Dappa Dan

HA! Not holding a grudge are we WJ?

I've heard a number of stories from close friends of mine who've run into Gaddy in various instances over the last 4 years or so and each and every one of them have said he was a great guy to talk to, and very easy to approach. Perhaps it's only been post-divorce and post-career that he's dropped the ego, and maybe I'm way off mark, but it needs to be said that not EVERY story of meeting Lyon was a disaster.

I'm in.

Ta, WJ.

According to MFC.com DN is 193cm. Above you claim Garland is 190.6. Which ones are right/wrong? If you look at my post you'll see that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anyone here, only suggesting that he probably won't debut this season. But since we're on the topic, I would hope we'd play a player at FF in the mould of Neitz in terms of weight and height (around 195cm, 100kgs) in the distant future as I'd like to see someone who can take a fair degree of punishment, as well as kick his fair share. One of the things I love about our forward set-up is that Neitz can clean up 2 big-ish defenders, leaving the crumbs to be cleaned up by the Daveys, Picketts and Hayes type players of the team now, and in the future. What worries me is that DN's impact from here on in will only either maintain or diminish. Once he's gone, what other big-bodied FF can we rely on? Miller? That would be a scoring accuracy disaster among other things. Dunn? Bate? All are above 190cm, but can they handle the hits for 22 rounds? Maybe... The question is, what's the minimum height for a future FF? Also what's the minimum weight? (assuming that they're good enough, have strong hands, are fast on the lead, can kick straight and long... you know... all that gubbins). I've always thought Dunn looked like a possibility for FF. Can lead, mark and kick like no-one's business. And is sensational below his knees. But whatever way you look at it we're a way off having Neitz's replacement ready to go should the worst happen. Garland (from what I've heard) is a genuine KP player, and won't play anywhere but in the spine, unlike someone like Frawley who is the kind of guy that apparently can play on a wing if needed, and may debut there this coming year. Not that I DON'T want to see him played, but I'd be worried if Neita, Robbo, Miller, Dunn, Newton and others are having trouble fulfilling their roles and we need to play a kid who's only a few months ago joined the club. Whatever happens, I'm looking forward to seeing him play, be it seniors or Sandy 2s.

If you go by the Neitz, Hall, Gehrig model of FF, then that's around the 195cm mark and 100kgs. Garland would need a growth spurt and 15 kgs to get that big. But that's assuming he wants to play the game as they have. As Freak said, he's 5cm shorter. If he were to follow the Lloyd model, (192cm, 92kgs) he would only need another 5-8 kgs to get to that size. And all that is assuming he's going to play FF on his debut. As long as he gets a bit of size over this or next preseason he could be played on a flank or in a pocket earlier than we think.

I noticed in both games last season that they seemed to be quite a bit taller than us, particularly in the midfield. What was annoying was that they didn't seem to suffer from a lack of pace. Perhaps it was just the demons on those 2 days that we can attribute the losses to. In any case, if they're not exposed for pace when all those young tallish midfielders come through, then the recruitment of so much height may be considered a masterstroke. Having said that, with the game going the way it is, you'd suggest they will be found out on grounds like Subi.

As it says in the first post, he's recovering from his ankle injury.

What are the big wraps he's come to the club with? I haven't heard much. As far as I know he played a bit of senior footy last year in Tassie kicking a few big bags (6 and 8, from memory). He's extremely skinny though, but can lead and mark. I've heard he's a career FF, but it's VERY early days to be saying that. I expect him to get a run at Sandy at some stage, since he's a proven senior footballer, but I'd be very surprised if they changed their tendencies and started playing tall forwards in their first years. Bate, Dunn and Newton were all given until their second season (though they were bottom agers), and in Newton's case, he hasn't even gotten close yet. Giving new talls a year in the reserves has been very successful, at least in the case of Bate and Dunn. I remember at some point Mick Malthouse said playing a player before they're ready to take the step to AFL footy can set their development back up to 18 months. I'm not sure his reasoning there, but I'll take his word for it.

Awesome. Talkative lad isn't he? The more I see and hear about him the more the mere mention of his name warms the cockles of my heart, in the same way the mention of Brock did in his early months at the club, before he blossomed. But I don't know about that St Kilda thing...

Choice or honour? I don't like sitting on the fence, but I have to say it's both. You make the choice, and from then on it's an honour.

