titan_uranus

You would have thought so, but Tom Morris (grain of salt alert) who is the one breaking the story suggests he doesn't really want to leave Collingwood and would only "begrudgingly" consider moving to another Victorian team. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2020-afl-trades-adam-treloar-collingwood-gold-coast-brisbane-lions-kim-ravaillion-trade-news-talk-tom-morris/news-story/71fb040ad6795d36d3f76646929c4b68 FWIW he's a far better mid than he gets credit for, albeit he has dodgy hamstrings and is a poor kick. But he's fast and can torch opponents both inside and out.

Geelong's CEO this week: “We’re in the market big time at the moment for Jeremy Cameron. He’s struggling with making a decision. He’s a loyal bloke.

Geelong has a culture that is better than probably all 17 other clubs, that's undeniable and a testament to their management and leadership. They've also got some unique attributes that Melbourne-based clubs can't offer (e.g. not being in Melbourne, "country" lifestyle and associated cost of living benefits, etc.). We're not the only club who missed the finals who could use Jeremy Cameron. You also don't know what's been done by the club behind the scenes: again, the key issue is that the world doesn't work in a way that says we should be able to convince any given player to show up and play for us. IMO this is baseless, @Lucifer's Hero. Suggesting we were May, Lever, Langdon or Tomlinson's "only option left" is ridiculous and unfair. Suggesting the only players who come here don't "really want to play for us" is ridiculous and unfair. Complaining about paying "overs" is also unfair. How do you think Carlton has attracted Saad and Williams? Bucketloads of cash! Almost every club, if not every club, pays "overs" to attract A-grade talent from other clubs. May was in AA form this year. Lever is a previous AA squad member. Langdon showed enormous promise and made us a significantly better side this year. Those three acquisitions have been great. It's revisionism IMO to suggest we haven't able to attract good players over the last few years.

Good post. The bolded bit I think is worth considering in more depth. On game day we all get frustrated when our mids don't lower their eyes and kick to the pocket or to some other rubbish option. But there must surely be reasons why Fritsch consistently leads to the pocket (e.g. either he knows he can't get space anywhere else). The lack of good talls means that good sides (who we keep losing too), who have good defences, can zone off and focus on the few threats we have in the forward line. Our consistent use of B/C-grade medium forwards doesn't cut it.

Ravens, Packers, Rams for me. 49ers are cooked, I fear. Me too. So much.

Poor mark, no physicality and timid with ball in hand. Doesn't really scream "forward".

100% we should be interested.

The number I'm focusing on isn't really 7, it's 6. If we have Brown and we start at a centre bounce with Brown, Weideman and Jackson in our forward 50, who are the other three and can we lock the ball in our forward half from a centre clearance? One way is to dominate aerially - Brown, Weideman, Jackson and Fritsch in the forward line is going to be a handful for any defence. The other is if it hits the deck. In that set up, we have two smalls (Pickett and one other - say a resting Viney/Petracca/Harmes, or another small like Spargo/Hunt/ANB). Can it work? I think so. As I posted somewhere else, it will feel a lot better if Fritsch improves his forward half defensive work. We then have another player on the bench who rotates through - e.g. we have Spargo and Pickett in the side, with Viney/Petracca rotating through their spot and the bench). But at any given time we have to have a forward line that can compete aerially and/or when it hits the deck. I see the concern with going with all of Brown, Weideman and Jackson. But I also see a concern if we go with Weideman and Jackson alone (with Fritsch third tall). That set up doesn't look strong enough in the air, at least not in 2021 (Jackson still being 19).

This is a truly terrible idea. The ongoing pursuit of scoring, likely driven by Channel 7, is misguided, but putting that to one side this rule is just stupid. It robs defenders of an option in an era in which it's hard enough to be a key defender and make contact with your opponent without giving a free kick away, and if anything it will encourage sides to go down the boundary line. It's completely unnecessary. It's a huge change! It's a fundamental change to how the ball considered "live" vs "dead". I don't buy your logic that this will detract from moving the ball down the boundary line. Why would a side be afraid of the boundary line because of this? If anything it will attract them to it. FWIW, I also dispute the proposition that the ball moving down the wings is "bad". Agree. We could also bring back the third man up rule - let midfielders get it clear of congestion. I wholeheartedly agree on paying 50m penalties for all those repeated instances where players hold their opponent. If they take a mark or get a free, immediately get off them or a 50m (or maybe 25m) penalty is awarded. I also wholeheartedly agree on the "stacks on the middle" penalty. If your teammate has tackled an opposition player, you don't get to join in. If you do (doesn't matter if you grab your teammate or the opponent), it's a free. Stay out, let the ball come out in the tackle or get the umpire to ball it up straight away. But again, it all comes back to the fundamental proposition that the game needs to be higher scoring or "faster". Fast football, defensive-free football or high scoring football does not always equal good quality product.

