Key Deefender

While these articles never make good reading, I honestly don't think we will go to the wall because of it. The AFL and MCC are playing ducks and drakes with each other and have done for years. Unfortunately we are the pawns in this one. Neither the AFL or the MCC will want to be seen as the ones who closed us down over a lovers' tiff - it's just a case of negotiators circling each other trying to get an upper hand on a range of issues such as stadium deals and we have got caught up in it. It happens all the time. This one got out and as Cameron Schwab said on SEN, the media has caught this story at a certain point on the timeline and run with it. It is not the end point, just somewhere in the middle of the negotiating process. I really don't think this will bring down the curtain on the MFC! On a positive - great to see the membership way ahead of where it has ever been and should show the AFL and MCC as well as our own leaders that supporters are believing in what is being done and that after two shocking seasons, much better times are ahead and can be seen to be ahead.

Theoretically you're right. However Dean Cox and others like Danyule Pearce, Robbo, Davey etc etc were all taken as rookies, even further down the pecking order than the PSD and I think all are better than your typical Pick 80. While the science of drafting has improved immeasurably, not all top draft picks make it, at least as the touted champions they were expected to be. Similarly, the late bloomer, "troubled child", injury risk, speculative guess can also pleasantly surprise like those I've listed and there are countless others. If the "take the best player" adage applies up to say pick 50, then drafting for need beyond that could mean potentially good/great players miss out as clubs feel they have enough of a certain type of player, or the risk factor, for whatever reason in the National Draft, is too high to gamble a pick. Better to be bitten on the bum in the PSD/rookie draft where the comeback factor for stuffing up is far less. Jack Watts at pick 1, is now on level pegging with the last player taken in the PSD. The expectation is different but the level of opportunity is the same. Casey Sibosado and other talls like him who have been overlooked so far, may have appeared higher risk or speculative than those taken, or, because it was a supposed "quality talls" draft, were simply outnumbered. From the YouTube vision I really hope we take him, although I note it was promoted as a "highlights" not a "lowlights" package! He will be on the club's radar along with the others, and I will trust their call. And while I'm very happy with all our picks so far and support their reasons for going for the quick, skilful runners beyond Watts, like others I believe we need to go predominantly tall from here on in the remaining drafts.

As far as Watts v Natanui as our No.1 pick goes, and for the record Watts is my preference, I find myself thinking that if Watts was from WA and Natanui from Vic, would I be changing that preference. As it stands, if we don't take Watts, I will be watching his entire career with the "what ifs," particularly if he becomes a champ and NikNat a chump. If we do take Watts, regardless of how his career pans out, I can honestly say I won't be watching the career of Natanui or of Rich for that matter, with the same critical and "if only" eye. And that is because I am totally comfortable with the Watts selection from everything I know, which admittedly is really only from what I have read. The fact that the other two are interstaters negates much of that factor for me. It's amazing how we favour those immediately under our gaze than those from afar. If they were going to play for an Essendon, Carlton or Collingwood for example, my radar would scrutinise their performances and impact on the competition far more. I somehow feel more competitive against the local teams than those around the country. However, to again cast the hypothetical, if Watts was from WA and Natanui from Vic, would I be wanting the local budding Buddy in Natanui instead? Perhaps yes, as the "local prospect" versus the "go home" factor can be a compelling argument. But it is a conundrum. Watts the Natural Footballer with outstanding athleticism versus Natanui the Natural Athlete with outstanding football potential. Who knows? Watts seems the safer bet, Natanui the wildcard who could be anything. If Watts turns out a dud, the football world will say we went the safer bet and lost, and few recriminations will be brought to bear even if Natanui blossoms. However if we go Nata and he wilts while Watts flourishes, we will be ridiculed for the golden chance that went begging. And that we annot afford. The fact that two of the three best picks hail from the same state as the clubs that have two of the first three picks, has somehow skewed the value and merits of each. The local factor seems more of an issue this year than ever. What I can only really hope for and trust is that all due diligence will have been done to choose our man and that no stone will be left unturned to turn either one of them into exactly what our club needs - a champion to carry us forward. However as things stand - they need to choose Watts!

