes back to the modern argument of athlete v footballer. Here we probably have the extreme of athleticism with Naitanui versus the outstanding footballer. It will certainly be rivetting watching the rest of the season unfold.

Look out everyone, it's round 6 and the first "I will not watch a game while X is coach" has come out! Join the queue of people who do the same and participate in their group self-gratification sessions - we don't care. Happy with the changes. Surprised that Bate isn't in, but we all know that it isn't because he's not good enough so it must be a different reason - not chasing, not fit, whatever. Garland has improved a heap since the start of last year and now looks excellent at Sandy. I think it's just a matter of time before he adjusts to AFL.

I personally think that a ruckman is not high on our list of priorities. But who cares what we need maore - it's pick 1 (potentially)!!! That's the time when you sit down, gather your thoughts and just say the name of the best player available to you. And everyone who is looking at Nat like he's Buddy, don't. They're very, very different players. Buddy is freakishly talented. Naitanui is a freakish athlete. But he doesn't play like a power forward. Look at his stats - very low number of marks. If he was a power forward then maybe this argument becomes slightly different, but he isn't. Also, with people saying we need to risk getting him to get a Buddy, how would you feel if we used pick 1 on Jared Brennan? The argument is the same. There's plenty of risk in picking him first. Maybe in a different year he may have been a cetain pick 1. But the prevailing whispers seem to be that this year Rich is the best in the land. But let's just wait until we can actually see them play in this year's national championships first before we label them. As for the thoughts on us needing 2-3 KPPs, my thought is that we need 1 power forward only. Our key defensive positions I think are quite well set for the future, but we need a focal tall forward. If pick 1 isn't a power forward then we just pick the best available.

How do you know? Have you seen him play? Have you seen Rich play?

If he could do all of that then I'd say that this other kid who rucks like Naitanui and plays like Goodes will go at pick 1 before Rich and Naitanui.

........but is he a better player than Rich? That's the point that I'm trying to make. If Naitanui is the better player then great. If he isn't then I'd be all over Rich like a rash. I get a sneaking suspicion that some people will be upset on draft day when we don't take Naitanui. Listen to those that live in WA. They're not the ones drooling over Naitanui. They're the ones drooling over Rich.

I, personally, would be more inclined to go for the midfielder in Rich. I don't think that ruckmen influence the game as much as midfielders. I think that that Rich would win you games of footy, while Naitanui is more fun to watch. But do we waste pick 1 on getting pretty hitouts, or on a dynamic goal kicking midfielder? Especially when our midfield is crying out for quality and Johnson looks like he could take over from White. I think that our main deficiencies going forward are midfield and a power forward. I don't think Naitanui helps us with either of them. From what little I've seen of these players it will be a tough decision to make as they are so different.

Melbourne Backs: J. Frawley, N.Carroll, D.Bell Half backs: P.Wheatley, J.Rivers, C.Bruce Centreline: B.Green, B.McLean, C.Bartram Half forwards: C. Morton, R.Robertson, C. Sylvia Forwards: A.Davey, B.Miller, A.Wonaeamirri Followers: J.White, J.McDonald, N.Jones Interchange from: M.Bate, S.Buckley, L.Dunn, C.Garland, M.Jamar, B.Moloney, M.Warnock Ins: Miller Garland Bate Buckley Out: Neitz Whelan

If the player we drafted with pick 5 was Darren Glass (as I am led to believe was probable) then would we have wasted all of those subsequent picks on key defenders? Maybe we would then have ignored Molan and picked up Dal Santo instead since we no longer needed that key defender. Suddenly we go into this year with an AA full back and a midfield led by Nick Dal Santo. Plus we may have picked up Jed Adcock with the pick we traded for Ben Holland. The fact is that none of us know what would have happened if we hadn't have had the draft penalties. All we know is that it definitely had an negative impact. To dismiss it altogether is foolish, as is blaming it as the sole cause for our troubles.

fatty, being tough doen't mean being smart. Chest beating is fine, but doesn't achieve anything - you just attact more monkeys.

What are the junior footy 'basics' that we are going against that West Coast doesn't? I think that it sounds like a commentator who played footy in an era where the gameplan was all long kicking and he is using that as his reference for 'natural instincts'. Natural instincts are different for everyone and I think that it's got a lot to do with coaching. The gameplan isn't natural yet, if they keep doing it then it will be.

Is the first instinct in junior footy to play in the same style as Brisbane, Sydney, Collingwood or Geelong? They all play with different game styles, so which one do kids first start playing? The point is that game style is coached into you. We are having problems because many of the players have been coached in a particular way for 10 years and now have a different style. The younger players will adapt to the style quickly, whereas there will be others with habits that are harder to break. As you keep playing your instinct because what you train to do. I dare say that the comment was made by a commentator who played the game in a time where handballing was frowned upon. Why does Bailey need to explain his plan? He only needs to explain that to the board. He'll do it if he wants to, but he has no need to do it.

Sylvia showed today that his power running could be a real advantage for us with this style. Similarly McLean's clean hands and vision in close show work really well going forward. We need the hard in and unders. But now we will focus of getting differernt types of footballs to complement our gameplan. Also, Hards, we have seen you argue that you don't believe this gameplan to be the way forward because it doesn't suit our current playing list. You believe that the gameplan should be "based around running half backs, kicking to lead up targets and quick ball movement to multiple tall key forwards." Looking at that I could equally make an argument that this gameplan doesn't suit our current players so we need to get a new plan. We don't have "multiple tall key forwards". Who are our multiple tall key forwards that we should be basing our gameplan around? The way I see it, our forward line will be more geared around pace and movement with mid-sized marking targets because these are the types of players we have. Bate, Dunn, Sylvia, Garland, Maric are the types that dominate. Robertson is around for another year after this perhaps. Newton is in trouble. Miller is the only of these players that can contest the long ball, but even he is a better hit up player. So, given our forward line's strengths (especially in the youngsters which is where we should be looking) we need to develop a plan that enables us to use our many mid-sized marking options. This may be by utilising their mobility to push up and down the ground which would involve linking up with players so that we can either hit up a forward on a lead inside 50 or run the ball through 50 and goal. I think that the biggest problem we are having at the moment is coming to terms with full ground accountability. I saw it get a lot better this week, although we let them get away with a burst in the second quarter. We forced them to chip around a lot in defence due to our improved accountability which was pleasing. The defensive running was much better this week (from most) which I liked. Nobody can say yet whether Bailey's appointment was right or wrong, as the season is 5 rounds in. I don't mind that you have a different opinion of his style as everybody does it differently and time will tell who's right. I personally like what he's trying to do with the club, as it shows that he is focussed solely on winning a premiership rather than just aiming at short term finals action.

So people are calling for youngsters to be brought in, but after 3 games they are condemning Garland as not good enough. I was at the Sandy game last week and Garland was very good. He's still very raw but he has some of the natural attributes that could make him an excellent player. People are too impatient and it's indicative of the 'magic pill' society we live in. Also, you can't compare the two teams' best players. One team got pumped by 15 goals so there was an obvious difference. For all we know McGlynn could have had 47 touches, but equally he may have been best because he put in a good team effort. Apples/oranges.