Axis of Bob

....really, really, really, really boring. Does anyone think we are world beaters? No. But you start with 'Melbourne = bad', and then just blame everything on that. No thought of why or how. It's just you being a sad sack and then trying to drag everyone down into you own, comfortable pit of self-fulfilling despair. Misery loves company. It's very shallow, and really, really, really boring.

You made a blanket statement. "Good teams kick goals", saying that our poor conversion was because we were a bad team. I countered your blanket statement with an example where one of the best teams of our generation lost a GF largely due to their inability to convert in front of goal. This was designed to show you that sometimes poor conversion just happens, or perhaps it was for other reasons (at least one of which is very obvious and has past evidence to support it). Provide evidence and analysis, rather than just giving your tired 'woe is me' response to everything. It's really, really, really boring.

Then your comment was unfounded.

Tell that to Geelong in the 2008 GF.

Those wanting to bring in an 18 year old rookie ruckman have a loose grip on reality.

The Spencer hate from last night's game is a historical one. People just remember him being unco and therefore can't recognise what he did. He was excellent last night rucking basically unchanged thanks to Fitzy's injury. Did very well and worked hard. I agree that Gawn should come in, but I think that Pederson may play back if McDonald can't play. I'm not a fan of just plonking a ruckman in the square full time, but it's clear that we need at least some form of target for a long kick inside 50. If it doesn't work then sub him out.

We were, overall, the better team. But when you don't turn that into scoreboard pressure then you give the opposition the chance to have a brief hot streak that wins them the game. That's what happened to us. St Kilda kicked 4 goals in about 7 minutes during the third quarter (with Riewlodt playing on a one legged McDonald). That was the game right there. For the rest of it St Kilda managed to resist our forward thrusts and hold on, while trying to catch us out on the rebound. In the end it was enough for them. In the end I think I'm just annoyed that I'll have to constantly hear about how awful we are, when we are actually twice the team we were last year.

I had a reaction that I haven't had for a while. At the end I thought "Damn, we should have won that game". And we should have. Over the majority of the game we were the best team. We controlled the ball and gave ourselves opportunities. We were, unfortunately, unable to convert this ascendency into a score. The good thing is that the issues are not long term ones: 1- We had nobody to kick to. This meant that we either had to bomb to midgets, or find a short target. Unfortunately we did neither successfully. Of our goals, only Byrnes' was a result of a pass inside 50, while the rest we running from outside 50 (or a turnover for Toumpas' goal). There's no coincidence that our most productive periods were when Fitzy was playing. 2- We missed a lot of shots for goal. A lot! These can both be fixed in the short/medium term. Kicking 6.15 is an aberration for any AFL team and will be better next week (especially when Vince kicks 1.4!). And we have a promising list of tall forwards, who are unfortunately injured. If you have one of those forwards play then we'd probably be talking about a win. I wasn't sure how to feel last night. I was shitty about losing the game, but I at least know that we are a much better team now. Unfortunately the footy gods conspired to make us lose. But we were the better team.

The Trott stuff is interesting. I thought that Vaughan was being harsh .... until I saw the interview. I saw some of the stuff he said and thought "isn't that just being out of form?" Stuff like not seeing the ball. Like all cricketers, I've gone through periods of feast and famine. When you are in form you see the ball early and are confident in your ability to play it. When you are out of form sometimes you barely pick up the ball at all and suddenly every ball is a hand grenade. But he spoke about everything as a focus on numbers. He tried to fob off questions about being afraid of Johnson, which he clearly was, and instead talked about his average in an ODI series several years ago. It was the talk of someone trying to maintain the illusion in his head that he is the best .... rather than accept that he had been worked out. He was always a very proud cricketer - some would argue too proud - and now his crafted internal world was falling down as he tried not to accept his fate. Like a dictator claiming he is in power after being ousted in a coup, Trott exiled himself to live another day. He said he's not depressed, he's burnt out. It's going to take a lot to convince the public now that he needed to leave. It was a strange interview.

Absolute hero. Any who deny his toughness, both physically and mentally, should be judged as the fools they are. Michael Clarke is a magnificent batsman and an outstanding captain both tactically and leading by example. This may be the only time I ever say this, but I can't wait to see what deeluded says now.

Brock McLean won 43% of his 467 disposals last year in a contested situation. Jack Trengove won 35% of his 356 disposals last year in a contested situation. Melbourne's team average was 39%. In other words, Trengove is being played as an outside midfielder at the moment. This is a role that he is not suited to athletically. Unless you think that he is athletically suited to being an outside midfielder then I'm not really sure what your point is. Nor do I think it is the most important part of my post. If you would like to have a discussion specifically on Trengove then I would be happy to start a new thread about him and we can talk about it there. Did you have any thoughts on the rest of it? In particular the general ideas behind it and the point it was trying to make?

