rpfc

Bruce had his best game of the year for mine on Sunday, and it coincided with 26 touches and 10 contested possessions. But how has he gone compared to others this year in that area? Comparable wingers/midfielders in bold. McLean 71 contested possessions out of 220 disposals (32.3%) Jones 54 of 173 (31.2%) Green 51 of 206 (24.7%) Bruce 51 of 201 (25.3%) Macca 51 of 166 (30.7%) White 50 of 161 Davey 45 of 137 (32.8%) Robertson 36 of 113 Jamar 35 of 46 Bell 32 of 143 Wonna 32 of 96 Miller 31 of 107 Batram 31 of 108 (28.7%) Moloney 29 of 135 (21.5%) Morton 29 of 139 (20.9%) Bruce has maintained his percentage contested possessions since earlier in the season but the real fall is from McLean who was hovering in the high thirties and now is down to 32%, same with Jones who was close to 40%. Big suprise with Davey (included because he spends more and more time on the wing) getting the highest contested possessions percentage and Moloney getting near 1 in 5 possessions being contested. AFL comparison: Judd - 48%, Foley - 41%, Tuck - 39%, Joel Selwood - 37%, and Ablett - 36.5%.

He was servicable but probably vulnerable at selection. 22 touches and 12 tackles in 2 games is a very good start for a little bloke. Best part was when he ran 50m chasing after 2 Hawks on the back flank, they fumbled, he ran over the footy and cleaned up a bloke and we took it down the other end and kicked a major.

Hard not to after you went on that crazy, multi post diatribe about Bailey a couple of weeks ago...

Cheney is, and McNamara is one of the youngest to be drafted; he turned 18 a month ago.

He'd be around 26 or 27. No value going forward, better off getting games into youngsters that are going to be around for a tilt. Warnock is 24 and lucky that Rivers is injured as he is finally showing something.

Garland is simply an improving 20yr old KP back. We are hoping the players remain motivated. 120 minutes is a lot longer than we have previously shown. A huge mistake would be to miss the shine amidst the gloom. We are going to have an awful season but positives there will be and Sunday was choc full of them. Are we hoping for more, of course we are, does not mean we don't see the problems we face.

The ones that play like millionaires are the ones that take the game on and fail. The great players are the ones that take the game on and succeed. The rest are too scared to fail so they do nothing, and when the game is over they [censored] and moan about the ones that tried and failed.

The acid will be on the saints though, both teams should be pretty hard at it. This isn't a linear thought but bear with me... I thought we were better off losing on Sunday because a win allows the players to fall back into complacency whereas they are going to have to back up their performance to gain the respect they would have received had we won. Sounds a little pathetic but we have had a group in previous years that have been too easily pleased with achievements that you couldn't really call achievements: making the finals (not winning one except for 2006), being top or in the top 4 deep in the season (2004, 2005 & 2006), and now I hope that losing gallantly is not another case... In other words: I would have two performances like that without a win than a win and a blowout next week.

Although we should point out that playing with such a young team means that we are going to have some pitiful blowouts. Need some patience.

He plays with a boldness that's refreshing considering the short kicking, hit a target style of a few clubs (looking in your direction Sydney and St.Kilda). Similar to White from Richmond who is another youngster finding his way.

Good point about the draw but I'm conflicted about where we want to finish, with reference to to the draft... But as I have said before, as long as we institute a youth policy (and boy have we!) then if we win games then we win games. Another match with 17 players 24 and under, so please don't kick up a stink if that number comes down to 16 or 15; it's still a significant number. This was our backline for a significant amount of time: Garland, Warnock, Bell, Frawley, Buckley, and Batram. That is a backline with an average age of 21 and an average of 21 games played. That is astounding, really.

We are a long way off getting this done but it is enticing for home games against interstate games. Stadium deals are the difference between the rich interstate clubs and us, NM, the Bulldogs, St.Kilda etc. Forget the draw, we are always going to get a [censored] one and Collingwood is always going to get a good one. But if we could get the funding together to get stadia for 25 000 at a Casey like ground we would be much better off and the AFL would have no argument about maximising attendances because we wouldn't get more than 20000 anyway (and if the MCC complain about taking away games from them then maybe they should have thought about that before this mess occurred). And if anyone says "yeah but we will only get 10000 at Casey anyway" i'll scream because: first - you're underestimating crowd expectations and secondly - we would do better than break even with 10000 when break even is the best we will do against interstate teams.

