CHF

Thanks for that. I am interested in peoples differing perceptions of the players. On Hore, I see him as similar to Lever and would find it difficult to them both in the team. I do not see him there week in week out if Lever is fit and firing. Omac is a hard one. With frost gone I can see him getting games he would not have otherwise. It will be interesting to see how they structure the defenders this season. I can see a few of the midfield rotating through there during games.

I don’t disagree with what you have said with regards to getting on the front foot at selection and I hope that there have been lessons learnt from the past. Looking at the core players I have listed I think there is enough flexibility to cover most opposition structures. I also think we have enough talent at the next level and developing where we would select a particular player because he has the skill profile to either counter an expected opposition ploy or would bring an unexpected difference to the team.

I am interested in who people think are the 'Core"players should be in the team week in week out. A number of these are evident but I am sure we all have different views. Looking at the list as it stands at the moment and trying to envisage a team is an interesting exercise. To my mind we have a group of core players that will be selected week in week out as long as they are in form and fit. These guys are established players in the team that have a solid background of work in their portfolio and are expected to do their jobs. The second group I have are the players that I call borderline. These are the ones that Are either on the way up developing, on the way down as they age or ones that I think have found their natural level and are below the ‘çore’ standard required. The third group are the young developing players that need time to develop. Last group are the Rookies. So, in my opinion our core players are the following: · May (D) · Salem (D) · Harmes (D/M) · Petracca (M/F) · Viney (M) · Lever (D) · Brayshaw (M) · Gawn (R) · Oliver (M) · Melksham (F/M) · T McDonald (F) · Fitsch (F) In addition to these 12 I would add: · Tomlinson (M) Recovering from Injury · Langdon (M) So, the team with these in place reads as: Backs: Lever. May. ……. HB: Salem. …….. Harmes MIDS: Tomlinson. Oliver. Langdon HF: Melksham. …….. Petracca Forwards: Fitsch. TMac. ……… Ruck: Gawn. Viney. Brayshaw I/C The second group of players is quite extensive and this is where I expect a few people to disagree with me. In the aging group I have: · Jones (B/M) · Hibberd (B) · Jetta (B) These three to my mind are running out of legs a bit. All have been excellent players for us but I can see them being overtaken by younger legs as the season progresses. The next are quality players that need to find their best fitness/form: · Hunt (F) · Vandenberg (M/F) · Neal-Bullen (F/M) · Hore (B) · O McDonald (B) · Weideman (F) · Preuss (R/F) · Hannan (M/F) · J Wagner (B) These players are of a quality that can step up into he first 2 hen required but we need a few of them to make the move into the ‘core’ group. I am referring to Hunt, VDB, ANB, Hore and Weideman. OMac is there about but needs to have the player around him for support. Smith (F) is another I have in this group but is one that I see making a big step up this season if he can stay injury free. Petty (B/F) is an interesting one. I like what I saw of him at the end of the season. Has a bit of an edge to him and has a bit of confidence in himself as well as ability. Injury free could establish himself. Third group are the young developing/new players; · Spargo (F) · Baker (M) These two have played a bit of senior footy but almost need to take a tep back to move forward. Spargo will not be helped with a pre-season injury he is suffering. Also in this group that we wait to see their development are; · Bedford (F) · Jordan (M) · Neitschke (M) · Sparrow (M) · Jackson (R/F/M) · Pickett (F) · Rivers (B/M) I expect that all of these may well pick up a game or two during the season and it will be up to them to see if they can keep a place. Lastly, Rookies. It seems to me that the rules are in place now that you can use these guys as you see fit. I know there are rules but the rules now are a lot more relaxed than they used to be. · Chandler (F) · C Wagner (M/F) · Lockhart (F/M) · Dunkley (M) · Bradtke (R) All of them except for Bradtke will have roles to play at some time during the season. My present team with the gaps filled is: Backs: Lever. May. Jetta HB: Salem. OMac Harmes MIDS: Tomlinson. Oliver. Langdon HF: Melksham. Weideman. Petracca Forwards: Fitsch. TMac. AN-B Ruck: Gawn. Viney. Brayshaw I/C Hunt, VDB, Jones, Petty Back 6 have a lot of experienced heads but would need good reactive match coaching to cover the players. Tomlinson, Petty, Jones and Hunt have flexibility to cover any problems back there during a game. Front 6 Is about as good as we can expect. VDB, Petty and Tomlinson can all go forward with a resting mid to cove there. Mids running off max look good. In that 22 there are 13 players that can rotate through the center.

