Jump to content

titan_uranus

Life Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    16,541

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

 Content Type 

Everything posted by titan_uranus

  1. titan_uranus
    I'd swap Fitzpatrick and Taggert, to reflect Fitzpatrick's clear development this year vs Taggert's failure to get a game. I'd also swap Clisby and ND82. If we're prepared to go for ND82, we must surely be equally prepared to elevate the kid who's been playing the last 6 or so weeks. On that adjusted line up, Clisby gets in over Davey, and then I'd still take 82 over Nicholson.
  2. titan_uranus
    This is exactly how recruiting shouldn't happen. You are saying here that we should have taken Wines over Toumpas solely and only because Wines would have more of an impact in 2013 than Toumpas. You do not draft players at pick 4 to have an impact in their first year. You draft them to be 200 game players for your club. Toumpas will do that, and on the evidence of this year, will do that just as well as Wines will, if not better.
  3. titan_uranus
    So I think that we're all in agreement on this - we're not letting pick 2 go unless there is a true star available. The difference in opinion comes from the reality of this. We can get in clubs'/players' ears, we can try to suss out players, but given the position of pick 2, there currently is little to no evidence at all to suggest anyone worthy of pick 2 will be available. We'll have to wait and see, I guess, but I'm certainly not expecting us to do anything other than draft a kid with pick 2.
  4. titan_uranus
    Rohan Bail runs as hard as Scully does. Merely being able to run doesn't make you a decent footballer.
  5. titan_uranus
    Unfortunately, it is mainly about the midfield. If we had a consistent rate of entry into forward 50, but Dawes was failing to impact games, then you'd have a point. But since we don't get into the forward half/50 anywhere near often enough, nor do we do so with purpose/effectiveness/skill, it becomes unfair to judge the forwards. Despite that, I still think your analysis is overly pessimistic. Dawes' average was at Collingwood was influenced in their decision to play him in the ruck, as well as the fact that the dominant amount of their forward 50 entries went to Cloke. I don't agree with the dropping marks comment, I don't think that's been a part of Dawes' game this year. Fitzpatrick has definitely dropped a stack of easy marks, but that aspect of his game has been improving weekly with his confidence going up. I'm absolutely not kidding on Gawn. You're massively overrating Clark in the ruck. He's a mobile mover around the ground, sure, but he's not as good as a ruckman as Gawn is. Gawn will improve his fitness and strength this pre-season (he'll get a full and proper pre-season, too, which helps), and will be far and away our number 1 ruck. At any rate, even if you think Clark is better in the ruck, Gawn is more than adequate, and so we can easily afford to play Gawn as a ruckman and therefore use Clark as a forward, meaning your argument is pointless. Whether Boyd will be better than Dawes or not is also beside the point. Dawes, Hogan, Clark, Fitzpatrick, Watts and Howe provide us with a fine forward line, one which presents numerous marking and goal-kicking options.
  6. titan_uranus
    No.
  7. titan_uranus
    When you have to resort to 'but the MFC might not exist in three years' as your idea of a rational argument, you must be struggling.
  8. titan_uranus
    Yes, but saying Clark and Dawes wanted to come to the club isn't really relevant when you're considering the class of players for whom pick 2 is appropriate. Neither Clark nor Dawes are, or were, worth pick 2, so it hardly matters whether they wanted to come here or not. No one who is worth pick 2 is likely to want to come here, and you haven't been able to name anyone who is worth pick 2 who is, as yet, on the market. Asserting, then, that we must trade pick 2 doesn't really wash, given there isn't anyone out there who appears available. If Scott Pendlebury walks out on Collingwood tomorrow, you may have something. Right now, pick 2's best use is in the draft.
  9. titan_uranus
    You're tantamount to saying Port's in the 8 because of Wines. He's been good this year, but he's not even their fifth best midfielder, which says a lot about their list. Wines at Melbourne wouldn't be half the player he is now. Conversely, Toumpas at a team like Port would probably be better. We'll (hopefully) get some decent mids to the club this year, and then the value in taking Toumpas will become a lot clearer.
  10. titan_uranus
    WYL, what do you think would have happened if Wines had come to Melbourne? If he'd had to play alongside the remainder of our pathetic midfield? You talk a lot about how our club has an ingrained psychological problem, that we're 'cooked' mentally and that the tanking saga has killed our culture and spirit. Why is it, then, that Wines would just walk in like a messiah and fix everything? Wines at Melbourne would be half as good as what he is at a club like Port which has a group of star midfielders (Ebert, Boak, Cornes, Hartlett, Wingard, Cassisi). Even if we were a little better off now, we'd still be bottom 2, we'd still have a crap midfield, we'd still need more midfielders this year, and we'd still be looking at a wait before finals.
  11. titan_uranus
    Your little hypothetical at the end there sounds nice, until you stop and think logically about it. You're doing exactly what BH said is the problem - living in a world where these players just show up at the MFC. Why would Kennedy leave Sydney to come to Melbourne? That's leaving the 2012 and possibly 2013 premier, a club that isn't exactly going to fall off the cliff next year, to go to the potential wooden spooner of 2013, a club whose future, if you're the only one who shows up, is still rather bleak. We're not GWS, we're not made of money. Why would he want to come here? Sydney may want pick 2, but they'll want Kennedy just as much, if not more, so that is simply never, ever going to happen. I really dislike this overly pessimistic view. Yes, right now there are some weak teams. But that's because the previous few drafts have been compromised to give GC and GWS a head start. The idea of having those sides is that in the long term the talent pool will expand and there will be more players to go around. Nothing has happened to suggest otherwise. With time, GC and GWS will get stronger, and they'll win games, which will make them attractive and their support in their locations will go up. The short term pain of giving them the players and resources to work with will end up in long term gain for the entire competition. In each year there have always been really poor sides. The fact that there are a couple of them right now does not say anything about the talent pool. Of course we can try, but this is different to Clark and Dawes. We didn't give up pick 2 for either of them. Given that midfielders are easier to get out of high draft picks than KPFs are, we need a clear star for pick 2, and there isn't one available. Simple as that.
