Dee man

I've been listening to Glen Bartlett's president's speech and was struck by the following sentences:

Would not be surprised at all if we delisted them at season's end and another team picked them up and turn them into AFL regulars.

Ah, there we go. My bad! Got worked up over nothing.

My only response to that is "Sylvia's been on our list for 10 seasons?!?"

Given that it's a slow-news weekend, the afl website has once again brought up the topic of free agency. At season's end, we've got two players in this boat: Aaron Davey (restricted), and Colin Sylvia (unrestricted).

Apologies if this has been asked before, but how on earth is Colin Sylvia an unrestricted free agent? Ditto Jared Rivers last year. Surely these guys are in the top 25% paid players at the club. And if not, why not? My only explanation is that Clark and Dawes are getting paid overs by so much that they alone take up the top 20% paid players at our club.

I realise that both Sylvia and Rivers have had inconsistent runs since their debut and possibly signed contracts while out of form, but no one has ever doubted their talent and it baffles me that they wouldn't be considered the most valued of players in a club devoid of experienced talent.

For clarification, here are the definitions for restricted/unrestricted free agents:

* A player has served eight or more seasons of AFL football at one club, is one of the top 25 per cent highest-paid players at his club, and is now out of contract for the first time since reaching eight seasons of service. (restricted free agent):

* A player has served eight or more seasons of AFL football at one club, is not one of the top 25 per cent highest-paid players at his club, and is now out of contract for the first time since reaching eight seasons of service. (unrestricted free agent)

Perhaps "Not playing to our weaknesses" would be a more apt title.

There are a number of reasons why we played a lot better yesterday, but one of the main ones I thought was our patience and resistance to constantly play on/handpass to a running opponent.

Against Gold Coast, we repeatedly tried to run and carry against a side that was easily quicker than us. Often this led to us handpassing to a nearby player who then ran into trouble, or ran too far and get smothered. As such, rather than the ball being marked 50 metres away (or at least being in a 50-50 fifty metres up the ground), we were losing 5 metres through a backwards handpass and turning the ball over closer to Gold Coast's goal.

Against Richmond, players resisted the behind-the-back handpass and instead looked for the switch or a marking option up the field. It didn't pay off everytime but it meant that we were more often playing to our strengths (contested marking) than our weaknesses (lack of speed, poor ball use).

This tactic makes sense when Jamar has the ball and Davey - a far superior user of the ball - is behind him and in the clear. But there aren't enough good ball users in Melbourne's team at the moment for us to keep pursuing this strategy. It might be a small win, but hats off to the coaching staff (or perhaps the players) for recognising this. The more this team plays to its strengths and not its weaknesses, the more competitive this team will be.

One problem is that we flood the backline far too much, meaning there are opposition players everywhere.

If we reduce it to a few one-on-ones, its easier for players to lead to space. If we have guys like Garland, Watts, and Strauss kicking it 50m+ to the likes of Howe, Gawn, Tapscott, and maybe Trengove (i.e. guys who can/should take a mark) we've got far more of a chance of retaining possession which should be the priority. We're much better at using the ball around the centre of the ground where there is more space.

Short kicks don't work as there aren't enough good ball users in defence. Kicking it 30m to McDonald or Sellar in the back pocket is nowhere near a get out of jail card. Their job shouldn't be to lead, but to keep the best markers in the opposition side out of the equation.

Jimmy barely played a quarter and had more tackles than half the players on our team.

That's what supporters should be taking out of his game.

Playing Tom McDonald on Leuneberger and Longer was a mismatch, but we simply had no one else. Given those circumstances, he wasn't our worst.

Only 10 tackles. What a pathetic effort.

Kyle Cheney

Hopefully this gives you all a bit of a laugh...

From the Herald Sun, 4 January 2013

"There has also been strong backing for West Coast at the seemingly generous odds of $7.

“We took a $3000 bet on West Coast at $7 for a potential $21,000 collect right after the announcement that they had recruited classy midfielder Cale Morton so plenty of punters are confident they have the list to go to the next level this season,” Hamilton said."

A mate just messaged me...

Toumpas to Melbourne

Wines to Bulldogs

Menzel to Carlton

Edit - He now tells me that Toumpas and Wines are locks, however Menzel will depend on earlier picks. He must be at the top of Carlton's list though.

Reliable source!!!

