two sheds jackson

Just confirmed by Hutchy on the Footy Show, who said the 30-year deal will be announced tomorrow.

Jesus, it'd want to be good to be worth sitting through that god-awful Turning Japanese parody about Ben Cousins.

If you were to hit the Chaser boys over the head, five hundred times, with a claw-hammer, you'd get the Footy Show writers.

H... I thought Watts was good today without playing a dominant role. He has all the attributes which you've outlined.

Good to hear. Fan, do you (or Hannabal, or anyone else who was there) agree with the earlier statements in this thread saying that Jurrah could be be anything at AFL level based on todays game? If he continues his form from today, would he be a chance to play this year?

The medias excitement over Carlton is premature at this stage. They should make the 8 this year and might push top 4 in a few years time, but their forwardline rests completely on an erratic forward who will be in his 30s when their wave of first round picks hit their peak, they have a sub-par backline and, agreed, their bottom six or so players are barely AFL standard if it all. They have some major issues to work out before they can a seriously challenge for a flag.

I didn't see the game against Port, just saw the highlight of him playing on and kicking it out on the full. What exactly happened after the match with him and Wallace?

THE ENTRY Rules for GC17 into the AFL are as follows...

No Priority Picks for Melbourne or Anyone else in 2010 (even if we win 1 game)

Jesus. I already knew the setup with the Gold Coasts draft concessions, but it really is amazing when you actually look at the layout, isn't it. There's going to be nothing left for anybody.

We've really dodged a bullet here. We're coming out of a three-year rebuilding period at exactly the right time; if we'd started bottoming out in 08 instead of 07 this thing would have been devastating, and if we'd bottomed out last year or (perish the thought) this year? Forgot about it. I'd hate to be a mid-ranked team on the decline. In fact at this stage, I'm not sure I'd want to be anyone except Carlton and Melbourne (who'll have both well and truly finished rebuilding by the 2010 draft, and might actually benefit from this situation in the short term) or Geelong, Hawthorn and maybe St Kilda (who won't be rebuilding that soon). If I supported anyone else I'd be worried about this, particularly the North Melbournes and Richmonds of the world.

I agree with Mo Fine; nobody can judge Chris Judd as a person for coming to Melbourne instead of Carlton. It's his business and his choice, and he obviously thought the benefits of playing at Carlton (e.g. $$$, a permanent training base, a list that had just finished a long bottoming out process instead of entering one as we were) was too much to knock back. Most people would have done the same thing in his position. It's his public conduct in between the time he announced he was leaving West Coast, up until the time he announced he was joining Carlton, that reflects badly on him.

In retrospect, I agree that we're better off. To add to rpfc and Einstein's points, on top of losing a quality player to West Coast, and missing out on Morton and Grimes, we also would have won a few more games last year, and missed out on Watts (and all our other draft picks, unless we'd used an earlier pick for them). We also wouldn't be in a position to possibly get the first two picks this year.

I think Judd has worked out fantasticall for Carlton. I also think when a marque player under 24 is up for grabs you need to do all you can to get them and not worry too much about what it will cost you in terms of draft picks. But considering what we have now, and wouldn't have had with Judd (i.e. Morton and Watts), in retrospect we're in a better position than we would have been had we got him.

I've broken this up into groups to make it a bit easier.

- Group 1 consists of players who I would literally not trade for anything- even for pick 1 or in a Chris Judd type scenario. I hold out serious hopes that these players will be superstars of the competition, and be talked about in hushed tones by Melbourne supporters years after their retirement.

- Group 2 consists of players who I'd absolutely hate to see go, but who I'd possibly look at trading for an early first round draft pick, or in a Chris Judd type scenario. Some of these players might be superstars one day. Some might not be, but have other attributes which make them extremely valuable to the list (e.g. they might be an integral play-maker, or a future captain). Some of these players, particularly the younger ones, could very well find themselves in Group 1 in a years time.

- Group 3 consists of promising younger players or very good older players. These players are important, but not absolutely essential, to our developing list. A late first round draft pick would be considered. An early first round draft pick or a marque player under 25 would almost definitely be taken.

- Group 4 consists of players who are very handy, but not vital, to our developing list. They're the sort of players I'd rather keep, but who I'd generally trade for a late first round/early second round draft pick if it were offered. Would trade some players in this group for anything as late as pick 35 or so.

