Axis of Bob

I love it how you talk about not thinking long term, yet want to appoint a coach (Sheedy) that will only last 3 years.

Triple it.

Freak: But all those players you have mentioned can play midfield. Maric is only a marking player. The thing is that if he's not playing at FF then he's useless. Only Brown has played at FF at AFL level and he has been an All Australian at half back too. 6 foot full forwards do not go in the top 20 if they can't play midfield. Because if they're getting beaten up forward then they are useless.

Freak, why is your 10th most wanted player a 6 foot tall full forward? Every year a player like him is touted as being a first rounder, but because they can't play midfield they never are. I'd be very surprised if Maric was taken in the top 20.

Fletcher - star Lucas - very good player Neitz - very good player Neitz is a champion of the club, but not a star of the game. Lucas is not a champion of his club. Lloyd, Hird and Fletcher are all stars.

It's certainly all falling into place for him. Last year of contract, new coach, surgery allowing him an excuse for the the fans of carrying injury....... I hope a new coach can get him to pull his finger out and become an accountable, hard running midfielder/forward, but history has shown me that leopards don't can't their spots too quickly. I'm so sick of people saying "but he kicks the occasional magical goal". Watch the game, not just the highlights. Better yet, watch the whole game and not just the ball. It's truly enlightening.

Only if they emigrated to an independent state of Collingwood!

Nasher, it looks like all the smart ones left!

That is a generalisation. Apparently, according to the generalisation, all aboriginies are 'fast', 'ruthless' and they 'play' exactly the same way. Did Polly Farmer play the same way as Aaron Davey? Did Cole play the same way as Farmer? Did Rioli play with the same speed as Lovett? If it wasn't your generalisation then it was Sheedy's, providing that you can prove that that is exactly what he thinks. Also a generalisation, no matter who makes it, is still a generalisation. If you want to make a generalisation about Aboriginies then it's no different to, say, Arthur Tunstall making it. It doesn't make it right. I could say that all Melbourne supporters use reasoned arguments. It's a generalisation, but it doesn't mean it's applicable to all.

Demon32: If you argue that Pickett should be kept on due to him being part of a larger group, ie Aboriginies, rather than because of his specific merits then you are, by definition, making a generalisation.

Although I agree that he is unfairly maligned, he is a limited player who is confined to limited roles. He can only play in defence on certain types of key forward (ie, the ones without pace). He would struggle against Brown and Fevola, but will routinely destroy Rocca (much like Nicho did). The reason he doesn't play as often as you would like is because he gives no defensive flexibility, unlike Carroll or Rivers who can play on various opponents. He is a 'horses for courses'player. As long as you understand that, and I'm sure he does, then he has a role to play.

I typed a reply that I was going to really regret. So I've changed it now to this. However I may have a few more beers tonight!

Ebert is effectively a 6 foot power forward. He's not a crumber's [censored]. As a result he should be played like a powerfarward. Frawley has the pace to go with him and the size to match him in the air. Whilst Bell is a good option for him (for a different reason to yours), their most dangerous forward is not him. It's Motlop. Motlop has no match up other than Bell. Actually the other choice is Frawley, but obviously Motlop gets our number one mid size defender as he is infinitely more dangerous (and multi dimensional) than Ebert. If anything, Frawley is the one that gives us flexibility. Ferguson will play the Bizzell 'unintentionally loose man in defence' role. I don't know what will happen with Holland, however he has been in excellent form both forward and back for Sandy. I'll interested to see how everything unfolds.

There's no point being able to beat him in the air if he's so slow that each mark is uncontested. Why not play Holland on him. After all, he's even better in the air. Why not just play Bell on him? You know, our best small defender. Remember him? (no, he's not Clint Bizzell) Anyway........ Brown suffers for the same reason that everyone cannot believe that Bizzell could ever be dropped: they only watch players when they have the ball. Doggy looks lost while Biz looks composed. But Biz is unaccountable and very poor defensively, while Doggy is an exceptionally hard worker who is very good at tracking defensively. Yet Doggy kept playing seniors while Biz languished at Sandy. Everyone cries foul. Do the coaches care what supporters think of their decisions? I bloody hope not!

