Dappa Dan

Good stuff Fan. Though I think there is one interesting point you made. That one about making it to the top 4 after round 15. I would argue that yes, you have to be a good side to do that, but then the hardness to keep it up in rounds 16-22 and in finals is exactly what we're lacking. I wouldn't call us soft, certainly not. But in terms of that kind of "hardness", we're on the way, but not there yet. I think the point I'd like to see people make is that you don't come from outside the top 8 one year, and win the flag the next. In most, if not all cases, you need to build the side, give them experience in a few H&A seasons, make finals, win finals, win prelims and then make and win a GF. H and RR, would you say it's too much to expect a few failures along the way? What I found encouraging was that there's definite improvement, in a number of different areas... Hardness in the youth, and even with some middle and older aged players with McDonald and Green adding extra grunt to their games. Success in a final, albeit with some good fortune. A better looking defence. A bona-fide star in the making (Brock). My point is that if premierships are earned over the space of X amount of years, then surely 2006 would count as one of them. In the end, one measely finals victory counts for nothing if it doesn't lead to the ultimate success. It's actually worse in a lot of ways because you deny yourself the spoils in the draft when you bottom out. If the assertion of guys like RR and H (and I don't mean to presume) is that all we're doing is maintaining a perpetual 5-8th position, then that's fair enough. They're absolutely right if they're saying that we're doomed to mediocrity, as that's all we've PROVEN we're capable of so far. 4 of the last 5 years we've ended up 5-6th twice and 7-8th twice. Is it doing us any good? Time will tell I guess. Personally I look at the glass half full. I guess it's too much to expect afl.com "journalists" to do the same. And in the end, it's all just academic. I'm loving following the dees at the moment, simply because I'm convinced we're growing and building, not declining. That's reason enough for me to think positively.

Ta.

Anyone know?

Ultimately, you are of course right. But we can't win flags EVERY year. I'm happy if we let them win one every second year... In the meantime, and particularly in the case of clubs that have suffered from sustained failure (and boy, have we ever done that), it's important to make our legion of rich, fairweather friends get up off their arses and follow the club again. We all hate that there are people who don't pay extra monay unless they see us win, but it's a sad reality that it happens. I may be wrong, as neither you nor I can be accused of being "fairweather" supporters, but I'd suggest that guys like Jones, Bate, McLean, Bartram, Davey, Dunn, Moloney, Rivers and even Sylvia all have the potential of being future stars of the competition. If the site that most part-time fans visit says that we're further back than we are, then that inhibits, at least in some small way, the excitement that we can generate within that fan-base. Look, in the end it's only a very small thing, and I can only find that one legitimate problem with it. To be honest, I'm just [censored] off because I'm proud of the image the club is working towards, and I think we deserve to have repect, or at least the embryonic stages of respect. I am mindful, however, that the only kind of respect that matters is self respect.

Disgusted with the assertion that the dogs were the best Victorian team last season and that they are the logical challengers for a top-4 spot next year. I can live with Freo being a top-4 candidate. They made it this year, beat us soundly, and topped up with trades. But there's NO WAY that the dogs were "certainly" the best of the ten Victorian clubs. We finished higher on the ladder after H&A, beat them by more than they beat us earlier in the season, and also finished higher after finals! After losing the first 3 games we spent 8 weeks in the top 4, to their 9, but were only 1 win in round 22 from making it. They were clear in 8th spot. We were also the better side at the business end of the season (after round 15) as evidenced by the fact that we thrashed them by 8 goals in round 17. The article goes on to lump us in with Collingwood and St Kilda. Not only did we thrash both sides whenever we met them in H&A, then beat St Kilda in a final, but we were clearly a better side than either of them for all but the first 3 rounds! Collingwood have been proven as having little depth, and the Saints had problems so bad that they sacked a coach! ANYONE who's seen a football match before 2006 can see as plain as day that we're threatening for top 4 this coming year. Honestly, what do you have to do to be rated deservingly by the media in this comp?! I'd complain, but I have no idea where to start, and I have serious doubts that my protestations would reach anyone who would care... Seriously filthy about this. MFC deserves more plaudits than this clown offers. Not much more, I grant, but more nonetheless. Here's the link. http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&...rticleid=311136

Is he serious with Baker at 10? Surely that's a misprint. That's one of the more absurd lists I've come across.

