Key Deefender

Thanks for the detailed analysis of this year's rankings - you have put much thought and work into it. I would just like to seek to clarify your rankings. Are they based on output to date this season or by importance to the team, with an eye on any future development - or even a combination of the these? While I agree with many of your rankings, Max's output has been decimated by his injury so number 3 is too high based on output, however his importance to the team and what we may have achieved had he not been injured makes him arguably 1, 2 or 3 in importance. And poor old Cam Pedersen has been relegated to 30 on your list but based on output to date since he came in and his importance to the structure, particularly in the absence of Gawn and Spencer, would have him rocket up the list to perhaps ahead of Bernie Vince. You qualified your ranking of him by inferring that if he was 20, then he may have been rated higher, but if we are looking purely on 2017 alone and not on past or likely future performances, then he has to be much higher on your list. He has also played one more game than Jesse Hogan who is ranked 11, who for various and obvious reasons has not performed as well as Pedersen. Again it's performance versus importance versus potential. Of all your other rankings, you could argue for players to be placed one to a handful of rungs above or below where you have them, but for me anyway, the Pedersen one is the only big anomaly. Well done though on a great exercise, and it will be interesting to see, albeit with half a season to play out, how this aligns with the B & F placings and whether your own rankings change much after the season is over - hopefully deep in September!

I've just taken out the Lifetime Subscription and should have done it ages ago. I don't contribute much but read the site daily and really happy to support the massive work you do for us diehards (deehards?) Thanks for giving us all the forum to voice, to vent and to celebrate.

I think there are a few psychologists that do follow this club.

I have absolutely nothing to base this on, and have also been on the Darcy Parish bandwagon, however I'm now wondering whether Sam Weideman is in the frame for pick 3. I think Jesse Hogan would love to have another big young tall come through the ranks with him, forming in time a lethal tandem attack. To my mind Weideman is unlikely to still be there at pick 7 and he also appears to be another competitive beast in the Hogan mould and thereby may help excite Jesse enough to sign long term. Preliminary discussions with Jesse apparently laid out the club's future strategy which were according to that article received positively by him, and I would bet it included the key signing of a partner-in-crime. Weideman may be an injury risk from his own article, but hey - so was Joel Selwood at his time of drafting. We wouldn't need to rush him till he is physically ready anyway - and just develop him properly as we now have the scope to do. We just can't wait another 12 months to add a key forward that may not be there anyway unless you trade for one - and who would unlikely be an A grader - we need to develop our own, like Jesse Hogan - and hopefully Sam Weideman. With Dawes not performing and much older, Pederson handy but not the future, Watts not competitive enough and more a third tall anyway, TMac while a possibility in the forward line - probably needed elsewhere, OMac, Frost and King still very much unproven, we need to bite this bullet the more I think about it. This pick number 3 needs to be something out of the box, hopefully setting us up for a generation in the key tall forward department with Hogan, and as much as Darcy Parish looks impressive and will be a top player, his kind is more available and his lack of size may also count against him. Weideman from the recent article has also played alongside Petracca and there seems to be a rapport there too. Taylor may be prepared to risk Parish getting through to pick 7 which he won't - and instead be more than happy to take Clayton Oliver who likely will slip to at least 7 and is probably more the size of the new midfield prototype anyway. He has stormed through the field after a sluggish start to take the Morrish and looks to have a great upside to work with - and is another big competitor! We just need an outright specialist key forward and an outright specialist midfielder in this draft. As I said I have no real idea - but after consulting the tea-leaves, this to me anyway now logically makes some sense. But who knows what the recruiters think? And they have done far more homework than I have!

Hence the exclamation mark so that that part could be seen as a bit tongue-in-cheek - but hey that's ok. As far as Watts and others being eligible to play for Casey tomorrow, I'm guessing that as both the seniors and Casey are playing this weekend there is still a natural selection process even though Casey's game is a final. This wouldn't usually occur but the AFL finishes a week later this year. It would be the case for all VFL teams if so. So maybe the number of games to qualify rules don't apply this weekend. As I said I am guessing though so perhaps KC or someone could clarify. And as stated above, a late change could well bring Jack Watts back into the team tomorrow. Nathan Jones must be highly doubtful for one.

