mauriesy

J is the 10th letter of the alphabet U is the 21st D is the 4th J + U + D + D 10 + 21 + 4 + 4 = 39 3 + 9 = 12 1 + 2 = 3!

If Judd said he wanted to go to Collingwood, would you give Collingwood Pick 4 for, say, Pendlebury?

And the fact that Hawthorn went back to their retarded tactic of playing the man (Harvey) instead of focusing on the ball. The finals atmosphere sucked them in to that.

I'm told there are no demons in Chinese culture. Does that rule us out or in? Or should we change our name to the Dragons? Did you know that the last three years we made the grand final (2000, 1988, 1964) were all the Year of the Dragon? The next is in 2012. Does the MCG have good Feng Shui? Feng Shui translates as "wind, water", so the MCG is obviously better than Telstra Dome (which has no wind or water). For lucky numbers, 8 is the luckiest (keep Frawley!), 9 is also very lucky (go Neita!), 7 signifies death (trade Miller!), 4 is the unluckiest (why did we get that draft pick? ). Red is the colour of blood or life, and will bring happiness, wealth, fame, and good luck. Just as well one of our colours is red. And supporters should all wear red underwear to the game if they want the Dragons Demons to win. Did you know that in China black is the colour of filth and white is the colour of sadness? All the more reasons why we should hate Collingwood.

I just don't think that now we can afford 'passengers', whether they are established players or potential draftees. Draft camp has a lot of psychological tests and interviews to try and ascertain young players' mental profiles ... nothing worse than wasting a draft pick with a 'mental and lifestyle liability'. Again just a coincidence that he's an aboriginal, but that's why Daniel Hayes was overlooked by all clubs in the draft last year. His skills were good enough to go in the 2nd or 3rd round at least, but only Melbourne took him ... in a less risky fashion on the rookie list, where he could really show whether he wanted it or not. Sampi has a bad history in that regard. If he can't get motivated to play with the current premiers, why would he be motivated to play for us? Don't tell me that Bailey will be a miracle worker whereas Daniher was not. The motivation has to be internal. To me there's too much risk that he'd see us as a soft bed to lie in, given the Motlop and Pickett precedents. Give me a motivated young kid, even late in the draft, any day.

Nothing to do with aboriginality. Motlop lost motivation at North Melbourne and was sacked. Tried to make a belated comeback on the back of Melbourne's need after Troy Broadbridge's death (and at Davey's suggestion) and was a failure ... because the motivation wasn't really there. Out of condition, and spent most of his one year playing for Sandringham. Pickett became a liability at Port Adelaide and was sacked. Tried to make a comeback at Melbourne on the back of his supposed "toughness" and it was a failure ... because the motivation wasn't really there. Out of condition and was suspended during the year for getting drunk, before a few belated games then retirement. And you want to now repeat the process with another motivational problem like Sampi, who thinks he can take another club for a ride on the back of a bit of spin about how he's "got his motivation back" all of a sudden? We should not be the repository for re-cycled odds and sods with motivational problems.

Sampi would be another liability, like Shannon Motlop and Byron Pickett.

The exercise of choosing our best 22 for 2008 now is pretty useless. We have no idea of what players will develop over the pre-season and in the NAB Cup. There is always a general reticence for supporters to see anything but the 'same old', despite how much renovation needs to take place. I'm sure Bailey will be more adventurous than going backwards by recycling the same old hopefuls you have. To say that our high picks haven't developed into much is rubbish. All of our earliest picks since 2002 are now very important players in the team: Bell, McLean, Sylvia, Bate, Dunn, Jones. That's the basis on which you can expect Frawley to shine next year, and our pick 4 fairly rapidly thereafter. PS: Why should I trust anyone with crystal-ball gazing? I don't even trust a stockbroker with my money.

Gee ... lets pick all the good players from other clubs and trade our crap for them. Or punt on some cheap recycled players that are no better than the current ones we love to whinge about.

That team is basically going back to late 2006, with the exception of Newton and Petterd. Every year a few new players come up and a few old ones fall back, often through prolonged injury. Expect one or two of Whelan, McDonald, White, Neitz and Robertson to wane (Yze already has and I wouldn't put him in there). Frawley should be in there. Newton will hold down CHF. Expect one or two of Buckley, Bode, Garland, Weetra and the new draftees (especially pick 4) to fight their way in by no later than mid-season.

My feeling is that we'll see one or two of Robertson, TJ, Bruce or Yze going somewhere else. I have my real doubts about the long-term viability of Moloney and Whelan in regard to injuries. I think the changes in 'position' that might be looked at are not drastic ... more like developing the "tall running mid-fielder come KPP" option in players like Dunn and Bate, and perhaps Bell as a midfielder (although I like his ability against non-tall hard leading forwards and the rebound he gets out of the backline). Let's face it, the game these days is more about 3-4 forwards, 3-4 backs and 14-16 mid-fielders anyway. We've basically got McLean, Jones, Bruce, Green, McDonald, Godfrey and Moloney as experienced midfielders. Building the motors of the young players like Buckley, Bartram, Bate, Davey, Dunn, Chris Johnson, Newton, Petterd, Sylvia and Bode (as well as new draftees) into multi-purpose run-with roles as required might be an overall goal.

How does he get the other half?

Anyone who wants to trade Bate for a 2nd round pick now is nuts. Especially one who thinks Miller is a better option.

OK, looking at the Record, so he's been our "nominated" rookie eligible for senior selection. No way will he just be rookie listed again (this is his second year). He's got more potential than some late draft pick ... elevate him or lose him seems to be the choice.

I thought he was promoted. Otherwise how did he get a game? We can't have a nominated rookie as we have two veterans.

