Dappa Dan

Interesting... Over to you RR.

Key words there "V The Tigers." They can occassionally turn it on the toigs, but they can also be among the biggest rabble in the AFL when they're having a bad day. If the gameplan we came up with on Friday was good enough to beat them a few weeks ago then they can't be too crash hot as opposition. If CJ plyed well against them, then that's great. But I want to see him play well against decent opposition on a hostile ground before I consider him an automatic selection.

No. It's been highlighted by commentators as early as 2005.

Very misleading thread title. But good news to see he's "over the osteitis" as Fagan puts it. While I've heard it before and been let down in the past, from what I've seen of Colin in recent weeks it could well be true. Week 3, which is Sunday I believe, for Colin.

Absolutely. A wonderful future. But if Saturday night showed anything it's that there's really no need to get too spooked by the for this year. They'll do some damage here and there but they have MILES to go. That's ok for them. They have the youngest list in the AFL, so who cares? They'll bide their time and in the next few years will start to tear it up. But not in 2007.

That's a big call. Did you see them last week? It's no coincidence that we only copped it REALLY badly from the media in the 24 hours between the end of our match and the end of theirs. Once completed it was universal who the worst team was in round 1. I came to a comforting realisation today. At some point this year we'll hit our straps. We always do. Even if we lose the next three, you know the team is too grown up to put up with too much grief from people. We really SHOULD be better than we were on Friday. A LOT better, and I'm confident the squad will do the right thing. We really should finish higher than the Hawks, assuming the injury gods are kind. That said, it's the next few weeks im nervous about. It's a matter of WHEN we start gelling. While inconsistent, young and brash, the Hawks do have weapons that are capable of turning matches. If we can hold them, our level headed oldies should get us over the line. But to answer the title of this thread... No.

occo... The Nathan Carroll of demonland. Absolutely on fire in the last 2 weeks. Ripping post, and despite the odd spelling and grammatical error I breezed right through that, so no need to congratulate me, I do like the long ones. And I think I agree with much of it too. On Green, I think you'll find he's played as a wing, HFF or HBF, all of which he suits down to the ground. Yes he can go forward and lead, but then he can drift out of games when it doesn't get there. I LOVED him off the half back line and think he can win a B&F from there with a healthy foot and THAT delivery. He'll collect prdoigious amounts of possessions too. The other thing I'm loving about Green these days is that it's not a case of him being good in one position, and weak in others. I trust him in a number of spots on the ground. I like it, and I think it's a positive step, but I'm worried about losing what little dash we had on the weekend. Are you prepared to deny the team his pace? Honest question, not rhetorical. Especially considering the topic's originator has come round to Bate's strengths. there's nothing snipy or below the belt about this thread. I thought it was valid, if a bit skewed. I think the prevailing thought is that we have the next 2 years + about 2 or 3 to build to our next shot at the flag. The first 2 years is the Neitz/Daniher era, assuming ND still coaches in 2008. We're a shot at it with limited low draft picks, but a strong mature list. After that we're going to need some time to blood some talls, recruit a decent ruckman or two and get them up to standard (have to do that THIS draft or trade period), and maybe collect a few more KPP along the way. The educated view is that we'll have a couple of rough years before seeing Bruce, Green, Robbo and Trav in their twilight playing with some wonderful young up-and-coming forwards, as well as Sylvia, Brock, Beamer and co becoming seasoned vets. I'm prepared to put up with a few years of pain. We've been up (ish) for a while now.

Wow, it's hot on demonland. Look at what a loss brings out in everyone, including me. It's hardly ever been this busy.

I'm willing to bet Bell will get Williams. How everyone could miss the fact that Bell is a quality hard-working defender who beat him in the NAB cup when he played on him is beyond me. If, somehow, Williams finds form then there's always wrecker. Personally I'm just as happy for Whelan to be let loose a bit to gather possessions. As for Franklin, it's Riv all the way. But I think Daniher will probably persist with Carroll. Roughhead, if they still play him forward, could get Holland or Carroll. And Croad and Miller can wear one-another all day, whichever end of the ground they end up at. Unfortunately there aren't too many options here. Croad's too fit for Holland, he'd run him up and down the ground. Miller has the engine to keep up with him, but will be up against it as Croad is a pretty good player who likes to hurt us. There's a possibility Holland won't play, and it'll be Rivers - Franklin, Carroll - Roughie, Croad - Miller. Or Holland can play and Rivers can be the extra man. Something he likes to do, and does well.