Conspiracy theories will abound over the coming weeks that Jack Watts may well be put up for trade. However to me it seems a little strange to drop him for the last game if trying to maintain his trade value. Jeremy Howe could similarly have been dropped several times for indifferent form during the season but wasn't. Again theories on keeping up Howe's trade worth were touted as reasons for not doing so if he chose to leave - or the club wished to move him on. My theory on Howe was that they were keen to get him to 100 games in case a spring-heeled baby with a great work ethic came along and we could take him as a father-son! My theory on the dropping of Watts is that while his form has been better in the second half of the season, he still has some work to do over the summer and the clear message is for him to not get too comfortable in his own skin. McCartney and Goodwin have put alot of work into him in terms of improving his competitiveness and the results were starting to show. He is such a great decision maker and user of the ball, I would be disappointed to let go what the team has been crying out for in that regard. This may also send the same message to the rest of the playing group that there is still much to be done and everyone needs to improve. If Jack was sick or sore for this week's game, I think he would have been listed as such. His eligibility for free agency next year and Roos' views on potentially trading away a year before only adds intrigue to the situation. I hope he stays.

I know someone who knows the Watts family. I was with him at the game with yesterday and it was touch and go whether Jack would play. He was being assessed right through till game time. However I was also told it was more a migraine than the flu for him.

I can't fathom those of you who still want to trade out Jack Watts. I agree his form since day one has fluctuated wildly and his lack of hardness has been rightly criticized along the way, however I believe over the past few weeks he has been finally making inroads to eliminate this glaring chink in his armour. There has still been the odd hiccup, but he now appears to be consciously making every effort to impact a contest. However almost even more importantly than this, is that he is still the best finisher in the team. Some of his decision-making and executions are sublime and he rarely either picks a wrong option or fails to deliver on that option. We have had a team of ball butchers for way too long and most, if not all, these serial offenders should be rightly moved on, perhaps leaving a couple for depth and great clubmanship - eg: Grimes - if he wants to stay. From what I have read here on these boards, but not from what I know, it seems Brendan McCartney, one of the games best developers, has taken him on as a bit of a project. He has had him now for just 11 games and part of a pre-season. Maybe it is beginning to bear some fruit and Jack is finally getting the proper coaching development he has never had. For a team that is trying to eliminate turnovers, the ability to seek and find a teammate in a position to hurt the opposition is a priceless commodity that should not be traded out lightly if at all - especially in a guy 196cm tall and likely still growing into his body. I think Watts is finally removing some of the basketballer's lack of physicality but retaining the elements of that sport's ability to read the play and have the peripheral vision and skillset to deliver perfectly to a teammate. It is certainly early days, in terms of consistency with his new found physicality and urgency. There will still be times when we will think he should have gone harder, and we need to accept that he will never be one of the game's real hard men, however I sense Jack Watts may now be finally coming into his own. I will watch the rest of his season with interest and then expect and back a further full pre-season under the tutoring of Brendan McCartney to finally enable him to deliver on his undeniable talent. Why trade that away?

Another couple of musos: Bruce Woodley - The Seekers (have seen him in the Members at the G donned in a Dees scarf) Jim Keays - The Masters Apprentices (R.I.P. Also saw him at games in our colours)

As others have already named him - Van Demon works for me (obviously a la Van Dieman's Land). Looks a ready made player and already a favourite of a few here.

