two sheds jackson

Bate - CHF.

Dunn - HFF, occasionally pinch hitting in the middle.

Green - Natural forward, should be a permanent FP/HFF. Should only be playing in the middle when circumstances dictate (i.e. if we're light-on for midfielders due to injuries, or to mix up the midfield a bit during a game if something isnt working).

PJ - As a best case scenario he could stay on the list as a fringe player, taking the oppositions third tall on a "horses for courses" basis. Probably wont make it at all.

Miller - Might make it as a third tall down back, occasionally pinch-hitting in the forwardline, sort of like a better version of Dutchy. Too one-dimensional to be a permanent CHF, but I disagree with the popular view that he isnt up to playing at AFL level (if Miller's the absolute worst player in your side then you've got a pretty good list)

Sylvia - If his body is up to it, play him in the midfield. Otherwise he'll be a handy HFF

Wheatley - Rotating HBF/wingman

Yze - If he gets a game this year I'd rather it be in the forward pocket. Not fussed, should be gone next year anyway.

Bit silly to call Judd overrated, but it'll be interesting to see how this pans out for Carlton. Agree that guys like Stevens would probably, quite rightly, be upset by this even if they dont go public about it. Its the sort of thing that could either work brilliantly or backfire, causing alot of animosity amongst senior players who've paid their dues and stuck around through a pretty miserable period in the clubs history only to be stepped over.

I wouldnt be overly worried about Judd's fitness if I was a Carlton supporter. I think most of the noise going around at the moment is just that, and that even if there is some truth to it, it doesnt really matter if he takes most of the year to get back to full flight since Carlton probably arent a good chance for the eight in any case- fact is he'll still be young enough in a few years when Carlton's top draft picks have matured. My main worry (apart from what I said in the first paragraph) would be that since he's just come in, he wouldnt have any real first hand experience of how things work at the club- he might be a born leader, but it might have been better if they'd given him a year or two to get a feel for his new workplace rather than just handing him the reigns. Since he's only been there a few months, there'd be plenty of guys on the list who he doesnt even really know yet- you'd think it'd make sense for a captain to have a good grounding of the strengths and limitations of the people he's supposed to be leading, and possibly some understanding of their personalities so that he can communicate with them effectively on a personal level.

I'm not so certain about that... We'll improve, no doubt, but not enough.

It's probably worth pointing out that I never saw us as being a top 4 prospect this year; if I did, and if we'd fielded a side that was meant to be competitive, I might be more concerned by the result.

Fact is, half of our side hadnt even played half a season of AFL footy yet, and they were playing against the best team in the league, who were near full strength. For kids like Buckley, Weetra and Valenti it's an invaluable experience, and they'll be able to take alot of heart in the fact that they were able to play at the elite level, against a top side, and still stand up and contribute.

I'm assuming that when you say "we'll improve, but not enough", you mean that even with a full strength side we still arent a premiership threat this year. I agree with that, but I'm not really worried about it- as far as this year goes, once we have Rivers, Neitz, McLean, Bruce etc back in the team we'll be a completely different side to the one who played Geelong yesterday, and stand a decent chance of playing finals footy. Beyond that, I think we have the nucleus of a very good side- we already had a promising list of young players to get excited about, and it sounds like after today, we might have a few more. The reality is -and Dean Bailey can say what he likes to the press- but our success this year should be measured on how well we develop our younger players, so I take more heart in the fact that a handful of young guys stood up today than I would have if we'd played a full-strength side and won.

Im listening to it on 3AW- maybe I'd be a bit more worried if I could see what was happening, but considering the fact that we're playing a side who just won the premiership by a record margin, at near full strength, at Silled Stadium with a huge part of our team made up of teenagers I'm not surprised or even particularly bothered by the scoreboard. Sounds like Buckley Aussie, Weetra and Valenti have all been good- I'll be much more excited if we find a few players in the preseason than I would be if we won the NAB cup.

I understand how some people are worried that an inept, insipid performance in the first round of the preseason could be indicative of how we perform in the season proper, but really, I dont think we can use this match to gauge where we are as a side, since the side being fielded this arvo scarcely resembles the side we'll be fielding in the H&A season.

Karen Hayes has extensive general management and strategic consulting experience in Australasia, Canada, the United States and many European countries, primarily in the financial services and information technology industries. From 1998 to 2006 Karen was the CEO of Planpower, a provider of project management and training services in Australia and one of 15 Business Units of the ASX300 Business Solutions Group, UXC. In October 2006 Karen was appointed to the role of Director Corporate Engagement and Human Capital with UXC Limited. Karen was a finalist in the 2004 Telstra Business Woman of the Year Awards and in January 2006 she was appointed to the Board of the Melbourne Football Club. Karen is a breast cancer...

It was a promising writeup to start with, but I'm a bit put off by that last part.

If he's a regular in the 22 this year, he'll be coming off the bench to play FP/HFF when someone needs a rest. He could still be a handy player if he gets his attitude right (not counting on it) but he wont be a vital one.