All sound points RR. Each and every one. My point is simply this. Throw this newfangled gameplan at any other list in the AFL, besides maybe Richmond and Hawthorn, and you'll seeresults sooner. We've had a whole pre-season, a pre-season comp and round 1 and we've shown NO signs of improvement. Yes, Daniher may well have learned his lesson and may revert back to round 1 tactics when the time is right (AAMI, Subi), but will we be more effective? Has the team shown that they are at least improving this tactical methodology? I would argue that they've had time (5 weeks) to show improvement and have done nothing of the sort. Look. We still have to win premiership points. We threw away 4 of them last weekend. ND's core idea was good in theory, but it turned out to be more than problematic as soon as the second quarter. Is this really the time to be teaching? But I digress. And you embellish. I never said that list of guns wasn't able to execute a gameplan. I said the current squad IN IT'S ENTIRETY has shown that it MORE than struggles when it comes to R&C only. And given the age of some of these vitally important cogs, is it a case of trying to teach old dogs new tricks? We've seen Archer struggle with new interretations and rules, and whil I rate our list as an extremely "smart" gourp, even in the AFL, last Friday has sewn a seed of doubt in my mind. But only for THIS gameplan, and only for MFC in 2007. Not beyond. But yes. As you can tell, I think I was venting a little bit. It would put the fear of life into me to see us start with this brand of footy on Monday. Not only do I have no confidence in it on the 'G, but I would safely predict a loss, even against the Hawks of last Saturday night. If run and carry beats the Toigs, it wouldn't surprise me greatly, but just because we beat teams with a low skill level doesn't mean it'll magically work on the appropriate grounds. The whole thing just makes me nervous for 2007. Nice post though, and I concede that MFC is at least trying to take us one step further than last year by addressing faults in a sensible logical manner. I hope we don't lose too much ground in the mean-time.

Demonland... Would it be possible to keep the updates on this thread for the whole year? I know it'll end up being 10 pages long, but I reckon that'd be fun to be able to review the trash-talking as we go. Delete this post if desirable.

Ladies and gentlemen. Take a good look. Dappa Dan is winning the footy tipping. Let me enjoy it while it lasts.

"They were very disappointing Melbourne. Their forwardline - Russell Robertson If he doesn't take 5 or 6 hangers I don't know if you get too much more out of him. Neitz gives you an honest performance. Miller's a lead up to the wing type forward. But if those players aren't playing too well, I don't know if you can play them anywhere else." As usual, on the occassion he gets it right he gets it so wrong. Yes Robert, those three players are stay-at-home forwards, and with the exception (maybe) of Miller can't be played anywhere else. But they weren't the reason Melbourne were disappointing. Why criticise forwards for being inflexible when they kicked 3 goals each? Oh, and Neitz gives much better than an "honest" performance. Yes Miller offered much less than the other two, but he's the one out of those who CAN play somewhere else. He's won 3 brownlow votes playing at Full Back. I've never liked seeing him in defence, and I hope we see it as little as possible, but the guy CAN be played there. Wallsy, of the three sections of the ground, the midfield had duds everywhere on the day, defence were dreadfully undermanned and outgunned... only the forward-line pulled their socks up on the day.

... I respect this point of view, and understand how most fans and posters in the know would put the order 1. McLean 2. Jones 3. Bate. It's a favourite subject of mine, the ranking in excitement terms of incoming youth at the club. Mine would probably be McLean, Bate, Bartram, Jones and Bell with special mention for Sylvia, CJ and Buckley. Oh, and Newton is climbing VERY quickly. ... In my mind, Bate is custom-built for the forward-line. He's a tall guy who can mark, run, kick long etc etc. On paper he's a CHF surely, at least a third tall? But he's nowhere near taking any of the six spots on my team-sheet up that end of the ground. Why? I've sat up near that pocket at the G and seen him standing around looking a little lost. It seems they think that's his "resting" spot, but he goes missing when he's there. He's not really a crumbing player, and his leads aren't as good as Dunn's, Miller's or even (maybe) Newton's. When he plays forward he shows the odd glimpse. But when he plays up the ground, not only does he show glimpses of genius, but he's shown in only the few occassions he's played that he can destroy games over the space of minutes, quarters, even whole matches. So much so that he's won whole matches/brownlow votes. And all that while he's still supposed to be developing. Perhaps he's being groomed as a Hird/Bruce type who can just go anywhere on the ground, but there's no denying where he plays his most prodigious footy. That's my opinion anyway. ... I'd like to hear more about that from you occo. In the case of all 5 players.

