titan_uranus

I'm still holding out hope.

I didn't put this on there because I feel like this is about the same as if Lance Franklin declared he wanted to come to Melbourne. Would be fantastic, but it's just not ever going to happen.

You're that thick, that you're surprised that teams are expressing interest in our first round picks, and not our hack players? Wow. New low. Even for you.

Based on this article, looks like the AFL is getting ready to meddle again: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/lay-off-bench-players-20121006-276av.html Interested in Demonlanders' thoughts. I personally have finally settled into the three-and-one that we currently have. I'm sick of the AFL continually changing the rules, but aside from that, I fundamentally disagree with the idea they're looking at here. They want to reduce intensity and speed to open the game up. Intensity and speed is what makes the game as good as it is. Finals are all about intensity and speed. I don't want the finals to be slow and monotonous with players unable to make contests in the final quarter because they're tiring.

Whilst I am all for bringing Dawes and/or Wellingham to the club, and I seem to rate Dawes a bit higher than others here, I too would be upset if we handed over pick 4 for them. They're just not worth it, not at all. Pick 13 for Dawes is borderline, but probably acceptable; more so if we don't have to use 3/4 to get Viney. If 13 was all we had, I wouldn't be giving it up for him, but if we can pick twice with 3/4, then get Dawes for 13, that's OK I think. If he's out of contract, does he have to agree? I mean, he can say 'I wanna go to West Coast', but being out of contract, does that mean Collingwood can trade him wherever they want? Surely his options are to either go where Collingwood can get a trade it likes, or enter the draft, right?

Or, you could stop and use some reality, and realise that one of Collingwood's biggest weaknesses is that when Jolly needs a rest, they have to ruck Dawes. Who isn't a ruckman. So they've gone and got themselves someone to play the Leigh Brown role, which helped them win a flag in 2010. They're not directly replacing Dawes with Lynch. They need someone to ruck. If we take Dawes, we don't need him to ruck.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/carlton-expresses-interest-in-bomber-scott-gumbleton-and-melbourne-forward-jack-watts/story-e6frf9jf-1226488476356 'Carlton CEO Greg Swann described the reports as "absolute crap". "I don’t know where it’s come from. I think he’s contracted. We haven’t spoken to them, they haven’t spoken to us. I deal with his manager every other day, he’s never mentioned it," he told SEN radio. "I think it’s another one in the made up category." Greg Denham = [censored] of the highest order.

And I thought the Simon Buckley thread was the worst on here...

Some of the comments regarding Dawes and Wellingham on here are just insane. 'Wellingham isn't the leader of a midfield'. Well that's great. I don't think anyone is saying we're looking for a new captain. 'Wellingham is only 5th best at Collingwood'. Maybe that's because 1-4 are Pendlebury, Swan, Thomas and Ball? The fact is, Wellingham is better than any mid on our list right now. He doesn't have to lead, that's Grimes/Trengove's job. He adds value to our side, and anyone who disagrees with that either holds deep-seated resentment to Collingwood or Wellingham, or just doesn't know enough about him. Similar arguments apply to Dawes. He would clearly improve our forward line. Having said all that, they're not worth pick 4. That's just an absurd price to pay. These players add value to our side, no doubt, but that value is diminished by whatever we have to pay for them, and 4 is too much. 13 is maybe OK, I think I could live with that. But not 4.

There's a reason Collingwood is delisting him.

Unbelievable hatred towards Dawes on this thread, and simultaneous unfounded comparisons with Martin, where Martin comes out on top. There simply isn't any basis for claiming Martin is better than Dawes. I'm sorry to all Martin fans, but he's achieved very, very little in his career so far, and Dawes has done more. If the price is right, he should definitely be on our radar, as he'll help Clark immensely and that helps the team.

Bolded bits = I disagree. Entirely. Like, I could not disagree more with these statements. He has no guts (he shirks contests), he doesn't provide contests (see previous), he doesn't use his body well (he is pathetic in marking contests). Hi poita. I think we're going to be good friends.

I think his point was 'stop worrying about whether we're getting mids through FA/trade week, we have our own'. I don't necessarily agree, but I see his argument.

That's unfair to Sellar, I think his marking is actually quite good. It's his movement that is abysmal. I quite like Sellar, tbh, I think he works harder than most on our list, he knows how to use his body and position in marking contests, and I thought his work in defence before he got injured was good.

Well if he's OK because of Cloke, surely he could also be OK because of Clark? Having said that, I don't think Dawes is much chop, and I'm pretty sure the cost would be high.