The above players (along with guys like Thornton and Symes... and perhaps even Kurt Tippett) may have already been snapped up in the delisted free agency period - I think this will be the "new" PSD.

I think there are two constants of being a Melbourne supporter:

1. disappointment

2. losing good players to other clubs

I can't think of many good Demons over the past decade who have signed on with us without giving a second thought. Even the mainstays of the last decade - Yze, White, Green - regularly flirted with opposition clubs during trade week. Perhaps Neitz and Trengove are the main exceptions.

Without getting caught up too much in which players have stayed loyal, it's worth reflecting the calibre of players we have lost to other clubs over the past decade (I know the circumstances are different for every player and that we sometimes scored good deals, but let's ignore that for a moment): Jeff Farmer, Shane Woewodin, Scott Thompson, Darren Jolly, Travis Johnstone, Brock McLean, Cameron Bruce, Brad Miller, James McDonald, Tom Scully.

Now we can add Liam Jurrah, Brent Moloney, and Jared Rivers to that list. Stefan Martin may join them.

In light of this, I want to hear your stories about losing your favourite players to other clubs. How do you respond?

(Fwiw, my thoughts are here - I've had a particularly bad run of form)

BP mentioned that Cook is an elite decision maker and an elite kick on both sides.

Having watched a few VFL games, I can see where BP was coming from. Cook is indeed a skillful player with good finishing skills when he gets the ball. But perhaps he's not a forward.

Is it worth keeping Cook on our list for another year, but letting him play wing or half-back flank (a Watts/Strauss/Morton type role)?

In slightly unrelated news, the other player we lost during last year's trade period (Matthew Warnock) has been nominated for the AFL's MVP award (every club has to nominate their three best players): http://www.aflpa.com.au/news/post/afl_players_announce_2012_mvp_nominees

Having not seen too many GC or GWS games, I'm probably in no position to comment. But it looks as though Warnock has been of more value to the Suns than Scully has been to the Giants.

"Scully, you're cut"

Is the sole reason of announcing a squad simply to generate more attention?

It's the AFL's way of rubbing in the fact that Melbourne not only doesn't have any players in the league's top 22, but also the top 40 as well.

Is it just me, or is our midfield of Jamar, Moloney, Gysberts and Magner just as strong as our MFC centre square?

I can't believe the lack of love for Rivers. Hardly anyone is getting him credit, except NSC who generously gave Riv two positions in the top ten!

7. Rivers

10. Rivers

1. Jones

2. Clark

3. Frawley

4. Rivers

5. Sylvia

6. Jamar

7. Grimes

8. Jurrah

9. Trengove

10. Green

Lock him in a room and don't let him leave until he signs.

You'd have to catch him first.

Expect a Blease-esque late inclusion. Maybe Bail or Tapscott will have general soreness.

I don't have anything to back that up, but it just seems to be the way things have panned this year.

In the last six years, we've tried five coaches. And we've won about five games.

Putting pressure on coaches and sacking them hasn't really done us much good recently; perhaps we'd be better trying a revolutionary tactic such as giving them a go.

Watts is in career best form and our premier full forward has been ruled out for the season.

If you heard that at the start of the season, you'd think it'd be a chance for Watts to step up and make FF his own. But 12 weeks is a long time in footy...

It seems inevitable that Watts will at some point return to the forward line, ala Neitz, Grant, etc. But is this week too soon?

PROS

- He's in career best form. He's confident, he's marking well and he's reading the play better than he ever has before.

- Mitch Clark's absence opens up an opportunity for him to be our no.1 target

- While his role in defence has been impressive, swapping him for Rivers or Garland wouldn't change our structures much

- Our other future key forwards Cook and Fitzpatrick aren't ready yet

- If we play him in defence too long, will he forgot how to play FF?

- Brisbane's monster full-back (Merrett) is a forward now, so Watts won't necessarily be overpowered if one-out with his direct opponent.

CONS

- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"; if he's in career best form leave him there

- If he plays up forward and does poorly, the media will be back on him and the bloody Natanui debate will re-open

- Rivers, Garland, Dunn and Davey provided a great forward setup in the 2nd half of last week. Let's keep testing that out.

- Watts is not Mitch Clark. He still needs a few more years to develop the body and ability.

If I were coach, I'd start him in defence this week with the option of shifting him forward if we struggle for goals early on. But whether or not it's this week, I'd like Clark 's absence to be an opportunity for Watts to at least try and be that key forward in at least a few games this season.