I have far greater faith that our current recruiting department as against those who went before them, have what it takes to make the right decision based on all the information at their disposal. Brayshaw appears to be a lock and then the fun begins with the other pick. We can argue cases for and against each of the prime candidates (which is surely what Demonland is all about!) and I enjoy reading the parries and thrusts between posters - mostly. I have absolutely no inside or outside knowledge of any of the prospectives other than what I have read and the vision I have seen in clips. The problem is that each of them have their pros and cons and we need bits or lots of what each can bring. 3-4 draftees into one draft position just doesn't go. I will be disappointed not to get each one of the ones we don't get and rapt to get the one we do. For what it's worth, the thought of a two pronged Hogan and McCartin combo is salivating, however the adage of drafting for mids and trading for talls resonates with me. The highlights package of Laverde was the most impressive of the lot, however for him to be in the 4-10 bracket perhaps indicates something missing somewhere. Lever's biggest concern is obviously his knee, however all the other attributes accredited to him including leadership, possibly makes him the safest bet (injury aside) as he seemingly has the combination of talents also found in the other two. Competitiveness, marking and strength - McCartin; athleticism and footy smarts - Laverde. People say he is a defender as well as a potentially untried midfielder. Could he also be a potentially untried forward? No one seems to have mentioned this. Could he be a rebounding defender a la Fyfe or Heppell when they started - or a big midfielder a la Bontempelli, or as someone suggested, Mundy - or could he also be that big competitive key position forward like a Hogan or McCartin have been touted to become? He is young enough to be moulded into a body shape that will enable him to be any of these. He therefore may be the one which gives us the best combination of all three - assuming any unnamed others are out of the picture. His knee is a risk (all due diligence no doubt being done here), however he could almost be that 3 in 1 draftee who could help fulfill a number of needs in the one pick with the flexibility and scope to be a forward, back or mid. So I guess it's Jake Lever for me - but will trust those in the know to pull the right rabbit out of the hat.

While that was one of the worst games of football skill-wise I have seen, the AFL and/or Etihad management need to take some responsibility for this. How they can even contemplate leaving the roof open on nice sunny days is beyond belief. The contrast between light and shade and the fact the ground faces north/south to the MCG's east/west, means players are constantly shading their eyes from the glare when facing north, promoting errors and making a mockery of the supposed skills of the game. Sure it is the same for both teams, and some of their mistakes were as bad as ours with the sun being responsible for a fair number of them. While this has been an ongoing argument at all levels, today's game was living proof that the roof should be closed regardless of the weather. The sun in your eyes is the sun in your eyes regardless of how good bad or atrocious you are as a player or team. The fact the ground was built facing the wrong way should not mean that players or fans should have to suffer the consequences. That said, we were terrible today and I couldn't believe we were ahead at any stage of the game.

Bread is more depressing than 186 and that is saying something. Yes but a Roll is also more fun than Bread - especially "IF" in the hay ....

Prepared to wait for the club's official announcement on this, however if true, the one positive for me is that this appears to be from a collision injury and not from a breakdown of his body from over training. The latter would suggest a potential ongoing fragility, the former, just something that happens in footy.

Out of curiosity to confirm and share what I had suspected, I've just copied and pasted the following showing all our coaches since Norm Smith including interims. I then did the same for Paul Roos. There are many things to be gleaned from this, but my main reason for doing so was: With the exception of Ron Barassi and interim coach Neil Craig, EVERY single coach since Norm Smith has been a rookie coach at VFL/AFL level when taking over the Melbourne coaching position. It also shows that only John Northey (54%) had a winning percentage of over 50 with Neale Daniher close at 48, and Ian Ridley and Neil Balme as the only other coaches over 40%. The winning percentages since Neale Daniher makes pretty gruesome reading. Paul Roos will be our 30th coach and our 16th since Norm Smith. Apart from Barassi and Craig, he is the only one to have had any pedigree at the top level prior to coming to us. I would also be interested to see a list of all our assistant coaches in this time to check their credentials, particularly stacked up against those at other clubs. And so for the first time in a very long time, we now FINALLY having a coach with serious coaching credentials including a premiership - and the good ship MFC may now at long last be being steered in the right direction. Of course, as with anything, there are no guarantees. However through the amazing efforts of Peter Jackson in securing Paul Roos with what and who he brings to the table, we have now given ourselves every opportunity of achieving future - and hopefully - ultimate success. 1. John Beckwith 1968-1970 27.42 Winning % 2. Ian Ridley 1971-1973 43.18 % 3. Bob Skilton 1974-1977 31.82% 4. Dennis Jones 1978 22.73% 5. Carl Ditterich 1979-1980 25.00% 6. Ron Barassi 1981-1985 30.63% 7. John Northey 1986-1992 54.19% 8. Neil Balme 1993-1997 41.84% 9. Greg Hutchison 1997 23.08% 10. Neale Daniher 1998-2007 48.65% 11. Mark Riley 2007 33.33% 12. Dean Bailey 2008-2011 26.51% 13. Todd Viney 2011 20.00% 14. Mark Neeld 2012-2013 15.15% 15. Neil Craig 2013 9.09% 16. Paul Roos (at Swans) 2002 – 2010 57.40% My apologies for the skewball look of this table - it was hard to copy and paste with any accuracy!