Easy. Get a marker pen and draw a line around the circumference of the golf ball and then when you place your ball on the green you line that marking up on the line you want to putt. The rotation of the ball will also show how accurately you have stroked the putt

I think Jackson will turn out to be a good selection and will hold his own as this crop of draftees develop. I have doubts over Pickett taken where he was. I would have selected Kemp with that selection.

I like the selection as it has an edge to it. Not only Dees fans, but footy fans from across the spectrum will be looking to see haow this pans out in the next few years. The kids looks to offer a fair bit of versatility and may well turn out to be the prototype of way that the role of ruck will evolve in the next generation. Be good fun watching his development.

After reading the article on AFL I would take Serong, Kemp, Dow. Maybe slot Green instead of Serong.

seems to be a lot of people putting Jackson at 3 but I don't think it will happen. I can see us calling Green at 3 and I think that GWS will not match it. Overall it will just be too costly for them. If we do not call Green then I would think that there might be a juicy agreement in place between GWS and MFC for the next trade period. If not green thaen I think it will be Young. At 10 I think we will look at taking Kemp if he is still there. 28 is a lottery but it would not surprise if it was a left field special. Not left field but I would take Taylor if he is still there.

Thank goodness!

Yep DD. I understand that they are working hard in the gym. I was not clear. I wanted to say that we seem to be ‘game’ training with ball in hand a greater percentage of the time than in the past few seasons while out on the ground.

Sitting half the world away I appreciate the input from all on the training threads as well as across the board on all the forums. So a big thank you for that. A comment on the impression I get from the early training reports. I find it very encouraging that from the very start we seem to be doing a majority of our field work, as opposed to gym work, with the ball in hand. Last season our play broke down time and time again because of poor execution and dull skills. We need to fit to run out games for sure but that needs to be balanced with critical work on improving and maintaining the player skills. Note: skills, not craft.

Agree with this. He has a lot of development to come and has an 'edge' to the way he plays and interacts with the opposition. I want to see him developed as a forward after his games last season.

I think we might just bid on Green with 3 and GWS will match it and then we will select Young. I do not see us splitting pick 3. Pick 8 will be interesting. I think that Kemp might be the one we want and if he is not there come our pick I think we might be open to the trade of picks. Maybe with the Freo. Our pick 8 for their pick 10 and 22. Effectively dropping one or two picks and picking up an early second round.

I get the sense that we may hold pick 3 until the draft and then look at swapping picks in the early stages of the draft as other club's desires become more transparent.

I like the way we have performed in this trade period. The recruiters have obviously done their ground work on both Tomlinson and Langdon over the past 12/18 months and they got the trades done with a minimum of fuss. I think these two have improved our list despite the loss of Frost. No idea if we will move on any other players this trade period but I could see that once the dust has settled and the draft starts, if we still have pick 3, we might trade that at the beginning of the draft if there is a deal to do with a club that has a couple of later first round picks.

Yep. Is a male... bit sorry I commented to be honest.

I don't want to enter into guesses at the moment. If this one gets to be more realistic I will put a name to the rumour. I can say clearly that it is not Joe.

I think he will go where the best money is.

Neither Jenkins or Casboult. I did hear a name but, at the moment I prefer to keep it close. Has been linked to another Melbourne based club.

As I have said before, I sit a long way from the corridors of the MFC but I am hearing that we are discussing a trade for a forward that is middle of the road at best at this stage of his career. Not a lot that is solid about this at the moment.

I am hearing that this deal will be done but maybe not till later in the trade period. The trade will hinge on a couple of other deals that might eventuate. As seems to be the case with all thee things.

When I first heard this one floated it was the longest of long shots. I am surprised to hear that the odds are shortening in our favour. Still a bit of water to go under the bridge.

I believe that this deal is over the line and will be one of the first inked.

Mr. Hell, I did title it 'Minor'... It is just something that has been irritating me for a while.

I am of an age where I have more well trodden path behind me than open road in front of me. My age may go some way towards my attitude toward the modern day use of some words now employed in footy circles. There are two in particular that annoy me. "Craft" - as in "Preuss to work on forward craft." When I was growing up footballers had skills. There was an art to how the position were played. Referring to something as a craft, to me removes art from a player. Removes the imagination that players require. We have all seen players do something otherworldly that is in no way a 'craft'. I would love this word banished from the MFC coaching panel and replaced with discussion about skills and imagination. "Learnings" - They are lessons FFS. Thank you for reading. I am sure there are other things in the same vein that annoy people.