Says who? Nobody specifies what a hit is, and who ever said I thought it was only a bump anyway? I've watched that passage of play at least 50 times now (not kidding), I know what he did. Besides, hit can be used in numerous ways. Ever kicked a long ball out of defence and had a team-mate yell "Yeeeeah good hit, Freak!" If this site is anything to go by, you've certainly had the experience. I'd say it's a hit if the tackle is a devestating one, that causes injury and turns the game.

Thanks to robbo24 over at ology for the idea... While we were denied the flag we so richly deserved last year, we did achieve a number of things, and as fans we were given a number of fantastic days at the footy, and a number of individual moments that stayed with us for days, weeks, or even for the rest of our football-following lives. What were those moments? For me, it's gotta be Brock's first goal and celebration in the Saints final. That, along with his last quarter, second goal and the fact that he was the engine-room of that win... for many reasons I'm sure we'll remember that day as the first confirmed sign that we had a new champion player recruited and raised at MFC, who's going nowhere. Davey's delivery to Neitz was a pretty good one too, what with him having such a bad day, and being thrashed by Baker. Neitz's shot from fifty against the Saints earlier in the year? His two bags of 8, vs Saints and Roos? Byron's bump on that scum, Crowley? Bruce's winning goal vs the swans? Davey's two soccer goals? Carroll's big hit on Gehrig? Robbo's mark over Bowden? I got more. As far as matches go it's the Saints final, followed by the thrashing of the pies, then round 17 against the dogs: a 98 point turnaround since round 2. Matches against the Hawks and Freo in rounds 7 and 8 were great days too, along with the second half of the roos match in round 20. Over to you...

His absence is still felt. Feels like it's going to be a long time until he leaves our minds. RIP Troy.

Good onya Deb. Season's greetings.

There's a word count? I had no idea. How embarrassment. Like you say, a GF is not out of the question. I think I answered the original question wrongly. If you ask "Can we" I'd say yes (just), but if you ask "will we" I'd say no. But predictions in footy are useless, particularly at this point in the year. Take my novella above with a grain of salt all ye who read this page.

Sandilands as Jaws. Eddie McGuire as Goldfinger. Lou Richards as "Q." Bev O'Connor as "M" (Judi Dench). Samantha Jones (Fox footy newsreader?) as Moneypenny. Now THAT'S a cast. Move over House of Bulger.

And this surprises you? You have read at least one of my posts before right? There's not a whole lot of footy where I'm living at the moment, so I think about it a lot. Probably too much really. Oh, and I'm doing this for a living now, so get used to seeing me around more. I may even try to give you a run for your money on that mighty post count of yours. Yeah sorry about that. If it makes you feel any better I've had a look at our draw and I reckon if we go like we did for the first half of last year, not counting rounds 1-3, we reallcould be 13-2. At the G we have no reason to fear anyone, and many of our games are played there. Even if we're 11-4 like this year, you'll see me jumping in the driver's seat of the bandwagon. But, like the second part of your quote, I'm acutely aware that even with that sort of start, we are still not guaranteed top 4. One last thing, and you'll forgive me RR, is that I was pretty much bowled over by the sheer number of players that improved or held their form last year. We had 2 year's worth of draftees come out of nowhere are give us a lift. Bartram, Bate, Dunn, Jones, Warnock (?) were all yet to debut, and when they did, they sent shockwaves through this club's supporters. That's a lot of green players to come in and pretty much cement their place in the side (with the exception of Dunn and Warnock, who will soon enough), along with Pickett who was new to the club. After that we had young players like Bell (sort of), Davey, Jamar, Brock and Rivers improve on 2005, in some cases improve exponentially. Then some older established players improved slightly or held their good form. JMac, Neitz, Carroll, Holland, Ward and Whelan all had fantastic years, and many of our best guys held their own, like Trav, Green, Bruce and maybe White. In fact it would be simpler just to name the guys who DIDN'T improve, as it's to them that I look for that extra 4 or 8 premiership points that'll get us over the line. Brown, Ferg, Miller, Moloney, Robbo, Whetaley and Yze (sort of) are established players who could improve, and then there's the draftees who we've already been told aren't going to do heaps (with the exception of Petterd according to reports). If we do a Sydney and use 24-26 players for the H&A season, then of course we'll be up there, maybe even favourites for the flag. I hope it makes you feel better that we're a long way from being out of the race. If the flag doesn't go to WC or Sydney again this year, then we may be next in line.

