rpfc

You're Franz Ferdinand. The one that started WWI, not the good one.

THE POLL ANALYSIS We have a pretty decent cross-section so I will try to pull a few things out, although one area is less than clear but it may be cleared up the 'Middle Ground' thread. 52% believe Bruce will play predominantly in the backline. 42% midfield. 53% believe McDonald will play predominantly in the midfield. 47% defence. 83% believe Frawley, Rivers, Garland, and Warnock can play together in the same backline. 44% would like to see Bennell and 30% would like to see Strauss in the backline, instead of one of McDonald (28%), Bruce (22%), and Grimes (20%). 19% felt that those three plus the 4 talls should be the backline in 2010. A slight majority see Bruce in defence and McDonald in the midfield, however the latter conclusion is clouded, if not rejected outright, by the polling results on the 'Middle Ground' thread. At this stage, posters are comfortable with a base defence of Frawley, Rivers, Garland, Warnock, Bruce, Grimes, and one of McDonald and Bennell. Hopefully that last slot will clear up in the midfield thread.

Thakyou for that, Primary Administrator.

The 'start of 2010' thing applies more to the other questions. Questions 3 and 4 are 'over the season' questions - who plays the most in 2010. With the other questions I wanted to know who people think will start as 2nd ruck (some might say we have a diferent ruck pair by the end of the season), whether Junior will start in the AFL (some will say injury or form will push him out by the end of the season), whether Scully and Trengove will start in the AFL (they, of course, will play in 2010, but I wanted to know whether posters thought they should start there), and where McDonald will start in 2010 (as a mid, as a defender, out of the team - it may change by the end of the season). I think that makes sense...

I agree that the Captain should play, I was eager to know how others felt. I also wanted to know whether they saw McDonald play in the midfield or defence. Note: Whoever made that 3 post into one post with 3 quotes - Thanks. I can't get the hang of quoting more than one post, unless it is just cutting and pasting and wrapping in quote tags. And if that is what I should do - that's a lot of work...

Sylvia is named as a forward in these series of polls. I see him as a HFF that will also run through the middle. I could have added a question on whether we see him as a mid or a fwd but this is an exercise to nail down the 'best 22' and Sylvia is definitely that. Just off a HFF... With Grimes seemingly accepted (although I realise it isn't definitive) as starting in the backline I didn't add him as a variable in the midfield. Although, as I said in the OP, he will run through the midfield. The rotations will be increased - again as I said in the OP - with Sylvia, Bate, and Green going through the middle from the forward line and Grimes, Bruce, and 'McDonald/Bennell' from the backline. This is a very deliberate exercise, and one of the things that make my eyes roll is when a poster makes his 'best 22' with far too many mids. Mids in the FP, mids on HBF... It's like the AA team... I want to see a little balance, and that is what this about: get your forwards sorted, set out who is in defence, and then pick your best midfielders from there.

McDonald is captain. Difficult to not pick him. And I rate Petterd above Dunn, but to each their own.

It could have made it wide-ranging and nuanced but it would have been untenable. The McDonald/Bennell situation is a flow on from the 'Backward Thinking' poll in which a majority of posters saw McDonald in the midfield and not in the backline, and a plurality of posters wished to see Bennell starting in the backline (with Rivers, Frawley, Warnock, Garland, Grimes, and Bruce). I see all three polls as synergistic and, therefore, questions in this poll are affected by answers in another. The Jamar question is an interesting one, as I also see him rotating through the forward line. But the fact is - he will take the first bounce in 2010 and a number of bounces thereafter. He is our best ruck. No poll is perfect, but I really would like posters to complete it and leave their reservations in a post. I do, and others, take notice. I don't claim this to be an exact science, I just want to know what my fellow Demons' supporters are thinking - re: next year.

I changed the wording of the first question because I felt it looked like I was asking who would play No 1 ruck if Jamar was injured. I am, of course, trying to pin down our best 22, so I changed the wording to illustrate I am looking for the person to be back-up ruck to Jamar.

I could included him but I doubt it would make a difference to the end result. And, yes, I see him off half back, and included him in the 'Backward Thinking' poll.

Explanations and biases: With the 7 forwards close to being set (Wonaeamirri, Jurrah, Green, Bate, Watts, Sylvia, and 'Miller/Petterd') aswell as the defensive 7 (Rivers, Garland, Warnock, Frawley, Grimes, Bruce, and 'McDonald/Bennell') I have left 8 spots for the rucks (2) and midfielders (6). Keep in mind that Sylvia, Grimes, Bruce, Green, Bate, and 'McDonald/Bennell' will have a run a through the middle from time to time. As I have a slight majority seeing McDonald as a mid (as opposed to a defender) and I have included him in the midfield poll. Moloney, Davey, Morton, and Jones are midfield locks at this stage, and I have taken the step of giving them 4 of the available 6 spots in the midfield. Jamar is also a clear lock as No 1 ruck.

