old55

I've got some sympathy for Soccer's position that they require an adequate capacity stadium. They should put their money where their mouth is and guarantee say 5 30K+ crowds per year for five years to get the capacity increased or else foot the bill for the extra cost.

So you select our forward line based on who matches up similarly to opposition defenders. Strange, I thought we'd do the opposite.

I was feeling something, but it wasn't called inspiration, early in the first quarter of the 2000 GF. I'm hoping he gets another chance.

Richo has played in some of the most ordinary line-ups. Not an easy gig at FF altho it can be managed - just ask Fev and Plugga. Interesting to note that in the two years of finals for Richmond in Richo's career * he missed more than half the 1995 season when the Tigers finished 3rd * and then kicked 91 goals in 1996 but the Tigers finished 11-11 and you guessed it - 9th * and 2001 he had a good year with 22 games, 300+ possessions and 59 goals when the Tigers finished 4th No real correlation between Richo's performance and the Tigers .... I think Richo and Richmond would both have been better served if he had been traded to a club with flag aspirations like Hall and Lockett were.

Yes I fancy Essendon and Richmond for the 8 altho Simmond's broken ankle has not helped Richmond. I think Hird and Lloyd back can really make a difference and Michael will really add something. I think Kent Kingsley will be a very handy pick-up for Richmond and will surprise many. Rich, Brown, Kingsley, Pettifer and Riewoldt will give the Tigers some fire power. I think both can make the 8 for a year or two on the back of their veterans but then will slide back soon after without a flag in this cycle. I agree Collinngwood are the obvious sliders - Didak and Holland out for significant periods, Tarrant gone and Buckley, Burns, Rocca and wakelin all aging. Only their soft draw can help them. I'm not sure what they expect of MM this year, surely they're rebuilding - maybe he's supposed to give youth a go. How can he fail at that? Surely they don't expect to improve on last year's result? Maybe it's play youth and finish somewhere in the middle 8. That's realistic altho 9-12 is more likely. I reckon one of Sydney or Adelaide may slide and if pressed I'm guessing Sydney. They rely on Brett Kirk and if he gets injured IMO they are goners. Spida will help them and they could easily make a complete fool of me. Minimum two changes to the 2006 8 almost certain. That's what has happened every year since the 8 started and there's good statistical reason behind the expectation. the other thing that has happened each year is that a team from outside the 8 has finished top 4 the next year. Any takers for 2007?

You are the clever one indeed, and I suppose therefore this is guaranteed also?

That's right, it would need to be a final to do that.

Yes Champion Data lists effective disposals. In 2005 SG Kicks 70% HBall 80% total 74% CS Kicks 86% HBall 79% Total 83% Quite a difference

If we're trying to win the 2007 flag, ND should select the best player. TOG stats are available in the CD Prospectus.

Sort of, but really I couldn't give a rat's about say Ward for a guy that's already failed twice at AFL level. Something more like Yze or White for early first rounders a few years back or nowadays Bruce and Johnstone for Judd is more likely to have an impact one way or the other.

2006 GF - Judd 11 contested possessions, Kirk 10.

Jolly and Armstrong are now premiership players, the problem has never been with our bottom 6 - we've got the best bottom 6 in the AFL. It's with our top 6.

2006 Player Head to Head Comparison (Average Per Game) Simon Godfrey Name Colin Sylvia Melbourne Team Melbourne 104 Career Games 53 Box Hill Origin Bendigo U18 October 18, 1980 Date of Birth November 8, 1985 26 Age 21 184 cm Height 186 cm 86 kg Weight 87 kg 16 2006 Games 17 14.0 Disposals 12.4 7.9 Kicks 8.4 4.0 Long Kicks 3.1 3.7 Marks 4.0 0.2 Contested Marks 0.4 6.1 Handballs 3.9 2.9 Tackles 4.4 0.2 Goals 0.6 0.2 Behinds 0.4 0.9 Frees For 0.6 1.0 Frees Against 0.8 0.1 Hitouts 0 1.8 First Possessions 2.0 1.2 Clearances 1.6 3.1 Inside 50s 2.2 1.0 Rebound 50s 0.7 1.0 Contested Possessions 1.8 13.9 Uncontested Possessions 11.2 2.7 1%ers 3.9 2.8 Errors 2.4 0 Bounces 0.4 Source: http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/compar...mp;pid2=2004064

Lowest Team Av Contested Possessions per game - Highest Team Av Contested Possessions per game / Lowest Team Av Contested Marks per game - Highest Team Av Contested Marks per game 2000: 48.5 - 61.7 / 14.5 - 21.2 2001: 37.9 - 47.1 / 11.9 - 16.3 2002: 35.7 - 47.3 / 10.7 - 15.3 2003: 38.4 - 48.5 / 10.4 - 16.9 2004: 36.8 - 46.5 / 9.5 - 12.7 2005: 30.6 - 42.0 / 8.4 - 12.7 2006: 26.3 - 35.6 / 6.6 - 10.2 Source: http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/team_r...ts=TA&sr=15

Michael Newton's lack of muscle development is concerning. Compare his legs to anyone else's, a fair comparison may be to Lynden Dunn - the difference is huge.