  12. titan_uranus
    I see your point, but of the 49 players who were on our list in 2009, there are only 13 left (Jones, Watts, Frawley, Sylvia, Dunn, Grimes, Garland, Davey, Jetta, Jamar, Bail, Spencer, McKenzie). That's 26%. That does raise another point, though. I can't imagine many people in 2009 would have thought that we'd turnover 3/4 of our list by 2013. Shows you just how poor player/list management/development has been at this club.
  13. titan_uranus
    Most of the above posts have shown you up. That you're willing to write Dawes off based on what you've seen shows no regard for the wider team and our midfield woes. In fact, some might argue that averaging 1.1 goals a game with our midfield isn't all that bad. Not only do we hardly go inside 50, when we do we usually miss our target. I also disagree with most of your other player assessments. Clark's not our best ruck, Gawn is, and Clark's better at FF than he is in the ruck. Howe's best football is almost universally as a forward (he goes missing for far too long when he's up the ground, IMO), and you've been unfairly harsh on Fitzpatrick, who is developing really well despite the turdstorm around him.
  14. titan_uranus
    Very unfair on Dawes. Fitzpatrick is also developing at a rate no one expected here. There's nothing as yet to suggest Clark won't be back in 2014 (MFCSS suggests otherwise). Howe's best football this year has been as a forward, IMO. Same with Watts. Clark, Hogan, Dawes, Fitzpatrick, Howe, Watts. Crying out for a small forward, of course, but aside from that, the marking capability is there. A decent midfield which can get the ball and move it forward with some purpose will have plenty to kick to.
  15. titan_uranus
    Yes, I did say the Geelong game was OK. I don't know how my previous post contradicts my position on that. For a game in the slop, in Geelong, with the game played predominantly in the Cats' forward half, I thought our effort to keep tackling and pressuring for most of the four quarters was pretty good. Your last sentence shows how utterly pessimistic you are. The list does not need a rebuild. The midfield does, sure, but the forward and back lines do not.
  16. titan_uranus
    At the moment, there isn't anyone on the market worthy of pick 2. Unless one of the true stars of the competition appears before us like the messiah, we need to keep pick 2 and draft the best midfielder available with it. We'll still have pick 20-odd, and maybe a PP around 20 to use. We could/should be looking to trade those if there are mids available; they're not as special as pick 2 is.
  17. titan_uranus
    No use asking the club, Nineteen. There's definitely no one at Melbourne who wants us playing home games at Etihad. It's an AFL thing. I'm not sure if there is some sort of 'rule', but the MCG clubs (Melbourne, Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood) seem to be playing one game at Etihad a year. It might be a requirement under a contract somewhere, I'm not sure. Collingwood plays a couple of home games there most years. Richmond, Hawthorn and Melbourne don't like it but seem to be forced into one game a year there. Whilst we're pulling awful crowds, we have no bargaining power to try to get out of it, so I expect it to continue, though it's probably contractually required or something stupid like that.
  18. titan_uranus
    I read in the paper today that McDonald started the game as a loose man in defence, with Hansen the same for North. Not only is McDonald no good loose (much better one-on-one), Hansen is dominant when he has no one to worry about. So, as usual, our loose man has no influence while theirs kills off our rare forward thrusts. I don't know how long it took for us to ditch the plan (if it was ditched at all), but that's some terrible coaching right there.
  19. titan_uranus
    Even if there was a remote chance of Essendon losing their 2000 premiership (there isn't), there's no way it would get awarded to us. It would be written off forever.
  20. titan_uranus
    To be honest, I got to every MCG game I can. I'd go to Etihad if I thought we were half a chance of winning there, which won't be likely for a few years at least.
  21. titan_uranus
    It's not trying to find an excuse, it's looking into the reasons. One reason we got belted is because we're crap. Another reason is we're not a fit club. Another reason is because we were tired and couldn't run the game out. You put those together and you get a 120 point loss. Rotating the side from last week definitely would have helped. Since it didn't happen, saying we ran out of legs is clearly a valid comment.
  22. titan_uranus
    They have to make up 1.8% on us, but yep, a possibility. You'd still think Collingwood will run over the top of them in the second half, though.
  23. titan_uranus
    I fixed your sentence.
  24. titan_uranus
    Not a cop out at all. It's simply a fact. We're abysmal, and even if we hadn't gone to Darwin and Geelong in the rain the last fortnight, we'd have lost by a heap today. But the argument that our fitness fell apart based in part on our last fortnight is completely fair, and discounting it is simplistic.
  25. titan_uranus
    Clearly picking today as the day to start this discussion wasn't great, as the simple minded think I've said 'Melbourne sucks because of Darwin'. Quite obviously, Darwin is a small factor in a huge problem. I just wanted to see what the effect of playing Darwin, if any was, and whether people think that the money gained from going up there is enough to warrant the residual effect that playing up there has in later weeks. From the stats and the looks of our performances the last four years, I'd say it's having quite a negative effect on us, and I'm not sure that's worth the money. Of course, whilst we're a bottom 2 side it doesn't matter too much, but there are other places to sell home games too if we need the money and this one doesn't appear to be helping us much.
×
×
  • Create New...