Axis of Bob

He's 1994. Which means it'll be the 2012 draft - until the AFL changed the age cutoff it would have been 2011 because his birthday is in April.

Warnock wasn't really pushing for selection early on, but there were definitely signs that he could be an AFL player with development. It's lucky that he made an impact in that last year of his contract, though, because the end was nigh! What he had, which others didn't, was legspeed. Key defenders with legspeed are very rare and that was enough to keep him on the list. He was still a dependable defensive stopper at VFL level and, given our historic weakness for tall defenders he was given plenty of time.

With just one ruckman, for the most part, we have won every fourth quarter. We play a very hard running style of game, but it appears that we are also forcing the opposition to play a hard running style of game to combat us. Eventually we get over the top of them because we have superior endurance running ability. And the extra rotation is very important for us in this context, because we rely heavily on running. My theory on ruckmen is that as the game speeds up and teams use defensive zones, the 'running ruckman' will have less influence around the ground. This is because the focus in beating zones is moving the ball super quickly so that the opposition can't move the zone. Once you break the zone there is plenty of space behind to allow free scoring. But slow movement means the zone can reset and it's hard to break through. Ruckmen don't move the ball quickly. Even Dean Cox, who gets the ball 20+ times a game, slows the ball down when he gets it. The ball is far better off in the hands of a hard running midfielder than a ruckman. The role of the ruckman is still important, but it is mainly in the context of using their body to create space (and time) for the midfielders in congested situations (ie, stoppages). Ben Hudson is no world beater, but he is very good at creating space. That's what Jamar is doing really well now, even though he only gets the ball 10 times a game.

It is very interesting, the Watts v Naitanui debate. Especially interesting that the Crows (apparently), who are bereft of ruckmen, would still definitely take Watts before Naitanui. Naitanui is a very exciting player. He was pick 2 in a great draft, so I think that tells you he'll be a damn good player. He was picked before Stephen Hill at 3, so he'd better be a damn good player!!! As for saying that Naita has more potential, I'd argue with that. He's a very exciting player, but I don't think that people realise how good Watts could be. Naita will have a great highlights reel at the end of his career, filled with high jumping, fast running and strange events. Everything he does is exciting. But is he more likely to win a side a premiership than Watts? I would doubt it. Watts is won't be as spectacular, but he'll put results on the board and win a team a premiership. Naita is X-factor, while Watts is production. He's getting the ball 20+ times a game and using it well as an underdeveloped 197+cm wingman and people are disappointed? His time will come, and I'm prepared to wait as long as is required. As supporters, just suck it up and put up with the media bashing for a little while, because eventually you'll be able to stick it up everyone.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/7415/newsid/85298/default.aspx He resigned for 2 years.

There were comments when he signed that Gold Coast were into him when he was signing.

Morton signed a 3 year deal last year, IIRC. I think I remember Scott Clayton (Gold Coast recruiting manager, former Bulldogs) saying that he thought Morton was the best player in his draft and one of the best young players in the game. Although that could have been my own imagination.

Dermie was dead in his tracks at 27. Carey not much better at the same age. They were very good when they were young, but their best footy would have been when they were in their mid to late 20s ...... if their bodies had have held up. I'd rather Jack be developed to be our key forward when we are premiership contenders. There is no benefit from having him getting crunched - be it at AFL or VFL level - each week as a key forward. There's plenty of time to watch him play CHF when we need him to.

Richmond would not qualify for a priority pick this year. They have won too many games. I don't believe that any team should get priority picks. Ever. You just have to see what a farce us picking up Trengove is, when we've just picked up Scully. Finishing last should give you a star (ie, pick 1), but just because you finish with a certain amount of wins doesn't mean that you should get 2 stars. Richmond is not being disadvantaged by any more in this draft than any other team. In actualy fact, finishing last is 2 spots ahead of 2nd last, which is 2 spots ahead of 3rd last etc. Richmond have an advantage over all clubs except Gold Coast, who also have an advantage over the rest of the clubs. Their draft position should see them get better than each of the current clubs, which is what the draft is supposed to do. I don't believe that Richmond deserve priority picks. We will probably be the last team to ever get a priority pick. We were very fortunate last year. Richmond are unfortunate, but not necessarily any more than any other of the current clubs.

Petterd is no Stevie J. Ricky is a hard worker and strong overhead for his size, but he's not exactly X-factor. Johnson had X-factor but was undisciplined and defensively poor. When they dropped him he'd dominate. Ricky doesn't have that talent, but he's a good solid player. The problem with Ablett's compensation was that the formula doesn't cover for elite players, only the rest of them. Ablett is worth pick 1, plus 2 other first rounders. The formula will undersell that. Ricky is probably worth a second round pick on the open market. We'll probably get a second round pick for him. If he's the one we lose then I'm OK with that. I'd prefer to lose nobody, but Petterd isn't central to our premiership push. So if we were given the choice to either lose Petterd, or have a 50/50 chance of either losing Frawley or losing nobody, I'd take losing Petterd rather than risk losing a more important player for the benefit of maybe losing nobody.