- Group 5 consists of players who are not necessarily important to our list moving forward, and who we should be actively looking to trade, and in some cases accepting a late-ish pick.

- Group 6 consists of players who should be traded for whatever we can get, and in some cases delisted outright.

Group 1:

- 4 Watts, Jack 0 18yr 1mth

- 10 Morton, Cale 27 19yr 3mth

Group 2:

- 43 Bennell, Jamie 7 18yr 11mth

- 46 Blease, Sam 0 18yr 2mth

- 36 Davey, Aaron 105 25yr 7mth

- 20 Garland, Colin 20 21yr

- 16 Grimes, Jack 3 20yr

- 5 McLean, Brock 83 22yr 6mth

- 33 Wonaeamirri, Austin 18 20yr 7mth

- 47 Strauss, James 0 18yr 11mth

Group 3:

- 25 Cheney, Kyle 4 19yr 8mth

- 8 Frawley, James 27 20yr 7mth

- 2 Jones, Nathan 58 21yr 3mth

- 15 Petterd, Ricky 19 20yr 9mth

- 39 Jetta, Neville 5 19yr 3mth

- 18 Green, Brad 190 28yr 2mth

- 19 Maric, Addam 8 19yr

- 33 Martin, Stefan 15 22yr 5mth

- 27 Rivers, Jared 77 24yr 6mth

- 42 Spencer, Jake ® 2 19yr 7mth

Group 4:

- 7 Miller, Brad 118 25yr 11mth

- 12 Sylvia, Colin 77 23yr 9mth

- 37 Warnock, Matthew 29 25yr 2mth

- 22 Moloney, Brent 77 25yr 3mth

- 24 Robertson, Russell 218 30yr 5mth

- 32 Bruce, Cameron 192 29yr 7mth

Group 5:

- 6 Bate, Matthew 56 21yr 11mth

- 1 Buckley, Simon 21 22yr

- 11 Johnson, Paul 51 24yr 10mth

Group 6:

- 3 Bartram, Clint 52 21yr 3mth

- 21 Bell, Daniel 63 24yr 1mth

- 14 Dunn, Lynden 45 22yr

- 40 Jamar, Mark 66 25yr 8mth

- 26 Meesen, John 6 22yr 10mth

- 44 Valenti, Shane ® 10 22yr 3mth

- 35 Zomer, Trent ®

- 29 Newton, Michael 18 22yr

I think it is impossible to assign Jurrah, Healey, Hughes, Bail or McKenzie to any of these groups at this stage. I expect McDonald, Wheatley and Whelan to retire at years end, and didn't want to put any of them in Group 7 out of respect to three great servants of the club.

Absolute untouchables:

44 Valenti, Shane ® 10 22yr 3mth

I'm sorry, but you cant be serious.

When people say Valenti will become a handy player at AFL level, capable of meaningfully contributing to a premiership side, I at least respect their opinion, though I cant see it happening.

But saying that he's absolutely untouchable is nothing short of insane. For someone to qualify for this list, they should be someone who you wouldnt trade for basically anything, even a first round pick. If Richmond finish 15th and offer us pick 3 for Valenti, are you honestly telling me the club would refuse to do the trade, and that you'd support this decision? Even if we got offered pick 30 for him, the club would take it in a heartbeat and the vast majority of supporters would be doing cartwheels.

Absolute rubbish one extra pick will not make the difference with us winning the flag, so what if we get the two picks and one does not cut the mustard does that mean we will not win the flag ?

Exponents of the "heaps of early draft picks = premiership" argument seem to have a very simplistic view of list management, and don't seem to take any other factor (e.g. the importance of making shrewd choices with mid to late draft picks, the importance of building the confidence and morale of a young list, etc) into account.

Some people are getting stupidly carried away about this priority pick. Our list is going to have no shortage of early draft picks after this season. I can understand why people want to win four or less games, and yes, it would be frustrating to finish with exactly five wins and miss out on the PP, but FFS, the idea that somehow our list is doomed if we win this game (or, for that matter, if we win more than four this year) is paranoid hyperbole.