You may or may not be right about him not being a midfielder. However he has been with Casey most of the year and has still not nailed down the half back role in the seniors. My theory at this late stage of the season anyway is to try something different - free him up and yet enable his defensive mindset to still help him and the team in the midfield and around stoppages. And while I agree that the best kicks are often sweeping out of half back, they can be just as effective in the midfield where a precise kick into the forward line will usually allow the recipient a scoring opportunity - and that is surely what it's all about.

I was going to start a similar thread, although more about giving our fringe and possible delist players a chance to show their wares in positions other than those in which they appear to have been pigeon-holed to play. However given the third world midfield we currently employ, this should be the area to zero in on. My prime example of turning a career around, although he is no star yet, is Dean Terlich. Pigeon holed as a medium forward at Norwood and in real danger of returning to bush footy, a mid year chat with coach Nathan Bassett, had him put down back where he thrived, ending up with a BOG in their winning Grand Final and a tilt at the big time where he could finish top 5 in our B & F in his first year. The point is, if players are struggling and just pigeon-holed into one area of the ground, then very little will change for them to display their talents elsewhere and possibly save their careers. Which leads me mainly to James Strauss. He seems to have been pigeon-holed as a back flanker and sure, a running half back who can deliver the ball is gold. However, I'm sure our marking forwards would relish the prospect of a James Strauss running out of the middle hitting them lace out on the chest. He is not slow, is physically equipped to handle the midfield and I believe he now needs a free reign to demonstrate any attacking skillset he might possess. He has never had the opportunity to display whether or not he can. We have others who can fill the half back role and is time to try him in a role where we are crying out for auditions. He reminds me physically of Adelaide's and once Melbourne's Scott Thompson and has a similar gait. Thompson has always been a midfielder, Strauss always a defender - are they that dissimilar? I understand one's a star and one's struggling to establish himself, but to look at them, there's not that much difference. Strauss has polish and has always been touted as an elite kick and we have seen some evidence. Let him show whether he can actually get the ball in the middle and hit up leading targets. The delivery of ball into our forward line is bereft of both quality and quanitity. I don't get the feeling he is having any lingering effects from his broken leg and I think engine's are better built in the heat of battle than on the training track, particularly when languishing at the foot of the ladder and there is little else to be gained. And no, I'm not advocating tanking! He - and others, should learn on the job what it aerobically takes to get to contests and to affect second and third efforts. In that light I believe Blease and Tapscott, Evans when fit and even Jetta as a tagger, should be thrown in there as well. This instead of languishing in the safe haven of a forward line where the ball has been known to enter the 50 metre arc only twice in one quarter and is no place to develop anything other than pneumonia! I would be a little more reluctant to put the youngsters into the middle, as their bodies may not stand the rigours early on and the strong sides can afford to blood these guys for extended periods in their twos. If we can put them in as flankers a la Clisby, forward or back, to enable them to acclimatise to the AFL , then fine, however the above named who have already endured several pre-seasons should be primed to be trialled there on an extended basis to see whether or not they can cut it. If they are then gone they are gone, but at least no one will die wondering. We should at least try to salvage something from this wreck of a season and if a career can be saved like Dean Terlich's was, then surely this could be a valuable exercise in player development - rather than player stagnation which benefits neither club nor player. As to whether or not Casey is holding back our player development who knows, however a winning culture is surely better than what the seniors are currently serving up and I hope as many listed Melbourne players as possible get to play finals at Casey which hasn’t happened previously. This bizarre philosophy has done nothing to foster a winning culture, enhance player development or nurture the relationship with our feeder club.