How do you know? A reliable source ..... or just a sick feeling?

I'm very happy Green is staying. In this last uncompromised draft for some time, I don't think his true value was ever going to meet the current market. Last year, a late first round draft pick perhaps a la TJ, this year a second at best, and that after his best season. As one of the few in 08 to show true leadership, rewarded in the end by being re-instated in the club leadership group mid season and then actually winning the club leadership award on B & F night, we needed him to remain. It sends the right message to the younger group that a club leader has chosen to stay when the option of moving to a club with more realistic finals' aspirations would have been appealing. Remember, at 27, this was probably his last opportunity to put himself out there when at his highest currency. His next contract comes up at 30, and hopefully we're then looking at our own window, and he could look at doing a Crawf. As one who can swing from one end of the ground to the other, actually hit targets, provide inspirational acts of courage and kick better than average goals, why would supporters of a team crying out for this, ever want to get rid of him? Young players need leadership. He, McLean and Miller of the more mature brigade probably display it best. Putting himself out there is not an act of disloyalty. In this day and age, it's a business and he was only assessing his options and value. He would still be my captain in 09. Thanks for staying Greeny!

While I'm as disappointed as anyone that Warnock has supposedly chosen the Blues, if mainly from a "why not us" view, two things spring to mind to put a positive spin on it. The first is that Warnock is still an unproven commodity in terms of the contract he would command, very over inflated on performances to date, when in reality our financial situation does not justify the outlay when bringing down our TPP to 92%. He is a likely prospect, but no more. He may be a champion, he may be another Peter Street. The second is that we can now continue to develop from the ground up, and nurture a Jake Spencer and maybe another unknown teenage beanpole to become at least what Warnock is now and then develop further again within a side that will be performing much better than it is now. These things are cyclical and I remember thinking at the time that neither Hawthorn or Carlton would ever climb out of the holes they were then in. Carlton is likely to be taking Warnock, when at a similar stage to where Geelong was at when they took Brad Ottens. When we eventually move up the ladder - and it will happen, we will begin to attract players to us as they will see the signs of September action. At the moment, with Judd last year and Warnock this year, we don't present in this way and we need to accept that. Anyone coming to us as Judd and Warnock both could have, would be a bonus rather than an expectation. And at what cost to our coffers and our list management direction? We must not deviate and choose those who don't fit on either front. I would rather reward performing and developing players from a 92% TPP base moving forward, than overpay an import on not much more than raw potential. Hawthorn started way back on $92% TPP when they bottomed out which gave them scope for paying more as their list developed. We need to do the same. They got rid of dead wood and we are now doing the same. From memory, they did not bring in and overpay anyone that deviated from their long term strategy. Again, we need to do that too. Early and wise draft picks is the only way for us at the moment, with the continuing patience and satisfaction, like proud parents, of watching them grow. Hopefully the results of this will also mirror those of the Hawks. And of course, with the anticipation of a better pre-season under a post honeymoon period coach with a developing game plan, some better luck with injuries, two exciting new premises under development, an adventurous, responsible, yet proactive board with AFL and MCC support, reducing to nil debt (early signs are fantastic), I say again - our turn will come. A bit of hope and momentum can be contagious - and alot can take you anywhere!

Cameron Schwab has been at the club during our most successful post 60s eras. Mid to late 80s when we made the finals for the first time in 25 years and in the late 90s when we then rebulit a list to play a GF in 2000. Now in 2008 and beyond to hopefully do it all again. He was also part of the Tigers' early 90s tin rattle which brought them back from the brink, and CEO of the Dockers who were in dire financial trouble in early 2000s and a couple of years ago played in a prelim. Although only one part of a two team town, the Dockers were by far the lesser part, and he has helped them establish themselves in that market and gain some credibility in the AFL, although their on-field performances this year, much like ours, have eroded that to some extent. Luckily for them, the woes of the Eagles have negated the impact of that in the west. In short he has the runs on the board. He is also a far more experienced CEO now than last time around. He is 44 and has held these roles for years when most at this age are just starting to apply for these positions. Most importantly, he is familiar with our culture, having been there on and off over a 26 year period. He already knows our strengths, our weaknesses, our idiosyncrasies, our contacts, our market etc etc. Having been back now three times, he will hopefully be able to see what has worked and what hasn't over this journey, whether what was a strength is maybe now a weakness and vice versa in an ever changing market place. This would be an advantage for mine over any other worthy candidate, who would need to learn and absorb all this. He can just hit the ground running - and time as much as anything else is something we may not have alot of. His appointment is another positive plank in the platform that will enable us to rise again.