I didn't say Trengove was a bad player, but he was a player most were disappointed with. Trengove is playing as an outside midfielder with an inside midfielder's athletic set. Brock McLean has an inside midfielder's skill set while playing as an inside midfielder. Lenny Hayes is similar. Both win ball inside and outside because they are smart players (like Trengove). They start inside and move outside. That's what Trengove should do. But this relies on two things. Either: - Trengove develops his inside game enough to be a genuine inside midfielder who can then use his class on the outside to be damaging, or - Trengove develops his speed to beat his direct opponents (other outside midfielders) in open space. The former is entirely possible, while the second is near impossible. The former is a product of development while the second is not. The worst case scenario is that neither thing happens and he just ends up as a good player for us. As for Hannebury, he is much faster than Trengove. He's also an exceptionally good anaerobic runner (think Dane Swan). Trengove is more similar athletically to McLean, Bartel and Hayes than to Hannebury. This is the style of game he should be playing, being able to intelligently work into space rather than have to beat his man in a race out there. I've been away, plus I've also been lurking around. Watts has every chance of making it under Roos. If we can teach Watts how to play football (and he has improved markedly in his first few games this year) then he'll be an absolute jet. Strauss is the least talented, but he has the attributes to make it, even if it requires a simplified role for him. I think he could become a decent player in the back line, provided that he is given a job to do and very, very clear instructions on what that job is and extensive education on how to play exactly that role. Blease is a bit more tricky because his lack of endurance makes him very vulnerable. He could only play as a deep forward or back, but I don't think he is clean/agile enough in those confines to do it. I'm not sure that development will make him the player everyone thinks he could be, but rather he is a luxury in a team that is already really good.

It's a good post and something that I've been thinking about for a while. I also don't have experience in this field. Development, to me, is the ability to improve a player's game to its highest possible level. In some areas this scope is virtually zero, and in others it's immense. Skill deficiencies are definitely able to be developed. You can't turn Jayson Daniels into Darren Jarman, but you can turn Jack Fitzpatrick into Nick Riewoldt. Game knowledge can be developed. Look at the number of Irish players who become high possession getters. Look at Anthony Koutoufides. Look at Daniel Merrett. Athleticism is unlikely to be developed, especially speed. You might get bigger and you might get a bit more endurance, but if your role requires speed then you'd better already have it. Coaches are responsible for developing the former, but recruiters are responsible for the latter. This is through tutoring and training good habits and educating the player to recognise these things himself. That's what I believe it to be. To expand on your topic somewhat, I think that the poor return on our drafting has been a combination of both poor drafting and development, but I think different players have not met expectations due to either. In sort, though, I think it boils down to 1) selecting players who will improve greatly with development and then 2) ensuring we develop them well. First of all, to analyse where our issues have been, let's look at some of the success stories of our (relatively) recent drafting. I'm not talking in terms of player X vs player Y, but some of the players we have drafted who have turned into good AFL players. N Jones, Grimes, Frawley, Garland, McDonald. Hmmm, it's not a particularly long list! These players all have 2 things in common: 1) The first thing that I look at that these players have in common is their mental strength. They are, what you call, 'teacher proof'. That is, it doesn't matter who was in charge, they were always going to get the best out of themselves because they would do extra work, look at their own game, do research and make sure they improved. 2) The second thing is that they all have athletic attributes that suit the role they are expected to play. What do I mean by this? Jones and Grimes are midfielders who have better endurance and gut running than most others in the competition and have passable speed and strength. Frawley and Garland play near goal and are blessed with what is most important in that role - speed. Frawley has power and Garland has agility, which are important in their roles. McDonald is a negating defender who plays further from goal, but he has exceptional endurance and good size. His poor kicking is not a big issue because of his role. You could throw McKenzie in that group too from the rookie list. Each of these players had issues. But they were all issues that could be improved with development. Jones was an outside midfield who had to be taught how to play inside. But he had the athletic attributes and the mentality to do this. Grimes had injury issues and robotic kicking. The kicking issue could have been improved with development, but instead we found him a role where it was less of an issue. Frawley came as a poor kick and a bit 'green' (ie, didn't know how to get involved in the game). Kicking could be developed from poor to decent and he could be taught how to play (because he was instinctively good in contests). Garland had played little footy. Development could teach him this. McDonald was a poor kick who didn't know how to play. His kicking and knowledge could be developed. What about the ones where they have disappointed us: Watts, Trengove, Cook, Blease, Strauss, Tapscott. These have disappointed for different reasons, but generally one of two reasons - either they are/were athletically unsuited to their role, or there were not developed well (and weren't 'teacher proof'). Trengove, Cook, Tapscott, (maybe Blease) are all athletically unsuited to their roles at AFL level. Trengove was recruited as an all around midfielder who could deliver the ball forward when in space, but does not have the speed to get on the end of the ball in space. He is athletically well suited to being an inside midfielder, but isn't the role that he plays. He needs development of his inside game (which should be possible) to be a top level player. At the moment it's like recruiting Lenny Hayes to play on the wing. Cook is a key forward who's big strength was his ball use and endurance. Unfortunately he was very slow and very slight, which meant that it was almost impossible for him to get the footy in his role. His strengths were great, but irrelevant when he was so athletically unsuited to his role. This can't be developed and is not to blame. Tapscott is small in AFL terms, but big in juniors. His strengths at junior levels don't translate to AFL level. So we need to look for his other AFL strengths, which are ...... his kicking which, like Cook, is irrelevant if your athletic failings mean you can get the ball. His downfalls can't be adequately developed and therefor is not to blame. The others (Watts, Blease Strauss), are what I would call development related problems. Each of these has athletic strengths (with one major weakness for Blease) that are very, very well suited to their roles. However, the development has failed them. Watts has the speed, skill etc etc to make him dominant in most AFL roles. But he came to the club needing to learn how to play, the expectations and how to influence AFL footy. He was given games and told to develop. But he isn't 'teacher proof'. He played roles that were easy for him to use his skills, but he didn't really learn anything. Now he's 5 years into his career and he is still needing to be taught how to play football. This is a development problem. Blease has speed and skill (with awful endurance), which is a great skill set for a small forward/back role. Unfortunately he is still playing like a kid, rather than an AFL player. He doesn't get involved in games because he hasn't been developed properly. And he certainly isn't 'teacher proof'!! Strauss has great athletic attributes and a great kick, which is perfect for the small back role. But he's not that bright and not 'teacher proof', so he needs help. He can be developed to play a role in defence, but he hasn't been taught how to play footy yet. This is a development problem. There are certain things that you need to be able to do to be successful in your role at AFL level, and certain things that you can get by without. But these all relate to your role. In junior football these things aren't necessarily limiting to your performance, but at AFL level they do. We have drafted players who are athletically unsuited to the role we expect them to play, and we have also failed to develop players who should otherwise be able to be good footballers.

