Tigers Dayz

I don't see it happening YM. As much as I think he would make a good forward, and he's played there before, he's done so well for us in defence that he should be kept there now. Let him and Martin and Warnock and Rivers etc. gel together and become a defensive unit, rather than a rabble.

We have lots of potential backs but need to find a forward. Right now, looking into 2009 there is no KPF. Newton has pretty much failed to date. One of Garland, Rivers, Martin or Warnock will need to play forward if we have no injuries. Garland is the best choice ATM.

Agree, Rhino. We're starting a new era with a young side which will make mistakes. We have a young guy with captaincy potential. Shoulder him with the responsibility now so he can grow with it. If he makes minor mistakes then he/we live and learn by it. He is basically a solid guy with good values. Give Brock McLean the captaincy now. No baggage, new start.

Whelan Warnock Petterd

Dunn Martin Wheatley

Bate Morton Buckley

Green Garland Davey

Wonna Miller Bruce

Foll: Jamar McLean Sylvia

Int: McDonald PJ, Maric, Maloney

Emergencies: Grimes CJ Bell

Assumed still injured: Robertson Rivers

Assume no immediate 'ins' from 08 drafts.

Sylvia and Davey to develop big engines beginning Oct 08, else Sylvia trade at end 09 along with a few others.

Hardly semantics.

Hypothetically, if poor skills mar our season and mean we struggle to execute a game plan, I'd suggestion that a factor would be our personnel.

Hawthorn struggled under Clarkson for a while. Did they come good simply due to a better game plan, or were improvements in their personnel a major factor?

Totally agree. Improvements in the personnel to 'execute' the 'game plan', current and drafted.

Totally agree with your above post, why you little.

Doesn't the very definition of 'plan' exclude execution of said plan?

Semantics, Rogue. Yes a plan is merely the roadmap. And a 'game plan' also is a roadmap, until the game begins. My definition of 'game plan' is not what's written on paper, but how it is implemented or rolled out. When the 'game plan' is implemented at the start of the first match next year, it will require 'execution' to implement.

Therefore 'execution' is implicit in 'game plan'.

If the execution of Bailey's game plan fails, then the game plan has failed. Questions would rightly be asked. Is the plan working? Are the players executing to it?

......................

On balance, we were terrible and deserved to finish down the bottom of the ladder.

I think we'll be more competitive (reflected in a much better %), but don't expect us to win many more games.

I also won't make an assertion today that if we struggle next year, it must be due to x factor.

I don't really disagree with much that you are arguing. But 'execution' is implicit in 'game plan' IMO

Should I blame 'game plan' if we don't improve next year? Let's just say I will, but you won't.

Look mate it just doesn't matter what happened to Geeling in 2007 nor does it does any other side ever

Ignoring a historic fact.

If you are going to make comparisons try CARLTON - watch how good they will be thanks to their shameless marauding of the draft system

The point is we get a free hit at an extra superstar which is an advantage, it could be a very big advantage if it turned out to be someone like Judd, Cooney, Hodge or Franklin, even a McLean - it's well worth another crap year since we are not challenging for a good while anyway. You can't honestly believe we have the cattle - I see us as 5 excellent players short of a top side at least. Where are they gong to come from?

I understand what you are saying; languish for a 3rd year for 1 additional top 4 bovine.

If we are 5 excellent players short, as you say, then indeed, where are they all going to come from? Certainly not from a 3rd year lanquishing.

Also, I don't believe yet we have the cattle to become a top side, but I am hoping we have tremendous improvement in the current list and 2008 draft.

unlikey and even if it does, it will be minimal - is actually what I said.

if you are going to talk about long term economics I will argue that we will be recouping any lost money when our team is actually good in a few years and everyone jumps on board. I am not confident we will get to that stage and at the very least we need that extra pick. Severe cattle shortage on the MFC pastures. Need some real stars like most of the 25 I listed for you a few posts ago.

You are right to covet all of that potential, but alas, we have spent 2 years languishing we can't languish for a 3rd year for Sponsor/Member/Gate reasons. We stuffed 2007, now it's time to move on with what we have, and what cattle we can get going forward, perhaps in the same fashion Geelong did;

J Selwood 7

A Mackie 7

J Bartel 8

J Kelly 17

S Johnson 24

G Ablett 40

Geelong won in 2007 with only 1 sub 7 draft pick, Ottens at 2 for Richmond. They never bottomed out.

I fall into the category of 'folk who pay their money', and I'm not prepared to now put the blame on 'game plan' if we win few games next year.

It's like democracy, isn't it? While the majority of people who pay their money may sit quietly dumbfounded, others may question the strategies.

