Skuit

I currently live in the Netherlands but used to support Ajax many moons ago - along with Chelsea - before the Abramovich take-over finally persuaded me that soccer as a sport was just one massive crock of [censored]: sportsmen as a dynamic visual representation of arrows on a spread-sheet. Anyways, I thought there were some interesting and uncanny parallels with Ajax's current resurgence and the MFC related in this article - in general philosophy and on-field approach. A worthwhile sporting read regardless. https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/may/10/ajax-johan-cruyff-peter-bosz-europa-league-lyon The basic assumption is that: after focusing on in-house development and again rising to some prominence, Ajax will nevertheless have their players raided at season's end and that soccer's capitalistic imbalance will prevail. Yet, while it is true that Ajax won't likely overcome the 'big club' status quo, they will receive some decent compensation for lost personnel to continue building on steadily into the future. And this has got me thinking . . . We still think of the salary cap as the primary equalisation measure in the AFL. Yet, the draft and ability to develop (based on functions outside of the cap) are massive - as this is where you get a free injection to your bottom line. The GWS equation has driven this home. We haven't just fluffed selections as potential on-field saviours in the past, we've lost serious market currency; e.g. Toumpas for basically nought. The thing is now - we've assembled a seriously talented list of youngsters, and while we may be concerned we can't keep them together, we've got ourselves into a position where we'll be compensated enough to keep the momentum rolling. Kudos to Jackson and Roos. This is the real 'money-ball' at play.

This article is a bit meaningless. Petracca has better early stats than some people who turned out good?

But then they become unaffordable anyway and after you've invested in their development (though I suppose you get greater trade returns). Anyway, I wonder if this same mentality led us to Weid contrary to what Roos had previously said about not drafting key bigs early.

I think Liam may be in with a decent claim for that title.

The problem with Hibberd is that he's really driven home how deficient we are in key areas of the game. That, and his moustache.

I liked this OP not for its content but for its posting. @Rafiki - I'm not some wise old guru but I've been through a lot of it myself until recently and am happy to have a chat to you or anyone else via PM if they feel like they want to talk about it. Edit: The one thing I should I add, it's important that you don't let yourself feel any regrets or anxiety about posting what you have.

I can't express how lovely it is for my inner-peace having Michael Hibberd in our back-line.

Shouldn't be a question of valid bumping as this thread should be pinned. Anyways, at one stage in the Saints match I vaguely recall Viney hit a Saint who careened off another Saint and left them both splayed on the ground - reminiscent of the Tom Lynch-Alex Georgiou carnage. I don't have access to replays. Think it was after half-time. A still would be appreciated here if anyone has the time . . .

And you didn't even mention the worst aspect of that play. That that single mark and goal are responsible for sparking a dual-ruckmen argument that just won't go away and die.

I think when making comparisons purely from an on-paper perspective, Jake Lever has a far more imposing name than Oscar MacDonald.

My lid is dangling by a thread.

Petracca is a rare, rare talent. Once he gets on a roll he will be as unstoppable as any of our game's recent greats, with, dare I say it, a presence akin to Buddy or Betts. That snap on the weekend was sublime - the 40m bunt to Watts from range, or lining up for an orthodox set-shot, not so much. Coach the basics, but he needs to be given license to trust his instincts and back himself in.

And by Tmac's own appraisal, Oscar was a bit of a late bloomer at junior level as well, noted for a dramatic improvement in his final year.

I meant in the sense that we could get him for anywhere even near that amount.

Yes, you are dreaming. One of those crazy fevered dreams.

The interesting aspect will be the likely range of our first-round pick - possibly around the 10-14 bracket. Unfamiliar territory and a genuine test of Taylor's abilities.

Barry Prenders could have moulded a better list with the number of free hits that SOS had. Look closely at the actual strike rate.

Considering Richmond or St Kilda as potential worthwhile rivals is an indictment on our football club.

I blame global warming.

We could start a new Neeld thread. That would be fun.

I only recall us being linked to Gysberts for the majority of 2010-12, which I was progressively unhappy about at the time as a Demons supporter, and of which eventuality I'm now super-happy about as not a North Melbourne supporter.

I only recall us being linked to Aish at pick 2 for the majority of the year, which I rather happy about at the time as a Redlegs supporter, and of which eventuality I'm now super-happy about as a Demons supporter.

So who would you pick between Kelly, Kelly, and Kelly? And do you think Kelly would be a decent trade for Kelly and Kelly?

Bont, no doubt. Clarry will eclipse Cripps and the class of Kelly is a cherry. Bontempelli is the rare game-breaker.

This sliding doors business is getting a tad out of hand. In only slightly different circumstances, we could just as well have sent pick 23 to GWS. And then it would have been Tyson, Salem & Hunt for Kelly and the price of a Sylvia rather than Lobb (although possibly then Hartung, McStay or M. Crouch). Or some such. We traded picks 2, 20 and 72 for Tyson and picks 9 and 53. Whom each team picked up thereafter is partly a matter of luck - especially with the later speculative picks - and therefore should be judged according to different criteria. We might have well wanted Sharenberg or Aish, or even Bonts, but who knows? We have Salem. The crux of the deal was giving up a shot on Kelly and a second-rounder for Tyson and a top-ten pick. Was that a win at the time? In my opinion, yes.