According to the Footy Record yesterday, Travis Johnstone's kicks find a target only 68.9% of the time (the league average for midfielders is 73.7%). By comparison, he's not that much better than Godfrey (64.4%), about on a par with Moloney (67.4%) and Jones (67.8%), and well behind Cameron Bruce (71.1%). Seems to counter the myth that TJ is a wonderful, accurate kick. For overall disposal efficiency in 2007, Travis is the second worst at Melbourne (71.8%), only in front of Colin Sylvia (67.9%). Even Godfrey is 75.0%.

A bit of a contradiction. If we make 6-7 changes, that would only be, say, Ward, Ferguson, Warnock and Neville on top of Bizzell, Brown and Pickett. That's not a "bit of a clean out" ... that's only the "minimalist" scenario in my post.

So what approach should Bailey take? 1. A minimalist top-up? In this scenario, other than the three retirees, only the minimum de-listings need be made ... basically of hopeless cases. Will take the view that only three or four quality 1st, 2nd or 3rd round draft picks are useful (for example the draft of 2004 when we only selected Bate, Dunn and Newton), rather than a huge quantity of low-quality picks late in the draft. Means losing only a couple more fringe or aged players. This scenario anticipates that either the list is basically OK or that it will take another year to find space to build quality, and that "evolutionary enhancement" is the best approach. May not be realistic ... the list needs considerable change at the lower end of the "talent" and/or "aged" pool. 2. A trading quick fix? This scenario is the other end of the spectrum to minimalism. Look for any trade he can get for fringe players -- otherwise delist -- and trade a couple of good players like Bruce or TJ to top up picks below 20. This scenario means a radical change to the list and the realisation that a further 3-5 years is required for list development in any pitch for a flag. Usually the scenario liked by a lot of disappointed supporters who forget that trading requires thought as to what you can get as much as what you lose. Can be over-estimated in value and may just mean trading dead wood for new dead wood. The type of scenario Carlton was forced into three years ago and which brought minimal results. 3. A developer of (any) young talent? In this scenario, he'll give priority to developing inexperienced younger players -- new draftees and even those who have showed limited promise -- and fully de-list the older dead wood. May involve keeping younger fringe players like PJ, CJ and Miller and promotion of a rookie or two, at the expense of all the older fringe players. Could still trade an additional better player for a pick below 20 and pick up one re-cycled player with pick 3 in the PSD. This scenario involves turning over the list with much new blood, and giving priority to even minimal potential rather than the same old fringe performance. Rid massive dead wood this year, especially players who have been on the list for a long time for little return. Runs the risk of killing experienced depth but minimises a further large turnover of aged players at the end of 2008 when players like White, Yze, McDonald and Neitz could also come up for retirement. On the other hand, may keep young players who just aren't going to make it for too long.

It's Carlton the Tank Engine Hip hip hip hip hooray Chugga chugga chug chug, Chuff chuff chuff They tank along the way And when you hear that siren It can only be one team Our favorite little tank engine Carlton is their name (With apologies to Thomas) Please don't win Please don't win Please don't win Please don't win (With apologies to Tank)

Your brother in law. A Saints supporter. Lyon as the comparison. Guess that's it then. Better ring Bailey and tell him he's no longer got the job.

How many premierships should we have had by then? :D

Oh, FFS. What indication in the slightest is there that Bailey is "mediocre"? He was the panel's recommendation after an exhaustive process, and he knocked off two well-known coaches for the position, one a 'legend' of the game. His presentations and game analyses were supposed to have been exceptional. If you don't want to now throw your support behind Bailey, as far as I'm concerned you can go and get gutted ... somewhere else!

You are badly pre-judging the issue. After Sheedy (2000) and Matthews (2001-3), all the recent premierships have been won by new coaches: Williams, Roos and Worsfold. All ex-assistants and students of modern coaching methodology and ideas, with a comparatively recent playing career and a fresh approach. With the exception of Malthouse, the current Victorian teams in the 8 all have the same type: Thompson, Clarkson, Laidley, Lyon. So I don't think there is anything necessarily "second-best" with recent graduates to the new school of coaching, on the contrary there's a lot to like about them. I wouldn't mind Sheedy. He has lots of positives in terms of both coaching and marketing. The thing he has to do is convince me, and the selection panel obviously, that he still has the motivation and desire. Otherwise he risks becoming the coaching version of an aging player like Byron Pickett ... recruited for his toughness and aura, but in reality offering nothing more than reputation and a fade out after a year. I'm not slashing my wrists if a lengthy, diligent and painstaking process turns up someone else, particularly someone new. We have to trust the process that our club has instituted and give up whingeing, particularly before the selection has even been made! And we've had messiahs before ... even Ron Barassi ... and they haven't necessarily worked either.

Midfielders ... you always need 'em. A gun midfielder early in the draft would still be my major priority, especially a quick one. I can also see Buckley having a spot if he develops, he has height on his side too. I reckon we're working towards having Dunn as a midfielder who can play back or forward and take advantage of his height ... a mobile 192cm player of that versatility would be a godsend, especially as backline insurance. We really missed Rivers and Bartram this year. Newton has huge potential because he is good at ground level as well as above his head.

Kreuzer could be the greatest ruckman/forward the game has ever seen, or he could be the next Josh Fraser. It's easy to dominate the under 18s when you're 200cm tall, not so easy when you're in the big league and come across Dean Cox .... who by the way was a rookie! I'm extremely fragile about taking a big bloke with our first pick, I'd much rather have a gun midfielder along the lines of Judd, Hodge or Kerr. I really don't care about Carlton's picks. When it comes to the draft, I'll just be content with what Craig selects with pick 3 or 4. Just remember that West Coast got Judd with pick 3, not pick 1. The only thing I'll miss if we win on Sunday is not having pick 18 or 19.