Some good points there, but I stand by what I said. Just for rebuttal's sake... - Sydney. Yes, I too am not a huge fan of their backline, but they made 2 GFs with it. Perhaps it's Roos's skill and smarts that make their defence play above themselves? Who knows. In any case, they've been there and done that, and I'm certain their old players are still a ways off declining just yet. Importantly their stars are in peak age. Think Goodes, O'Keefe, Hall... Where many have made Jolly the scapegoat for a failed GF (and I'm one of them) I'm certain he'll bring about change to his game even if only gradual, and Everitt will come through as the missing ingredient. - Adelaide. Yep, I tend to agree with you here, they're on the skids with some of their stars getting REALLY old, some of their talls succumbing already to some fairly nasty injuries, and a limited ruck division, but I'm very loathe to write them off. They weren't supposed to be any good in the last couple of years, but Craig David keeps surprising me. They certainly have the funds to do it all over again. Also, remember mid-year for about 10 rounds there EVERYONE thought they were in their own class in the AFL. They were wrong of course, but I'm mindful of that kind of form. They're not quite gone yet, keep your eyes on them. - Dogs. I dunno, J. They had a number of big injuries, and when they're back along with some tall timber, we could see a HEEEUGE improvement once again. In all of the last 3 teams, in each case it seems the coach bears much of the credit for their recent successes, and rightly so. Coaches don't get worse with age either, and Eade is a sensational match-day coach. And what's so wrong with their defence? Maybe it's not Fletcher and Michael back there, but they go alright. When they score that heavily on the rebound, who cares if they're not a top-four defensive side. - Saints. Once again, they've been there and done it (prelims) with the same problems you describe. ie average backline and no classy rucks. One thing that was amazingly helpful when ND took over was the complete absence of expectations, and we ended up top four that year, and in a GF two years later. Add to this the fact that they should have all their talls fit for once (Gehrig, Reiwoldt and Kosi) and Hayes back and they'll be better than they were last year, certainly. Had Gehrig not gotten hurt, or had Hayes been around, we would have been hard pressed to win that final, glorious as it was. That said, I do agree with your point about the loser mentality. If there's a way to stuff it up, the Saints will find it. - Freo. Interesting that you should say we compare to them. I think you may have stumbled onto something here. In the last 10 rounds of the year, they had no weaknesses. Every area of the ground was overwhelmingly outclassing their opponents. So what went wrong? Mental toughness? I prefer to think it was lack of finals experience. Something they remedied in 2006 by playing 3. Freo are enormously dangerous this coming year. The best I feel I can hope for is that they let themselves down, in much the same way we always have. - WC. Yep, we are all on the same page with them. Their midfield is so ridiculously good that, injuries aside, no-one could be expected to knock them off over the length of a season. Who cares how crap your forwards are when you're getting delivery like that? Your point is well made, and I'm certainly firmer and colder when it comes to singing the praises of MFC, as I don't want to fall into the trap of becoming a one-eyed supporter. If I say MFC is the best team in the league, I want it to be because they are, not simply because I love them so much. I think my main assertion with us, and I'll make some enemies here, is that in many, if not all, of the important areas of our list and FD we have weaknesses. WC has its midfield, the Saints have their tall forwards, the dogs have their pace, and Sydney has its coach, gameplan and stars. We have Neitz, Davey, Pickett, Robbo and others, but our attack can at times be suspect. We have a sensational group of kids in the midfield, but they're still very young. Our backline found a gun in Carroll, and has guns like Rivers and Whelan, but needs a lot more help. Our rucks are arguably our shakiest department with White no longer elite, and Jamar and PJ still suspect for different reasons. The only players I have supreme confidence in are McLean and maybe Trav and Neita, with Whelan up there somewhere. In all the above cases they have more than one star player who you can bank on being dangerous. Sydney - Hall, Goodes, Kirk. Adelaide - Burton, Edwards, Goodwin, Roo (to a degree). Dogs - West, Cross, Johnson. Saints - Dal Santo, Hayes, Reiwoldt. Freo - Pavlich, Bell, Sandilands (sort of). WC - Judd, Cousins, Kerr etc. etc. Damn. Somehow this turned into another "MFC doesn't have stars" thread. But I'm sure you see where I'm coming from. On our day we can do it all, but where are the players who star even on the bad days? And there will be bad days in 2007. There always is. In the end, we're around the mark, but We're not WC yet.