Just guessing, but I think Schwab pulling out may have had something to do with it. If he missed out to Schwab, with the spectre of "jobs for the boys" hanging over such an appointment, he would not have wanted to be seen as having missed out on the same job twice in 6 months. Firstly it wouldn't make his own credibility look great for future applications, and secondly for the club, the process of the Schwab appointment would have appeared to make any other application purely token at best, which would have further stretched the club's credibility when it comes to appointing these top end positions. To remember where Geelong were and to see where they now are, and to know he has been a part of that, learning from the best in the business in Brian Cook and Frank Costa, gives me hope. Different club, different dynamics - but a mess is a mess and they fixed it. Jimmy and the board seem really keen to get him and appear to have wooed him back. I just hope he genuinely wants the job and then actually lands it. He obviously has the support of the major external parties - being the AFL and the MCC and has spoken with them. I would not know him if I fell over him, but he's got my tick already - and I hope that makes a difference!

I would not swap Sylvia for Davey. Sylvia, as frustrating as he is, offers us a power mid sized forward or midfielder, someone who may replace Robbo's role. As stated by others we have our Davey, Maric and Aussie as our small crumbers and I still have high hopes of Sylvia getting his body right. Alwyn has also had his own share of injuries. As for Warnock in the PSD, yes at this stage, however would like to see the quality of the available field before settling on him. Hasn't proven to be a worldbeater, but has had limited opportunities and injuries and to be honest I haven't seen much of him. Like Peter Street though, being tall isn't everything and maybe Jake Spencer can step up over the next couple of seasons.

Hard to say until an offer is made regarding any player swap. In terms of straight draft picks, given the apparent quality and depth of this draft, I'd say on current form, Sylvia is worth a third round pick and Newton perhaps a fourth which is somehere around what we originally got him for. It also depends who wants them. A team in the window of opportunity might see Sylvia as topping them off nicely as he would do very well in a well drilled top team and might offer more for him than another team rebuilding like we are. I would like to think that in 2-3 years, we are that well drilled top team and he is topping us off nicely, having developed his game and remained injury free. He still has a huge potential upside and I just get the feeling he will be a late bloomer - as some players are. Newton is more speculative and may be seen as too one dimensional. Keep him as a project player, most teams have them and hope he can turn himself around. There have been glimpses, but mainly last year, and I wonder if injury and confidence have helped conspire against him this year. I also think if Sautner was not in his way at Sandy he could better develop his game at full forward down there to teach him what he needs to do to step up.

