Axis of Bob

Ah, fair enough. There seemed to be a feeling a little while ago on these boards that Viney was a mid first round pick, probably due to general supporter negativity during a period of poor performances. I did find a quote from that same poster about Viney's position in this draft: "Viney is a CLEAR top 5 quality player this year in my mind. If I had pick 1 I would very much consider him if I was looking for a hard mid and heck if I had pick 2 I'd probably take him. You've got a bargain no matter where you finish. Will add allot to that Melbourne midfield." I look at 53-25 clearances today and then think about Jack Viney. It helps.

That's not how it works. If GWS bid pick 1 and we refuse, then they have to use pick 1. Not that it will be an issue. We'll get Viney with pick 3, and then have pick 4 and 12ish to use in the draft. As for Viney being a high first round pick ....... according to whom? Almost all of the internet experts (because that's all we have to go on so far - it's not exactly gospel!!) have him top 5 (at worst). Knightmare on BigFooty, who has done the most comprehensive phantom draft so far has him ranked 4th overall (including O'Meara, who is already at Gold Coast). So that makes him top 3 in the draft. He's good. Whatever pick we use will be worth it because he's the best player in the draft as far as winning contested footy and clearances. It's a non-issue. The only issue is where our compensation pick will be. Edit: It appears that I am as slow as treacle.

I liked the fact that we were completely smashed through the midfield, but we were still in the game for the first 3 quarters. In the past we would have been absolutely smashed if we lost the midfield that badly. We lost the clearances 53 to 25, yet were still in the game. It tells me that we're on the right track, but we need ball winners and extra fitness. We know that the extra fitness will come thanks to Misson etc, but the ball winners will need to come from somewhere. Draft = midfielders. We need to hit a star onballer + one or two other starting midfielders in the upcoming draft or two.

I'm actually not sure what to think about Moloney's game. He seemed like he was working hard, but he is now being exposed for being a poor runner. He has never been a good runner, but he's being exposed for it more now because of the two way running that Neeld requires. I just don't think he is physically capable of doing what he wants to. I think his efforts to play a team game have improved a great deal, but he isn't physically capable to doing it. He is, after all, only a middle of the road runner at our club which, for a number 1 midfielder with a tag, is not good. When he is tagged he can't out work his man and can only use his strength at stoppages, except that he is too tired to do anything in the massive congestion of our stoppages. I don't think it's a mental thing, but rather a lack of running ability. And it's not just Moloney, it's just that he gets the most opposition attention.

When Lyon took over St Kilda, who were a flashy attacking side with plenty of stars but were massive underperformers, they took a while to get going. They missed the finals that year and had only 4 wins after 11 rounds. 2 years later they were 20-2.

And there's a reason why you are the anti-Oracle, Freak. Exhibit A, B, C, ................ T, U, V. Yes, Exhibit V.

If you think all of the positives from today's game are meaningless then you'd best tune out for the upcoming winter.

The effort was fine, especially after last week's game. We held Carlton for 3 quarters and were in with a shot, despite not being able to win any clearances or contested possession. For me that says that our style of play is OK and that the players are starting to get a better idea of what they are supposed to do ...... it's just that they aren't good enough at the moment. We aren't yet fit enough, but we already knew that. Our players were out on their feet for the last quarter, which is why the game opened up. We also need a better midfield, because we were smashed in clearances. But I was happy with our defensive intent.

We were significantly better. We play a game style that requires a lot of very hard running. Unfortunately we are nowhere near fit enough to play this style ...... yet. I thought our pressure was good and we stayed with Carlton for 3 quarters despite not winning any clearances and losing the contested possession pretty badly.

Wow, you can tell that the people on the gameday thread each week don't go to the footy very much. Awful thread.

Not the guy we needed to miss when the opposition has Gartlett and Betts.

The football equivalent of your analogy is that you turn up to training during the week and the players don't know what to do. A better analogy would be that it's like giving that piece to an orchestra and they finish last in a competition against other orchestras that have been playing the same peice for many years. Are you disappointed? Yes. Is it understandable? Yes.

