Dappa Dan

Paul Johnson!!! Overhead mark with a little bit of air on the opposition players back. That's the second overhead mark from him today. You beauty!!! I think we're going to see Steve Johnson again next week. Has kicked 5.5

Yeah. There are players trying hard, they're just a bit limited. Sylvia is anything but. The guys who've gotten them to this position are all Sandy listed. Summers, Gallagher, Valenti, Sauntner just to name a few. But they can't do it alone. They need some of the demons who've disappeared to get them over the line.

According to 'ology, classy dees and apparently 3AW, Barts has been carried off after trining today. Possibly a knee. Awaiting confirmation.

With what? Related to his ankle? Saw him getting pills and being stretched at the 3/4 time huddle last weekend. Also, you would think if they're going to play Yze on Monday they'd play him as little as possible. What would you prefer? A fresh 27 year old Godfrey or a 29 year old Yze coming off 4 quarters 48 hours before the starting bouce? 6 of one, half a dozen of the other...

Oh my God...

End of an era. Start of a new one. Should also be mentioned, (or repeated, perhaps)... Well done Neale. Occo... Out of interest, feeling a tinge of sadness at all? Even in light of a decision you advocate?

Holy crap. 16 minutes in and Sandy thumping the Cats 32 - 9. More details to come.

I usually hang out for these. But this is the first time I find myself frowning in confusion. I was as depressed by last week as anyone, but even I can see why it's possible to have hope, at least for this week. The one thing this list has proven is that it's good enough on its day to beat good sides. Fix the gameplan and we may fix enough to get over the Hawks. If we were playing West Coast I would agree with you, but it's clear to me the Hawks are beatable, and the demons won't even need to play their best footy of 2006 to do it. Even if we lose, as long as the game-plan shows signs of changing, then there's reason to hope. Call me Strawberry Fields, but if the players went in with a defeatist attitude like this we never would have made the finals last year.

For the love of.... Demonology are going to have a field day with this thread.

Hasn't played a good game in a while? He hasn't played ANY games in a while. Well done Brad. A deserving leader at MFC. Will go on to establish himself this year.

Ok. That's pretty much summed up your politics regarding MFC in 2 paragraphs. Fair enough on Bell. Though I will say that a pick 14 in one draft can't be measured by a pick 60 in another. Drafting is utterly hit and miss, I really don't envy the people who have to do it. Also, Bell's had his fair share of OP to contend with. Bartram has gone FAR further than he had any right to. Comapring ANYONE to him is pointless, let alone a similar sized player. I get your general gist however, that if a player is taken round 1, the expectations are different. My thinking on this has changed in recent years, mostly beacuse of the influence of players like Judd, Bruce and Bartram who can make fools out of recruiters. I reckon the ranking process in the draft should be forgotten about once the draft is completed. There are just SO many variables once a player has been picked up. For example - Selection 13 - Bate. Selection 15 - Dunn. Selection 43 - Newton. This is fairly run of the mill. 2 talls taken within close proximity who play different roles. One played a couple more games than the other and is rated slightly higher in the grand scheme. Further down the list Newton hasn't played and as a consequence is rated lower. That's keeping the status quo, you'd suggest. round 1 - Jones. Round 3 - Buckley. Round 4(?) - Bartram. Now if we thought like that those players would have played an amount of games to reflect their high ranking in the selections. Jones should have been the guy who played 22, Buckley should have gotten a couple and Bartram should be a complete unknown. I think there's only one way to think about it. Once a player is drafted. He occupies as much space on your list as the next guy, and has as much opportunity as anyone. ND and the footy department clearly think this way, otherwise Barts wouldn't have done what he did. Long may this mindset continue. As far as drafting stars goes, I don't think MFC can afford 3-4 years in the bottom 4. What if we struggle financially? Nah, I'm not certain bottoming out for years like the Hawks is the way to go. The only instance that shows long-term pain leads to premierships is Brisbane. No matter what happens, eventually we'll bottom out. But I'll be barracking for us to start making finals as soon as possible when the day comes.