no, no and no. But this is only a guess. I reckon about 6 or 7 sides are thereabouts, with some having more cause for optimism than others. WC and Syndey have all the ingredients they need. The Saints are in need of some luck, but are as close as you'd hope. Adelaide are struggling for talls, but have enough class to just about make it. Freo are in the box seat. The doggies have a number of strengths that make them a dangerous foe on many grounds. And lastly we have a good mix at the moment, courtesy of some wily recruiting and hard work. I'd certainly put us towards the bottom end of that list, but still there. We could make top 4, and from there Sydney proved that you can make a GF from there, and come within a point of winning it. As for the other question, are MFC's football and coaching department strong enough? They've proven nothing yet, but they won't until they win one. More importantly, they're certainly improving. Williams could possibly prove to be a great acquisition, and our slightly stronger financial position as well as some reshuffling of trainers as well as the acquisition of BB could give us the edge to make top 4. Will we win it this year? Who bloody-well knows? All I know is I feel there's less cause for optimism this coming season than there was for last season. At the beginning of last year, and at various times during the year (QB vs Pies, Rounds 7, 8 and 20, week 1 of finals) I was very optimistic about our chances in the future, and for that season. I'm still looking forward to 2007, but not with nearly as much excitement. In short, it's 3 no's, but we're not Carlton or Brisbane.

I have a feeling we haven't heard the last of Kelly.

Only Darce. I'm a huge 007 fan, and none of those really rank. Bond has to be tall, have blue eyes, heaps of chest hair, look severe and frighteneing, have a dry sense of humour, and appear to be classy, while rugged. Clement, Hamill and Judd are nowhere near good-looking enough. Croad and Miller are too pretty in the teeny bopper sense. I can't speak for Darcy's chest hair or eye colour, but he fills the other items well. A hysterically dry sense of humour, tall, severe looking (when he wants to be). He fits the bill the best probably. Interestingly the new Bond fails one or two of these categories. He's shortish, looks like a boxer, not an aristocrat, and has no chest hair. That aside, I thought he did a ripping job in the movie. So much for rules. There's probably a couple of others that'd go alright too, but I can't think of them right now.

Couple of points with him. Once upon a time he was among our best footballers for a sustained period. In the 3 years after he was traded to us. He's played periods where he's been our best player for matches on end. While he's grown old, he's not a geriatric. He's only 30, not 33. There's plenty of great 30 year-old players still going round. It's not like he's played the majority of matches during his fall from grace. He did miss a whole season due to injury, not a failing old-man's body or bad form. The MFC backline is very much up in the air at the moment. Players like Whelan, Rivers and Carroll are ironclad, but other guys, like Ward, Bell, Holland, CJ, Bartram or whoever you've picked will rotate plenty. Our 3rd tall defender is completely up for grabs, and while he's only 188cm and 88kgs he does, or did, play tall. We could find ourselves out of players very quickly if disaster strikes, or bad form finds us, and Bizzell, like Wheatley is a versatile and importantly, experienced defender. There are plently of cons to throw in, but for now, I think we only need consider his strengths. He's miles from being picked at this stage.

I reckon if I had to pick a side besides the one I specified, it'd be Hannabal's. I disagree with one or two minor things, but he's pretty much on the money.