Even if he has a good season, I'll take an educated guess and say there's a fair chance he'll retire at the end of the year. From a sentimental point of view it'd be good to see him get his attitude right and become a regular contributer, but considering he wont be around much longer, I actually hope someone younger steps up and takes his place. We'll be a better side for it in the long run.

Dont want to make predictions at this stage, but I hope it'll look something like this, as we should be in for a great year if it does:

MFC Best and Fairest:

1. Brock McLean

2. Jared Rivers

3. David Neitz

4. Colin Sylvia

5. Matthew Bate

MFC best team player: James McDonald

MFC best clubman: Brad Green

MFC most improved: Chris Johnson

MFC Most Consistent: Jared Rivers

MFC Best First Year player: John Meeson

MFC Leading Goalkicker(s):

1. David Neitz

2. Michael Newton

3. Aaron Davey

4. Russell Robertson

5. Matthew Bate

Most votes in Sandringham's best and fairest by a Melbourne player: Aussie Woneamirri

I've tried, but I cant understand some of these decisions at all.

Miller's attitude is beyond reproach, but its debatable whether he's even in the best 22. He should only be put in the leadership group if and when he cements his place in the actual side. Its just common sense: Godfrey set a good example on the field and was inspirational, but I doubt anyone would have had him in the leadership group. Yze is the epitome of wasted potential; he sets a terrible example on the field and I cant see why anyone would even remotely consider him as a leader. That's probably the one decision that shocks me the most.

I can see the argument for saying it's too early to have Jones in the leadership group but I dont really agree with it, I also see the argument for putting Bruce in the leadership group but disagree with that too: Jones might not have the experience but he's a born leader, Bruce might have experience but he's anything but. I cant understand for the life of me why they left Green out considering that, after Brock, he's the most logical choice for the next captain.

You can accuse me of being an armchair critic but I'm really not trying to be. I'm not going to say I'm "sickened", I wont even say that the decisions were wrong just yet, but some of them are very, very surprising.

Rhino, Im not necassarily disagreeing and I hope you're right, but why do you think St. Kilda are stuffed and Melbourne arent necassarily? They'd have to have a much bigger supporter base than us. They'd obviously want a more stable board, but a few years ago we didnt have that either.

Brownlow; I've had a quick look at some of your other posts on this subject and I cant find where you've said why Bruce would be a good captain, just that he would be.

Of course there are arguments against having Brock as captain (that he needs more experience, that he's been somewhat injury prone, etc) but there are also obvious arguments for it. I cant think of one single thing in Bruce's favour, other than that he's experienced and a good player. He's inconsistent, he doesnt inspire his teammates or intimidate the opposition with a ferocious attack on the ball, put simply he lacks many of the most important attributes that make a good captain. I can think of games where he killed the opposition, but I cant think of one close game or a game that we were losing where, through sheer grit, Bruce stood up, inspired the team and got us over the line (ala Brock in the elimination final vrs. the Saints). Thats the sort of thing that makes a captain.

Think theres been a disturbing level of schanedfraude directed at Cousins- not having a go at anyone on this site, but from football fans as a whole. He's made some stupid decisions obviously, but if he was an accountant/bricky/ab worker and had the same problems I dont think people would be as quick to make jokes about it.

If he was really on what he was said to be on when he went to rehab, then it's a disgraceful show of negligence on West Coast and the AFL's part to bring him back so quickly. I'm not saying his initial situation was anyones fault but his own, but lets just say West Coast had acted responsibly and said "no, you wont be playing in 2007, get your [censored] together and we'll see you next year". He would have had as much time in rehab as he needed, and could have taken the rest of the year out of Perth afterwards to dissasociate himself from the crowd he was in with. He was stupid to get involved in the first place, but its pretty sickening how he's been used up and spat out.

Its a tragedy of his own making, but its still a tragedy.

I agree that Brock's the logical choice, but think he needs another season. The worry, for me, is that you dont want your captain to be tagged out of a game the way Brock was this year. I have every confidence he'll learn to shake a tagger, but I'd rather see him do it without any added pressure. That's basically the only thing that worries me- his exploits at the end of year trip were a storm in a teacup and should have no bearing on the decision.

I'd spew if they even thought of giving it to Bruce, but I'd understand giving it to Green in a transitional role- the only problem is it might create an awkward situation if he does a decent job between now and when Brock is ready: Brock is obviously the better choice, but how do you strip someone of the captaincy when they've done nothing wrong, and what effect will it have on their morale? If Neitz doesnt want it next year (sounds like he'd have preferred to hand it over but wont get to), then I think J-Mac is the perfect stopgap solution until Brock is ready: he'd do a fine job, he's old enough that he'd be ready to hand it over in a year or two, and from a sentimental point of view he deserves the honour.

I agree with him; Newton is very very good at kicking footballs and marking footballs and playing football on a football oval. I believe if I was playing a game of football, and Newton was on the other team and I was playing on Newton, then Newton would probably kick alot of goals on me because he is very very good at football.

I havnt seen him play, but for anyone who has:

* Has he improved much since the start of the year (or since his first game, since I hear he was injured for a while)?

* What do you think he'll have to do next year to keep his place on the list? Do you think getting a regularly place in the Sandy 1s will be enough, or will he need to start really impacting games in the Sandy seniors and be pushing for a spot in the Melbourne squad by the end of the year?