This has gone unmentioned (as far as I can tell, may have missed a post or two) so far. Stunning oversight by demonland posters, but at least partially forgiveable due to the fact there were so many things to pick fault with at the end of the match on Friday. One of the reasons we won against these guys last year was ruck dominance due to the fact that they had no-one of note, and we had Jeff. Fast forward to this year and they've recruited a guy that gave our ruck division a bath when he played last year with Adelaide. I don't rate Clarke, but he can go with Jeff at least. That's all he needed to do. As it turns out, that, and the loss of Brock stole most of our midfield dominance from the final last year. Consequence? Well... just look at the result. RR, your list of causes there hints at one you didn't specify. Are these players even capable of playing a handball game? Forget the coach, the gameplan, the development of the side etc etc. These guys were recruited/retained because they have a number of strengths, among them kicking (Trav, Yze, Green, McLean, Sylvia, CJ, Moloney, Jones, Bate, White). Why do players like Black/Cross/Harvey/Miller/West handball so much? Because it's a strength. They CAN kick (some of them) but they opt not to whenever it's appropriate, and most of them are successful. I know people have said we didn't play to our strength on Friday, that's been suggested more than almost anything over the past 3 days. But I'm going to go further. If the pre-season and round one have shown anything it's that these players, good as they are, just aren't CAPABLE of playing this game-plan, even when taught by the best. Am I going too far here? Perhaps it's too early to suggest this given the plan's only been seen for 5 matches? Maybe they're a bit too young to show any signs that the lessons have been learned?

Are you serious? Wow X 2. Firstly I'm surprised at the fact you see him regularly outside of the G, and secondly I'm surprised he has the TIME to go to Uni. Without prying, what course does he do? If you're uncomfortable with that (understandable) you could just tell me how many years he has left until he's in the footy full time. Also, how does he compare when standing next to him? He walked up and stood next to me at Sandy a couple of weeks ago, just outside the team huddle, and I couldn't believe how small he looked. As I said before he and Neita are the same height in the books, but it's hard to believe when you're right next to him. Neita has been a colossus since he was nineteen, Bate just doesn't seem that large. Is it something to do with his posture? See, now you've done it. Every time we want to know how he is we'll be PMing you...

