Axis of Bob

Certainly since I've been around. Being one strike away from losing the series ..... twice ...... and getting crucial hits to stay in the game. Cruz should really have gone harder at that fly ball. If he takes it the Rangers win the whole thing and he can spend the whole winter getting a bruised arm better. As it is, he squibbed it and now they have to face Carpenter in game 7 with a depleted bullpen, away to a team than now has all the momentum. Sometimes you just have to go when it's your turn. He didn't and it could cost them the whole thing. Great game. It had everything.

World Series. Game 6. Just sayin' ......

Neeld may need that honeymoon period. A tough start but a good finish. I'd rather the other way around. Especially with 2 compo picks!

If I was to compare him with someone it would probably be Harry O'Brien. He is a contested ball winner, but it's his power that has him break tackles and dash away. He's a bit bigger than Harry, though. But he plays that style.

Spencer is chronically underrated on here. He looks like an unco, but he has a lot of things that will make him a good, solid AFL ruckman. He is big, aggressive and will become a seriously strong man. Massive frame. Everyone assumes he's bad because he is an awkward looking kick. But he'll be a good, physical ruckman. If he goes anywhere at the end of next year it will be his own decision to move for more opportunities.

His hard running, hard body and discipline should see him be a very good role player in a more rigidly structured team.

I find Tapscott one of the harder players on our list to project. He has a strong body, but he really hasn't done a lot of preseason running. The question is about how good a runner he can become. Chapman became a really good runner after a slow start. If Tappy has it in him then he could become someone who plays bursts in the midfield. If he doesn't then he'll be a fringe player or a role player. I'd love to see him do a proper preseason. We'll have a better idea after he gets some proper running into him..

Good player, and if we were in the premiership window I'd be all over him. But we aren't and our eggs are better placed in a younger basket.

Nobody said he was as good as Swan. Nobody is proclaiming him as the saviour. Nobody has called him elite. Nobody has called him a star. He is, however, clearly in our best 22 and has some very positive traits that could see him develop further. Dane Swan is a similar style of player. Very good power runner, like Grimes, and a big strong body. He also isn't much of a kick. That's the reason for the comparison and a reason why being an average kick isn't an automatic reason why someone can't become a star. You may have skimmed the posts, which could explain the misunderstanding.

Dane 'Silky' Swan just won a Brownlow. I don't see Grimes' kicking being the thing that stops him. It is only his body.

Don't get me wrong. Bartel is a very good play for whom I have great admiration. But he's clearly a rung below Pendlebury and Swan. In the past it seemed that this was the type of player that was needed in the midfield, which is exactly what we don't have. But Geelong's success with a hard working, big bodied midfield that lacked a true star midfielder gives hope that we can do the same without having to rely on picking up a star. We have players that are capable of being at the calibre of Bartel et al, but I don't think we have the Pendlebury/Swan/Ablett/Judd player on the list. Trengove is an excellent example of a player who is going to be a fantastic player, and a very good finals player too boot, but won't be a star. Gysberts has more chance, because he has a few special tricks in close, provided he continues to work on his running. Grimes is the only real chance we have with his combination of pace, size and endurance. We need to get a better midfield, but the question I have is how do we best achieve this midfield? In order to answer that I think we need to know what it looks like. Does it need to be (the equivalent of): a- Ablett (superstar), Trengove, Gysberts, Grimes, Viney. or are we better served with b- Trengove, Gysberts, Grimes, Viney, James Kelly, Joel Corey? I think it's a question worth revisiting after the events of recent seasons.

The thing with Davis that makes him such a good prospect is his raw power. Explosively fast, good hands and willing to back himself and break a tackle. Currently excellent defensively and started to add a really damaging dash to his game later on. Seems very coachable too. Quality prospect who makes the back line very flexible.

I have long been in the camp that we need an elite midfielder to win a flag. What does Geelong's success this year tell us? After Ablett left, their midfield looked good, but it was definitely a rung below Collingwood's. Selwood, Bartel and Kelly were their best three this year. Compare that to Swan, Pendlebury and Thomas and they don’t look fantastic. Certainly not a lot of X-factor, but Geelong had strong, dependable, if not spectacular, midfielders that consistently won the hard ball. Pendlebury and Thomas were top 5 picks, but Selwood, Bartel and Kelly were all in about the area where our compo picks will be next year. So, depending on the quality of the draft, we may be better taking two good, solid, but pure, midfielders in the 2012 draft rather than get one star. Why? The draft is supposed to be deep, so we should get good players with the compo picks. We may not necessarily need the star player in the midfield. Geelong has shown it’s possible. I think our midfield is shallow in quality numbers, as much as it lacks a star. This, however, can be fixed more easily with free agency coming in. The timeline for our premiership tilt may not align with the 2012 MD, since that player won’t become the elite mid we want until about 2017/18. But I agree that we do need to bolster our midfield at some point. Structurally, with Clark, we look like we may have a lot of bases covered and we have a great depth of talent on the list. I’m not set one way or the other, but I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as it was 6 months ago. Grimes, for me, is the smokey in the midfield. He can win the hard ball and has the combination of speed and endurance, along with a big body, that could bode very well the way the game is heading. But there’s a massive if involved .......