We have the following young players on our list. Jack Watts Tom Scully Jack Trengove Cale Morton James Frawley Jack Grimes Liam Jurrah Colin Garland Sam Blease James Strauss Addam Maric Austin Wonaeamirri Jordan Gysberts Luke Tapscott Jamie Bennell Jake Spencer Nathan Jones Jordie McKenzie Stefan Martin Neville Jetta Ricky Petterd If Ricky Petterd is the player that ends up on the Gold Coast then it's probably a good result for us. It could be a lot worse. In reality he is a bit part player as a HFF - a role that could be played by a number of players.

All the talk of 'competitiveness' has been backed up at the selection table. The two players they brought in are noted chasers.

Playing Jack Watts might be best for the team's chances, but is it best for Jack Watts? I'm not offering an opinion on that question either way, but I do want to ensure that the decision is best for the long term interests of Jack rather than the short term interests of the side.

That's an excellent post Harry. Far better expressed than I did. Also, Clint, the issue was getting the ball from defence into the midfield. Kicking long was exactly what Hawthorn were set up for. We were actually pretty good when we delivered the ball deep into the forward line, especially considering our lack of forward talent. Believe it or not, it actually created space and one on one opportunities for our forward line. But that's an argument for a different thread.

Yep, that's definitely right jnrmac. But the game was being played differently when they were drafted. Brisbane had just won a bunch of flags and 'big bodies' were in vogue. We had some very good finishers like Johnstone and Yze and lacked inside grunt. Sylvia's speed, powerful kicking and power running has actually suited the new style of game very well. He's now one of our best players, if not our best. Funnily enough, Colin struggled earlier in his career because he didn't naturally know how to win the footy, but he made up for that with his raw power game. Brock, conversely, started his career well because he was a natural footballer despite not being particularly gifted athletically. This didn't matter because he won the inside ball and was able to grind his way into space, which was available in games in 2004. As the years have progressed and the game has changed, Sylvia has started to dominate games while Brock has plateaued. But Brock was, and still is, a wonderful 2004 footballer. But he's not a great 2010 footballer and is likely to be a worse 2014 footballer. Sylvia's power makes him a better 2010 footballer and a better 2014 footballer. The point I am making is that we have some very good 2004 footballers. Bruce, Green, Junior, Moloney, Jones. But, generally, they aren't suited to the 2010 game of dynamic ball carrying and running through lines with chains of handball. We have group of players who are naturally suited to playing the 2014 style, but they are currently so young that they don't make a big difference. But they will. We just have to be patient enough and focus on developing the properly. As for the second quote, that was exactly what I was saying. I've already clarified it an earlier post. The sentence could be read two ways, but I was meaning that we aren't just relying on handball as can be seen by our drafting focus on good footskills.

Is the time for testing over because you are sick of losing, or because it's what is best for the development of the team? Bailey is clearly still developing the young players. He needs to balance the development of his players against going flat out for a win. Look at Grimes running with Hodge. If Bailey was going flat out for a win then he'd have played Grimes in his best spot, at half back, and brought in Bartram to tag Hodge. Grimes has shown that he can play half back well, but we want him to end up being a midfielder. So Bailey tells him to follow Luke Hodge around so that he can learn exactly where a star midfielder runs to win the ball. Alternatively, playing Spencer over Martin. Given Hawthorn's lack of ruckmen it would have bee easier to play the more flexible Martin rather than Spencer. He would have offered more up forward. But if Bailey sees Spencer as a long term ruckman and wants to develop him by playing AFL then he's right. Bailey was given an extra year because the board knew that we had to be patient, and that's not something supporters (or the media) enjoy. So we gave him an extra year and, in a way, forced everyone to be patient. The good thing about this is that Bailey can now spend an extra year developing kids rather than have to fight for a contract by picking the best team to win the next game, rather than the best team (and tactics) to win the 2014 Grand Final.

Vibes, I was going to post something but your post is far more appropriate. It's also likely to be more effective in communicating to Clay at a level he'll undderstand. And, I agree. BTW, Brock was drafted to play the Danhier style of game. Slowly churning the legs over to grind his way into space. But as we've seen, the game is far more dynamic than when he was drafted. If he was worried about the game plan then he was right to be worried. It did not suit him at all and he made the right decision to leave - from all parties' perspectives.

There's no blood for the vultures to circle around. That's why the board did it. They want him coaching in 2010 and 2011 because they have the information with which to make such a decision. Have you noted that the response from the media has been pretty half arsed? Same to Richmond. They know nothing is going to happen, so why would they bother. They might have a piece here or there to pander to the emotions of the restless natives, but they know that there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that either Melbourne or Richmond will change coach this year.