Bub, as I said, I don't think he'll be competing with Watts, or even with Butcher if we get him, provided they both turn out to be KPP types as expected. If Newton makes it in the AFL, it'll be as a forward pocket or (less likely) a half forward flank.

Jurrah could be anything or nothing at this stage; we're excited about him now, but we were just as excited about Newton at the start of the 08 season and look what that came to. Martin was handy when pushed forward on Sunday, but obviously it's early days as far as that goes. Basically, I dont think Newton has much competition in the short term. Which means he really has no excuses if he cant crack a game.

For mine, Newton has three major issues:

1) He has a terrible conversion rate from set shots

2) He is poor when the ball comes to ground and

3) He seems to lack the drive and dedication required to work at correcting 1 and 2.

In another post, I remember someone saying (I cant recall who, so apologies to whoever it was) that Newton should look at Fev as a guideline for how he can improve himself. In my opinion, Newton should look at Robbo: a player with obvious limitations -limitations which arent altogether dissimilar to Newtons- but who worked his arse off to improve his weaknesses as much as possible, and ended up not only getting a regular spot in the side, but becoming a damn good player in his own right. Newton doesn't need to beat Jack Watts, he's battling for the 2nd/3rd tall forward spot at Melbourne and so far (unfortunately for us), nobody is far ahead of him at this stage.

I dont think anyone is arguing that picks 1 and 2 wouldnt be good. What I'm saying is that if we win five or more games against good opposition, it will be a reflection that our list is significantly improving; in fact it can probably only happen if we do have great players coming through.

Of course I see the value in pick 1 and 2. That doesn't mean I'm about join the "OMGz loze at all costs, srlsly!!!1!~~" camp this early in the season. Alot of footy fans lose the plot sometimes, and start wanting to see their team play poorly for consecutive years, so that they rack up draft picks, so that one day they might improve, instead of wanting to see, you know, actual improvement from year to year. Hawthorn didn't win a flag by racking up draft picks; they spent two years down the bottom, then finished 11th, then made the 8, then won the flag. While I'd gladly take pick one and two, I'd be happy to see meaningful improvement this year, possibly even if it comes at the expense of the first two picks.

If we have five meaningful wins this year I wont be upset. As an extreme example, lets say we beat the Hawks, the Saints and Geelong (twice) for the remainder of the year. We'd miss out on pick 1 and 2, but those wins would have immeasurable value for the kids development, and would be a sign that the list is improving quicker than expected. Obviously that scenario wont happen, but you get the point. If we win matches against good opposition, it will instill some confidence into a young list as well as being an indicator of meaningful improvement.

Now people might read this, and point to our 2007 wins against the Bulldogs and Carlton (which cost us pick 1 and 2 in last years draft) as "proof" that victories, when you wont make the 8, are meaningless. The big difference here is that in 07, our senior players got us over the line in those two games. Those senior players are gone now, and if we win five or more games this year it'll be on the back of some great performances from our younger guys.

I'm probably in the same boat as Why You Little; when we start to push into the second half of the season, if we've won three games or less, I might want to start seeing a few players "pull up sore". At this stage, there is not even a part of me that hopes for anything less than a win each week.

I like Bub's method. As well as adding "possible" as an alternative, I'm going to use "probable" in situations where we've not seen enough of the player to say definitively, but where the signs are encouraging.

Bail Possile

Bartram No

Bate Possible (but not looking good)

Bell No

Bennell Yes

Blease Probable

Bruce No

Buckley Possible (however unlikely)

Cheney Yes

Davey Yes

Dunn No

Frawley Yes

Garland Yes

Green Possible

Grimes Probable

Jamar No

Jetta Yes

Johnson No

Jones Yes

Jurrah Possible

Maric Yes

Martin Probable

McDonald No

McLean Yes

McNamara Possible

Meesen Possible (as a second string ruckman)

Miller Yes (but not as a KPP)

Moloney Yes

Morton Yes

Newton No

Petterd Yes

Rivers Yes

Robertson No

Strauss Probable

Sylvia Yes

Valenti No

Warnock Possible

Watts Probable

Wheatley No

Whelan No

Wonaeamirri Yes

North Melbourne supporters were dwarfed by Melbourne supporters on Sunday. Not just outnumbered, but comprehensively dwarfed. By Melbourne supporters. I'm not exaggerating at all when I say that I have never been to a game in Melbourne, against a Victorian side, where we so clearly outnumbered opposition supporters. Sydney draw larger crowds than that in Victoria, and even Brisbane arent that far behind when they're playing well. It was sick.

