mauriesy

Without a top-shelf KFP, 'B' or 'C Grade' players like Bate and Dunn will be manned up in the forward line by an A Grade defender. It's like McLean (and maybe Jones), who dropped off after his first year by being tagged all the time. Like McLean, they will either work through it, or they will be gone. Bate in particular is really bad below his knees, and I wonder whether like Dunn it's because he is always wary of the crunch that may be coming.

Even in a draft with slim pickings, like 2003, the Bulldogs would have been happy with Cooney at #1.

I thought quite a few Pies had a record of getting on the [censored]. <_<

If you read German's report, those that are pressing for senior selection next week seem to be Bail, McNamara, Grimes, Whelan and Cheney. BTW, Jordie McKenzie looks like he could be a really good rookie pick.

What we really need by the end of 2010 is for some (most?) of our 0-25 game players (mainly first- or second-round draftees) like Frawley, Garland, Morton, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Grimes, Maric, Martin, Petterd, Bennell and Jetta to develop into an 'elite' core. Then the rest of the players would 'fit in', but maybe play their roles by not being lumbered with 'Ablettesque' expectations. No premiership team has ever had 22 Abletts, they all have 'B' and 'C' grade players making up the numbers. And 18 teams will only diminish the overall talent pool even more. At the moment it's our forward line with the biggest problem. For some reason Dunn and Bate were OK forwards in their debut year when surrounded by players like Neitz, Robertson and Yze. Now their limitations are exposed and they can't step up as the 'prime movers'. Our specific tall forward options at the moment (Miller, Dunn, Bate, Newton and perhaps Johnson) are pretty thin pickings ... but I am amused at suggestions each week that we drop three-quarters of that list when there's really nothing else.

The timing's not "about right" for me. If we started this discussion at the same time last year, Garland and Frawley would have been out the door. It takes at least 20-25 games for a new player to come to grips with AFL football ... the pace, tactics, commitment, developing their body etc. I think there are far too many players on our list with less than 20 games experience to be making definitive statements now about who will and won't "make it".

Cale's ability to put his head over the ball and not shirk contests will improve as his body becomes more robust and fitter for the rigours of AFL football. In the meantime he's getting valuable experience learning about the pace and style of AFL football. He won't do that with a long stint in the seconds. It's only the start of his second year and he should be judged now on that fact, plus the skill potential he shows. Judge him finally in a few years when he has matured and developed.

Ah, there was still some humour in the small crowd yesterday ... Deep in the second quarter when we were 0.2.2, after being 0.1.1 at quarter time, someone suggested we may still get the four points. When we were 0.6.6 deep into the third, a bloke walked up the aisle and home with one of those "GOAL!" signs in his hand. After a string of handballs in our forward 50 for no effect, someone yelled out "you can't handball a goal!".

Sorry ... say that again?

This is just a general question. What should a Melbourne supporter be capable of, and/or expected to do in relation to one of our best players? For me, a supporter should: Not bag the player, who plays for our team, at every opportunity While criticism may be warranted at times, generally support the player and put the club and team ethic first. Be able to understand the game and not pick out every small mistake and magnify it Be the face of the club and not a constant detractor Put their opinions on the line, but be prepared to admit they were wrong when the player plays well. Would be interesting to go through all our supporters on this site and see where they stand.

I actually thought that the way we moved the ball at times through the midfield was the light at the end of the tunnel. The problem was that sooner or later there'd be a skill error, and the chain would come undone with a turnover. We need to get games and experience into our kids. We've got half a team of beginners with developing bodies. And, of course, somehow find a forward line that is capable of both offensive and defensive pressure. Watching the Crows put up to five players behind the one running out of the backline with possession, while all our players just ran downfield to flood or zone at our own defensive end, was unaccountable.

Not tag Gary Ablett? I think I'll lay a bet on 50+ possessions.

Yes they would. People know that Melbourne games, in our current state, are going to be error-infested. Combine that with the weather forecast, the twilight timing and the interstate opposition ... four good reasons why the crowd was pathetic.

But if the crowd numbers for Sunday twilight games are always low, and not just for our club, then the experiment will be abandoned. The facts are that regardless of the timing, the weather forecast wording included "storms", "storm force winds and gales to 130kmh", "snow on the alps", "graziers warnings", "thunderstorms" and "rain". Hard to imagine anything more bleak. In the end it didn't rain, but I travelled 100km to the game, sat through four quarters of tedious error-infested football, froze and shivered my way through the match with five layers of clothing, a hat and a scarf, and travelled 100km home again. I can't blame anyone, especially with kids, for not going out to watch that.

I think the whole war/ANZAC day/national pride thing is now being laid on too thick. But it's politically incorrect to say so, and I'd be lynched if I proposed that view in public. Ooops, this is public.

I'm not defending all of the Daniher years. However, it is still true that all our current tall defensive options, with the exception of Martin, were recruited while Daniher was still coach. To add them to Bailey's 'tick-box' as a genius is just plain wrong.

Four of those players were recruited in the Daniher years, but don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

You new around here? B)

I hope all those who were gunning for us to pick up Ben Cousins watched the final quarter with hindsight.

Is it still an "almanac"? I rather liked that idea. We lose good words through everybody appealing to too much simplicity.

Particularly when his own captain nominates him as the one big improver for this season.

Followed tonight by the worst final I've ever seen. One set of Nadal/Verdasco lasted longer than the whole women's final.

Firstly, the names I mentioned (with the exception of CJ for whom we could not organise a trade and whose contract had expired) all nominated for the ND or PSD after we de-listed them, and none were taken up by other clubs, so it vindicates our de-listings in a sense. Recruiting and list management is about continually ordering and evaluating our list with the idea of "dropping players off the bottom" and bringing players in with more perceived potential. We will find out at the end of 2009 who the next candidates will be, and that will be influenced by (among other things) performance, attitude, needs, draft picks, injury record, etc. etc. I happen to think we've pretty much "maxed out" our list turnover in the last two years, and I don't know what more we could have done given players' performance, culture, attitudes, contract expiry and lack of trade interest from other clubs.

You're arguing in circles: "crud" by definition has no value (especially for a bottom-placed side), but if they're potential trade-bait then they have a value (even if minimal) and they're not "crud". Someone's got to want them. Recent history shows that our "crud" has no trade value at all e.g. Ferguson, Ward, Godfrey, Carroll, Bode, CJ. Even our "expired" players like White and Yze have been shown to be "crud" at the end of their careers.

Well said, Rhino.