As do most, I love Neville and the thought of him playing for any other club is a bit off-putting. But he's no longer in our best 22 and given he'll be 31 before Round 1 next year, it's hard to justify giving him anything more than one year. If Collingwood offers him two or more years, and he's looking for that extra job security, how can we blame him? I'd love it if he chose to stay with us in an off field role as I think he's one of the very few leaders we've had at this club since 2006, but I don't think we should be offering him any more than one year in a playing role no matter what Collingwood or any other club say/do.

Opening line addresses your final line concern.

I have a lot of issues with this post but perhaps the biggest one is the notion, and you're not the only one to do this, that if a certain player doesn't end up at Melbourne then the club has failed to do its job. As if there's some sort of magic formula whereby all we have to do is be interested in a player to guarantee that player signs with us.

The prospect of going to a game at the MCG excites me most. It might not happen straight away, or at all (depending on your level of optimism/pessimism about the world), but that excites me more than anything else right now.

I like this reasoning until you get to the bit where you say Fritsch played his best footy at half back. I think that's absolutely not true at all. I think his best footy has been unquestionably as a forward. His work across half back is often too loose and his positioning poor. His kicking never seems to live up to the promise, either (a bit like his goal kicking). I appreciate the problem you've flagged with having too many talls and Fritsch playing too tall. An alternative solution would be to put the onus on Fritsch to learn to chase/tackle/defend in the forward half more? He's not done developing. If he can take what he's got and add more defensive pressure on transition and when the ball hits the deck, that will improve our balance and IMO is a better net result for the team than moving him to half back.

This is a silly argument. That's exactly what Goodwin should be doing. Our list is in "challenge now" mode. Gawn's at his peak. Our core list is coming into its peak. If the opportunity arises to bring a player in that will deliver a flag in the next 1-3 years, we should be exploring that option, not shying away from it because we're worried about what our list might look like in 2024.

In theory, probably (assuming the CBA doesn't prevent it). But think about it in reality. We're not talking $5,000 or $10,000. We're talking $100,000+ over two years. So what you're suggesting is that he give up hundreds of thousands of dollars. AFL careers are finite. He only gets one chance to capitalise on his ability to play AFL football, and he now has a family to think about. I'm not suggesting living on $500,000+ salaries is hard, but I don't know Tom and I don't know what lies ahead for him once his AFL career is over. He may also feel like/know that if he stays, we won't be able to afford any of the other key forwards on the market, which in turn will force our hand and he'll be in with every chance to be our starting FF in Round 1. Remember, at the moment the impetus appears to be the club looking to trade him, not Tom wanting to walk out on us. So if ultimately he doesn't want to take a pay-cut, I'll completely understand.

Just to be clear: you have no evidence, only your opinion, that we're paying Viney more than Geelong offered him.

As to Preuss, I get why he wants out (why he came here in the first place is the bigger mystery) and I get why we're not falling over ourselves to hold onto him, but I still think we should be firm enough with GWS to ensure we get something back that actually helps us. If we think we can put a late-second/early-third pick to good use, then that's fine.

The PC brigade? Do you mean people who don't like baseless rumours? Like your whole "we're paying Viney more than Geelong offered him" one?

How can anyone forget?

Down, yes. Significantly, no. The numbers are here (averages in 2020 vs 2019): https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?playerStatus1=A&tid1=11&playerStatus2=A&tid2=11&type=A&pid1=3464&pid2=3464&fid1=S&fid2=P&fopt2=2019 Once you factor in a 20% reduction in game time, many of the stats that look a far way apart (e.g. disposals, inside 50s, UPs) are actually not that far apart. Although one stat that stands out is metres gained, which fell of a bit even despite the 20% shorter game time. Part of this will also be explained by Hawthorn being bad across the board. Harder to get involved on a wing when you can't win a clearance and can't stop your opponents scoring.

I guess they chose to roll the dice on improving from last year and selling success to Daniher and Fantasia as the way to keep them. Maybe that and also an element of trying to tell the industry, and/or their own list, that if you're under contract you don't just walk. That latter bit doesn't appear to have helped them much. I didn't rate them last year despite their top 8 finish and given what was reportedly on the table for Daniher (two first rounders), I'd have 100% done that deal.

I don't really understand what the bolded bit means. It remains the case that there's no report, rumour or any other evidence to suggest we ended up offering Viney more than what Geelong offered him, which is what you've claimed. I've already said I wasn't sure about a 5-year deal but I'm not at all fussed about the way the negotiations played out.

Did you read the article? “I love working with ‘Goody’" “I feel like if I was to head somewhere else and end my time at the club, then I would be hanging him out to dry a bit." “I thoroughly thought through both scenarios and came to my conclusion there is unfinished business with Melbourne Football Club." “It is something I have put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into and I do want to see it out." “Everything is about making the Melbourne Football Club great again and successful again and that is where my ultimate fulfilment is going to come from.”

I suspect it's entirely possible the contract ended up being less than Geelong's offer. There's more to Viney's decision than just money/years.