I have a soft spot for North Melbourne for reasons I wont bother going into, and genuinely want them to survive, but Sunday was an ominous sign.

Why does everyone want to drop Bennell and Jetta? - two of the best players on the ground IMO - some sloppy finishing from Jetta but at least they had a crack and where impressive for first gamers.. this reminds me of after round 2 last year and everyone was screaming for Garland's blood!! If you want to drop someone then why not Miller or Bruce? - neither had any impact today whatsoever.

I think everyone agrees that Bennell and Jetta had very good debuts and are definite keepers.

The issue is that although they were good, they are still very raw and have a lot of development to go. Now that they've had a taste of the big time, they've hopefully gained the confidence that they're good enough to play at this level, and learned which areas of their games need improvement.

As such, it might be good for their development to go back to the VFL for a few weeks and work on fixing their games, with the added confidence of having played well at a higher level. As other people have touched on, they'll be playing close to 100% game time in the VFL, which they'd never get in the seniors yet. There's also the fact that their bodies arent yet physically capable of withstanding a whole season of AFL football.

Personally, I think that regardless of form (within reason, obviously) Jetta should stay in the side for the next couple of games: I think he could use a few weeks in the AFL to get used to the pace of the game, and it will work out well for us too, having him in the side while Aussie's out. Bennell should go back to the VFL; he doesn't yet have the body for AFL football and I'd like to see him play a key role at Casey and excel there. It's only going to hurt him being tossed around like a rag doll in the AFL.

I've got the inside word that Bruce will actually be dropped, delisted, and fired far, far out into the stratosphere from a cannon for his disgusting performance today. For anyone who wasn't there: early in the first quarter he had the ball and tried to take Swallow on, but Swallow hit him with a brilliant tackle and the ump pinged Bruce for it, but Bruce actually REFUSED to give the ball to Swallow, he kept screaming "it's not fair!" and "I hate you!" to Swallow and the umpire, and ended up actually RUNNING OFF WITH THE BALL (I think he was crying) and was never seen again for the duration of the game. This is the incident YM is referring to; I know some of you will try to make excuses for it, or even outright deny that it happened, but that's only because Bruce is the golden boy around here and you all just blindly defend him no matter what he does. Fact is, these kinds of incidents are becoming all too common with Bruce, and I'm glad Bailey's going to finally make an example of him by omitting him from the Collingwood game and executing him in draconian fashion.

With that out of the way, I actually kind of agree with the rest of Yze Magics post (seriously). Jetta should definitely keep his place. I would probably give Bennell a run at Casey to make room for Maric if he's ready; he showed all the right signs, but I'd like to see him go back and hone his craft for a couple of weeks against lesser opposition. I'm happy enough for Sylvia to come back in if he played well at Casey (I've heard mixed reports about that), but I'm not sure who should go out, so he might be unlucky. Bate and PJ were poor today and I'd almost even be tempted to drop one of them, if not for the fact that their potential replacements are Newton and Meesen, so we're just going to have to hope they come good soon (I'm confident PJ will, wouldn't like to guess with Bate). Morton was quiet, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for at least a couple more rounds. Everyone else played well enough to keep their spot for now.

So, for mine:

OUT: Bennell

IN: Maric

EDIT: Changed my mind. Sylvia to come in if Maric isn't ready.

POSITIVES:

- Cheney was very impressive on debut, Bennell and Jetta showed good signs. Bennell needs to develop physically, Jetta just needs a few games to get used to the pace of AFL football and to learn to take better options, I'm confident he'll become a handy player as early as this year.

- The long line-up outside the membership tent (did anyone else notice this? Even at 1:10 there was still a pretty big line-up). Will be good to see how many we signed up today.

- The backline is shaping up very nicely.

NEGATIVES:

- We desperately, desperately need a target up forward. We have good crumbers and even a second tall in Miller, but we badly need a go-to man.

- Again we failed to play 4 competitive quarters of footy; our skills and endeavor let us down in the 4th.

- Brock and Davey were very disappointing.