* Assuming he makes it, what sort of player would you liken him to? If he does make it, will he fill any holes in the Melbourne list?

Am I the only one who thinks Sylvia wasnt dissapointing this year? Considering he didnt get a full pre-season and missed the first few rounds I didnt expect him to set the world on fire. I was just hoping he'd cement his place in the best 22 and start to have an impact on games; he did that for mine. There were no BOG performances but there were definately times when he was top 5 or so for us (not saying much, I admit) and I cant think of many games where he was shocking. He's yet to take that big leap forward like we've all hoped he would, but it was a big improvement from his 2006 season, and he'll be better still next year.

I dont think FB is that much of a worry for us, as long as Frawley (or one of the other kids, maybe one from this years draft?) developes like we hope. Carroll will probably play a transitional role as a starting FB in the next year or two, while Chip will hopefully get regular games in the back pocket to hone his craft with minimal pressure; doesnt matter if he gets carved up occasionally, its all part of the learning experience.

He's not an ideal choice I know, but I honestly think Choppers done a fair job at FB in the last two seasons. He struggled at times this year but Im hoping with Rivers back next year to lend some support, and hopefully with Melbourne more competitive in the midfield, he'll get back to 06 form. If we're stuck with him at FB for another two years while Frawley developes it wouldnt be great, but it wouldnt be the end of the world either.

Thanks Biff.

Having said that there are some pretty strong parrallels here: given the stage our list is in right now Im stoked that we're having a shot at picking up a ten year player, rather than hanging onto someone who'd be very lucky to have another four left in him.

He was dropped on several occasions; his 2005 was very ordinary and had precious little to do with the team he was playing for. As you said though, its ultimately irrelevant. Obviously we didnt think he would have faired that much better if he'd stayed at Melbourne. I dont understand how anyone can still say we made the wrong decision: would you rather we have Bell for the next ten years, or would you rather we'd had Woewodin until the end of 2005? I think its a no-brainer.

The reason we got rid of TJ and kept some ordinary players is pretty simple: we were never going to get a first round pick for Jamar or Ferg. Since we'd already delisted a fair few players those two got lucky, but my guess is they wont be here in two years time either. I dont really see your argument, if we're clearing the deadwood and bringing in youth then this off-seasons been pretty productive so far.

Brownlow;

Woey's lack of success after being traded wasnt the result of being a victim of an underperforming list. The fact that in his last year he was struggling to get a game in a side that (from memory) finished in the bottom four just validates our decision.

TJ will not "peak" at 27 years old. He might do better at Brisbane because he wont have the number one tagger, but really, how often do you hear of a player becomming a superstar at 27? If it was going to happen, it would have already. Apart from being a bit sentimental about it, the only negative thought I had when I initially heard the news was "I guess Brock will get the number one tag from now on". But really, thats good. The quicker he learns how to handle it the better.

You said you cant understand why we havnt gotten rid of all of our underperforming 27 year olds, and then, apparently as examples of underforming 27 year olds, you cited 4 players under 25. Ferg might still be delisted, Jamar is on the list because of our lack of ruckmen and will probably gone next year, CJ could still be good and Bailey obviously thinks he can do something with Miller.

Buzzyoung:

Walls is a [censored]. If Moloney and Sylvia are soft then I'm a limp-wristed 98 year old anorexic transexual.

Alrighty. In that case I'm sending a letter to West Coast telling them that even though I'm absolutely crap at footy, they *have* to draft me and give me a lucrative three year contract or I'll totally off myself.

VERY stiff calling Green an idiot, he's shown alot of maturity and, dare I say it, genuine leadership in the last two seasons. The rest I agree with completely.

I dont know if I'd compare him to Sylvia. Sylvia's struggled with OP since we got him, and even though he's yet to kick on the way we all hoped he would, he still made a significant improvement last year and cemented his place in the best 22. Thats actually a fair effort when you consider he still has OP and is yet to have a full preseason. Whether CJ would have contributed as much as Sylv if he'd had the same opportunities is a point of contention.

I still wouldnt trade CJ for a pick in the 40's at 21 years of age, because again, I think the jury is still out. But as far as Sylvia goes, I can understand the criticism this time last year, but with all things considered his '07 season was actually pretty good.

I havnt been impressed with CJ, but Im not sure about this. People can name all the late-pick success stories they like, the reality is they're an anomoly.

I agree that he hasnt done much, but really, he's 21 and the juries still very much out. I dont even disagree with people who say he's soft, but that doesnt really set him apart from most 21 year old skilled flankers, the question is if he can get passed that as he matures. Its hard to buy the argument that trading him for a pick in the 40s would be a gamble that *could* land us a good player, when keeping him would be a gamble that could land us a good player. If he was 23 I'd be happy enough to see him traded for a late draft pick- he'd still be very young and even if his improvement is only marginal he'd have more currency by then if anything. Even for a pick in the 30s it would be different, but I just worry that we're biting off our nose to spite our face.

Ask me in a year or two.

You basing this on a source, or a hunch?