Interesting. Good post. - I'd like to see WHY you think it can't be taught. Players like McLeod and Chris Johnson (BL), who are among the better decision makers, are not now the same players they were when they were within their first 50 games. They were always good, even in their AFL infancy, but they are now great. Belly has made a few glaring errors, but he hasn't had a bad one in a while now, and I reckon a lot of people are waiting for him to do it because it's been a characteristic of his game so far. Almost the ONLY characteristic. If he had a regular amount of mistakes from here on in people would rate him unfairly. For me, I'll take a kid who has every attribute you need to succeed as a footballer any time. I'm confident he'll improve in this regard, and while he'll never have the brains of a Rivers/Whelan, he'll still be a sensational player for MFC. I hope you leave yourself open to this, as I reckon he deserves a chance. Perhaps it's just enough for you to keep an eye on him for me. I've been watching him extremely closely since his recruitment and debut, and I reckon he's one of the most important players we have in development. I respect the position of most posters on his potential, as he has made some mistakes, but I for one think he's got to be considered a vital selection if we're to go forward. I'll ask you again later in the year. I hope you and others come around. - You're onto me there. It's not so much that I don't think he CAN be a CHF, it's just I've not really seen him play there that much (he's played off a flank quite a bit), and he's not proven all that much to me yet. Also, I have doubts about his abilities in the long run as a 22 game stay at home CHF. He'll be good, and that's fine, but I want the next Brown/Neitz. In terms of exciting youth I've got him after McLean/Bate/Jones etc etc. In fact, almost all our exciting youth are smaller players. I want at least one of these "future stars" to be a CHF/FF. Also, of the younger guys there exactly 2 tall forwards we are developing. One has played 14 games, the other 0. It's VERY early days. Many have criticised Dunn's hardness. I reckon that's premature too, but it's something I;m not prepared to comment on YET. In terms of tall forwards I reckon we just need heaps more cattle, and we don't have a future star up there in the way we do in defence (Rivers) or the midfield (Jones, McLean). - Yeah, Newton looks ok. You may be pleasantly surprised even. Both he and Dunn could turn into a devastating forward line, but they're only 2 players (not counting Miller here). I reckon we need 4 tall forwards in the mould of Brisbane with Bradshaw, Brown, Lynch and one of White/Leppitch etc etc. What if one of those guys gets injured? We just need more cattle there, so why not recruit a star tall forward? - Interesting. Yeah Frawley will come along, but I don't reckon they'll limit him in the way they have with Carroll. He'll probably play a variety of roles. Anything but forward and ruck. - Gardiner from WC/Saints? Naah. Not for me. Too old. I'm talking long term here. 5 years +. It's not so much that we have THE WORST talls. We have SHORT talls I reckon.

Take it easy BA. As highlighted above, this was never supposed to be about Voss coming to the dees. It was supposed to be about Voss becoming a senior coach. Those that have mentioned Daniher leaving are only throwing up a hypotheitical. You'll find most, if not all the above posters are behind Daniher as long as he's coach of the demons.

I reckon it should be noted that when the time comes for the coaches' game of musical chairs, it's perfectly conceivable that there might be as many as 4 coaches stepping down and possibly looking for other jobs at years end. Just starting this thread is incredibly premature, almost to the point of absurdity. But since we've established that tone, why not take it a step further... If by years end there are 2 or more coaches stepping down or getting the axe then it may be prudent for the club to ask around. Furthermore I can think of at least 2 assistant coaches that the demons should ABSOLUTELY be hassling, regardless of Neale's contract situation, in Longmire and Harvey. I'm certainly not advocating hiring a green coach like Lyon or Voss. It's clear enough that that would be a risk not worth taking at this stage. But I certainly think it's worth looking and beginning the preliminary interview process as early as it can be deemed ethical (wouldn't want to under-cut Daniher, particularly mid-season. He's more than earned the club's respect), and there are coaches that are "available" that should be considered, if they haven't been already. BTW, for those in the know (Beach Road Bazza, I'm looking at you), how close is Mark Williams (of Sandy fame) to being a senior AFL coach? He brings 3 VFL premierships and a good reputation as a nurturer of talent to the table. I know Barry Mitchell is a VFL coach who was heavily into the interview process last year, so there's a precedent.