- Bate and PJ were dreadful.

While I agree that Sylvia is probably in our best 18, people need to consider that he's not actually competing with all of the 18 players who got picked.

Look at the backline. Five of the players play completely different roles (four tall defenders, one tagger). It is irrelevant whether or not Sylvia is better than any of them, because they're not competing for the same place. He is probably similar enough to Green to vie for a spot with him, but anyone in their right mind would agree that Green >>>> Sylvia.

Sylvia doesn't have the motor to play midfield for extended periods, so he wasn't competing for a role there (in any case, everyone except arguably Moloney and Buckley are head and shoulders above Sylvia).

The forward line is full of marking types except Bruce and Petterd. Bruce of course is well ahead of Sylvia at this stage. Sylvia might be a nose ahead of Petterd right now, but the discrepancy isn't great; Petterd has shown almost as much in his few games as Sylvia has, has made all the right noises over the pre-season and is skilled, courageous and has been hailed as a possible future leader. For a team on the rebuild and given where both players are at right now, I think it makes more sense to play Petterd on Sunday than Sylvia.

So out of the definite starters, he is basically competing with Green and Petterd, both of whom make more sense than him.

I think his missing out was a combination of merit (or lack thereof) and penance for his recent behavior (if not for his recent conduct I'm sure he'd get a spot on the interchange). He'll be back, and hopefully a little wiser and hungrier for the experience.

I think Neita and Rhino are both right. If you had to say which team -Richmond or Melbourne- had a better chance of winning the premiership in 2009, you'd go with Richmond. But neither have a realistic chance, and in a few years time all of Richmond's key players will be gone with no clear replacements in sight (not saying they dont have some good kids, but they dont have ready replacements for Richo, Brown etc), while Melbourne at least have a core group of players coming through at about the same time.

Richmond arent the worst side in the AFL right now, but their list is probably in the worst shape.

I don't think Fan's accusing him of anything at this stage, but...

These arent the usual run-of the-mill rumours about trades and so-on; they pertain to the long-term survival of the club. If the Casey deal and a meaningful MCC alignment (the way he describes it) are announced in the next few weeks then we'll all be dancing in the street.

If it turns out he's telling the truth, we will read everything he posts with great interest from that point on (even though he's probably betraying confidences).

If it turns out he's getting our hopes up by spreading false rumours, everybody will hate him.

It's not a threat, its just reality.

I didnt post here in 2006, but occasionally came here to read what people had to say. At the end of the year, McLean was coming off a great season (topped off by his inspirational second-half effort in that elimination final against the Saints) and people here were hailing him as a future champion of the game, and even suggesting that he be made captain in 2007. It was pure hyperbole, mostly. For his part, Jones, in his first season, had adapted quickly to AFL football and, in general, was showing all the right signs. People went into 2007 expecting McLean to set the world on fire and possibly even lead us to a premiership, while any kind of improvement from Jones would be a positive.

In 2007, opposition coaches started taking McLean seriously and recognizing him as one of, if not our best midfielder- as a result he was heavily tagged throughout the year, and he struggled with form, injury and with carrying the midfield and copping the oppositions number one tagger at 21 years of age. By the end of the year, a lot of people jumped off the bandwagon (with some people even suggesting we trade him if he doesn't drastically improve in '08). In a nutshell, some people here saw that McLean wasn't superman (or Chris Judd for that matter) and seemed to lose sight of the fact that he was still a very good footballer with plenty of improvement left in him; they jumped from one silly extreme to the other, deciding that if he wasnt the once-in-a-generation freak they'd hoped for, then he wasn't even a good player. On the other hand, Jones was consistently good in 2007 (and occasionally very good) but was not heavily tagged by the opposition. Jones became the new golden boy; from what I recall there was a thread asking who was better between Jones and McLean and the opinion that Jones was better was quite mainstream at the time, if not the view of the majority. Although McLean obviously had more natural talent than Jones, and although it should have been obvious that McLean was receiving more attention from the opposition than Jones, people still started rating Jones higher, apparently purely because he got more frequent clean possessions. The reality was, and is, that McLean will be at least a good player, possibly a great one, while Jones will be at least a decent player, possibly a good one.