On international cricket: no idea why Dan Christian is playing. He bats at 8, which adds nothing, and bowls medium pace rubbish without being threatening. He's doing nothing special. David Hussey's bowling is better anyway, and would add impetus to the batting. On domestic cricket: how did Brad Hadding get man of the match in this game: http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-domestic-2012/engine/current/match/576083.html? Haddin: 114, then 7. Henriques: 161 not out, then 50 not out off 51 balls, then 3 wickets (including Cosgrove). Would have thought old Moises had that one wrapped up.

Not happy Jan. As I'm sure you can imagine. What scares me the most about re-contracting him is whether we'll get anything out of him until Round 18, 2014. Last time we saw improvement and re-signed him, he disappeared. With Rivers going, it seems like he will get a game as a KPD, but I have no confidence at all in him holding the spot down and continuing the slight improvement he showed this year. I wait to be proven wrong. At this stage, I highly doubt I will be.

Whilst I think Rivers adds good value to the side, he's not the type of player I am concerned about losing. With McDonald, Frawley, Garland and Sellar all on our list, we have KPDs, and Rivers' role amongst them was to play third man up more than anything. We should be more than fine without him.

Magpies pen new deals Let the real games begin.

But you admitted that he's been kept out for development reasons. Here's the irrationality. On the one hand, you're complaining that he's shown nothing over the last two years. On the other hand, you're saying that he's not in the side because Geelong is playing other players in his position. Inconsistent. I referred. Since then, things have changed. I've seen him play a bit more than I had; my original view was uneducated. Moreover, I said that 12 months ago when there was no free agency, and therefore we'd have had to give up something to get him, which tainted my opinion. I've changed my mind. I suggest you consider doing the same.

Yes, yes it does. You are irrationally tossing the arguments regarding Byrnes aside and ignoring what is a considerable cost for an unproven player in Banfield. You are also ignoring the form Byrnes showed prior to the last two years, when he wasn't pushed out of the side for development reasons. When you look at what Byrnes offers, and you look at the cost of bringing him in (nothing, and a hell of a lot less than Banfield), and you look at what our list could use for improvement, it's really quite difficult to reach the conclusion you are reaching. What cost does Byrnes have to our 'list management'? Who would he be keeping out of the side? As I see it: no one.

It's 12 months old. It's irrelevant.

I make that argument too. It's not about trying to pinpoint one sole reason why we stink. There are multiple. In my mind, two of the biggest and most predominant are our core senior players (brought to the club from 2001-2006, or so) are poor leaders, and that our coaching and development staff under Dean Bailey were terrible and didn't develop anyone on our list as they could or should have been. The result being that many of our players aren't as fit as they should be, and were trained to play poor quality football with a lot of uncontested, downhill skiing stuff, and no contested ball. Hawthorn has shown that you can make 'chocolates out of boiled lollies'. Players like Rioli, Suckling and Schoenmakers weren't drafted because they were hard nosed or aggressive. They were drafted because of their elite skills. They were physically small, too. But they have gone to a club with strong leadership and professional coaching and development, and have matured as players. At Melbourne, we have brought in talented players like Strauss, Morton, Watts, Cook, Gysberts etc, and injected them into an environment of unprofessionalism, lower standards, and poor coaching, with leaders who can't lead. No wonder they're going nowhere.

I can't believe how thick you're acting in this debate. If you can see the parallel between the two, both being kept out of their side because there are better players than them, then my example was spot on, because that was the exact point I was making. I never once tried to say that Byrnes is going to improve like Kennedy did. Being overlooked for development supports my argument, too. He's been overlooked not because he's bad, but because Geelong has development on its mind. This belies your ignorance of the free agency situation. Banfield for a 2nd round pick costs us a 2nd round pick. Byrnes as a free agent costs us nothing. Yes. Exactly. Last year there was no free agency; this year there is. Last year we'd just won 8.5 games, this year we've won 4, and under Neeld's new regime we have gaps all over our list. All of a sudden, a player like Byrnes, no star at all, is in a position to come to the club and improve us. Plenty can change in a year HT. But well done trawling through the posts for old views, instead of thinking about your own current one.

I don't disagree with this. Some people rant and rave about how we drafted 'schoolboy nice kids', and cite Watts and Cook. I think the bigger issue is that they came to a club with no leadership and without senior players who put their head over the ball week in, week out, and deliver consistent football, setting examples.