I felt we'd be in for a tough year in 2008 and I was right, but that was a prediction based on our list, not projections about the likely success of the 'game plan'.

Ok, fair statement, and that is why it was important to get game time into the young one's. Can't run a game plan if the players can't execute.

Btw, your 'game plan' comment has suddenly become 'game plan and execution' - a fair difference IMO.

Disagree. There can be no game plan without execution.

Surely inability to 'execute' can be due to a sub-standard list?

Why?

We just finished last, and Club figures like Stynes and Connolly admit finals are likely a 3-5 year proposition.

We'll continue to play - and rely on - inexperienced kids in important positions and they'll be inconsistent.

I think you are not really meaning substandard, I think you are meaning inexperienced - inability to execute yet.

As in 2008, our lack of depth will mean that any injuries hit very hard.

I think we'll have a little more experienced depth due to the game time for many young players through 2008.

Take our ruck division - it's sub-standard atm, and we have a distinct lack of depth (our third ruck couldn't crack a regular Sandy 1sts game).

agree

Given that, I think it's a fair call to state that our list is a long way behind that of many other Clubs.

Behind most, and not a long way. I take heart from a couple of competitive games we played this year, eg Brisbane for one.

PS. Who's Farmer?

meant Martin.

By who? If we only win four, it's not necessarily the game plan.

By supporters, members and sponsors, and those folk who pay their money. If it's not because of game plan and execution, then what is it?

Our list is a long way behind many of the other teams.

Why? We have a year's further experience under the belt of Morton, Garland, Farmer, Warnock, Bate, Jones, Buckley, Dunn, Frawley, CJ, PJ, Petterd. Wonna, Maric and Grimes have had a sniff. McLean and most other longer term injured players should return.

I expect us to be much more competitive (%) than this year, but I'm not sure that'll be reflected in the wins/losses.

I do, because of expected improvement in the above players and their ability to execute Bailey's game plan, whatever that is.

PS. When it comes to the draft, I don't think comparisons from 15 years are are very relevant, considering the advancements in talent scouting/recruiting.

Fair enough.

I think Rod Butterss is correct on every point. He's also right about travel to training. Let's face it, if we had our training facility wish granted, we'd be doing it at the G.

Fair point, but I'm not sure 8 of the 20 names above would help us to a flag, so it is a bit of a raffle, but still a good hit rate.

No doubt priority picks have helped Hawthorn, St Kilda, Carlton, Collingwood, but they've got the support base to bottom out for a lengthy period and survive.

Three of those teams may still not win a flag in the next 3-5 years.

I'm still not convinced we would "manage" not more than 4 wins for the additional choice of a top 4 bovine, and risk further loss of our already faltering support base.

How can you argue it is NOT to our advantage to have it? Wouldn't you rather have Kruezer AND Cotchin instead of David Myers or somebody?

As far as the gate/members/sponsors side is concerned, we'll survive - we have been crap for 44 years one more is not going to matter.

Do NOT have the cattle at this stage. An extra pick COULD mean a Judd or a Franklin in the side which would make a world of difference.

People say it's a raffle, well, what we are doing is buying two tickets in that raffle which obviously increases our chances of winning! Or maybe we get two prizes!

David Myers, from Essendon?? Sorry I don't understand.

I think the 44 years of crap will come home to roost fairly quickly if we don't improve. Got to get wins, money, members and gate, or syonara baby.

We have some cattle now with 5 or so more coming. The footy dept lives or dies on those choices. An additional pick in 2009 vs some immediate improvement is no longer a choice we can live with. We cannot have another bad year to get one additional pick. Other than the drafts of 2000, 2001 and 2007 the extra pick may not have helped much compared to what you lose financially languishing. It comes down to sensible selection through the draft

Let me explain; Trent Ormond-Allen 1993, Don Cockatoo-Collins 1995, Brent Grgic 1996, Chris Lamb 1998, Scott Thompson 2000 (wanted to go home),Luke Molan 2001, Nick Smith 2002. These are all first round national draft picks. We have done better lately IMO.

Too late for raffles.

Four wins will be far better than 5-6.

We just need to do our best. We may only win 4. If that happens there will be questions asked about the game plan.

Winning 5 or 6 games next year would be the worst thing that has happened to the MFC this decade.

Either we push for the finals and win every second week, or win 4 games. We MUST take advantage of the last uncompromised draft as we need to recruit talent more than any other side. The list overhaul is no-where near complete.

Tell us why we need to win no more than 4 games to overhaul our list. Show me the evidence that 2 of the first 4 draft picks will then drive us to finals and premiership success. And don't give me any of that crap about 2007, or how I could not be a fit and proper supporter!

Then advise how we survive another year at the bottom of the ladder from a Membership, Sponsorship and Gate perspective.