Early last year, McLean's form was pretty good and I think most of us are now quite confident that as he matures, he'll start to beat taggers more often than not. We had alot of key players hard-hit by injuries though, including McLean, and by the middle of the year Jones suddenly found himself as our number one midfielder. He was suddenly coping with all the same pressures which McLean had had to deal with the year before: copping the oppositions number one tagger and carrying a shambles of a midfield (if anything, he had to carry an even weaker midfield than McLean), and naturally he struggled with the task. Meanwhile we rookied a player, in Valenti, who is smaller, slower and a less penetrating kick than Jones, but who occasionally outplayed Jones because he was not subject to anywhere near the same opposition pressure. As a result the same sort of thing has happened: people have jumped off the Jones bandwagon in droves, and some have even ignored the fact that Jones has been subject to far more attention than Valenti argued that Valenti is actually better than Jones. The reality is that Jones will be at least a decent player, possibly a good one, while Valenti will at best be a decent player, but probably wont make it at all.

My gut feeling is that in a few years time, Jones will mature both physically and mentally, making him much harder to tag out of a game. He will also hopefully be our third or fourth best midfielder instead of our #1, meaning the opposition wont be able to afford him the same kind of attention they did last year. He'll be a fearsome player as a result, and alot of the people criticizing him now will be singing his praises.

I'm now on an "I'll believe it when I see it" basis when it comes to Rivers getting himself fit. Even though all the reports about his preseason have been good so far, I'm at a point now where I find it hard to even physically imagine him playing out a full year. If he can get himself right in the next year or two then that's fantastic, if not I wont be surprised. That said, by all reports the ankle injury was nothing serious, it sounds like the kind of thing where if it was a proper game, or if it had happened to someone besides Rivers, they probably would have left him out there. Heres hoping.

I think you're being a bit overly negative when it comes to the turnout. Fact is, its fantastic that we got an attendance of around 2000, and if a good chunk of that 2000 was made up of Casey folk showing up for a look, then that's even better. You've got to keep in mind that theres a good chance that most people who fall into that category wouldnt have gone if it hadnt of been for free. In the long run, if we got a few people interested during that practice game who werent beforehand, and if we grow a bit of a supporter/membership base in the region over the next couple of years by doing that sort of thing, then that's going to ultimately be worth a hell of alot more to us than 8-10 k.

EDIT: Sorry, just left a long-winded post only to find out that as I was writing it Rogue posted the same basic point, only he said it more gooderer and consiselier.

I agree with you re: Molan, Bell and Smith. Other than that, you're either selling players short, writing them off too early or failing to take into consideration that there werent any better options available.

Sylvia (3) McLean (5): McLean looks like he'll be a club stalwart and a possible captain- as a worst case scenario, if he doesnt improve at all from here on (and he will) he will still be a good player. Sylvia has shown enough to convince me that he'll be handy as well- he's disappointing for a number 3, but it was a disappointing draft in general; in my opinion both of them were pretty good selections with all things considered.

Moloney (traded for pick 12): Fair enough, but I don't think anyone could have foreseen Moloney's injury worries.

Bate (13): Pretty good pick up if you ask me. Bate needs to work on a few areas of his game, but all in all I'm pretty excited about him. Who should we have taken, in your opinion, instead of Bate?

Dunn (15): I think he's unfairly maligned on this site. In retrospect he probably wasn't the best choice, but I'd hardly call Dunn at 15 a disaster.

Jones (12): Excellent pickup. Wont be a superstar, but will be a key component of our side for the next ten years, and a leader in years to come. McLean and Jones could be the cornerstone of a genuinely fearsome midfield in a few years time.

Frawley (12): It was always expected that Frawley would take time to develop. I agree that he probably needs to carve out a regular spot in the best 22 next year, and the decision to pick him surprised alot of people (myself included)- I think most people would have thought we'd get Jack Riewoldt if he was available. Fact is, Riewoldt has yet to set the world on fire and Frawley is developing at about the rate that was probably expected of him- in my opinion its far too early to say this was the wrong decision.

I dont think anyone would argue with your contention that so far, McLean is the only 1st round draft pick who you could call a "very good footballer". But all the other names (except arguably Bell and Moloney) have a significant amount of development left in them, so I dont think we should be lamenting our "wasted" first round draft picks just yet.