Green played out of the square and kicked 4 goals. 3 (I think) of which in the 2nd half as we stormed back from 5 goals down in the third to beat the heavily favoured Carlton by 9 points. He provided a deep lead up target all day and single handed, some say, won us a final in his first year. (Note: Bruce also played a ripper from memory)

Look, all I want to get on record is that the amount of time spent on the RL is not a good enough gauge of a clubs view of a player. Other factors keep players on the RL - like having a dearth of places on the Primary List as we have now. That is all. A small addendum to the conversation. Let's move on.

This is a tad inconclusive at this stage. Of the 46 individuals who felt McDonald would play in midfield next year, only 27 objected to him being in the defensive seven players with another 6 individuals saying he won't be in the best 22. It points out to me that some on here have a little trouble filling out polls. I'll give it a little longer but it is looking like a plurality would like to push McDonald into the midfield and bring Bennell into defence. I'll explain the ramifications of that in the analysis.

I don't know if you are familar with RR's stance on Valenti - essentially that "if the MFC rated him, they would have elevated him." Now Spencer is looking at a 3rd year on the RL and he is above that argument? I agree that length on the RL is inconsequential as to whether a club rates a rookie. Sometimes a situation, such as a beanpole ruckman from Queensland being on the RL and the dearth of places on the Primary List, means that a player will be kept on the RL but still be rated by those at the club. Again, I say - RR's opinion on the lack of desire for Valenti by the MFC is correct. His argument is not, however.

No pot-shot at an individual and I have yet to see a reasonable query over Jurrah's physicality that can not be answered with - he's 20 without a pre-season. "He's too skinny" - That is how kids come to clubs, yes? "He's undeveloped in the shoulders and arms" - Has he done a pre-season? He hasn't?! From here we get into the absurd, and slightly prejudice reasons. "He's too quick and agile to be FF. He's more of a HFF." - Yeah, I would hate to have a quick and agile FF... "He won't be able to deal with being the focal point." - On what evidence? Fevola handles it and he is half the man Jurrah is. If anyone thinks I am making these up to suit my argument, please provide reasons why Jurrah cannot be a "Focal point/FF/whatever you want to call it" that cannot be answered by "he's 20" or "he has not had a PS."

Now this is ironic. Billy brought up the argument against Spencer that you constantly used against Valenti. Now the fact that Valenti is gone validates your opinion but not your argument. I guess it really isn't as straight forward as "if they rated him, they would have put him on the Primary List." Hmmmm?

Do we dare attempt to turn around the misguided Thorp? Not that enthused about MacDonald. Or Smith. Maybe pick 34... I hate to fill all places before the PSD1 but... Maybe MacDonald...

Nah, I can't grasp it. Because there is not a lot to grasp. The silence is deafening and I realise now that I have joined in on this pointless guessing game. No more from me on Ball until a decision is made. BB59, the stage is yours... Personally, I hope this thread turns into a semantical argument over the meaning of integrity or, possibly, the importance of integrity. And go...

I question his commitment away from the field. I hope he has rectified the issue of his undeveloped upper body, because he certainly hasn't done the work in the gym up to this point. As for the 40 goals... Are we to have injuries to Green, Jurrah, and Bate? He would have to play 20 games at FF in 2010 to kick 40 goals. And why should he have the privilege? Why not give that to Jurrah (20 goals from 9 games, and a star in the making) or Green (anyone for Carlton in 2000) or Bate (27 goals in 2009 from HFF!). Lord knows all three would kick more than Newton at FF.

If a MFC player was flirting with leaving but the club got him to reconsider and he still went to a meeting with another team I would not be happy. If the reports are correct, it looks as though Ball will stay with HIS club. Why the Flying Unicorn Called Kirk should he meet with us if he has made that decision? Due diligence? He wants to stay at his club.

Petterd is a better footballer, of that I have no doubt, but Miller at his best can hold down CHF, and Petterd plays a different role. It's all moot is Miller is out of form, as I said.

These are the changes to the list, not the list itself. McDonald is still on the VL, as he was in 2009.

Miller might shade Petterd into the 7th spot that is for sure, but what use would Miller be if he is out of form? Jamar or Martin can provide a target and create a spill, and I mention them because they will most likely be the rucks at the start of the year. They will rotate through the forward line. Bate can play CHF, but not with the delivery that our midfield has given over the past few years to the forward line. But I would say it would be best if Miller played CHF in 2010, but sometimes we don't get exactly what we want.

The only reason why people don't see Jurrah as a FF is because of deep sociological defect that thinks that black folks can't be FFs. He's as tall as Fevola and plays a lot taller, he's a better kick than Riewoldt, he's blistering on a lead, and is a very good mark. But these ingredients mean third tall? Please...