Axis of Bob

If Judd was contracted Carlton would have to have handed over pick 1, or else Judd wouldn't be playing for them. Judd, without a contract, was able to get to Carlton without pick 1. As you tried so valiantly to argue in a separate argument, relationships go both ways. Paul Connors needs West Coast as much as, possibly more than, West Coast needs Connors. If the deal doesn't get done, and Judd stays at West Coast, then Connors' reputation takes a massive nosedive in such a public forum. Plus his name would be mud in Western Australia. His reputation is his bargaining chip to lure new clients. There's no way he'd want to burn his bridges with West Coast, Carlton and Chris Judd. Besides, if the deal didn't get done because Carlton didn't hand over pick 1, then it wouldn't be West Coast that Connors/Judd would have been angry with .... it would have been Carlton. Bottom line is, no matter how you try to spin it, if Judd was contracted then Carlton would have had to trade more to get the deal done. Imagine Trent Cotchin playing in the West Coast midfield.

If Judd has a contract and want to go to Carlton then Carlton would have to meet West Coast's demands (ie, pick 1) or he is contractually obliged to stay. Without a contract West Coast had to take Carlton's offer. Worst case scenario for West Coast is that Judd plays another year for them. Wow, that would be a bitter pill for Worsfold to swallow!!

If Judd was contracted and he said that he wanted to play for Carlton then either: a) Carlton trade pick 1 to West Coast (instead of pick 3), or b) Judd doesn't get traded.

I agree BRFE. He has been unfairly maligned for his games since he came back into the side. He has been given some jobs to do and he has done those jobs very well. Plus, last week against Freo, he had 10 contested possessions. This placed him 5th in our side (equal with Moloney).

Bennell has been very good defensively the last few weeks. I'd be surprised if he was dropped.

I'm just repeating it, because nobody responded to the Sylvia thing the first or the second time you said it. I wonder if supporters would be less upset about losing Sylvia if Scully re-signs, or if this conjecture was about Sylvia all year?

Sorry, I've been a bit busy. Anyway, I saw young Jack play on Saturday. He was not dominant but he certainly was important to VM's win - especially after half time where he won some good contested footy. He's a genuine stoppage midfielder. Not particularly big, nor blessed with breakaway pace, but he's a pure footballer. He's got reasonable burst pace. Has great hands in tight and excellent vision in traffic and space. Good, neat left foot kick and seems to cover a bit of territory. Really hard and tackles very well. I think the game was a step up in pace for him, as he played the game in a style that would have been more suitable to tearing up the lower levels that he has played at (ie, jogging around the ground reading the play and then just winning the ball because he's better than everyone else). He's got some things to work on but, for a 16 year old playing his first championships game, there was a lot to like about him.

Why would I be interested in what your friend says about the game .... I saw the game. If you want, I can tell you what our opinion should be about the game.

I tried to get someone else's, but that crybaby just wouldn't stop screaming. In the end it was just too much hassle.

If you want to let players play multiple roles within a team, then this is more of a focus towards development. The gameplan is an evolving thing that will change, and has changed, between years. Our gameplan has been tweaked from last year, just as everyone’s has. Bennell forward and back, Watts, Jetta, Martin, Grimes, Morton etc. I think that you are confusing things based on where we are in terms of our list. If we were competing for a flag at the moment then I would agree about the importance of gameplan, but we are not, so gameplan is not of critical importance in achieving our overall aim – a premiership. Our current focus ios on developing a team that can win a flag. Once we are close to this point then we can shift our focus to gameplans and structures. And you are arguing points using examples of teams that were far more advanced in their development than we are, such as Roos’ Sydney and Malthouse’s Collingwood. I don’t think that this is relevant in applying Viney’s quote. It would be interesting to see how they would react if they were in Melbourne’s position. In order to clarify where you stand, where do you think Melbourne is as a team? As for semantics, you may consider structures and gameplan to be the same, but they are different. Gameplan involves decision making, how you want to move the ball, how you wish to defend. It is a ‘how to’ plan of how you want your players to play the game. Structures, on the other hand, are where you want to place your players on the ground and which sort of players you want in those positions. As for your opinion, I’m not arrogant enough to think that I’ve changed your opinion. However, by allowing you to attempt to discuss things properly, rather than petty point scoring, (I’m up, by the way) I have simply allowed you to start thinking about it yourself and you are, in a way, convincing yourself. And there’s no shame in it, because that’s how we all should form our opinions. By critically reflecting on our own thoughts we can improve.

