old55

When you take into account that we went into the game without McDonald, Robertson, Whelan and Wheatley and lost Green in the first quarter that only leaves Bruce of our 6 most experienced players - it's a great wn for us and a damning loss for the Tigers.

Agroe, it's good to see players getting their close dirty

Not 100% sure about that - 7 out-of-contract-this-year coaches would be eyeing off their clash with the improved Demons with trepidation. We're the nail in the coffin - Malthouse, Wallace, Harvey, Knights, Worsfold - we have career ending power.

Except for Neale with Ben Holland ...

Cheney Warnock Garland Rivers Martin Frawley Green McLean Morton Sylvia Miller Petterd Wnna Bate Davey Johnson Bruce McDonald Spencer Jones Bartram Moloney

what did they say about whether the sun would come up tomorrow?

We're all hoping Watts and Jurrah make it - I think Miller's leadership and physicality are key to this happening over the next 3 years. Yes he's got his limitations, but there's an important role for him to help those two as they come through. Maric, Jetta, Davey and Wonna have the small forward roles covered and with rotation through the midfield at least 3 and maybe all of them could play in the same 22.

How many chances does he need - he's not good enough to get away with it (in fact no-one should be). Goodbye.

Current best in today's output: Bruce, Green, McLean, hard to name another one - Davey? McDonald? Moloney? (that's the leadership group along with Miller) Current most important: McLean, Morton. Grimes, Watts, Garland Where there's overlap a team is peaking (e.g Geelong) , where there's a big difference they're rebuilding (e.g us). A similar list for the Tigers would be instructive.

Noticed Jones went 3-12 in the Hawks match. If anyone can benefit from Scott West it's NJ. I reckon he can be a lot better than a good toiler.

Good post KD - let me turn it round the other way - getting hammered by a half-strength under-cooked Hawthorn line-up will hurt and just serve to further cement our perceived basket-case status. We need a credible performance.

that doesn't answer the question either - I've heard variously that it's 3 months and 4 months. I want the DOB eligibility for 2008, 2009 and 2010.

That's great and interesting Stigga! But it's not what I'm after.

The 2009 Draft pool is going to be cut because the age eligibility is going to be raised compared with 2008. Can someone please tell me what the 2008 DOB was compared with the 2009? Is the 2009 DOB cut-off going to be the standard going forward? Or are we going to revert to the 2008 dates in 2010 and 2009 will have a special big pool? thx

Seems to me that Government rather that enterprise is spending at present. Maybe that's where we should be looking for sponsorship. The TAC provided major sponsorship to Richmopnd and Collingwood. Workcover has been investing heavily in prime time advertising lately - maybe they are a possibility? Who else?

Agreed he looked to be a ball magnet. He seems like he's got the Darryl White two handed ball drop - I've never liked it.

Ranking players is an interesting concept - it's difficult to combine contribution and potential. And potential is very hard to measure. When I went to training in late 2003 I thought I was looking at the new Mark Riccuito when I saw Colin Sylvia. Warnock is probably going to have more contribution value than Watts in 2009. And contribution not only depends on skills but it depends on getting them out on the field. There's a fair chance that Warnock will (again) have more contribution than Rivers in 2009 if current trends continue. I prefer a ranking of absolute current contribution (score out of say 10 points) to the 1st 22 year each year. Say in 2008 Warnock would be rated a 5 and Martin a 2 or maybe a 3. In 2009 Warnock may again get a 5 and Martin gets a 5, 2010 Warnock is locked on 5 and Martin is on 7. Potential is measured in the change in absolute rating over the years - then we don't get confused about say Sylvia's, Rivers' and Bell's value. How many times have they rated an absolute 5 or more and what's the trend? Just rank them in order of how good they are right now - real potential is shown in an increase in these values. There's the issue of "depth" players, but depth players are only worth hanging onto if they have ranked 5+ for some reasonable time in their careers and have proven value - Godfrey or Ward anyone?

You've got it.

The pitfalls of blue sky mining ... old demonology thread no disrespect to CHF intended.

Indeed, name a player who's flying on the track or having their best season for years and dollars-to-donuts it'll be the the player who is out of contract at the year's end. Gotta love one year contracts.

Yes but as Jack Kennedy said to Marilyn Monroe "If you've only one trick, that's the one to have". I couldn't see Newton earned his contract extension in any way, shape or form but on the other hand if he had been at another club, was delisted and was going for free in the PSD then I reckon there'd be support for us picking him up. He's worth another look at IMO.

I think we're in agreement. Newton's problem is his attitude. Not everyone in the league can mark and kick as well as Newton - Miller is a good example. I can't help you if you can't see that Newton's skills are superior to Miller's, but Miller's attitude is far superior to Newton's. I wouldn't exactly call Newton a disappointment, he was drafted at 49 or so and that means he was speculative. It's disappointing that he hasn't been able to realise his talents but that was always the risk. Similarly with Miller drafted at 55, also speculative, but he's delivered on the speculation to play 100 AFL games, his great commitment overcoming his skill limitations. My main point is that it's WYSIWYG with Miller now and he's a good ordinary footballer, Newton could be more, but I agree that it's quite likely he wont even be that.

I really like Miller but he's got his limitations. I think a club needs players like Miller and Bartram who give their all. Miller's not as good as Mooney (who I reckon is ordinary) but could be in the same ballpark and Mooney is a premiership KPF. Newton has the potential to be a superior player but he has a different set of limitations. Miiler has worked very hard and is probably approaching his peak - there's not much improvement there, the same can't be said of Newton, he's younger and was drafted (a little bit) earlier and they were the criteria I loosely used when there were multiple contenders - I'm looking for scope for improvement. Competitiveness can't be underestimated and Miller has that all over Newton - right now in the crunch of a GF like last year's I'd take Miller's approach over Newton's talent. It's a pity we can't fuse Miller's attitude onto Newton, it's not a new idea, we all thought that about Godders and Johnstone for instance. I expect Watts to make all our forwards much more effective players with the defensive attention he will draw away from them.

Correct decision - well done Junior and Cam.

The fact that there's alternatives is even better - you can have Jamar for Spencer, Miller for Newton, Aussie for Maric, Bartram for Dunn and Buckley for Blease if you like, I generally picked the younger alternative or the earler drafted alternative in each case because there should be more scope for improvement.