On SEN and Foxtel, there's been a LOT of talk about Michael Voss taking a coaching role next year. So much so that I thought it was worth opeining the subject up to the demonland faithful. Before we get stuck in, it should be noted this is not a Daniher replacement thread. Rather, I am interested to see what people predict will be Michael's decision. Specifically in regards to all 16 clubs, or the handful that you think will be coach-less at some point in 2007. The key points - - It is believed he WILL be offered a job for next year, possibly a number of jobs, and not as an assistant. - Many believe he is the biggest name not tied to a club at this stage. - Popular opinion is that NO coach can step in having not gotten an apprenticeship under an established coach. For my part I reckon Liam Pickering put it best when he said the first person he would approach to ask about this would be Tim Watson. He had a HUGE reputation in coaching circles (similar to Voss, maybe even better) before he was hired, and based on his record, many say he will never coach again. Is Voss immune? Watching Frawley in the media, I am continually stunned at how clever he can be. He's surprisingly verbose and crystallises thoughts succinctly, making them readily understandable for footballers who need things simplified, but can also colour a phrase in such a way that it will carry a resonance to the more educated types, such as board members. More importantly than this, he keeps flooring me by introducing complex theories I've never even heard or thought of, simplifying them and applying them in seconds. Was he a coach who had experience as an assistant? Were he not spoiled at Richmond would he still be approached for jobs/spoken about in the media in the way Wallace was post Bulldogs? Just for curiosity's sake, I considered Voss at Melbourne, and to be honest I'm not certain it's a great fit, particularly without previous experience. - Yes, he'd bring elements of the Matthews-style to MFC that have been lacking, but would his faults as a coach be exposed more-so at a financially poor club? - Would he want to stay for the long haul? Would a 3-year contract accomplish anything? and on the other hand is a 5-year contract too much of a risk? - Would the list be attractive to a prospective coach in say, 2009 or maybe 2008? Probably. An established midfield that will play their best footy between now and 2011 is tantalising, but there's rebuilding galore to be done in a couple of years. That said, it's not like we're starting again COMPLETELY in the way the Hawks and Blues have done. That in itself may be attractive. At this ridiculously early stage, I reckon it would be a bad idea to blood a coach at the dees. Especially in the next 5 years. I'd prefer to see a good solid proven coach inherit a good solid proven list. But that's just me.

Opinion may be slightly divided about CJ at this stage, but you under-rate Bell IMO. It also doesn't help that CJ has been groomed as one of these mid-height utilities. Since 2000 every fan's best 22 has started with "B: Whelan." As sad a day as it will be for MFC and football on the whole when wrecker finally leaves us, Bell will slip in beautifully into this role. That's assuming he doesn't get traded. He's extremely fast, fit, hardworking, has a sensational kick even under pressure, and IMO knows how to play a shutdown game while getting his fair share of the ball. Before everyone gets on and starts bemoaning his lack of decision-making ability, it's worth noting that, on the surface, that is his only fault as a player. He can play, and has played stopping games on the league's elite. How anyone can advocate dropping him this early in the season is beyond me. Rivers will be the 10 year CHB we all want, Carroll could possibly have another 5-8 years at FB, and Bell will crack 200 in the demons' defence, just like Whelan. As far as the recruiting in the near future is concerned, we went from Stynes to White, and have had a league-leading ruckman for the better part of 20 years, year in, year out. Now has come the time to pull another BIG deal for a Leuenberger type. Whether we deal for an established young guy or recruit someone good in the draft, it has to be considered TOP priority. In the near future we have Carroll, Rivers and one of Ferguson, Frawley and Warnock in defence. Yes we need one more, but I'd say CHF is the next most crucial problem. We've got 2 established key forwards who are over 28, then we have Dunn, Garland and Newton who have proved only very little, and Miller who is having some fairly concerning problems. After that it's only HUGE maybes with Bate (too good elsewhere) PJ (shown little) and Jamar (shown little, and is a ruckman). What we need, if not that ruckman I spoke about, is a dyed-in-the-wool resilient CHF who can stay there for 4 quarters. Or even better, a player like Gumby who apparently can play ruck and CHF just as effectively. So for me, our backline is actually third in line, in terms of importance. At least recruitment-wise it's Ruck - CHF - KP defender. Even IF we do a 2005 and recruit 3 talls, and allow them to slowly come through the system, we will have second or third round picks and all 3 will take at least 3 years to develop. No. We have this year and MAYBE next year (that's a big maybe considering Daniher's future). After that it's no finals for a little while, as we go about finding the next David Neitz, Jeff White, Al Nicholson...

