stevethemanjordan

A typical one-eyed supporters response. 'Thrilled' at the thought of keeping an underachieving and terribly inconsistent senior player and 'underwhelmed' at potentially picking up three players who will without doubt help the depth of the list and are upgrades on those who have been delisted, thus improving our side overall. Really pushing the foresight boundaries there.

Melksham and Kennedy for a second rounder (in a supposed weak draft) is solid. I just see them as immediate upgrades on McKenzie and Riley. They offer more. Provide greater versatility as far as attributes go and have scope for much more significant improvement. (Especially Melksham as he has money in the bank from a few years back). Not sure why anyone would be annoyed/upset about this.... Unless of course you suffer from cognitive dissonance. Which sounds like it could be the majority of posters on this particular thread.

Good thread. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/foot-fetish-that-won-hawks-a-flag/story-e6frf9jf-1225847711369 They were deliberate in drafting left-footers who were also natural footballers. Nailing a Franklin and Roughy in the one draft also helped. It is interesting that we're rumoured to be interested in Bugg and Kennedy, both of whom are lefties. Who knows whether it's deliberate. But if we do indeed land them plus Melksham, one thing is for certain: We've upgraded our depth. Because those three players offer far more than Bail, McKenzie and Riley. Improving our list depth is a vital part of us pushing back up the ladder.

But seriously, if he leaves us we'll really struggle. You can't lose that sort of experience. He's a senior player. Same with Moloney And with Frawley. And Garland. And...

Aside from him. (Like the hot tuna lookalike though).

Would love him.

Agree. Any news on the trade front, great oracle?

Dissociative identity disorder or just bat-[censored] crazy? Whichever way, you're truly one of a kind.

Get the tissues out boys and girls. Welcome to the club, Jake. Let's hope you can recapture that 2013 form.

Jobe Watson Nat Fyfe Sam Mitchell Luke Hodge Dan Hannebery Josh Kennedy Adam Treloar Travis Boak Isacc Smith Bradley Hill Brent Stanton Mark Blicavs Dan Nicholson Jarryn Geary Rohan Bail The first group are footballers first and foremost. They're players who have developed a 'tank' through sheer work ethic and none of them were elite runners before being drafted. The second group are runners first and foremost. Some of whom have greater footballing ability than others on their list. Of course running is important. But it's fair to say the differences once you get to AFL level rest in your ability to 'play' the game and not so much whether or not you can beat a bloke in a 3km time trial by 20 seconds.

Interesting and thanks for the info. Much can change over the course of a year and judging by comments made this year after certain losses and similar periods of non-competitive and skill-less football as last year, Roos and co have surely come to the understanding that the list still needs a lot of work. In all areas. Looking closely at the six players that have already been moved on, it would be fair to say that Jamar, Bail, McKenzie, Riley and Fitzpatrick offered us very little in the way of 'depth'. One of many problems with our list is that not only do we not have quality depth, we don't even have decent depth. Clearly this was evidenced by Roos' desire to play underdeveloped first year players off the back of very limited pre-seasons in ANB, Stretch and Vandenberg, and a refusal to play those aforementioned, much older and more experienced names. In knowing that, is it not obvious as to why we'd be trying to target out-of-form but talented players like Melksham? Or do posters still struggle to recognise this? Again, I'll remind you that Melksham's 2013 season shits all over anything that Bail, McKenzie and Riley have produced throughout their careers and he possess a skill-set that is greater than theirs. List management and changes at a club like ours is clearly a more difficult and complex process than at most other clubs. We don't have the luxury of only targeting A-grade talent through trade period and then drafting well. We have to target depth, talent, senior leadership, role-playing and we have to nail our drafting. Targeting depth players like Melksham with the scope for improvement is nothing short of a necessity for the MFC at this point in time. After this time next year and if all goes to plan, list changes won't be anywhere near as drastic as what we've witnessed over the past few years. Get our depth right, develop our kids right and keep nailing the draft, bring in a couple more older and more experienced heads to continue to help nurture and bring in at least on A grader into the midfield, (hopefully two) and we'll continue to rise.

He certainly will be.

Glenrowan. Three-peat next year.

Ones big fella. Cmon.

I may have been playing..

Didn't happen to see the O&K grand final at the rovers ground last weekend did you?

Says the guy who's two favourite players have just been delisted... I'm not sure AFL footy is your 'jam'.

You're one of many who say things like this. And it's exactly what I'm referring to when I say there are posters who refuse to acknowledge fundamental problems in certain players' games. It's just a clear example of the things I've already spoken about concerning one-eyed supporters. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you were against letting Frawley go either for the same reasons. I have never ever said Garland doesn't have 'ability'. I've seen his best. And at his best he is a really valuable player. As I've said. It's like trying to explain the theory of evolution to a creationist.

Calm your farm. Do you really think Melksham is the only player we'll be bringing in? The reason we're not a destination club is our own fault. You do realise that?

Hate to drag this on further but no, he wasn't blocked by Bruce. Bruce outmuscled Lumumba who Garland clumsily semi-runs into whilst making this attempted spoil. I'm assuming most have played at some level and would know if you're leaving that much space between yourself and your opponent as a defender, (in this case about 100 metres and the opponent being Roo), you'd better kill the ball or you're going to be in trouble. Not only does he not kill the ball. He doesn't even fully commit in the air. It's a half-arsed attempt in my eyes and I see this as being more of a lack of aggression in the contest with him than anything else. Ala Watts. Anyway, of course many players make these kinds of mistakes and they're forgivable when it's occasional. But as others have already alluded to, he makes too many of these kinds of mistakes. Whether it's decision making, not being strong enough in the mind/contest or kicking. The interesting part in all of this is still where he finished in the B&F and I still can't figure it out. Would love to know who votes.

Most important thing on his road to recovery is to have minimal if any soft-tissue setbacks. So far so good. Will be interesting to see what happens when he's competing in full intensity training over the summer. Can't wait to see him play though.

I'd honestly be happy to give a late-ish second rounder for Plowman. Hasn't had great opportunity as GWS have had mature-age blokes playing his role. I think he's the perfect 'target' player who just hasn't been able to show his true value for varying reasons.

Has been just another problem added to a long list of problems which our own supporters on this forum for some reason refuse to either believe or see. The amount of senior figures we've had who just don't have the tonic to 'do it' themselves. Always requiring some sort of external motivation. A great example is the amount of times we've seen some of these players 'respond' only after an incredibly humiliating loss. These are issues that happy-go-lucky supporters either cannot see or completely underestimate their significance. If some of the posters on here had their way and players like Sylvia and Frawley were held on to because of this fixation with individuals at our club, imagine how we'd be faring... I just find it scary. It's like trying to talk to Bill O'Reilly about Darwinism.

I feel like I remember him saying something about being a Saints supporter as a kid... But it makes sense if he's nominated them as his club of choice. Clearly has a soft spot for them after only being in the system for two years. I wonder if we made a play for him considering it was either he or Salem we were going to take with pick 9.

Wow! A non-biased critique of a long-time serving footballer at our club! Never thought I'd read something like this from a mod.