Fair Enough DSD, everyone's entitled to an opinion and I can't blame you for being a bit frustrated by him, but I wholeheartedly disagree. As you can see from my profile I rate Bate behind McLean as the player I'm most excited about at the dees. I'm confused at some of your points too. - His kicking is a strength. Perhaps they don't have the shape of a Trav/CJ/Beamer/Yze drop punt but you'd be hard pressed to find too many kicks of his that don't do the job. Bolting towards the fifty arc he has a fantastic habit of booting it from 55 and booting it straight. He hit the bigfella on the chest with some mouth-watering flat passes last year too. His kicking efficiency (statistically) was better than Bell, Bruce, CJ, Trav, Jones and Brock last year, and comparable to many in the team that are highly rated. Over 50% of his kicks were long and he averaged 35m per kick. His inside fifties average was also second for the dees. (Hope your eyes haven't glazed over, usually I don't like to use stats). - IMO his running style is ANYTHING but awkward. Beamer runs funny, Sylvia has a particular style, Bartram has floppy wrists, Neita struts. Bate has an INDIVIDUAL style. Kind of looks like a racehorse. His posture is lower to the ground, and maybe he doesn't look as dazzling as Davey ( ) but by gee it works. He's heavy enough and low enough to the ground to run through tackles. Don't forget according to the footy record he's 191cm. The same as Neita. Perhaps off the line he has a bit of weight to get moving, but he is lightning when he gets going in a straight line. I reckon he looks individual, but I LOVE watching him tear through the middle. Add to that when he gets caught generally he's hard to take down. Just like Brock he often has the time and brains to handball unlike a lighter player. - Defensively. Well you've got me there. But I would remind you that he is VERY young. Green is a fantastic player that, when we were up and running, could do pretty amazing things. But his bad days were diabolical. Bate is at about the same place as Green at the similar place in his career. He needs to learn how to NOT be a liability when he's having a bad day. A word on his marking. He is a big lad and can take contested marks, and take them against good opponents running back with the flight. He did this as recently as the Saints final last year. Daniher keeps trying him in the fifty hoping to utilise his pace and height, but so far when he plays there he's a ghost. Doesn't know where to be to get out of Neita's way, or to lead for himself. I remember when he, Newton and Dunn were recruited the club put on the spin that we'd recruited 3 new key position players. So far Bate's been a winger/flank/midfielder. Ball magnet is an accurate term to describe him. He's shown the propensity to collect large amounts of possessions, and do things with them including gaining large amounts of distance both by running and by long-kicking. Friday wasn't his night. The Saints had the game-plan to shut down his run, and handballing isn't what he does. Much has been said about the fact that handballing isn't what the dees were put on this earth to do, and Bate is the perfect example of this. Maybe running at full tilt receiving a handball in space, yes. But not receiving it flat-footed or dishing it off himself, no. My excitement about Bate is to do with the above, and the fact that he's tall, well built, can kick longer, run faster, and mark more strongly that most, if not all 190/191cm players around the same age. As said before he has a HUGE upside. The modern footballer/midfielder is considered to be something like Goodes. A bloody tall bloke who can run as fast as all the little ones, but be as durable as them and have skills that can go with them. One other weakness as Choko has said, is his right side. But give him time. On Miller... many have said the delivery to him was pretty shabby, but he wasn't exactly getting clear of his opponent either, which is something you can usually rely on him doing. Good point though. Your point of view is unerstandable, he hasn't started too well this season. But given how well he played last year, I think a fair amount of optimism is due with this kid. He looks alright to me... As for him being in the 22, if we are to have any future at all then guys like Bate, Jones, CJ, Bell... they have to be persisted with. They've all shown a bit, some more than others, and one bad senior game isn't enough to drop him. Maybe if it was a final you'd think about it, but at this stage, he's more than earned his spot I reckon.

- I'm trying RR... - Freak, for one. There are a handful of people who don't post often that want him out. I can't remember their names, nor do I care to. Actually I can barely remember my own screen name ost of the time. I think we're on the same page with Miller. If he plays like he did a couple of years ago then we can use him, but he must play like that 20/22 rounds a year just to break even. I'm very worried about him, but my attentions are directed more at our midfield at the moment...

Yeah, I know. Damn my verbal incontinence...

AAAAH! Brey!!!!! How dare they delete my thread!!! Anyhoo, Aaron wasn't told off for smacking baker either. Thought it was worth mentioning.

Actually, he might be. That's how he played at Sandy, and he was pretty good. But if he played you'd get only 3 quarters out of him. And the square is already taken up by Neita and Robbo, can Sylvia fit in there? Will he be a decent target? It's a big if.

From what I've seen he's not quite there yet. No sense in ruching him, but a fit Col would have been sensational on the weekend as a target. I'd be surprised if he played this week, but pending his performance at Sandy, perhaps the week after, or in a fortnight? Depends on how we go on Monday too.

Said it all Fan. How desperate am I for a CHF?

Yep. Beginning to see that. Brock has shown a fair amount of toughness in these early years, which suggests he's not the kind that would just hit the deck and wait for trainers even with some kind of minor fracture. The last 4 or 5 posts have certainly seen my mood regarding Brock drop a bit. Having said that I appreciate the info from all the qualified people above. Next time you feel you may have some medical knowledge that would eliminate certain possibilities, PLEASE don't hesitate to get online. In fact, see to it you're the first to post a thread regarding the players' health if theres pertinent information. I know we'd all appreciate it.