I'll pretend that you didn't say that we should play Bizzell on their most in form, dangerous and talented small forward. *LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!! I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!!! LA LA LA LA LA*

Don't watch many Port games, do you Jaded? Ebert is a leading forward. His strength is overhead and Frawley is quick enough to go with him on the lead and good enough defenisvely to cover him. As I said, I know it's not popular to say that I think Doggy will be around next year, because it far easier (and more popular to the masses) to trot out the 'we're going backwards with him in the team' line. And supporters in the stands only watch the ball and, hence, only watch players when they have the ball. Thankfully coaches don't, because footy is so much more than what happens when you have the ball. SO much more. And if you wanted Biz on Ebert then I would question your judgement a lot. I'll assume that you didn't, because that would make life much easier for both of us.

Doggy's strength isn't his ball winning but it's his hard running which, in turn, gets him a lot of the ball. He's just an exceptionally hard worker and he'll stay on the list because of it. We need more of it.

Frawley's matchup in that scenario is Ebert. Bell on Motlop. Also, I think you'll find that Doggy Brown will be on the list next year. I know he's unfashionable, but he does a lot of things that most people on here don't notice. Like run hard defensively, which is something that we don't get a lot of in our side. I have been a critic of him in the past, but he plays a very important role that nobody really notices because they only look at players when they have the ball.

OK, my comprehension of this post is: "I refuse to answer the question." My analysis of this post is: Alan will not answer the question because he doesn't have a solution. He says that he has one but won't post it. However, given that there is no reason for him not to, the overwhelming evidence supports him not actually having a solution. The only reason why he will not post it is because he's be called up on this thread and other for being nothing but cliches, generalities and hot air with out any substance. He's embarrassed by this and wants to create a reputation of being a hard hitter, where he clearly is not. How close is that? You don't know who I am, nor do I know who you are. Nor do I care. I could be a general member, I could be a Tridents member, or I could be a board member. The reason why you should answer "them"* is because you need to give some substance rather than simply hot air and insults, otherwise your reputation on this board will continue spiralling ever lower from its currently low point. So, in fact, you could see this as being somewhat of a lifeline that I'm throwing you. Instead you appear intent on drowning in a shallow sea of cliches. Over to you, champ. * "Them" being the questions that you refuse to answer, requoted for your and everyone's enjoyment below.

Yes, "but for now" is obviously the all encompassing get out of jail statement that allows you to claim that your statement of generalities and cliches isn't an actual solution. Well what is your solution? I just thought that I'd quote myself, asking you some questions. Answer them. Alan, notice that I haven't sunken to petty name calling like yourself, but you're not making it easy. That's because I find that your ideas are similar to those that I would hear from a lightweight.

My God, no wonder why you've refused to give an alternative process. That is the biggest load of nothing I've ever seen. You haven't actually said anything. Lucky you aren't on the committee, because everyone would sit around and do nothing, but then make a decision in the spur of the moment. What are the criteria? How do we find the criteria? Who are the best people to know what criteria are important in judging the potential of a coach? Chase the coach that fits the criteria of a good coach. Wow, truly earth shattering. It almost sounds like you're parodying yourself, and it's quite amusing too!

Clint Bartram played every game in his first year. Is that fast tracking? Newton was always going to play games this year, unless his form was so bad at Sandy that you just couldn't play him. This is a kid that took 2 seasons to establish himself in the Sandy Reserves, and looked ordinary in a lot of those games. This year is the first year that you would even have considered him at AFL level, and his specific circumstances meant that he had to be treated differently to other players. If he had been played after one good game (ie, about round 7) then he probably would have really struggled and it would have taken a lot of work to get his confidence back. Once he knew he was ready to go, you give him an extra game to make him hungry and then let him loose. He's had 2 good games since then in the AFL. It all depends on what you want to see as to how you judge the decision. It's "he's playing well so the decision was right to keep him back" versus "he's playing well so he should have played earlier". Also, 3165, your answer to Rhino suggests that you haven't seen Newton at all until a week ago. I think this is the likely scenario.

It was as good a debut as we could have hoped for. I thought he showed a lot of energy and increased maturity in that he chased hard and defended Fletcher well. It was a tough task for him first up, so I hope it gives him a lot of confidence for the future. I'm so happy that he didn't have a howler first up.

bjs, how would you have handled it? What is the process you would have followed? It was flagged that we would have a review. Should we have waited until after round 22 before conducting this? In all, everything has been done with respect so that ND has left the club with his reputation intact. Look at all the articles which note how good he's been, rather than how he left. The fact is that people aren't really talking about how he left, which is what you are trying to achieve in such a situation.

And if Melbourne and Sandy play on the same day.........