It's time to work everyone as hard as possible. Another 'list management' year won't do anyone associated with the club any good.

are you telling me you would give up a top4 draft pick for ONE or TWO extra wins? Like what happened in 2007?

as already discussed, tanking (losing on purpose) is not the issue here - it's whether or not we would better off if it worked out that way

the idea that we would actually lose on purpose from the beginning of the season is ridiculous and actually impossible if you think about it

I think we need to get over 2007. I will say here and now that I was a supporter of MFC only winning no more than 4 in 2008, for the draft picks.

The advantages for winning no more than 4 games are that we get to choose the players we want for 2 of the first 4 picks.

Against that, these are the top 4 draft picks over the last 15 years who have won premierships; Hodge, Headland, Roughead, Ottens, Heffernan, Judd, Ellis, Croad, Fosdike.

Not a huge list for supposedly so much value. Measure that against the financial values of Sponsorship, Membership, Gate; which may depend on winning games.

We will put better, more consistent performances in on the park and our processes will start to click over. However, i honestly just don't see us being able to win more than a handful of games next year, though obviously that will come later."

I agree that is the best and most likely outcome. We improve to the point we are not a shameful joke we were this year, but this does not translate to any more than FOUR(4) wins

I am honestly perplexed that anyone could disagree

So if we improve and Bailey's game plan comes together and 5-6 wins appears possible, given 2 wins will come from WCE depending on the draw, are you recommending tanking, er, sorry list management, already?

It's respect, not age that matters. I know JMac is respected for his desperation, but I think Brock is also be respected for putting his body in. That game against Brisbane at the G proved the point that he is desperate. Played on one leg and helped win the game. Fairly typical of the man. Slow, but gutsy, a silent assassin. He is proving to be clubman in many ways.

He is a team man, and I think he would grow quickly into the job. This is why I am happy for him to be Vice to Bruce this year. He will definitely be captain next year.

The reason we have been a joke for 45 years is supporters like you who accept medicority.

It makes me sick.

Dont worry though Bobby, you definitely arent alone.

I would say that 98% of our supporter base have no idea about what it takes to become a successful club.

Thank Christ I am in the 2% and not one of the clueless ones.

Did you just get home mate? We've missed your 2% of value.

That's certainly not consistent with your characterisation of the AFL in your previous post

I'd also suggest that above a certain level, pouring money into drug testing has significantly diminished 'returns' when it comes to the 'return' in positive public perception.

Despite controversies that the AFL's experienced lately, I don't think that there's a common view amongst Average Joe supporter that the sport is rife with 'drug cheats'.

If that was the prevailing view it would be very damaging to the sport - think cycling.

However, IMHO if there's a view within the public about the prevalence of drugs in AFL, it's more likely to be about 'social' drugs rather than 'performance enhancing' drugs.

Btw, I'm still keen to know about how lax the AFL's drug testing regime is in comparison to other codes - I'm not sure your assertion is correct.

It's lax in so much as it is not independent. Results are dispositioned by the $AFL$. Results should be reported to an independant sporting body. The 3 strikes rule the $AFL$ applies is unrecognised and disagreeable to even our government. There is no independent drug analysis audit by a world recognised sporting body, and so "the beat goes on".

By the way, 'social' drugs, for example amphetimines, are performance enhancing. It's about aggression and durability.

Yeah, his record over the past 9 seasons is pretty poor. Considering he was drafted at a lowly no.64 he has underperformed. Just look at his poor contribution to the MFC. 2000 Rising Star Nominee, 2002 Runner Up B&F (in a year that we made the finals), 2002 Best TEAM player, 2003 Best CLUBMAN, 2004 4th B&F, 2006 Runner Up B&F ( We made the finals again), 2008 Winner B&F. He was also voted as Melbourne's Player of the Year by Demon supporters. This year he was elected captain (together with Junior) by the PLAYERS themselves! They should know Brucie much more than any of us. Just what does a bloke have to do to satisfy you and a the other Bruce knockers on this forum? Get real!

Fair call and no [censored]. Still, it might be time for a new wave. Mclean.

My only concern is physical strength and mongrel in that line-up.

Still, the new state-of-the-art weight room, and mental conditioning programs should fix that... oh, if.

This, only my opinion.....

............

.........

To see where teh AFL really stands...listen to nothing it says...just observe what it DOES !! the picture is quite clear

Agree Bub, and I couldn't have said it in more words...

I have, just tonight, renewed my wife and my memberships, and will be totally supporting Cameron Bruce as captain for 2009.

I'm comfortable, ready, willing, and waiting for a monumental 2009. We can only improve folks!! Onward and upward!!