There has to be a careful balance between youth and experience. We can cleanout anyone over a certain age if we wish, but there has to be the core leadership and experience to hopefully show the way. James McDonald has just re-signed for a year to emphasise that point. Here's my view on our older brigade to either keep, trade or retire. One of our biggest problems this year has been turnovers. Within reason I would not be looking to trade anyone who can mainly hit a target or offer something postively unique to the team. To that end, I would happily trade Bell and Bruce who have been around long enough to improve to their capacity. I think for both that capacity has now waned. Both may have some trade value, particularly Bruce. I think Adelaide have always like Bell, maybe they still do. For the same reasons I would keep Green and Wheatley. Green because he can hit targets/kick goals regularly, but also because he has demonstrated tremendous leadership onfield to come back from the pre-season demotion from the leadership group. He would be my captain next year, perhaps co-captained with Miller or have Miller as his deputy. Wheatley can certainly turn over the ball, but he can also hit long targets. He would also be my preferred designated kicker from behinds, he can play tall or short and has deceptive speed. Probably having his best season and I believe he is a very good clubman. Worth more to us than anything on the trade table at Round 3 tops. Whelan I had written off mid season, however I think now he can mentor some of the younger defenders as well the young indigenous players, as he is proving, injury free, he still has some good football left. Yze, White and Holland have been great mentors and servants but their time has come. Robbo is an interesting one. He is contracted for next year, and with his injury is worth nothing at the trade table. His recovery level is in some doubt, however he is the best clubman we have and in many ways, of the players, the face of the club with his media profile. He needs the chance and opportunity to recover but his best playing days are behind him now. If he can't recover to the level he wants he may pull the pin some time next season. If he can, then good luck to him. Of the other main contenders for trade on these forums, Sylvia and Newton, I would give each one more season, barring a trade offer reasonably exceeding their worth. Sylvia disappoints but still has never done a full pre-season. A good side needs a mid sized robust forward and he could be the next Robbo. He has all the attributes, spring, athleticism, a big mark and kick- albeit erratic at present - and can take turns at different parts of the ground. If let go, he could seriously come back to bite us. An injury free run is hopefully all he needs. Newton is not dissimilar in some ways but many tend to forget he has around ten senior games to his credit. Big forwards are more of an investment in time and while I think he is immature of mind as much as body, he needs another, hopefully injury free, season to demonstrate he is worth hanging onto. With Neitz gone, Robbo in limbo, Miller and Bate required perhaps further upfield at times, there is really no one else to groom at this point. Watts or someone else may come along but they will be 2-3 years behind in development anyway. The ball into the forward line has been so bad I would challenge any big inexperienced forward to look good.

Don't know if anyone saw this, but there was an interesting snippet in the Sunday Herald-Sun on page Sport 7 and I have to say I was surprised to say the least. Since the inception of the draft system, which I think was 1986, doesn't say in the article, only TWO No. 1 draft picks have played in a premiership team. They are retired Eagle Drew Banfield in '94 and '06, and former Lion, now Docker, Des Headland in '02. That's 22 drafts for a net premiership result of just TWO players! And neither of them turned out to be superstars, they just had awesome players around them. Interesting stuff given the premium placed on getting the No. 1 pick, and the fruits have not been as plentiful as we would believe. In the article, AFL talent manager, Kevin Sheehan was quoted as saying that the logical reason for this is the fine line between getting the best player and the best player FOR YOUR CLUB and that pick 7 can be as good as pick 1 longterm. He also said this year was no different, though I think he prefers to lessen the pressure on the likelies. For what it's worth, and only from what I've read on the merits of Naitanui, Rich and Watts, I think Jack Watts may be the best fit for our club. He could be a Franklin or a Roughhead in the making, a genuine KPP quality footballer (not easy to come by). I reckon the Tigers, if they could have their time again, would have taken Buddy and Roughy who were squeezed between Delidio and Tambling. Apart from the go-home factor for both, Naitanui, while sounding an incredible athlete, does not sound like a natural footballer and he does not seem to rack up the stats. Rich does not sound exceptionally quick, although is obviously very skilled and talented. His type is perhaps available throughout the draft, albeit a little less talented. A tall, agile, quality key forward with a football brain who can take a pack mark and kick goals would be gold worth panning for. To me that sounds like Jack Watts.

And to suggest that the injury woes of last year, as many have intimated over the past 12 months, were all Babijczuk's doing is just as scurrilous. And no, I have no evidence, however I think you'll notice I used the words "if' and "may" to qualify any assertions. If he didn't, then fine, I hope he didn't, and I had actually alot of time for Daniher. However Daniher's agenda of last year and Bailey's agenda of this year are very different beasts. Daniher was riding on the back of 3 years of finals appearances, and perhaps was in a window of opportunity in the last year of a ten year tenure. That can bring with it an element of risk in injured player selection. Daniher, if he did do this, would not have been alone. All coaches in certain situations, particularly in finals, gamble on player fitness all the time. And when you gamble on player fitness, you may be going against the advice of fitness and medical staff. Bailey, on the back of last year's misery, and at the beginning of a three year tenure, has a different licence. Time is on his side, time was not on Daniher's side. And finally, if we all made comments here based only on conclusive evidence rather than opinion and theory, then these boards would be very empty.

