-
Posts
7,537 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Dappa Dan
-
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.
-
Which AFL Footballer could be Bond 007?
Dappa Dan replied to Chuppa Chupp's topic in Melbourne Demons
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.
-
Keep in mind also that one of the reasons Clint was taken so low in the draft was that he was quite badly injured at the end of 2005 (I think) If he was out for a long time, it's conceivable that once he returnded to training he started to develop, simply because of the fact he was working hard again. Is there a possibility that those weights lidted in the mag are up to date, and the ones on the site are old? It seems to match that kind of correlation. Apparently Jones has been losing weight. Buckley has nearly doubled in size. Newton looks like he's gone backwards. All fit correctly. BTW, which Johnson is +5kg? I hope it's Chris.
-
That's a concern about those injuries or non-contributors, of which Bate and Petterd are news to me. Oh, and welcome Flashdance36. 've been looking o change my name for months and I reckon I should've gotten in earlier on yours. Now that it's spoken for, any suggestions?
-
Off season talk vs next season performance
Dappa Dan replied to DemonTux's topic in Melbourne Demons
I like it. Obviously the question here is do we or don't we go with youth in each position. If we went with every young player in each spot, we would be wasting our time in the contest. But a few guys being given whole matches would be hugely beneficial... - Sylvia to spend a whole game on the pitch, not rotating off the bench. Dare I say it, in the guts? - If it wasn't for the fact that we need him to get fit in the pre-season, I'd say Hughes or Hayes for Pickett. - Ferguson instead of Holland, who would be too slow for the Hawks talls anyway. - Robertson to have the square all to himself while we rest the big man in matches 1 and 2 at least, or... - To share it with Juice or any of the other FF heir apparents. Maybe even Garland? - Like you said, PJ and Jamar to ruck all day long, assuming they're both fit. Or... - One of them to play permanent forward, rucking in the pockets, with Neaves sharing the ruck with the other, just to see how he goes. -
Yeah. The idea of Jmac suddenly being skipper is ridiculous. What I meant to do was provoke some lateral thought. If they actually went through with it could you imagine the abuse they'd cop?
-
Interesting. I like what you've done there in applying the questions I asked of Junior to Brock, but I'm not sure we're covered an enormous amount of ground by doing so. Everyone in this club, and the other 15, know Brock has everything it takes to be a captain. The ONLY question marks anyone has raised in this thread, and others, and in other websites are around his ability to play 22 matches and his youth. Like you say if these 2 problems are the ONLY ones he has to contend with, I'm confident h's the man for the job. I think most MFC fans would be pleased to see Neitz go again next year and MAYBE one more after that assuming he plays as well as he did in 2006 and doesn't require any kind of surgery. After that it's Brock, Brock, Brock for captain, and that's fine too. The purpose of this thread is to discuss what would happen if Neita refused the captaincy to concentrate on his footy, thereby effectively creating 2 captains on the field in Neitz and his replacement. It's a sound plan, and one that the MFC might be pondering, what with the stalled announcement of the captaincy. The other element of this discussion was the assumption that they felt Brock was too young, and that he'll have to wait 2-5 years for the role. So just to clarify, no Brock and no Neitz, which could conceivably happen, then where do we look? I like your thinking surrounding Bruce. What we need to see from him is a FULL consistent season, and some physical fearlessness and he'll be in the box seat. Without some robustness, if he doesn't play well, (which he is wont to do from time to time) he is a vacuum on the field. In these scenarios it would almost be more damaging to see him as captain. With a physically threatening player, at least they have a latent presence, even if they're not getting their hands on the pill. I remember early in 2006 Neitz did exactly this. He couldn't get a hold of it, but he was still scaring the bejeezus out of some defenders, often 2 or more. Bruce, it appears, will never have this kind of string to his bow. Green is similar in that he needs one or two more elements before we can promote him. Consistency has found him only in 2006, and there is still some debate about that. Physically he has grown a presence, at least in 2006. As Rhino points out he played injured, and as Franky suggests he was hampered all year and still played solid, important footy through the midfield and in defence. Like Bruce he needs to be given the opportunity to add the last peices of the puzzle. ie. recall his kicking ability that was best in the AFL once upon a time, and begin to add even more physicality to his footy. The truth is (I'll cop it for this) I'm not prepared to back either, as both could easily fall flat on their faces. For all I know Green could return to selfish dazzling footy if and when his foot heals. Bruce similarly could try his hand at getting his own footy, and get crunched by some over-zealous tackle a la Guerra in round 3 2005, ending his captaincy aspirations. I love both players, and believe they will both be, at very least, in the leadership groups into their 30s, but I'm not sold yet, and to be honest I don't know that I'm confident that they'll get there. This is where McDonald comes in. He's a known entity, as consistent as ANY demon of the past 10 years, and is respected by all and sundry. But I know, I know, we've already refused this idea earlier. I think the main reason I'm off his bandwagon is that we are in a position to threaten for a flag in 2007 and 2008 and interim captains are not appointed at times like this. So the upshot of all this is that we are more or less forced to go with Neitz for another year, with a view to giving Brock, Green and Bruce a really solid look. And that's fine by me....
-
Not trying to bring up race or anything, and you make a fair association with Bate and Dunn being from Eastern, but can you imagine two whiter kids on the face of the earth? I'd suggest the brothers would be taking him under their wing, along with weetra.
-
I've been reading 180cm and 70kgs? Which one is correct?