Jack, I agree and that was my point. He's drafted players with very good footskills and made a point of getting good kicks to the club. These aren't the actions of a coach who doesn't believe kicking is important. Maybe I should have worded it differently, but that was what I was trying to say. We need to get into a position to kick the ball, but we need to release people inot space to use those skills by good attacking chains of handball.

How do you improve skills? Can you make poorly skilled players skilled based on a few years of coaching when they are 27? When those players were drafted and developed, the game did not require the same level of precision with kicking. If you could chip to an uncontested player, or slam the ball 50 metres down the line, then your skills were good enough. This was especially so when we changed our focus to bigger bodied players after we tried to emulate Brisbane's success. But we have drafted players who can kick. You can only improve players' kicking so much. Some players have improved, but the level has generally been from a very low base and they are still not greta kicks (nor will they ever be). Players like Spencer and Martin are much better kicks now. They are kids, but the older players are as good now as they'll ever be.

Handballing to release a player is what we are attempting to do. Bailey hasn't focussed on drafting players that are good kicks because he doesn't think kicking is important. As Hird said, we just need to link up better with our handballing, which will release our players to drive the ball long over the top of the zone that is set up. We got some really good one on one and two on two opportunities when we did link up well and then drove the ball over the zone. We even managed to score from some of these!! But because we are afraid to take risks in the backline we aren't running forward of the ball confidently enough to get into space. As a result there's nobody to give the attacking handball to and we end up shuffling the ball around defensively, which puts us under pressure. It's interesting to note that Scully and Trengove, Scully especially, were actually very good at this and took the opposition on whenever they got the ball. These are confident young players who obviously know they are good, so they take the game on. Strauss can do this, but he needs the confidence since h'll end up as an ideal designated defensive kicker. Sam Blease is the sort of player who would help a lot in this regard - he just takes the ball, beats tacklers and delivers really well. Sylvia, too, does this well. But this is the type of play that we need to encourage from our kids. Our older players don't play this style too well, especially since they were drafted and developed in an era where this style wasn't in vogue. Bruce, Green, McDonald and Moloney were brought in when winning contested ball and kicking long to contests. But zoning, flooding and 'run and carry' have changed the way the game is played, and the result is that players probably need to be more dynamic. Our young players are, but our older players aren't. This means that our senior players aren't suited to the game we are trying to play, so we need to wait until our younger players are good enough to instigate the play and carry the burden. The dynamic midfielders - Scully, Blease, Trengove, Grimes, Strauss - have played about a dozen games between them. They can't yet carry that burden. But, in time, they will. They may even be able to do it for small periods this year, but you'll get a lot of inconsistency.

Robbie, you're right, you don't have to answer my question. That's why I gave you added incentive by making you feel like you'd lose credibility if you didn't, otherwise you'd just continue to ignore the question. Your response was still emotive and rash, and you have shown little ability to comprehend the consequences of your actions. I'm hoping that other people will read that little string of posts and realise that punishing players for skill errors is completely counter productive and is just a rash reponse to an individual's own frustration. You can 'punish' players for errors that involve a choice they made which was selfish and go against the team, such as dropping your head, breaking team rules and not applying defensive pressure. These are actions that can be consciously corrected by a player and need to be reinforced by the coach. A player committing a skill error cannot be affected by a 'punishment' since the player is consciously attempting to perform the skill properly. What message could you give the player? "Try to do the right thing again .... errr .... harder"?!?!?

Guess what the key message for Geelong is? It's to give the ball off as soon as you get it. Why? Because the ball moves faster than a person can. James Hird tonight stood up to Sheahan and Healy when Healy said that Melbourne handballed too much and should kick more. Hird said that if you kick the ball forward then Hawthorn were set up to turn the ball over and send it straight back with interest. Hird was saying that handballing and carrying the ball forward was the right thing to do, but we needed to do it better. Currently we aren't good enough to do it well, and not confident enough to persist with the risks. Bailey was reappointed because the board, with more information on what's happening, believe in him. They wanted him to coach next year and knew that a bad loss or two would cause the media and supporters to go into meltdown. Can you imagine what the pictures would be on the front of the paper if Bailey was out of contract? The media would already be calling for blood. With Harvey as the only coach out of contract this season now, and with Freo winning, what are they going to fill the papers with now? But the board sought to head this off because they celieve that Bailey is the right person to coach in 2010 and 2011. And they have more information about what the club is trying to achieve. Deal with it.

Redleg, all of those players are bit part players for when you haave the fundamentals of a strong team. Just like Barry Hall at the Bulldogs. But we are in the position where we need to get the base of the cake right. That base will hopefully include players like Gysberts and Tapscott. Once that base in settled then we can start trading for players who will make a more immediate impact. Just like Geelong did with Ottens. And Hawthorn have done with Burgoyne, Gibson, and drafting mature aged players like Peterson and Kayler-Thompson.

WYL, it didn't seem to stop Hawthorn winning a flag in 2008.