Dean Bailey, it seems, is taking the approach of only playing those who are fit to play. If Daniher was choosing to play guys who were unfit, even against the advice of medicos, then Babijczuk may have been compromised in his position and unfairly carried the public can for this last year. It seems to me that players, like Bate for example, are now being made to gain some fitness and touch in the Sandy firsts and seconds, after sitting out weeks on the sidelines. I'm not sure that would have happened under Daniher. The benefit of the Bailey approach, and at the beginning of a 3 year contract he has time on his side, and can take this strategic approach, is being able to look at the list and give game time to kids to see what they can do. The rotation increase would also play a part in getting players through games and speeding recovery. Our injury list this year compared to last is pleasantly unrecognisable, even if the scoreboard results don't necessarily fall in line with this. Perhaps that is about to change. And Bohdan Babijczuk may at last be being allowed to do his job properly.

Any word on a replacement for him within the leadership group? I'm guessing it's one out/one in, and I would favour the return of Brad Green who I feel was a stunning omission in the first place. I believe he was next in line anyway from the original vote count. He stood up more than most on-field last year consistently, has hardened up alot, and if he had any lessons to be learned from his omission. he's probably had it flagged and has taken the necessary steps already. He said himself he needed to speak up more and have confidence in his opinions and if that was the reason he missed, then perhaps now's the time to give him another go and prove he can.. Having said that, of all the others, Nathan Jones has done enough on the ground - just don't know what he's like off it. Daniel Bell appeals as the best of the rest.

While we never like to lose and especially get belted, some context and perspective need to be recognised. As stated elsewhere, we had so many first gamers and those with under ten games. These guys were not only inexperienced themselves, they had also never played with many of their new teammates and were trying to execute new game plans under new coaches, most of which have been learned on blackboards and in training drills. The experienced guys in the team, while I wasn't really happy with many of them, were also playing alongside new teammates whose strengths and weaknesses, speed and decision making abilities are foreign to them. Pit all of this against a seasoned team on their own dung heap, with 14 of last year's GF team, who know their own game plan backwards, then this was always gonna happen. Take away the "rabbits in the spotlight" effort of the first quarter, and the tired last 15 minutes, I think of it as an effort by some babes in the woods who can take much from what they brought to the table yesterday. Tomorrow's superstar, Tom Hawkins, had topliners all around him and yet he did little, an effort that would inspire nothing in Cat supporters, and though many of our own even less experienced kids did more than he did, with alot less available support and talent, some here will choose to bag their efforts. These kids will now go away and take the lessons learned from yesterday and play scratch matches wherever. They will now play in an unmodified rules scenario, which in reality will serve them better than some of the circus rules that are for the NAB Cup only. Bailey will now have a better grasp of what he has at his disposal - it was also his first game yesterday - and I think we can safely say there are quite a few good players to come back too. Let's give them time and support - and bring it on!

Rhino, I agree with all the above. I think expectations of drafted KPPs always exceed those of dime a dozen midfielders. Any young strapping tall will always create more excitement and discussion than their smaller counterparts and this has always been the way. Look at the hype surrrounding Michael Newton earlier this year. As far as Miller goes, my thoughts are that he showed alot more earlier in his career, plateaued, then went backwards. I'm wondering whether he stagnated under Daniher, possibly being at sixes and sevens as to what was required of him both in terms of position play and aggression. Lack of confidence brings with it mistakes and lack of correct decision making ability. He and Bailey go back to his Mount Gravatt days and hopefully the history, trust and faith born from both parties at that time will allow him to flourish more under this new regime. Bailey obviously sees him as a challenge, and while the performance hasn't always been there, I think he is still perceived as a leader. His team role and his confidence need to be re-harnessed by a new coach with fresh ideas and with that perhaps his career will re-ignite. If not, he was a pick 55, not a pick 5, and that reality needs to keep expectations and evaluations in perspective.