-
Cam is a softly spoken (by comparison) footballer, a really nice guy (I went to school with him), is completely without malice, and isn't exactly a physical presence, hence the fact he was taken as a low draft pick. Now he's a sensational footballer, no-one doubts that, and as a good player he'll lead the club simply by how much say he has in the direction a game takes. But I can't see him lifting team-mates any other way. Can you really see Bruce barking instructions at a young player who didn't put his head over the ball? Like I say, anyone who plays that well, that consistantly leads the club BY EXAMPLE. But I don't reckon he'd inspire the club to great things by his acts of heroism or a stirring half-time speech, a la Gaddy Lyon. It's only an opinion, and I'm not in the inner sanctum. Perhaps he's the thinking man's leader? Perhaps he's more brains, not brawn? Maybe he'll have a quiet word instead of swearing and postulating all over the change-rooms? Who knows? At this stage at least, I reckon what Brock does on and off the field is impossible to ignore, and inspirational in almost every instance. I can see that my original post has largely been ignored, so I'll drop the McDonald for captain idea I posed, but keep it stored away just in case. Brock is my man, as I've said before. My only question is whether or not the captaincy will HARM his development. If it's of any interest to anyone, I know a guy who played with Brock when he was younger. The day we drafted him this guy made the effort to call me to say we'd just picked up our next captain. My first thought was "who are you?", but after clearing up his identity I realised how forthright he was trying to be. At the time I dismissed him as being a bit over-the-top about Brock. After all, how can you know a guy is going to be that good before seeing him play a game of AFL? What he said was that Brock's parents had been pushing him into this life since he was born, and that he's basically been bred as a leader. Interesting thing to recall now that he's 21 and pushing for the captaincy isn't it?
-
I'm sorry to bring it out again, but I had a thought today that I dismissed at first, but that has stayed with me. Let's assume for a minute, as discussed in previous posts, that Neita's handing back the captaincy and that Brock, while a definite leader, is too young at the moment. If the club was adamant that the captain HAD to come from one of the other recently announced leaders, then would it be ridiculous to suggest Junior could fit the bill? Like I said, I dismissed it at first for a few reasons: - Firstly he's only just come off his best season ever. Is he doomed only to go downhill from here? - He's not exactly talkitive when it comes to the media. Does he have the kind of personality that we want the public to associate with MFC? Who knows?! Does he even have a profile? Did he have one before his AA selection this year? - Is he damaging enough as a player? - Has he done enough in his career to DESERVE the honour? But after these, and a couple of other negative reasons, I started to reel off the positives: - There are worse players that have been skippers of their clubs. Hell, there ARE worse players that are skippers of their clubs. MUCH worse. - If what we're looking for is an interim captain, then perhaps age-wise he's perfect. His career will certainly at least begin to decline after 2 seasons, at which time it'll be only natural for him to hand it over. It may not be so easy to wrench the title from the hands of Green and Bruce who will be in their prime at around 28 in 2 years. The problem with this logic? If all you want is a captain who will retire in 2 years, you may as well leave it with Neita. - I reckon Green took a big step this year if what he wants to do is lead the club. His attitude, for all but one heartbeat, was top-notch. But I don't think I'm alone when I say he has a way to go yet before he strikes fear into opposition players and inspires his own mates. He has the talent, just needs some more runs on the board. - I don't rate Bruce as a captain. He's a leader by default, as he's such a good footballer, but I worry about his ability to inspire team-mates, and there's still a question on his physical courage in some camps. - Speaking of inspiration, I lost count of the amount of times, and the amount of different MFC players who spoke in glowing terms about McDonald this year, and other years for that matter. If what you want is a guy you can rally around, it would appear that behind the bigfella there are few who put their body on the line as often and as willingly as Junior. When it comes to onfield support, I'm confident James would have it from any of the 22 in red & blue, whether he asks for it or not. - If what we want is a captain to show Bartram, Bell, Bate, Sylvia, Jones and others how to go in hard year after year, then Junior is the ONLY candidate. Perhaps it's worth considering what awarding the captaincy to him means to young impressionable players. McDonald is a fantastic player to have in at the clinches, and teaching, via the example he sets, our young in-and-unders how to play. But just think what effect it would have on them if they go away thinking that all the publicity, interviews, and general palava that goes with being a leader counts for squat when compared to good old fashioned hard work. I can't think of a better way to send the message that what we all (the board) want you to do is just work hard for 10 years, a la Junior. I assume that they're inspired by him as things are, otherwise he wouldn't have been voted into the leadership group. What I'd love to see is their faith that the coaching staff and club management are of the same mind as they (the average player) are. If THAT happens, we're all on the same page, and we have what I think is called a team. I'm sure there are more negatives and positives to come from the likes of all of you, but this is a start. Like I said, the appointment of Junior as skipper is highly unlikely. But this question that's been on my mind all morning has, at least in a small way, changed the complexion of the captaincy debate for me. I hope it has for you too... Now turn to page 5 of your hymn books...
-
CAC1963, assuming it's him of course.
-
No need to shout... Another surprise from CAC. As others have suggested, I'm glad we went for a small speedy type, even if he is a bit on the short side. I was hoping we reclaimed Gianfagna as he seemed to fit the bill, but this selection isn't a bad one either. One thing to consider is that it's great to see the club giving all those highly rated young ruckmen a look at training. It'd be awesome to pick up a really good tall prospect who surprises everyone, but chances are if they disappointed other clubs in the past (Erickson, Fanning) they are only going to do the same with us. What's sensational is that we gave them a good hard look (albeit for only a few weeks), but didn't waste a spot on the rookie list with one of them. Can't wait to see Hayes play.
-
So that's last season and the bulk of 2007 that he'll be taking up space on our list. If he were a lesser player there would be those ready to put a red line through his name. Should he miss most or all of this season, will his spot be safe? I'm going with an emphatic yes, but playing devil's advocate at the same time. He's a super player and 2 years out hurts you no matter who you are. Will he be the same player in 2008?