Yes it was, and you're right. You'd still probably get a couple of quarters out of him. What was it ND said about Ooze? If you play him too long in one position, he stagnates? That's gotta be the lamest excuse for a player's bad form I've heard. That's like saying, "Oh, he's a great player, but if he stays in one spot for long enough he gets bored." For the record, I love Ooze's work in the backline when he gets lots of it and sets up the plays further downfield. Likewise I love it when he's at his brilliant best kicking freaky goals and regularly putting away sides like the dogs and pies. But it's not his brilliance that defines where I'd play him. When he's good in the backline, he's unaccountable, but makes up for it with a lot of possessions and good attacking play. When he's bad in the backline, he's giving away frees, not getting touches and basically shirking the contest, which is a defender's primary goal. When he's good in the forward line he's unstoppable, when he's bad he may as well be a ghost. Yze's best is good enough to be AA in the forward line, backline, on a wing and even in the guts (at times). His worst is diabolical. Goals are more dazzling and pleasing, especially some of the freaky ones he kicks, but in the end he can win games at both ends of the ground, as long as HE PLAYS WELL! In other words it's not the position he plays in, but how he plays that position. And just on the subject of a players best vs worst. This was the most pleasing thing about Green's year. He bridged the gap between his best and worst, and best of all he showed us that a player can do it well into his career. He may not have kicked the crazy goals, but he had a more lasting and profound effect on his team's year. But I digress... again. Heath Neville, show us what you're made of!

Yeah, but he's a small defender, which eliminates a few. The way I see it, there are a number of guys that are leagues ahead. Bell, Whelan, and Ward are my starting 3 on the field, with probably CJ on the bench if necessary. After that Brown, Yze (assuming he plays there for whole games) and Wheatley would be selected as the back-ups, or if they see good form (or the starting 4 see bad form). After that it's only really Weetra and Petterd to compete with. Obviously there are players who'll rotate through the defence, like Green, Bruce and Bartram. But if you're selecting based on preferred position... Actually. You may be right. There are a LOT of guys in front of him. All he needs is for Wheatley to play on a wing, Yze to play in a forward pocket, Brown to redo his hammy, Bell to have his OP flare up again, Whelan to be shot with a shotgun 3 or 4 times at close range and THEN he's a chance... but only assuming Petterd, Weetra, Ward, CJ and Buckley aren't playing by then.

That's a fairly skewed way of looking at those stats I reckon Fan. I take your point with the comparison to the dogs, and the Swans. But... The Ward vs CJ point you made, I reckon, is flawed. CJ WAS given a run and except for one solid game, was proven to be off the mark. Perhaps it was inexperience, a slim body, or a lack of mental preparedness for the rigours of the AFL coupled with the fact that he hasn't found a full-time position on the ground. If any one of these problems was believed to be the culprit for CJ's slack form then Ward was the logical inclusion. While a limited player, he is of the perfect age and experince to be valuable, he has proven himself as a goer in the past, and last season (2006) showed he still had what it takes to perform at his best. It was perhaps clear to ND that CJ was another season away from his best. In short, CJ HAD proven himself "worthy of a run," was found wanting and was dropped. The handling of this "player vs player" conundrum was one I applauded as an improvement this last year, as were the situations regarding the following players. Jones took a little while to really get going in the VFL. Perhaps it was a training/fitness thing, maybe he needed 6 months to really suss out how difficult things were going to be compared to the TAC cup. He was selected more or less as soon as he proved himself worthy, and has rewarded ND with some hugely encouraging form and a rising star nomination. Bartram was one out of the box. You have to take your hat off to ND. Clint was perhaps not the most obvious choice for a guy to have play your entire H&A season, but here we are, with a guy who came 5th in the rising star playing in a run-with role. With Bartram, it is perhaps the clearest indication ND and the FD have changed tack. Bate is a ripper as we all know. Once selected he's shown his class, and the FD's faith in him was never shown more than when they rushed him back to the side as soon as possible after he did his knee against the Roos. It shows how important he became in so short an amount of time, and why I rate him just behind Brock in importance for MFC's future success. Oh, and Buckley and Neville were both miles off or injured. I would've been VERY worried if either of them were selected. They certainly didn't count as youth who had proven themselves "worthy of a run." I think you and I are on the same page though in a way. IMO 2006 was the season ND started to play youth moreso than experience. Or at least give the youth FIRST opportunity. It's in the preceeding years that we disagree. Sylvia and Brock are a couple of good examples. While Sylvia has had some OP problems, there were various instances where we could have played these two more often, particularly considering the fact that both are, and have always been since their recruitment, central to the next ten years on-field for MFC. Your point regarding older mediocre players is a bit off too. Brown is/was a sensational player, but suffered some pretty bad injuries. He was played early in the year, but once hurt, only found his way back at the end of the year where he showed his true colours by starring in a final. Bizzell was injured all year. Nicholson was too, and by the time he was right to come back, various others had taken his spot, including the more multi-faceted Holland. Wheatley was injured, then found it hard to come back. Read and Motlop were just average players, and in their cases your point is correct. Long story short, you'll find that very rarely were there huge problems on demonland with MFC selection policy this year. There were rare instances where some of the most pro-youth supporters on here (I'm looking at you, H) cried out for the selection of a Bate or Jones, and in most cases ND obliged by picking them a week or two later. The best part about this past year was that in a lot of cases ND was forced to play the guys who had not played many games yet, and on the back of their performances (at least in part) we made the second week of finals. In the future, perhaps ND won't be so quick to go for mature bodies in place of youthful exuberance? His post match pres--conference after the Saints final reflected that he had huge hopes for our list based on the fact that the youth HAD proven themselves capable of winning games at the highest grade. In the end, my biggest problem has been the instances where you have 3 emergencies coming into the match, and among them are Godfrey, then 2 younger guys. In the often-occuring event that someone has a late injury, it seems to me that too often we select Godfrey, because he's a known entity. I understand that what ND wants is predictability from his players, and that makes all the sense in the world. After all, it must be easier for him knowing that when he moves a player into the moddle, he knows what will happen. But then isn't also a pro-active tactic to select an unknown? For the most part an opposition coach isn't going to know much about a Nathan Jones who hasn't played a game. And in the end, any surprises the young player creates are surprises for the opposition just as much as ND. When you boil it down, it's ND's policy in 2007 that matters most. How we reflect on 2002-2005, and his shift in gear in 2006, is only relevant if he goes back to selecting, say, Bizzell ahead of Warnock, assuming both had equally as good form prior to selection. I look forward to seeing what he does, primarily with Petterd and Buckley who are unknowns, but also with Frawley, Bell, CJ, Newton and the Dunn/Miller situation.

