Axis of Bob

Amazing what happens sometimes when players are looked at by a new pair of eyes.

If we are asking for a first round pick then it suggests that we actually do want to keep him. Andrew Walker wanted to leave last year, but stayed when they couldn't do a deal. They found him a role that suited and the rest is history.

If we offered that then we probably wouldn't be able to do a deal for Clark. But we obviously thought a compo pick + a pick under 25 would be enough to do the Clark deal, which is why we baulked at the cost of the MD pick.

To me, it says more about the difference between the old game plan and what Neeld is looking to implement. In the past, Bate had to push high up the ground, but then had to turn and race back into the forward line to win the ball on the break. It's just the style of game we played. And Bate was unsuited to that role because he just doesn't have the tricks to win the ball consistently in that style. However he is strong, contests well and has a great work rate. These mean that he is actually well suited to a different style of forward play. This is when he starts deeper and uses his strength and work rate to create contests as he pushes up to the ball. It is the same way the Pies use Dawes. That is my guess.

He definitely is a big, powerful unit. Cleaned up Fev playing at full back on a windy, windy day at Sandy when Casey played them.

The reason why is because they are looking for mature players while they are still in their window of opportunity. Hence they are chasing older players like Burgoyne, Hale, Bruce, Gibson etc. They are more willing to give up their draft picks in the short term to pick up more experienced players that can help them push towards a flag. They are trading their early picks for them too. Hale was their 1st rounder, Burgoyne too (pick 9), Gunston 1st round and Gibson 2nd and 3rd round. We'll start offering more, like Hawthorn, for these players because the worth of the draft picks we would be trading will be less to us than they would be to other clubs. When we start knocking on the door then we will start trading out our top picks too, and go much harder for these experienced players. We have had a very different strategy than Hawthorn because we were bottoming out. When we get into a position where we are challenging for a flag I think you will find that we suddenly become a very attractive place to play.

As in our recruiting network? Guys who work full time to be able to value the worth of prospective footballers? Yes I believe they have a pretty good idea of what those picks are worth. As opposed the all of us ignoramuses, who may have seen a game or two of under 18 footy this year but are really just throwing darts blindfolded.

That's my position too, Scoop. I think we lack the X-factor in the middle that's worthy of a tag ... and capable of breaking it. The thing that makes me reluctant to go too hard is that we don't know what players those compo picks would get us next. All that we know is that the draft is supposed to be top class. For that reason, while disappointed, I am willing to defer to the judgment of those who actually know what's happening (rather than all of us here guessing with next to no information).

RF: Short term gain? The options actually play out at the same time. The compo picks won't be used until next year, just like O'Meara and Crouch won't play until next year. It's actually a longer term decision, should we not trade the compo picks, to hang on to them since we don't get access to training etc for a year later. You have misunderstood me in saying a successful team. I was talking about my philosophies on what I think would make us a successful team. That is, what I would like to do to make us successful. So I have missed your point? You wouldn't go to an auction because you thought that you might not win. I don't see how that is logical at all. I have been to auctions before where I thought that if things panned out the way I wanted then I would buy it. At times I have been unsuccessful because someone wanted to pay more for it than me. But I wasn't unsuccessful every time! What did I lose out of being part of it? What did Melbourne lose out of bidding for the 17 yo picks?

The hypothetical money I saved by not overpaying for the house has meant that I am: a- saving money by renting, (ie, keep the picks) and b- using my money to go into other growth assets such as shares. (ie, use the picks in other trades or by selecting players with them). As I said, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I said that I would pay a very high price for O'Meara, but I am basing that off watching him play only twice and based on my own personal philosophies on what makes us a successful team. But you say that you'd 'use all the money in the bank', which involves our first picks plus the Scully compo. What about our second round pick? What about trading a good young player? Whether you realise it or not, you have placed a price on it that you would have bailed out after. The MFC have just set a different price to what you would have.

You need to do the sums and work out the point where you may find renting to be better for you than overspending on a house. As the old saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. To take the argument to extremes, would you have traded Watts for Crouch? Why/why not? At what point would you have said that too much was too much? What would have been your ceiling price for O'Meara/Crouch?