Yeah, I like your thinking there Hannabal. And to a degree, I'm of the same mind. It seems to me that Dunn and Miller certainly play the game, and the position of CHF completely differently. One leads up and handballs, the other plays better around his ankles, leads well but tends to stay closer to goal etc etc. But I'm not so sure about your assertion that they'll not be playing for the same spot in the lineup. Assuming that we need an even spread of tall and small forwards (3 + 3), which is always a good place to start, then there really is only room for him on the bench. I regard Neita and Robbo as another two talls is the roles that they play. Assuming that you agree with that, Dunn could certainly take the place of an injured or out-of-form Neitz or Robbo. I love the idea of him playing out of the square part-time. The other three small spots are ironclad too... Davey, Pickett, Sylvia, Green, Bruce and a host of other important resting rotations through that area. In short, we have a fantastic forward line, but a busy one. Unlike our backline, where our stronger resources are stretched thin, we have a wealth of forward-line players who'll demand to be played there. In that regard, Dunn is the 4th preferred tall, as Neita and even Robbo for mine are on the team-sheet in pen (despite a frustrating 2006), and Miller, as discussed, is for now the number one CHF at MFC.

Yep. He made a blue. No doubt about that, he made a pretty stupid decision. But I'm not interested in using a single event to sum up a player unless it's indicative of the way he plays, or an error he makes consistently, that costs us premiership points. He was fairly filthy at himself, and I reckon not a little shocked that he did it. Before, and since, I don't recall him making as bad a mistake as that. But that's all beside the point. How does one error categorise a player as having "no tools to make it as an AFL player"? I happen to agree that as a player Dunn will most likely prove to be ten times the player Miller is, but as yet, we've not seen it in the flesh, on match day. My expectations are way too high? Actually, I HAD no expectations of him. How many AFL CHFs make ANY impression in their first 2 years? I'm thrilled that he's played 10 games and shown good signs, but as yet he's not monstered a single one of them. I NEVER said I expected him to, he's still far too green. But the fact remains he's not there yet. I expect Miller, at his age and level of development, to have made a big name for himself. It seems he may not get as far as we'd like but FOR SEASON 2007, he's more likely to cope, since he's had longer to learn, and is far more developed physically, among other things. Yes Dunn kicks goals, but then does Dunn provide as big a physical presence? Would he take the amount of marks this coming season that Miller has shown he's capable of? For the record, I did say that after the pre-season we may have a clearer idea as to where Dunn's development lies. If he shares the CHF duties with Miller and shows him up, then fine, play Miller as Dunn's back-up, and if that works all year, then look to trade Brad if necessary. I fully agree that at this stage Miller's weaknesses define him, not his strengths. I nearly wrote him off when he dropped that absolute sitter about 15 metres out against the Saints in the 3rd quarter of that elimination final. Dunn would certainly have made the ground up, and probably flown through the air, taking it comfortably, then slot it through with his eyes closed. You'll hear no argument from me that odds on, Dunn will be the remembered the better player when both are gone. I can see this debate will rage on and on this year, and while usually I'm behind playing the younger guys over the older ones who have shown they don't have what it takes, I just can't see Dunn taking 14 marks in a final in Perth. I reckon he just needs one more season as an understudy, perhaps playing the CHF role in tandem (against taller sides, where Brad's services may be needed elsewhere) or even on his own in some matches (anything at the SCG, where Miller will be at FB). Let's not forget that CHF is the hardest part of the ground to play on, and that he hasn't even played a full match as a genuine CHF yet. How's this for you Freak? Ask me again after the NAB cup who I've pencilled in. When we see how they both go, we'll tear each other a new one then eh?