Yeah I saw that. Funny I should ask, and a day later up he pops on demonology. Though I had to have a close look at his photo on mfc.com, I could barely recognise him.

Old, it says under career games that Colin has played 53. Am I reading it right? On MFC.com it says he's played 38. As RR pointed out, he's not without a handful of strong showings at senior level. I thought his final against the Saints wasn't too bad either. There were a handful of moments where he looked downright dangerous. That 60 metre punt to Robbo on the line makes me wish we could see that right boot of his more often. And in the following week against the Dockers, some of his team-mates went missing, while he maintained a similar effect on the match. The encouraging aspect from my point of view is that his only hurdle at the moment is not necessarily the skill of his opposition, but his own lack of confidence/fitness. To compare him to contemporaries in Bate and Davey (both young) we see that both those guys had a marked drop-off in effectiveness come September (though that could be something to do with injury). While Colin never really played great footy during the season, at least he maintained his 10-20 possessions in the last 2 weeks of MFC's season. Another more appropriate and encouraging comparison may be drawn between he and Danny Bell. Think about it. Sylvia and he are both quick midfield types who are renowned as 2 of the hardest trainers at the club. Bell has had one more year in the system, but is only 4 months older than Colin. Both have had OP issues from the beginning of their careers. In Bell's case he only just overcame them in the second half of last year, and his last 3 rounds, along with his 2 finals were sensational. Like Colin, he didn't experience a form drop-off when playing in September. So by that logic, Colin is exactly 4 months behind Bell in development, which means by February 2007, he'll be ripe for his breakout year!

I'll take your word for it. However, comparing ND's selections since 2002 with another club's is moot, as all lists are different. It's not so much the regularity or lack of regularity with which he selects youth, but the individual decisions themselves that I was referring to. For example, the Swans have played less players in 2005/6 than any other squad. Well you would, wouldn't you? What I was referring to was ND's willingness to play mediocre mature players ahead of younger players that have proven themselves worthy of a run. Now I realise there's no way I could possibly know what's going on in the inner sanctum, but there was a time there where he seemed like all he wanted to do was play the average players and not give the up-and-comers a go. We know now that it was just after 2002 that he went to the board and said his squad wasn't good enough to win a flag, and yet many average players were persisted with... Like I said, 2006 was a vast improvement in this area. So much so that by year's end we had hardly any young players left to debut that we, as fans, were really keen to see. There's nothing better than to see so many young guys not only debut, but settle into spots in our 22. I take all your points though, and those of RR.