Pick One, while obviously a position of envy for other clubs, brings with it its own demons. Club and player in this position are spotlighted to get it right, and this can bring unnecessary pressure to bear on both. While the best junior player of the day may be chosen, many variables over a career will ultimately determine whether the choice was ultimately right. Take the 2001 trio of Hodge, Ball and Judd, taken in that order. At the time, speculation raged over who should go first and it was agreed that any of the three could claim the number one spot. So six years down the track, how do they stack up? Judd would appear to be the one, followed by Hodge, then Ball. Ball's career has been derailed by on-going groin/OP injury, forseeable at the time? I doubt it. Judd entered that draft on the back of two shoulder reconstructions and was something of a risk. Injury free till 2007, this year though for the first time he has also been severely restricted by a groin/OP injury that perhaps threatens a return to his former glory - time will tell. Hodge has probably been the most durable of the three and racks up 25-35 posessions every week and can play anywhere. Will he at the end of their respective careers be the anointed one? They have always been the "big three" when assessing the worth of the various drafts but as good as that draft supposedly was, many of the rest of that Top 10 of 2001 have had chequered careers. In many ways, we tend to value the picks taken further on in the draft as the one that "slipped through" or the "smokey" or "bargain basement get" when the homework done by the recruiting gurus comes to the fore. Good player development, mentoring, injury, club culture, maturity, personal issues or lack of, luck etc etc, all also play a part in whether a player becomes a champion or not, as well as the natural talent displayed at junior levels which has clubs and supporters salivating - often prematurely. So in answer to the question, I would rather have the extra picks in the Top 20, and rely on those at the club to develop them properly and wisely. Plenty of champions have come from below Pick One.

Gibbo, I had the same thoughts as you regarding the Channel 7 story. I don't think they would run with what could be argued as an opinion piece unless there was credible source to back it up. I'm sure Johnson would have given sanction to this story before it went to air if only to get the "you heard it here first" scoop on Channel 9 and Eddie Colliwobble who have also been this whole charade up to their rednecks. Apparently there was not even a whisper on 9 Sport. I also want to turn the clock back yesterday to Mike Sheahan on the Ch10 GF build up and his chat with Huddo and Caro. He maintained that Collingwood was Judd's preferred choice (no credible source offered) and vindicated it up asking the toxic question "Why would he want to go to Melbourne?" My thoughts on that are that Judd's reasons that he would, are for the very reasons that Sheahan thinks he wouldn't. Gibbo - these are for the reasons you stated above, but also given the impression that Judd appears very much a limelight dodger, as much as a player of his talent can be. At the Pies he will be forever in the spotlight under Eddie's lovestruck gaze as Buckley fades into oblivion. At the Demons because of who we are, his profile will be a little lower although not much, and as you say what else has he got to achieve other than resurrect the team he loves. To go to Collingwood he would be moving from the biggest team in the west to the biggest team in the east and beyond. To me that just doesn't seem like Chris Judd - he is a quiet, private guy who just wants to do what he does best - play footy without all the hoopla. Collingwood is all hoopla! I have no evidence, other than trying to read between the lines on 7's story, and nothing more than what I hope is sound logic to back this up in trying to get inside the mind of a reluctant superstar.