If I go to an auction with the intention to buy then I need a point that I won't go past. If you don't then you are only screwing yourself. But, it doesn't mean that I don't want the house. It just means that there are also other houses that represent value and will offer better value than the original when the price of the original gets too high. If someone is willing to pay too much for the house then you walk away .... disappointed, but satisfied that you kept your head. If you just want to win the auction then, in effect, you lose. The 17yos aren't the only options. We have the best hand in the next draft, which is alleged to be incredible. Alternatively we have the best hand for the next 17 yo draft if we want to participate.

Imagine if we actually got one of those picks. RobbieF's response is either: a- we overpaid (after getting O'Meara) b- we got the dud one (after getting Crouch). You're stuck in the 70s when we sucked, RF. And you want to be there.

Gunston deal done. There goes a part of the super deal, so it looks like they've given up.

The important thing in this is the 'spirit and intent of the law', which the AFL has shown can be used as a reason to block a trade. Hence, trading the under 17 picks cannot be done with the intention of receiving them again. It must be, as Anderson put it, 'coincidental'. I dare say that they will have to tart this up pretty heavily in order to get it through the AFL, since Anderson seemed pretty positive about the picks being used for what they were intended to be used for. They will OK a trade of MD picks for draft picks (although they'd prefer not to) but they don't seem to be at all happy about them coming back to GWS. I think GWS will spend tomorrow trying to tart up another deal like that, but then end up trading them normally on Thursday. As I said, they would be pissing off the AFL no end by their insistence on only going for young players. The AFL is trying to get them to be competitive, which is why they gave them these concessions. For the AFL to see these concessions being thrown back into their faces, with the full knowledge that GWS will be awful for the next few years (against AFL wishes), will not be impressing them one bit. I'm reminded of a phrase about things you shouldn't do to the hand that feeds you.

I would be very surprised if the AFL let it go ahead. They, after all, have to sign off on any trades that happen and can easily just say no - regardless of any technical loopholes. If GWS had used the rest of the concessions in the way they were designed by looking to get older players and trading for experience to help them be competitive from the outset, then the AFL may have been more willing to let the O'Meara deal go through. But because they have gone against the AFL wishes so much, I don't expect them to give any favours in this situation. It's best not to make enemies of the AFL, because they hold all the cards.

You had to ask where the Weet Bix is in a Coles? Either you made up the story because you don't like Indians, or you really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

O'Meara isn't even a Perth boy. He's from near Geraldton.

I think the fact that Neeld, who would have worked closely with Brown for 3 or 4 years, has actively sought to get Brown to the club means that he rates his coaching potential. I am happy with that. As for the rest of it, it's impossible to tell. However Brown, as a player, was a work horse. He always put his body on the line and kept playing footy because he was able to play the role he was told to play in the side. That's what he is trying to get our players to do now. Brown walked the walk, even though he didn't have the physical tools to dominate. But he was always a 'team first' player. It's easy to offer a coaching job to a star player just because he's a star - but to grab an ordinary player as your priority because you think he has what it takes to be a coach ... that gives me more confidence.

http://www.stridesports.com.au/index.php?id=124 Signed a 4 year deal after 2009. Has 2 years left.

Davey has talent, but he is not a naturally aerobic athlete. As soon as he had his season and preseason interrupted he started losing fitness and he's just not a good enough runner to make up for it. The game requires repeat efforts now, which is also not Davey's natural strength. I think this has led Davey to search for the easy kicks, running around behind players trying to receive the ball to use his great footskills. But he's a much better player when he can use his speed to win the footy himself. He went away from winning his own footy this year and I think that was the biggest difference between his good footy and bad footy. He ranked 22nd at the club for average contested possessions per game. He was in front of only Morton and Evans in terms of midfielders. For a senior player that isn't good enough. Hopefully he can get a full preseason, because I think he needs it more than most.

Freak of reality? No, somebody with his powers of anti-oracle cannot be replicated. Freak = Kim Hagdorn

Conversation between me and Gubby Allen. "Gubby, what do you want for the first 17 year old pick?" "You mean O'Meara? Well I want [insert heavy demand]" "I'll double it. Hand it over now."

Based on who is available at pick 4 this year, I think our offer is better.

I'm a massive fan. What would you give up for pick 1 in the 17 year old draft? (ie, O'Meara)