To date, I've seen him play at least 1 ripper game in the AFL, and plenty of sensational games in the VFL. As a relatively young, relatively skinny tallish player I have always been willing to give him more time than many others of a similar age. Yes, he's not done anything like Green/Bruce/Davey at a similar age, but who says he absolutely has to? I do share your sentiments about his future to a degree though. I reckon if he plays a few strong matches this season, he'll certainly be on our list in 2008. No-one expects him to star in 2007. But if he repeats his exploits of 2006 over the next 12 months he's in trouble. That's a big call. Dunn kicked either 1 or 2 goals in all but 1 or 2 matches last season. So far he hasn't been even close to BOG in any of his games, and he's played 11. Miller has played at least 1 strong season, has starred in a number of matches including a final (albeit a losing one), and was once upon a time regarded highly enough to be in the leadership group. We all know how below par his 2006 was, particularly for a player of his age and experience, but he's still a lot further on than Dunn, despite having less poential and skill. I reckon a more sensible call would be to say if they both play 4 pre-season matches, and one plays clearly better than the other, pick him and drop the crap one. If it wasn't for a few horrendous dropped marks, people would have rated Miller's final against the Saints fairly highly. He certainly proved he likes playing against them. Let's hear it. As for my lineup... for round 1 assuming Bartram and Moloney are out. B: Whelan Carroll Holland HB: Bell Rivers Ward C: Green McLean Bate HF: Pickett Miller Sylvia F: Davey Neitz Robertson Ruck: White Bruce McDonald Int: Jamar, Yze, Jones, Johnstone emer: Brown/Petterd (small defender), Ferguson/Warnock (tall defender), Wheatley/CJ (mid-defender, utility) Why? Holland has opponents at the Saints. Rivers will be busy with Reiwoldt for 120 minutes, and Carroll can't take BOTH Kosi and Gehrig. Oh, and Ferguson, Bizzell and Frawley are either too young, too old or aren't good enough. Warnock is the closest thing to a guy who can give him a run for his money, and by season's end, he may have taken his spot permanently. I saw enough from Bell late last year to select him, pending a solid pre-season and clean bill of health (no OP). Ward only just ahead of a whole host of other guys. He and Holland could find themselves friendless very quickly if any of about 10 players have blinders in the NAB cup. I love the idea of Bate on a wing. If he starts there with Green on the opposite one, then Trav plays off the bench. I believe he's always played his best footy this way, and am keen for him to continue. I'm still behind Col. For now. But he and Miller are on shaky ground. Some things never change. Jamar second ruck. Jones is the future but is almost solely a midfielder, so he starts on the bench. Yze is a hard one to get behind. It'll be interesting. I reckon he's going to have to insist to play the NAB cup. If he asks to miss a game or two because he's old, Petterd or others may overtake him very quickly. He needs to play and play well, or else. As for the walking wounded. Bartram would battle for a spot on the bench with Yze and Jones if fit, but if there's any doubt, we've gotta go with the fit bloke(s) this early in the season. Moloney is probably just outside all 3 of those guys, since many are saying we won't see him until mid-year, in which case he'd have missed enough footy to need some time at Sandy to remember his brilliance. He and Bartram will be back, but not yet. As Hannabal says, this is all a bit pointless, so we'll wait until mid-march to get on this properly. At the moment we're just all telling everyone who our favourites are.

And I think you'll find Mike might have stolen it from us...

Learn how to read before you comment on the posts of others. RGRS is correct. I, and I would think we all, have more reason to be excited about Brock than any player currently under 22 on MFC's list. BESIDES him, it's Bate all the way. There's a humber of players who have had fantastic starts, like Dunn, Bartram and Jones, but for what Bate represents, he is potentially the most dangerous to the opposition. His combination of height, kicking distance and skill, fitness, strength, hard work, humility, red hair, courage and wits on the field make him a formidable opponent indeed. But while Brock lacks in some of those credentials, (height, humility and the all important red hair) he has more runs on the board, having played nearly 50 games in 3 seasons compared to Bate playing games in the teens with 2 years as a listed player. Brock has also almost singlehandedly won a final, won numerous matches off his own boot, come in the top 5 of our B&F while suffering injury throughout the year, and pretty much has the entire league at pains to insist how wonderful he is. Bate isn't all that far behind, mind, but he's not covered the yards Brock has yet. As a consequence, it's Brock, then Bate, then a whole group of guys including Jones, Dunn, Bartram, Bell, Sylvia and CJ that I have enormous confidence in. Good enough for you BB?

Star. Only McLean excites me more about our future. The great red hope.