It's funny looking at Bigfooty and seeing dogs supporters suddenly rate McDougal as being a key to their 2007 hopes. He was one of the biggest jokes of the 600+ AFL footballers going round last year, and suddenly just because they got him more-or-less for free, they think he's going to show something.

Something I've been encouraged by in the last few years is how the footy department have been willing to give players who have had slow starts to their careers every opportunity to prove themselves. It's interesting that both you and RR see the lingering retention of 426, Lamb and Arma as mistakes. As it happens, I agree with you wholeheartedly in at least those 3 cases. I am totally behind the dismissing of these three, as it's clear they were all fairly limited in one way or another. While they were at the club, they were favourites of mine and I would have been pleased to see them remain, assuming they went forward as players and became solid contributors, but I can see that I was perhaps a bit naive in my bind faith. But hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it? ND has made a frustrating habit of NOT playing the kids when he's had the opportunity in the past (2006 was an improvement in this area). Perhaps as a direct result of a lack of free space in the 22, he's given these youngsters roughly 4 years instead of 2 to make sure he's left no stone unturned. While I agree that the hard decisions should be made in regard to the list, as there's only so many spots, I'm still pleased to know that any player drafted to the club, even the ones drafted below 50, come to MFC safe in the knowledge that they will be given EVERY opportunity whether there's room in the 22 for them or not. If you had to choose between the Swans and the Dees as a rookie, surely you'd take the dees, and work twice as hard seeing as there's actually hope you may get a run. A fairly sound example of this is with Juice. A less thorough club could have looked at his year and said that he was unable to be regularly selected in the Sandy 1s, and with little physical improvement, perhaps 2 years was enough? He was after all taken at the arse-end of his draft, as a bottom-age speculative recruit. Newton's weaknesses may seem more severe when you consider the relative success of Dunn and Bate who are of a similar height, and are of the same age. This habit of sticking with players for longer than they may deserve could pay dividends. At very least I hope to see him make some sort of impact so that perhaps if we have problems with him, he may have some prade potential. I would love to know what goes on in CAC's head at times like these. Does MFC's treatment of slowly developing players come out of a solid confidence in CAC's own recruiting? Or does it come from the fear that, through premature delistings, they may have missed a gem that was right under their noses?

I knew they'd be lessened over recent years, but not that much. Jeez it sucks that contested marking is becoming out-of-vogue with the rules men. However, I live in hope that within the next ten or so years the powers that be are able to build a culture through astute umpiring and clever rule changes that brings back the physicality to footy. They were able to completely change the way the game is played from the mid-nineties to now, I'm sure the process can be reversed if and when they realise their folly. Unfortunately though, as you pointed out, the rule changes are still heading in the wrong direction. The one big change for this year is certainly not helping the cause.

With all the talk of Newton, Buckley and Frawley hopefully making their debut this coming year, everyone seems to have forgotten that there's another kid taken in last year's draft that's still on MFC's senior list. I realise he was badly injured last year, and missed the bulk of the season, but can anyone who's been to training report on whether he's going alright? Is he even there? I haven't seen his face pop up in any of the training photo pages. From what I heard early on last year he was pulling his weight in the reserves. Any info would be welcome...

For some reason I read the title as "top 8 after round 8." If that were the case I thought demons at 2nd was pretty astute, as our draw up until that point is sensational. Dyslexia aside, if we aren't in the top 2 or at least the top 4 after about the halfway mark, we're in trouble. Thanks to our draw I imagine we'll be having another one of those sliding years. BTW, how good would it be to play Freo in a qualifier at the G? Not only would we get our precious home-ground advantage against an interstate side, but I'd predict a mirrored scoreline to this year's semi, proving to our supporters and the football world that we're every bit the side all the more heavily fancied teams are.

Just go to Getty images.com, and have a poke around the sports section. There's actually a few different sets from different days. I actually saw these a couple of days ago and thought the same thing about Jones's arm. I don't recall seeing anything there last year. Perhaps a return to the inner-bicep tat so well worn by Woey, Vardy and I think Robbo and Miller too. Also, while he's skinny ATM, Frawley has the framework to be enormous. Big shoulders and all that are very important in contested marks, and marking in general for that matter. Rivers is getting to be enormous, and Brownie looks bigger than ever in that shot. Hayes is the blackest bloke I've seen in a demons (training) gurnsey in years.

I look at him as being in the CJ mould. Chris only played 4 games in his first year, and didn't have an impact in any of them. We had to wait until '06 for him to play a solid match in the seniors. I don't reckon it's too much to expect Buckley to do the same or slightly better.

Correct.