Reading all these posts, it's obvious the pro versus anti Jeff For Prez is split down the middle. I think his politics should be left completely out of the debate and centre purely around whether or not he can help lead us out of the deep mire in which we find ourselves with what he can bring to the table. We seem to have embraced Peter Jackson as an MFC outsider without question as a mover and shaker, and yet Jeff polarises like no other, save perhaps Eddie. A bull in a china shop approach yes, but a man who thrives on a challenge, as an ex Premier passionate about the Melbourne brand (the city - but we carry its name - he made a point of this) and he was president of a club with a demographic not dissimilar to our own. And as a previous non-supporter, like Jackson, he will see us with other eyes. What I think this club needs is exactly what outsiders like PJ and Jeff can bring - an outside perspective from hugely successful football environments that have tasted the ultimate. For the past 50 years, we have navel gazed from the inside to no avail with small smatterings of success along the way without having achieved that ultimate. We are constantly painted as beige with no personality and we stand for nothing. We have well meaning diehard supporters who are successful in business who are voted in to take on roles within the club and yet they continually fall short, apparently because of something called "our culture" of which they also become tarred because that is who or what we are. It is time to take on a completely fresh approach to fix something that has been broken for 50 years. If it takes non Melbourne supporters, like Jackson and Kennett to rebrand us, give us corporate governance, profile, gravitas, sponsorship, respect, even success (dare we dream) - then why not? We are severely lacking in all these areas. Kennett's performance on Footy Classified early this year was almost statesman like in its depth of understanding of the issues within the AFL and in his role at Beyond Blue similar understanding of the frailties of the human condition. Sure he is full of hot air, bluff and bluster and he has that great ability to put his foot in it, however he is a winner and a can-do person, with much clout and many contacts and along with Peter Jackson, knows what it takes to be successful. He will make the place hum again, which will draw in more supporters and support, which will encourage our players to want to stay and have players from other clubs wanting to be part of it. Our club has not hummed for a long time - and it is about time it did again.

A quick but lazy copy and paste from Wikipedia: Clarkson moved into coaching, first with Werribee in the VFL, followed by roles at St Kilda and Central District where he was a Premiership coach in 2001. In 2003 he became the midfield coach at Port Adelaide and forward coach in 2004. He was appointed his first senior AFL coaching role at the Hawthorn Football Club for the 2005 season, when the Hawks appointed Clarkson to lead their rebuilding phase. While his side could only manage five wins in his debut season, finishing 14th, 2006 saw the side improve, winning their last four games in a row and taking them to 11th spot on the ladder. The Hawks continued to improve in 2007, winning 13 games and finishing fifth on the Premiership table. This took them into the finals, where they defeated Adelaide in the Elimination Final, before being eliminated in the Semi Final against North Melbourne. On 13 May 2008, the Hawthorn Football Club announced that Clarkson had signed a contract until the end of 2011. In 2008, Clarkson took the Hawks to second place on the home-and-away ladder, before guiding the team to the premiership with a Grand Final victory against Geelong, a team which had lost only game during that year. In doing so, Clarkson became the first (and, as of 2011, only) coach to ever lead his sides to a Premiership in both the AFL/VFL and the SANFL. No he built his list - and he took them from near bottom to the top and has kept them thereabouts. A great list sure - but it's his list.

Agree the "realistic" tag presents a roadblock for both Clarkson and Worsfold given where their clubs are at. However both are out of contract at season's end so depending on how their respective seasons finish given both have been at their clubs a long time, this may create some level of opportunity for a move to a fresh challenge. No one thought Ross Lyon would have been a realistic chance to coach Freo either at the time.