I love it when people publish their personal emails to public figures on here. They are inevitably hilarious. What an idiot .......... ic email!

Dunstall went very easy on him. He repeated a few questions to King (that King couldn't/refused to answer), but he could have made him look a lot stupider if the circumstances were. King was embarrassingly awful. Dunstall was, behind the veil of 'Devil's Advocate', backing what was happening at the club. He said that the same thing happened at Hawthorn, but there was a vision behind it that people outside the club couldn't see. Neeld has spoken about the similarities with Hawthorn and Richmond. People have short memories (Chris Judd said it was about 2 weeks in AFL footy), so we forget just how bad those teams were during the initial stages of turmoil with a new coach. In time, people will forget how bad we were during this initial run. They may possibly even forget by round 22, but more likely by round 1 next season.

There is a massive difference between the problems facing Adelaide and Melbourne last year. Adelaide were a super well drilled side that worked very well defensively and had a strong culture of team ethic. This was because Neil Craig was a heavily structured and highly disciplined coach, and this was reflected in his players. They weren't called the 'Crowbots' for nothing. Sanderson has now freed them up, but they've always got the defensive and team culture and ethic at its base. Melbourne had the attack, but didn't have the defensive culture and ethic. So there's no base to build on. Neeld has had to strip away everything to change the players' mindset. That's bloody hard to do. It's easy to teach players to attack more when they already have a sound base. But teaching a freewheeling, carefree team how to defend and be selfless ...... that is hard. We are seeing the result.

People will remember him for his hangers, but he's got a lot of tricks. He has good pace, is clean, skilled (despite some yips at the moment) and a really good work rate. He could be a really good, high possession half forward or perhaps even a midfielder. The hangers are just fun to watch.

I won't personally abuse you. Instead I will say that this suggestion is poorly thought out and incredibly stupid. But I don't think that it is hard to work out my opinion of those who think this a good idea.

Why is there an assumption that Viney isn't in the best 3 players in the country? From what I've heard he is one of the top 3, with Stringer and Whitfield. With those 3 being completely different styles of player, it isn't unreasonable that he could be pick 1. If we end up with picks 4 and 5 then Viney could well be a steal. But it'll all become clearer as the year goes on.

I'm interested in these stats. Given the style we are playing we should win the contested possession count more often than not. The inside 50s are a result of the midfield. I look forward to seeing how these stats progress over the season. Also, once we start winning a few games, to see how the stats look then.

You need to look at Beamer for what he is - a good solid AFL inside midfielder. He was OK on the weekend, but we look at other teams and expect our number one midfielder to be a star. Beamer is our best midfielder, but he's not in the top class. Just because he's our best doesn't make him a star. But he's still a good player for us.

For one, they close down space and fill their spot in the defensive structure. If you can't run then it all breaks down. These aren't stats, but its a reason why Tappy was subbed while Bail stayed on.

Bail has a lot of problems, but what he can do is run. We need runners because it takes really good runners to play with the intensity that Neeld wants us to play with. It's all about getting players to the ball and applying pressure for 4 quarters. We can't yet, but having people that can run really helps.

At the moment Tappy doesn't run well enough. He's getting better with that, but he still has a way to go. I think he'll end up being a very good role player because he is strong and a good kick, but he's going to need time to build a base. Needs to stay healthy enough to do a preseason, though. At the moment any game he's getting is for development.

If you have a look at the guys who have improved a lot playing this new style, it is actually the guys who can run. Morton, Jones, Bate, McDonald, Howe .... these guys are good runners and they have done vry well. Grimes, too, has done well in the midfield. Morton played VFL games at the end of last year in the midfield where he played like this. It has always been in him, but it's pleasing to see it start to come together.

We have 4 early picks. We need to hit 2 really good midfielders in those 4 picks, which includes Viney. Our midfield, or lack of, is killing us. We need players that can win contested footy and spread really hard into space. We have a great opportubity to do so, and (at this stage) I would be picking 4 midfielders.