We wouldn't have been able to get both of the minidraft picks because we needed both GWS and Gold Coast to pass on Viney.

He shouldn't really need to. He's toughed it out for years with a bad back to become one of the best batsmen and captains in the world. People are going to hate him because he has made them look stupid. That is their problem, not his.

I listened for a bit. Then I decided to just follow the scores and watch the replay later. I'm comfortable with my choice.

Interesting cricket at the moment, because the aggressive cricket seems to be a definite plan. I'm just trying to work out why. Maybe it's because they feel that the bounce and pace of the pitch will get batsmen out sooner or later. Maybe it's because they want to knock England off their line and length, allowing more scoring opportunities of a fast scoring ground. Maybe it's a mental thing where they want to dominate England. Maybe they are just nervous about the pace and bounce in the pitch. My guess is that it's a combination of the first and second. The bounce will get you if you keep the ball in the right spots, so they are using attack to get the ball out of the right spots. Either way, it's thrilling cricket and Smith is playing beautifully. Really mature.

Drop Swann for Perth? Hmmm, Swann is not great there because his slightly undercut spin ends up just being a skiddy off cutter. Would I drop him? If they continue with Stokes then there's a spot for him, but if Stokes is replaced by a batsman then I'd replace Swann with Bresnan. I doubt they'll drop Swann, but rather play the 3 quicks plus an all-rounder and Swann. I'd bring in Finn or Rankin in place of Panesar. England need to change the momentum of the series and a conservative approach with Tremlett is going to be shuffling deck chairs. They need raw pace and bounce to actually challenge the opposition. Their current attack is honest, but not challenging. If they can't change the moment with their bowlers then it'll be 3-0. The interesting question for Australia will be Nathan Lyon. Do we pick an out and out quick, a spinner or go half n half with Faulkner or Henriques.

Bowling spin in Australia (and South Africa) is very different to bowling spin anywhere else. Overspin is much more important because of the bounce. And the hardness of the pitches means that a ball that has only sidespin won't get much purchase on the pitch. Most spinners across the world get wickets by threatening the stumps (either with the stock ball or its variation). But the bounce and hardness of the pitches means that the variation and the stock ball are pretty much the same. It makes it very difficult to get wickets because there is no deception. By using overspin you can create deception through flight. Then you can exploit the misjudgment in length with the extra bounce to get catches around the wicket and catches from attacking shots. Look at how effective Lyon is when people attack him, but his lack of variation makes it hard for him to bowl out defensive batsmen on wearing wickets. Conversely, there are a number of excellent spinners (predominantly finger spinners) who struggle a lot in Australia. Swann, Harbhajan, Ajmal, Panesar, Herath, Ashwin ..... All of them attack the stumps, and rely on the pitch to grip and turn a ball that would otherwise drift on. Swann struggled here last time when he was at peak form and Australia were utterly awful. He averaged 40 with the ball. I thought he'd be better in Adelaide, but his turning ball doesn't do enough to let his sliding variation be effective.

I think that comparison, from his attributes and the way he's being spoken about, is Ben Stratton. His role would be to shut down the likes of Mayne, Grant, Johnston/Lynch, Johnson, Gunston, Le Cras etc. By doing that he would allow players like Garland and Frawley to be more effective playing other roles.

He was ordinary. Hard, but undersized, KPP.

The difference is that Marsh has had every recruiter in the country casting their eye over him. In the judgement of the recruiting fraternity he wasn't as good as 76 other picks despite his athletic traits.

He says that he should be in training after Christmas, so I'd assume he'd be right for round 1.

Highlights video up on MFC site. Looks to be a tallish mid/half back who has really good pace.