Warnock has not played a bad game all year. Garland was great today, he believes in himself and its hard not to yourself. Bate, McLean, McDonald, Bruce, Green are the real form reversals. Not getting cheap kicks across half back. But Davey today played a four qtr effort that was fantastic, just a shame about that tackle/push right at the death. These players are showing something and they are all 24 or younger: Buckley, Jones, Batram, McLean, Bate, Miller, Frawley, Morton, PJ, Garland, Bell, Moloney, Davey, Warnock, Wonaeamirri, and Valenti. And Jamar was ok.... Promising signs.

Very disappointing. Unlike most weeks, the boys showed more than the fans. How can you not come to a game like that? With Neita and the fallout from what Kennett said.

I'm more concerned about the 92.5 threshold... Might have to re-sign Bate for $750 000...

Opportunities and Problems Gardner saying 'MCC boutique stadium' implies that he thinks that the MCC should build (or at least help) a small 30 000 stadium for smaller games. The stadium idea is a fantastic way of financing our future, ala Geelong. BUT why would the MCC spend such money when the benefit is designed for the smaller clubs? IF the MCC build it, would not MCC members get in for free? Not going to maximise profits that way. These need to be cleared up. OTHERWISE, we should look into this with funding from Casey, State gov, Fed gov, sponsors, and/or the AFL. The MFC could play Freo, WCE, West Syd, Gold Coast, Adel, Port, Bris, North, Bulldogs, and Sydney at a venue that size, without hampering the AFL and its decree to maximise attendances. Looking at this years draw as a reference we would have the WB, Freo, Sydney, Bris, NM, and WCE games at the boutique stadium. The idea of 6 home games away from the G isn't appetising for many, and I am an MCC member (and yes I am an MFC member too), but it should be enough for a Casey or a Fed govt looking for votes in Casey to put some money into it.

Holland to play on Roughhead. Otherwise FF.

Just play with the same heart that Moloney plays with. And the same frustration and aggro when things aren't going well.... I reckon this game will be "on," most games generate their tension from the fans and we are tense aren't we.... The younger players will learn a few things on Sunday. They'll see some tough footy wether they want to or not. Hopefully Moloney, Brock, Jones, Miller, Batram, and Macca can inspire some toughness in the others.

We should also mention that Hawthorn's rosy picture includes the money from Tassie that will cease because they reckon they can get a franchise going down there. Pretty sure it's $2m a year, that's alot of coin to lose in a couple of years... At least the AFL will be there to help them out....

Gardner Reply Tasmanian Hawks is the best line of the article.

The AFL reckons that 18 teams will get them $1billion in the next deal. The AFL will help us but they don't want to be our buttress and we don't want them to be either. We will sign our new deals with the AFL and MCC soon, but the AFL is just trying to do what any good business does and that is look at all alternatives before throwing money at the problem. The AFL will get our back, when we get our act together.

Miller isn't a defender. CHF, HFF, or Wing. That is it. Rest of the season. Then decide wether we both should move on or keep going.

I could give a reasoned critique over why he is wrong and that we can in fact make it in Melbourne. But I think i'll just say "frack off, Jeff."

There are no easy answers. One that sticks out to me is the fact that the club is still divided after the merger in '96. Only 12 years ago, and it split the club and those wiling to work for the club. And, let's face it, Gutnick was not the saviour that we all thought. Plans are underway to bring people back into the fold and that is a good start. Other than consolidation of every aspect that you mentioned, we also need patience. Not just the fans, but sponsors and the AFL. I think we will get it. And I think we will get it right. Sooner or later...

IMO the key point of the article is the changed view of the AFL after we got rid of Harris. With turnover at around 90% the AFL were rightly coming to the board and saying, "we are paying for your pay outs and recruitment expenses, and its not even related to the football dept." Renegotiate, get some more sponsors on board and let's get moving. By the way, pretty disappointing about the gaffes in the article but it happens, I don't think malice was intended.