No such thing as an expert in footy.

Interesting. Pretty sound theory.

I'm not too worried about Dutchy. He would have known after the NAB cup, and probably before he played against St. Kilda that he wasn't going to play against the Hawks. With that in mind all he could do was play as well as possible so that he'll be considered for round 3. He's big, old and ugly enough to know why he was dropped.

Even so. I didn't expect too much, but it was cringeworthy tele.

While I'm not a fan of overblown hatred, I'm absoltely behind the general gist of the criticism aimed at ND in the past week or so. IMO I had the blame split right down the middle from very early on, 50% (specific) players 50% coach. Tim, surely Neale has to be accountable for SOME of what went on on Friday last. His game-plan was thrust upon the players, and while they weren't exactly wonderful, it is perhaps his responsibility to impress upon them the urgency of a shift of tactic on the day. Perhaps he knew, like the rest of us, that at half-time we were already staring down the barrell. Many of the key indicators showed a fundamentally flawed system in play (kicks, handballs, marks, inside 50s blah, blah, blah). If this was the case howcome no change was brought about? He said on the day he was barking instructions that weren't being implemented. According to him he wantd them to switch up play, then kick. Whe they did this, the same result came to pass. Like everyone keeps saying, the players and ND never MEANT to lose the game, but surely the responsibility lands squarely on their shoulders. He is the captain of this particular ship anyway. And for the record I just hope we don't COMPLETELY repeat last season. In other words if we do what we did in round 2 last year and come out firing for the first half, then surrender again, I'm gonna be [censored]. In that sense, even if we play good footy to half time I'm not going to be confident until the result is all but decided.

http://www.afl.com.au/Season2007/News/News...px?newsId=40629 "That's what we talk to the players about - how do we rediscover areas of our game that got us to be a very good team last year. "We were a hard team last year and we weren't on Friday night." "We played poorly and that's a fact. "It's been a slap in the face for where we're at and what we want to try to achieve - we disappointed our fans and round two gives us an opportunity to try to right some wrongs from last week." Daniher said McLean's outburst was a good sign. "I think his comments are fantastic from a young bloke who is really frustrated that we weren't at our best on Friday night," he said. "That's all I'm reading into Brock's comments - it's good that he's frustrated but the thing is we've got to actually go out and do something about it."

Gibbs, Hansen, Reid, Reiwoldt and Chip. Fairly boring. Gibbs had plenty to say, but it was mostly "an' that" in between cohesive sentences. His first words on the footy show? "Yeah, naah" I'm fairly certain Hansen is a couple of homosexuals short of a musical. Reid and Reiwoldt had nothing to say really. And Chip wasn't given much time to speak in between Crawford acting up. When I first saw the images of him in the draft and during training I remember thinking he had the look of a footballer. But I reckon he might become a favourite among the ladies.

Saw the funniest thing tonight. I went to the Royston in Richmond with a mate of mine to check out the trivia night. (My mate works for the same company as the one running at the Royston, and wanted to do his homework) One of the more creative questions was to see the first minute of the credits of an unknown film, and to pick which film it was. Towards the end of the "Cast" portion of the credits it said something like "guy who says the bleeding obvious" and next to the name "Robert Walls." Had to laugh.

I never said the axe was for him. He's well and truly in my 22, and in the same vein as Jones and Bate he MUST be allowed a few bad ones simply because he is a player who must be considered the future of the club. But like I said, there's a difference between selecting him based on what he CAN do, compared to selecting him based on what he HAS done. So far I've seen only the one H&A game that he's been any more than a 6/10. For the record I'm fairly confident his skill by foot will come to the fore on Monday, and I'm looking foward to seeing him play off the HBF. I should say I HOPE they play him off the HBF.