I was there. I watched the game with my own eyes. I even watched the whole game.

Was limited to 50% match time by the coaches, it appeared. Certainly spent a lot of time on the pine.

Sorry, Hannabal, but I’ve been flat out the last few days. Don’t worry, I’m not ignoring you as you obviously put some time and effort into it. Re:Viney’s quote, I suggested that you didn’t know how to use it because you go on about it like the MFC hasn’t done any work on gameplan at all, while the statement was simply that development is a higher priority than gameplan (which I wholeheartedly agree with). Hence why I do not believe that you know how to use it. I think you are trying shoehorn that quote into an opinion you have already come to as you are searching for evidence to support your point of view. For me, the gameplan is small potatoes. Gameplans change from year to year and the premiership teams have all used different ones. It’s something that can be worked on slowly, but it can be changed. The playing personnel is much harder to change and requires more time. Most teams play a pretty similar game, but the actual structures vary a little. Changing the structures is not so difficult and they change very often. Gameplan may help us sneak a win here or there, but it the grand scheme of things our game plan this year makes sweet FA difference to our premiership chances. I think that it’s just minutia. Wood for the trees etc. And who is to say that our game plan is wrong anyway? Arguments have been made that there is nothing wrong with it and the issues are in implementation. I agree that our forwards get caught up the ground too much, especially in previous weeks – Bailey has said as much in press conferences. I also don’t think that it is a surprise that we have dropped all of our forwards aside from Watts and Jurrah. Interesting that our running forwards in Petterd, Dunn, Maric etc have all spent time in the VFL. Is that some sort of signal about keeping our structure and applying defensive pressure? It’s good to see that you’ve mellowed on Bailey as a result of this discussion. You, like me, don’t know whether he is a really good coach or a poor coach. But we have found that there is one key difference between our views: - You think that he needs to prove that he’s a really good coach to get another contract, - I think that he needs to prove that he isn’t a good coach to not get another contract. It brings us to an interesting point, which is who would you replace him with? Where do you draw the line with the replacement coach? Malthouse … Roos … Eade … Laidley … Leon Cameron … someone else?? This is the crucial part of it, because if you fire him then you have to hire someone else. Which of these will actually consent to coaching us (at a price we can afford)? I think that this will make the decision. The discussion that we are all having is where we would draw the line in those coaches. And well done on answering those questions. It makes for far better debate, and certainly more intellectually stimulating debate, when you drop your façade and debate the topic properly. Well done and I hope it continues to happen into the future.

It's very nice of you to humour me by allowing me the honour of letting you answer the questions I put forward. Especially since you asked me to ask you the questions (and then doubted that I would ask them, saying you "suspect [you'll] be hearing crickets"). Maybe, since you keep missing the post, I'll put it here so that you we can "go through them together". "You seem to be holding on to Viney’s quote for everything. You have the quote, but I’m not sure that you know how to use it. You said yourself that West Coast’s structure took 2 years to put into place properly. They couldn’t play the style properly until this year and everyone called them a rabble with no direction, no gameplan and appalling footskills. Suddenly now they are a disciplined unit. What has happened? And if it took a far more experienced side like West Coast 2 years to play a style properly, why do you give Bailey only one preseason to have it properly implemented? Especially given that the bodies are smaller, there is a lack of influential senior players and he has to do it with a third world midfield? You say that it cannot be turned on and off like a tap. So why, then, do you think that we changed game styles for the Adelaide game? Clearly we have been trying to do that all year, but have been unable to implement it as well as we did against Adelaide. I have not said that Bailey is definitely the man for us. But I haven’t yet seen anything that conclusively tells me that he is not. I don’t think you have either, based on your arguments. I do believe, however, that the hardest thing to do is create the machine. Once you create the machine then any monkey can operate it. I think that Bailey is assembling a very good machine. If Bailey proves that he is incapable of operating it then I’ll hope that we replace him. But if he doesn’t prove he is wrong for job then I hope that he continues because, as I said, he appears to be building a good machine. You obviously don’t know me very well, based on your questions. This is probably why you find it so hard to debate with me. It’s easier when you try to see the debate from different perspectives, rather than try to simplify it to a point where you can understand. The beauty lies in the complexities, although it can be thankless arguing with those who wish everything to be simple." As for who I am (A question which you seem perpetually confused by)? As with everything in life the answer is neither black nor white. I am many of the people that you've seen and debated with .... yet also none of them. As, I'm sure, are you. And that's what makes life so interesting.