It's not what I expect to happen but MY current best 22 assuming no injuries: B: Whelan Carroll Bell HB: Bruce Rivers Bartram C: Green McLean Moloney HF: Pickett Dunn Bate F: Davey Neitz Robertson R: White Johnstone McDonald I: Jamar Jones Sylvia C.Johnson Robertson and Yze are battling for the same position, a maximum of 2 of Davey, Robertson and Yze could play in a premiership side. Even though he's more flanker than CHF I prefer Dunn to Miller, Neitz will need to push up hard to the 50 to create a target like Barry Hall does. I like Bob's idea of Bruce as 3rd tall back, it gives the backline more class, attack and flexibility.

Jones is welded in my best 22. That's a long term worry since his main attribute is his running ability.

Dunno, do you think Brisbane players took kindly to being coached by a guy they didn't know when Leigh Matthews arrived? If Chris Judd did come to MFC we will have traded extremely heavily to get him and we will be paying him close to $1M/year. On that basis he'll be here because he is great. He'll be Captain. We wont be going there just for some good player.

I never said we MUST get Judd, let alone we must get him AT ANY COST - that would be derelict in our duty to MFC. But it would be equally derelict to say "he's never leaving WC", "he'll be too expensive" and not pursue the possibility of getting him to its final conclusion. It's a tough question, too tough for most here, but I expect our Board, Exec and FD to fully tackle it and get a result one way or the other. And just to bring the thread back on topic. IF Chris Judd came to MFC in 2008 it would be as Captain. FFS, following Bub's line of "reasoning" maybe if Judd had actually achieved something meaningful in his 5 years in footy apart from winning the Brownlow, the Norm Smith Medal and being Premiership Captain he would have earned sufficient respect from the MFC players to warrant being our Captain! The idea of Chris Judd being Brock McLean's vice captain makes about as much sense as the idea that Jeff Kennett was trying to entice Leigh Matthews back to Hawthorn to be Al Clarkson's deputy.

No surprise that you tripped over one of the TV cables on your way to the ring and knocked yourself out Bub. That fits perfectly with your form line.

It's a no brainer that David Neitz should be captain in 2007. And no-one was an earlier adopter of (Colin who?) or is a bigger fan of Brock McLean than me - well not counting proto-stalkers like Jaded that is. But discussions like this about the 2008 captain leave me wondering how everyone ignores the elephant in the bedroom, the gigantic shadow looming from the west, the deafening sound of the rudest four letter word that no high-tech ambient noise cancelling headphones can deny. It's ... JUDD! JUDD!! JUUUUUUUUUDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!! Make no mistake this is the biggest question of 2007, bigger than can the natural improvement of our youth really make us a contender or will Neale Daniher resign or re-sign. We are talking about the player who is on track to be the greatest ever, who is out of contract at the end of 2007, who is rumoured to want to come home, who has 10 years of footy still in him and who would be as likely to come to MFC as go anywhere. How we posters respond to this will show our true mettle - who is really prepared to go into the ring against this super-heavyweight question and slug it out. There'll be the haymaker throwers who will offer our first rounder plus return of PJ and will think they're still fighting despite having been back in the dressing room after being knocked out in the first 20 seconds. There'll be the messiah-deniers who will hide behind the failed ghosts of Tilbrook, Templeton and the return of Barassi. And there will be the outright cowards who say that he'll never leave West Coast anyway so why bother even thinking about it. I for one am putting my hand up to battle and expect to have my nose broken and both eyes shut by about the 4th round. The reserve will be around 3 first round draft equivalents and the exit of one of our "best" to make big salary cap space. Start your bidding!

Thanks for the data Fan. I do agree he is in the most difficult position. He's not a bread and butter accumulator he's a "match-winner" and we need him to win important matches for us. Same goes for Yze now. I'll truly start raving about them when I see something approaching season high in a final.

Call me when Aaron Davey gets a kick in a final. I hope he can one day.

mojo31 on BigFooty in March this year:

Good post KD. Just one clarification. I think Sandilands is the only one of a new type at 211. AS you say Street is 211 but is not a big threat. Sandilands can play a bit and is super tall. The thing about Cox is that he is a ripping player, not that he is 204 (altho that adds to it). If he was 200 he'd still be extremely damaging. If he was 204 and as good as Sandilands at football he would not be on the radar. I don't think he's a new type, Spida is 203 and has been playing well for years. I don't think clubs should alter their philosophy based on one outlier. No-one 211 and 125kg has played before. he's only had one good season. He could easily breakdown and all the fuss be for nothing. There's too much hysteria about giant rucks.