I guess we are about to find out whether or not blood is thicker than water and whether Chris Judd's heart is still really with the Demons. He has achieved virtually every team and personal achievement possible with the Eagles and now he can decide whether his second and probably final football home will be a personal mission or purely a business decision. Virtually every footballer barracks for an AFL team in their formative years and probably very few end up ever playing for the team they barracked for as a kid. Very few though have also achieved as much as Judd has by the age of 24. Having reached the pinnacle he is now in a position to decide if he will forever regret never playing for the team he followed. Not many players are ever in such a strong bargaining position - he is. He can decide now just how red and blue his blood really is by declaring Melbourne as his team of choice. While this doesn't guarantee he will get to us, it does flag where his true feelings lie. Then the officials of both clubs will have to make it happen. He can still negotiate his salary. While there may be better options trade-wise and salary wise for him, I feel West Coast won't be unreasonable if Judd says he wants to go to the Dees. He has given them everything he has. Financially he will be looked after wherever he goes, but for him I don't think money will be the overriding factor. If he doesn't nominate us, then while that doesn't mean he won't come to us, nor does it mean we are not his preferred option but I think, publicly at least, it will then be seen as purely a business decision. Nick Stevens nominated Collingwood as his team of choice a few years back but ended up at Carlton. His preferred option was at least transparent - if not possible. Melbourne is about to enter a new post Daniher era, with a coach from clubs of proven successful backgrounds in Essendon and Port Adelaide, although his own coaching credentials are still to be evaluated. We are not a genuinely bottom team having achieved 3 years of successive finals footy till this year. Therefore the expectation of a quick turnaround for someone used to success is not unrealistic. The number 3 is available, the captaincy batten is about to be passed. The ingredients are there. I, as one of many, hold great hopes that he will declare his undying love for us, but if that does not happen, I will be disappointed but not surprised and will quickly move on. Football is such a business now that allegiances are paper thin, there when the paper is signed, but gone when that signature expires. Allegiances these days are probably more forged from playing for a club and one day returning to that club, a la Chris Connolly, the club that was actually bled for, rather than dribbled for from having worn a red and blue bib in the cradle. As supporters we maintain our blind allegiances, I'm not sure the players do. However, let's hope romance is not dead, because as romances go - this would be right up there! Otherwise in the tradition of Gone With The Wind - which he will have - I won't give a damn! Or will try not to. Chris Judd - the rest is up to you.

All you say is true. My Woey comparison was probably a bad one because as divisive as it was, it was the right decision. However it was made for a different reason altogether. After his Brownlow year Woey failed to finish top 10 in the B & F the following two years and was the highest paid player at the club. Robbo does not command that sort of salary, he consistently puts in and can be a match winner on his day. Woewodin was never that. Robbo has no doubt played at below par fitness all season and in his late 20s it can be argued he plays a high impact/risk type of game that may curtail his career earlier than it should. However I still think overall he offers our club far more than his market value as a player and the "great clubman" mantle can never be really restarted in a new environment, particularly at his age. I agree that hard decisions need to be made to the list but what is Robbo really worth even now? A second or third round pick? Maybe third, I doubt second. A young gun seeking a fresh opportunity? Unlikely. I doubt his type of player would attract much value. His size is everywhere, he can be hit and miss, as great as he often is, and his increasing injury risk at his increasing age makes him a doubtful quantity for other clubs seeking an edge. His real value remains with us. If we need to make hard list decisions with players of any real market currency, I would start with Cameron Bruce.

I think Robbo should be as close to untouchable as anyone at the club. Not because he is an elite player - he isn't. But he is the heartbeat and soul of the place and those guys, as rare and as unique as they are, need a little extra consideration when deciding who to keep and who to let go. On playing ability alone he is tradeable although he brings an edge and an unpredictability to our forward line that can both excite and infuriate. But he is the most media friendly and marketable personality in the playing group and has a passion for the club and for what he does that is second to none. He is at the club's core and with our 150th year next year and TeamMelbourne up and running we need players with both media presence and personality. Most importantly, he's still easily in our best 22. That said, no player should hold a club to ransom and I don't believe he would. He would ask for what he wants as anyone is entitled, and then be open for negotiation. Contracts can be front-ended, back-ended, performance based and have clauses added by either party. He won't be up for trade as trades like that rip the soul out of a place. Remember S Woewodin? This time of the year brings out rumour mongering at its often least credible. Reader and listener beware!

I think when analysing any player's value, it's also whether he brings to the table something that few or no other players on our list can do. And Paul Wheatley does that. Admittedly I've also been a sceptic as to his worth, mainly due to injury, but his last few weeks have underscored his ability to do some things that others can't or have trouble doing consistently. One is to kick in from behinds and hit long targets that can set up a forward thrust that will leave the opposition in its wake. We have had alot of trouble in this area. He is also a long rebounding defender or tall running linkman that can spear the ball into the forward line to fast leading forwards and hit them every time or kick a long goal himself. He is no insider but he complements our grunt players and he is a great finisher. He can play tall or short, is deceptively quick, has long arms to spoil or mark and can read the play. His ability to stay injury free is a question mark, but his value has been telling over the last few games. Turnovers lose matches and to want to give up a player who is skilled at long ball delivery particularly when he is also racking up 20+ touches a game is beyond belief. He is no worldbeater but he brings a unique skill to our team. I would not want him doing the same thing for someone else. I just want him to stay fit and keep doing what he's doing - because he does it so well.