I think I just saw a tumbleweed filled with chirping crickets.

I already did, but unfortunately all I heard were crickets .... .... Tasty, tasty crickets. Yum.

That's tremendously noble of you to be fighting on behalf of the majority on Demonland by restoring the balance of the debate. Anyway it's good to know that, deep down, you have been swayed by the arguments against your position.

Sheahan clearly doesn't know because, immediately after Scully's press conference before the season, Sheahan said on the Hun video news that he thought that Scully would stay based on his press conference. Then, by the time the papers were out the next day, he'd changed his mind again. If the rumour was strong enough then a press conference wouldn't be enough to change anything. He, as an employee of the Hun, has a vested interest in keeping the Scully story going as long as possible, as do GWS.

Petterd was good today. But he's usually good at VFL level. Our forward structure looked much better on Friday without him in it. Howe was good overhead, on the ground and applied really good defensive pressure. He's also a much better kick than Petterd. Given that Petterd putting in decent VFL performances is the norm, then why would we expect a different AFL performance from him after one week in the VFL? Given Howe's debut, and all that he potentially offers the said, Ricky is going to have to be better than just 'good' to get back in.

That kick by Strauss was a miskick. The option was 100% right, but he mishit the kick. It often happens when you are tired late in the game, especially your first AFL game back. Strauss is a magnificent kick. Probably the best kick on our list, along with Davey. I thought he started to look more comfortable at the AFL pace on Friday night, which was easily the most pleasing thing. A miskick is the least of my concerns with him.

Blease was really good in this game. He was scintillating in the first quarter against the wind with his hard work, run and willingness to take the game on. He was quieter in the second half, but that means that his second half was only 'good' rather than 'great'. I'm sure the club want to give him a chance to develop before they elevate him to the AFL, but if he keeps up this sort of form the club may not have a choice but to give him a game. The improvement he has made this year, due mainly to getting consistent games free from injury and improved fitness, has been wonderful. But everyone is entitled to their opinions. However I doubt DeesPower is going to have too many supporters re: Blease. It was the first time that I have seen Davis play and I think he looks every inch a future AFL player. He is strong, really clean, good defensive skills and uses the ball well with composure. But most of all he is really quick. Serious speed. I think we've got a good one there. He looks a bit like Tom McNamara, and it was amusing to hear team mates accidentally calling him 'Tommy' all day! I dare say that it won't be long until they start calling McNamara 'Troy' instead.

Ditto.

It's easy to recruit depth when you're ready to challenge. St Kilda did it by spending sweet FA. Guys like Ray, Peake, Gardiner, King, Polo, Gamble, Dempster, Dawson ..... If someone said that they wanted Warnock, Bate and Dunn, what would you want for? 3rd round pick? Depth is the easy bit. The hard bit is getting the good players!

The same way that Joel Macdonald has come in to give strength to our backline, which stops the kids getting smashed around. It's also the same at Casey, where senior players help out the younger ones with leadership and also use their big bodies to protect them. This doesn't have to be in a melee sort of way, but it is as simple as Warnock being able to take the opposition's biggest forward, allowing Davis to play on the second best. Or the biggest, meanest defender going to Bate, rather than Cook. It gives the kids more freedom and confidence to play.

I think that, in the past, we have drafted players with talent that we have hoped that we could teach to play this way. Our last batch of players (Cook, Howe, Davis, McDonald, Evans, Nicholson, Lawrence and Johnston) and probably also the year before, all seem to be doing this stuff from their first year. Maybe a slight switch in recruiting philosophy?