I would also add Alistair Clarkson to the list. Out of contract with the Hawks at the end of this season and was seemingly approached before Neeld was appointed although he apparently denies this. He would be my first choice if available. He has the right mix of aggro and flair in his makeup and lifted Hawthorn from a basketcase to yearly contenders under his watch (including winning one). He has also had a working relationship with Todd Viney when Todd was an assistant coach at Hawthorn and they would likely be on the same page when it comes to all things football. He is also an ex Demon player although who knows where this sits within his mindset.

Mark Neeld, by playing Moloney or singing his praises, would have sent the wrong message to the rest of the list and would not have re-inforced team standards or the buy-in philosophy. He was dropped and brought back several times during the season, giving him every opportunity as a senior member of the team to try to embrace the new way. The fact that he was unable or unwilling to do so, and as a result by mutually agreeing to part ways says more about him negatively than it does about the club. It only makes the club stronger. And if the lukewarm response to recruit him is an indication of how far he has fallen, other clubs will not want to take on a player who just wants to play his way and spits the dummy if he can't. If the by-product of this, is that we don't get adequately compensated at the draft or trade table, then I am convinced that we will be more than compensated by the renewed attitude and buy-in from those who are left, knowing that Mark Neeld plays no favourites and was happy to cast adrift a fallen star who only 12 months earlier polled 19 Brownlow votes and won the club's B & F. Our club culture is changing and for me that this a bigger win than any mid to late draft pick can bring.

".... or 10 for 5......." which he used to rip off the butt with unerring accuracy.. The numbers would come up on the big screen for 5 seconds while the game was on and then disappear forever! He sometimes gave us the word on any late changes too before they were common knowledge. A lovely man and a true Demon.

If we had picked up Darling I doubt we would have picked up Jeremy Howe as he would have been regarded as a similar type to play a similar position. I am more than happy with Howe over Darling - which is probably a better comparison anyway. I wonder how many clubs or rival supporters are nashing their teeth over missing Jeremy Howe? Probably a more versatile player playing in a side with currently little player support, who takes a Mark Of The Year contender every week, and whose upside is probably even greater. Darling is a good player but he too may have struggled in our forward line without the kind of support and delivery he gets at West Coast. Lucas Cook was no doubt a mistake, at least that far up the pecking order, but any draft needs to be looked at in totality rather than in isolated picks, as who is picked early will have a hand in who is or who is not picked later to determine need and list balance. FWIW I would delist Cook and probably re-rookie him depending on other latent quality available because there is some talent there, he just needs alot more time and size.

In my mind, Lynden Dunn stays - for a number of reasons. It appears Neeld is a fan and has finally allowed him to settle into a new position of which he is making a pretty good fist. He is providing some great rebound off the half backline and has also become a worthy designated kicker after a behind. I don't think I've yet see him stuff this up which has been a long term issue for us, and has a booming kick as an extra weapon. If we use the moneyball theory of recruiting, then he sits in our midst as the sort of cheaper option we would be looking to trade for anyway. He is a strong body, resilient from injury and can play a role (or several). With the salary cap squeeze, he is a cheap option to maintain while still stockpiling hopefully better talent at the other end of the spectrum. Every club needs lower grade handy depth players and he is that at the very least. As someone said earlier, there is a bottom six at every club, whether it's best 22 botton six or bottom six on the list and if Dunn is part of either list then he is worth more to us than he would be of value at the trade table. I also think the fact he has been on the list for 8 years is irrelevant. He is responding to the demands of the new coaching panel and has adapted probably better than all of our other senior core players, a core of which can't be totally decimated as there needs to be a list balance of age and experience with something good to offer. I would bracket him with Jared Rivers to a large extent in terms of this and while both are on the the "contracts on hold" list, as moneyball options we already own them and if both are embracing the new way, then this should be rewarded after the club conducts its due diligence with free agency. On the flipside they are obviously not unexpendable and they also may choose to ply their trade elsewhere, but I would keep both and would be surprised if they are not in Melbourne jumpers next year. There are many others before them whose form is simply not worthy of a place on the list. Good form should be rewarded, while poor form and/or an inability to comply with the new way will pave the way for a walk out the door - and there are many others more deserving of that fate than Jared Rivers and Lynden Dunn.