It's interesting that Friday night's result has suddenly got everyone calling for Daniher's head again in the wake of successful outings against Adelaide and Collingwood, two top 4 aspirants. I know his head has been on the block all season, early injury woes, not withstanding. However, given the somewhat mitigating circumstances of those injuries, coupled with the mentioned winning performances, and some unlucky losses to Port, The Dogs and the Kangas, our season could still be alive. Friday night was abysmal and we all have the right to have a crack at the coach, after all he has been here ten years, as well as the players, but whether isolated or symptomatic of a more deeply rooted problem, is open to conjecture. Whatever the decision on whether to extend or end the coach's tenure, he has bled for the place for the past ten years. He has spruiked as well as coached, he has weathered lost draft picks and civil war at board level. He has endured the lack of resources not suffered by many other clubs, yet for the whole journey he has had the club's best interests at heart. I'd also suggest that that heart is now a bit more red and blue than red and black. The Bombers don't necessarily beckon. His time has perhaps now come and the time is right to change our coaching direction. Trade and draft time is always a difficult period with the changing of the coaching guard but decisions need to be made. I only hope that for his sake and for the sake of the club, that whatever the outcome, it's done with his dignity intact. He deserves at least that. And as for some of the players, they are now playing not only for their livelihood but for their AFL lives because a new coach, while he can bring a new opportunity for some - he can also bring a new broom.

I've just returned from a few weeks overseas and saw my first game since Round One last night against West Coast. Throughout the call Gerard Healy kept referring to the bigger bodied West Coast players knocking the Melbourne players off the ball. We really looked like boys on a man's errand. Yet the relative maturity of the two teams would have to be about even. As uninformed as I probably am, given my absence, I feel compelled to voice some thoughts. Injuries aside, and they have no doubt been a factor, I feel that our summer fitness regime has backfired horribly. Not because of the injuries, as not all are attributable to soft tissue, but because the body strength the players had accumulated over several seasons has now been almost completely eroded. The semi final loss to Freo sparked a rethink on our game plan and with that, the training and body shape required to carry out this new way of playing - the run and carry - which was what beat us that day on the big ground. This led to summer training based on fining down physiques to enable aerobic fitness and speed to execute this new game plan as well as the ability to run out games. Our pre-season was ordinary to say the least and was a warning of what was to follow. The problem is that with few genuine speedsters in our side to run other teams off their legs, the grunt and physical side of our game, which had served us so well for the past few seasons, has also no longer been able to be executed. We were the number one tackling team last year, and we were a somewhat physical side. Now we have neither. We don't have the genuine speed to execute run and carry and we don't have physical size and strength to apply genuine pressure. In short - we have nothing! The Bulldogs are not a big side but there are none faster and Eade has developed a game plan to suit his list. Apart from Davey and maybe Ward, of whom I'm a bit of a fan, but he has questionable disposal and is nearing the end, there are no genuinely fast players in our team. Buckley may be fast but he hasn't played a game. There are not too many genuinely slow ones either, but our ability to run teams off their legs was never going to happen given the speed of our list. I think Daniher has been caught between two worlds. The one we had, which served us so well but may not have taken us to a flag given the talent holes in our list. And the new world of run and carry, which serves so well teams with the personnel to make it lethal, but leaves floundering, teams without the leg speed to make it so. I can't ever remember a team that so radically altered its game plan between seasons with such an established coach and such an established list. This usually happens when a new coach and match committee come in and sweep the place clean. So where does all this leave us? With about 8 players who will be 30+ come September, a couple of whom are still worthy of a place, and others who should never play again if the list is to move forward given our position, as well as younger players who will probably never reach the required level, then tough decisions will have to be made. We now are probably back to where we were circa 2003 when crucial retirement and list management decisions were also made. Whether Daniher should get the chance to do it all again has been debated ad nauseum and I'm not going to add to that here, but the adage of not been able to teach old dogs new tricks has never applied so much as it does to the Melbourne Football Club circa 2007.