rpfc

Rivers is the better 'floater' if that is what you are envisioning. Garland, as Sylvinator said, allows us to have a defender on a FF/CHF or 'key' forward and still use him as a offensive weapon.

Where have you been? He has been playing KP back since Bailey threw him in the deep end in 2008. And he is excellent at it.

It's close at the end of Richmond game - we are leaking goals for some reason and Grimes is having an effect but not much. Bailey sends Trengove down to the backline to do the customary swap with Grimes to develop his defensive capabilities. Trengove gets beaten one-out twice and we lose the game - everyone at the G knows that Grimes would have done a better job. I know Trengove will be that much better for the experience. Bailey knows what he is doing. Wins are great, but Bailey obviously has his own measurements (quarters won, reducing the size of 'slaughtering' periods) and, yes, we are young (younger than this time last year which should dampen your expectations but doesn't) but that doesn't mean that playing Gysberts in the midfield ahead of Jones is as good for the team on the day than it is for our flag prospects.

I agree that the forwards are today are more mobile, and teams usually don't have more than one 'gorilla.' Garland will still take the second tall (CHF/FF), and without getting into a semantical pissing match, that makes him a KP defender. Good to see most of us are on the right page.

Why stop with the development of a flag winning team? Because we can finish 6th if we try real hard? I want a flag. And I know Bailey will do what is necessary. And by the way, that doesn't mean we won't play finals, it just means that we keep on playing our talent and expose them - even to the detriment of the team's fortunes on the day.

Pretty straightforward. He can't play on monsters but he is a key defender. He plays taller than he is and runs off the taller players. He can play small aswell, but so can Frawley and he is only a cm shorter than the gorilla tamer. What say the masses?

Bailey has told Jones that his chances of playing in our midfield are slight and that he needs to develop other areas of his game, hence the tagging role. But the leadership group is decided by the players so this isn't taken into consideration. Good luck to him, but I don't think Bailey gives a sh!t about whether you are in the leadership group when he thinks about his best 22.

Firstly, Nixon bagged us through the nonsense he gave Ralph and Bruce let it ferment. We disrespected him by only giving him $300k fir 2011?! And that is where my ire is raised not this strange attempt by you to own our discontent of him leaving as if we were losing a lover... He's 31, our talent is ten years younger... I posted last year he isn't flag core... I'm with Nasher, I'm apathetic when I see that picture. Reason for edit - iPhone wording thing, apathetic will do.

We should remind ourselves that buying from the Demon Shop is just as good as buying a membership. Brunton Ave, under the G. A really awful place for retail but there you go.

It isn't just who plays. It's where, and for how long. Do we want Grimes in the midfield? Well that means playing someone in his position across half back - a kid? Probably. To the detriment of the immediate fortunes of the team? Definitely. Fantastic for our future if Grimes is as good a mid as many believe? Definitely. Same with getting Green out of the forward 50 and letting Watts and Jurrah find their way. Spencer getting ruck duties. Trengove playing different roles. Trying to find Nat Jones a place long term. All these things don't help us short term, but help long term - help us win a flag.

Yes, he had 11 well-paid seasons at the Demons. He left it so late because Hawthorn instructed him to, according to reports. And him giving us time to accept his terms? He had a spot on the VL all to himself in 2011 and 2012. No-one else was eligible. If he stayed fit, he would have another year after next season. Or he didn't, and that's it. Fans don't like it when players leave. It's the game. Ablett is going to cop it, and so is Cameron. The guy can leave and that is fine but I have been more disturbed by MFC supporters blaming the club for a vice captain not accepting a very good contract than by any nasty comments about Cameron Bruce.

In all seriousness, the nasty stuff has been said by a minority of posters and not a majority. Frankly, I didn't appreciate Cameron allowing this 'the MFC pushed me out in a contemptible fashion' meme to prosper. Other than that, he can do what he likes, I'm arrogant enough as a Dees supporter to know he has made one helluva bone-headed decision...

Huh?

I believe he is saying that 2009 was not a platform for 2010 for the EFC. Just like Geelong 2006 (10th) wasn't for Geelong 2007 (Premiers). And the MFC have to expose their talent to the AFL more than they need to play in a losing final. I think Coll, WB, StK, Geel, Haw, and Freo are well ahead of us in 2011. And I think we will be in a sh!tfight with NM, Adel, Carl, and Syd for the last two spots in the eight. I'm happy for the kids to experience the sh!tfight.

You two quit it? He's knows what you mean, RI. He's just being difficult.

Bit of a misnomer. The guy was the most consistent player over 2008-10. And who were teams tagging?

Finals would be valuable no doubt, but it depends on how we get there... If Scully, McKenzie, and Trengove are getting plenty of time in the guts and Gysberts, Blease, and Tapscott get some time, and Watts and Jurrah get games where they are the focal point in the forward line and we expose some kids other than Grimes to the HBF, then I would be happy for this young team to play in a doomed finals campaign. I just value what I have previously mentioned over finishing 6th.

So you say that there is a correlation between no. of wins and the performance of the team... ...and then you disregard the no. of wins as a correlation. I would be more open to your idea of including these close matches in judging the season if you weren't so adamant that I give you a specific number of wins. Why should I? You have already established that it is pointless - close losses can be included (which I see is a cop out and let's players off the hook). What if exposing our improving youngsters to the AFL doesn't translate on to the scoreboard? But what if it is better for us in the long term? How is Bailey judged? On wins in 2011? Or on exposing the talent at the club (most of which is 21 and under) to the AFL and getting them to play together and be competitive? I want to win a flag and if that means pissing off Brad Green to a back flank while Watts and Jurrah have the 50 to themselves then so be it. I want a flag.

Wins matter, I agree. But unless we are a top 4 team we are not going to win a flag. I don't think we are a top 4 team in 2011 so we are not going to win a flag. I therefore hold other measurements in higher regard than wins and losses for next year. That is the essence of my argument.

The games he is in form and is given the limelight in the forward line. An opportunity for him to shine and develop to the detriment of the team's ability to win on the day. More valuable than 4 points? I think we can do/get both against many teams, but yes. (I realise I didn't answer your question.)

But your post makes up for it! Superb stuff.

That is not what he is saying at all, and I expect better from you R. We are saying that you cannot judge the MFC next year on wins and losses - we are still developing; Our best mids will 20, 19, and 19. Our CHB and FB will 22/23. Our CHF will be 20 and our long term hope for FF will be 22. If we can stop getting blown away in quarters and win 40+ quarters then we will be thereabouts. I expect us to be playing for a finals spot in Rd 24 against PA but we are not going to win the flag so who gives a flying frack. Some think that winning 13 games will mean progress and it probably will, but winning 9 games and have Watts tear up 5 games and Trengove learn HB, and have McKenzie average 20+ disposals is just as good for our flag hopes.

This is the derailment. Just leave it, GOAG. This thread is about Leoncelli not Gardner and his fellow board members who gave up their time to help the club.

Spitballing for the leadership group. Davey or Green will get the captaincy.

Very difficult to forget. The debates were endless and needless. I just wish you would throw your valuable 'two cents' around on other topics... Just saying...