West Coast play Cox, Naitanui, Lynch and Kennedy in the same team, with Darling as an extra key forward. I don't see why we can't play Jamar, Martin and Clark in the same team. You certainly didn't see Q Lynch do too much ruckwork this year. Nor do I expect to see Clark in the ruck.

$500,000 = an additional development coach on each line (ie, three additional development coaches).

I looked at the highlights and spent the whole time wondering if he could kick. By the end I still wasn't sure.

If we're looking at tall forward lines, I think a good one to look at is West Coast's. They have heaps of tall forwards/ruck and are able to play them in the same team. Their forward line for their final against Collingwood was: HF: Nicoski Kennedy Le Cras FF: Darling Lynch Naitanui Can we get a similar forward line with talls? HF: defensive small forward (?) Watts goalkicking small forward (Jurrah?) FF: Howe Clark Martin Also, Gawn is the replacement for Jamar when he retires or when Gawn overtakes him. There's no way we'll trade Gawn. They'll trade/retire Jamar before they think about trading Gawn.

I wouldn't be surprised if we don't do as well as people think we will next year. Why? History. Ross Lyon came to coach a side in 2007 that was 14-8 in 2006, and only won 11 games. This was because he was creating a new structure to what was there previously. This takes time for the players to break old habits and create new habits. You will remember that Lyon had to drop Dal Santo and Milne because they didn't play the new style. It wouldn't surprise me if history repeats.

As everyone is bored senseless by this, although I think it's an argument worth pursuing (preferably with someone else), I will just finish with this. The recruiters are paid to predict how good a player will end up being. They watch endless vision of them and have years of recruiting experience behind them. It's their job. It's clearly not any of our jobs! If you don't think Cook will be as good as Darling then it's up to you to disprove them. Until then I'd back their opinion of these players over yours and mine.

Want to know the funny thing, Robbie? Molan was a strong bodied, ready made player. And the comparison with Judd is not even close. Make the comparison between Molan and Hale. Hale was the development player while Molan was the ready made player. Simplistic comparisons do nothing for your argument. 10 years of pretty good versus 6 years of very good? It depends how good 'pretty good' is and and how good 'very good' is. It also depends on when you are going for a premiership. For instance, if you were rebuilding from the bottom then you won't be looking to win a premiership in the next 5 years. So you don't care about what a player does before then - hence you would take the development player who you project will be a better overall player. However, if you are right in your premiership window then you would probably draft a player that can help you more quickly, even if the ceiling of their talent isn't as high. As always, Robbie, things are never as simple as they appear. Also, are you saying that you want to trade Cook because we landed Clark? Really? You may be off with the girl who peaked at high school, but I'm off with a stunner for the rest of my life. That's OK, because you'll always have the memories.

QV: I should have called it "gentleman's terms"!

Often they do have little upside. The hot girl ain't getting much hotter! That doesn't mean that they won't be hot. Summary: Upside = improvement Little upside =/= player is a dud

Robbie and daisy, you have misunderstood. Being ready to play does not make the player a dud, but nor does it make them a star. As people around here love to use women as an analogy, I will try to explain it that way. At high school there were girls that were hot, and there were many that weren't. Guys used to go for the hot girls in high school. But that's not to say that when those girls will end up being the hottest in the long run. There will be hot girls that get to 25 and look like they're 50, but there will be those that were overlooked in high school that turn out to be dead set stunners. The key to drafting is to pick the player that will be the best in the long term. At the moment Cook and Darling are both in the equivalent of high school. Darling is the hot girl at the moment, but will he plateau while Cook turns out to be the belle of the ball? That's what recruiters are paid to predict. Darling is a strong boy, even at AFL level. Cook is not strong, even at VFL level. But as he matures he is going to get bigger and stronger. At some point in the future Darling and Cook will probably be as strong as each other. Then ask yourself, would Cook be better than Darling if he was built like Darling? As for Viney, he is strong. He's ready to play (given some decent preseason running) AFL now. He should make an immediate impact. But that's irrelevant to how good a player he'll be. He may well be a hot girl at school who is still just as hot throughout life. When they become hot isn't important - what's important is the final product.

Round 16, 2004 What a bunch of fairweather supporters. Rogue is 100% right. We have less supporters overall. Hence lower crowds. Melbourne has the highest supporter/member conversion rate of all AFL clubs which actually indicates that, across the whole supporter base, we are the most passionate club. They've had to be passionate to stick through the long periods of poor performance. Unfortunately that means that many of those supporters also come with the baggage that long periods of poor performance bring. Hence the reason why younger supporters often find the older supporters to be out of touch with current reality, and older supporters find younger supporters to be overly optimistic.

Exactly. This trade has nothing to do with some 'statement' and everything to do with getting a really talented player to fill a role that is vital to our structure. Neeld is likely to have us play in a much more contested, defensive style and we need a forward to be able to contest consistently against superior opposition numbers. The trade means that we can play the style of game that we want to. Where we find the extra gold in the deal is that Clark is a really talented player that seemed out of reach.