mauriesy

This is an internet discussion forum. Although we all have one thing on common -- a love for the Demons -- and while the discussion needs to be civil (and is moderated to keep it so) it is a place where you put your views and at the same time recognise they will be challenged. It's not a "flame fest" or a "love fest" ... you just need to be able to argue for your point of view in a logical manner, with some sort of research or facts to back your opinion. If you come out half-cocked, you'll often get shot down in flames and rightly so. Sometimes we all just need to agree to disagree. I'm sorry ... that's just the way it is. To me it's a learning experience. I can get shown up to be wrong and will revise my point of view. Sometimes I even end up looking stupid. And sometimes I can teach other people something. Regardless ... I never take it personally, and it doesn't form so much of a part of my life that I lose sleep over what someone said or the arguments I lose or win.

Geez, so what appears to you to be the case is right and the official stats are wrong? Since when is the old 6-foot mark "short"? According to the Melbourne 2007 Almanac, Bode (183cm) is taller than any of: Bartram (181) Brown (180) Davey (177) Jones (179) McDonald (180) Moloney (181) Pickett (178) Whelan (180) He is the same height as Travis Johnstone, and only a centimetre shorter than McLean, Godfrey and Green (all 184). Hardly an argument to be de-listed for being on the "short side". Then again ... Pickett is a midget, get rid of him!

Exactly. The only way to turn Pickett or Ward into the next Bartram or Petterd is to turn them into draft picks. However, we could turn Bode into the next Whelan, or Garland into the next Newton, simply by waiting another year.

That's why he was promoted, given Bartram's long-term injury status.

Neaves and Bode can't have been selected up to now ... they were/are rookies and not even on the senior list! And why do you think Bode was promoted to the senior list last week ... yep, because he showed something! And you're going to do that by keeping some extra older marginal players and dropping young players like Garland and Bode? For heaven's sake, Garland was picked up in last year's draft at pick 46. Give him some time. We all do! But I want a premiership in the next few years and we won't do it by hanging onto an ageing list.

Talk of dropping players is meaningless unless you look at the other side of the ledger, which is either a trade or an extra draft pick or a combination of both. In the case of many of our old, marginal players, that will mean nothing but a late draft pick as they are essentially untradeable. We have to take four (?) players minimum in the draft. That means four players need to go. I think the obvious ones are Ward (old and can't hit a target), Neville (young player who has shown nothing), Brown (retired) and Pickett (unfit and uncommitted). Beyond that we either: 1. Delist more marginals (e.g. Ferguson, Warnock, Bizzell, Holland, Godfrey) for further later draft picks and/or a pick in the pre-season draft; and/or 2. Trade a good player for an early pick (for a "potential Bate, Bell, McLean or Jones" ... not saying I actually want to do it). This is entirely dependent on what is offered. Personally, I reckon the most versatile older player who should be offered one more year is Holland. The others can all go as far as I'm concerned.

Apart from the real figure being more like 5 out of 10, I don't believe that anyone is arguing that young players that show no improvement should be kept on the list. It is also poor form to mindlessly "bag" certain faithful players, but it's awfully hard to not discuss merits and career time remaining when you are looking at list improvement! The young players you have mentioned (Garland, Bode, Neaves) haven't even had a decent chance to prove themselves. I can't quite work out why you chose them rather than more obvious players like Warnock and CJ, who have at least had a chance to show something. Garland was only drafted last year, and has far less time "in the system" than Newton, who has shown enormous potential but was an equivalent level draft pick to Garland two years earlier. To get rid of Garland now would be crazy. A team must keep turning over its list to avoid getting too old (we already are) and to develop new players. Every marginal old player you keep for one more year is one less potentially good young player gone begging. So the question is not whether older players should get one more year just because they've got a bit of life left, it's whether 30-, 40-, 50- or 60-something picks at a 50% success rate offer better long-term potential than either players like Ward and Godfrey, who have shown they are turnover kings with limited skills; or young, still largely untried players like Bode, Buckley and Garland, whose games you can count on one hand. Don't forget some of our previous picks at the 40-60 level have been players like Bruce, Whelan, Bartram and Nathan Brown himself. And I would like to remind you of our own success with rookies (Robertson, Ward, MacDonald, Carroll, Davey) and of players like Foley at Richmond, who was a rookie in the same year as Davey and looks like being AA this year. I'd love him in my midfield. Sometimes young players, whether later draft picks or rookies, take a year or two more to develop, but they can still offer far more in the future than keeping Bizzell and Pickett for one more year and further "ageing" the list.

Hughes is a rookie and him going won't give us an extra draft pick, only space for another rookie.

So you anticipate a lot of changes to our list?

I have sympathy for genuine whistle blowers. Personal attack, ex-communication, threats to sue are all treatments they receive for exposing truth. But Jason Akermanis seems to have had a whistle placed in his cot from the moment he was born.

We know what we get from Ferguson, Brown, Holland, Godfrey, Ward and Pickett. If we're using the remainder of the year to "test" young players, then for heaven's sake, let's test them. Give Dunn, CJ, Garland, Warnock, Bode, PJ, Buckley and Newton every chance to confirm their ability one way or another. Geez, I'd even introduce Weetra and Neville, much like you might in the NAB Cup. At least Neville could say he played one AFL game. Our finishing range can now only be 14th-15th ... I just can't see the point trying to save some honourable "face" by putting the same bunch of losers on the field every week.

I am not in favour of trading experienced mid-age players like Bruce, Green or Johnstone. If the club was a bit stronger, then maybe it is feasible, but right now the list is too polarised between a lot of old bodies and a lot of young, inexperienced ones. There are far lesser contributors, in terms of energy, commitment and skill, to remove from the list than these skilled core players. In the next two years, we do need a clean-out of "dead wood": Neville, Yze (retire), Pickett, Ward, Ferguson, Brown, Jamar, Bizzell, Holland, Miller and Godfrey. By the end of 2008 at the latest, we will also see the retirement of McDonald, Neitz, White, and possibly Whelan and Robertson. There may be other players (e.g Chris Johnson?) who just don't make it. That's up to 17 players, and if you also got rid of Green, Johnstone and Bruce, there'd be about 35 players on the list with less than 80 games experience (including presumably up to 20 recent draft picks!) and the oldest players would be Nathan Carroll and Paul Wheatley! So I just don't think we're in the position to also go for massive trades. We do need a list revolution, but not a total demolition. The core of young players will at least need a few older heads left around them.

Brown's last five games: Kicks Handballs Possessions Marks Tackles 13 8 21 8 4 11 13 24 8 5 18 11 29 8 2 13 4 17 9 2 9 18 27 8 1 If you want to argue not to drop Bizzell, what is your argument to drop Brown?

Where does Greg Denham actually say that we've cut our coaching budget, apart from in the heading? He says dollars will determine who our next coach is, which has been fairly obvious all along, but have we actually reduced our coaching budget i.e. over what we used to pay Neale?

He was also pick 55 for heaven's sake. It's not as though we wasted a top 5 draft pick on him.

Heritage Schmeritage. I'd much rather have players recognising each other in an instant on the field. Don't suppose you saw two players handball directly to the opposition in the Eagles v Dogs game on Friday? We have plenty of other opportunities to wear our normal jumper (which is not the same as when we started 150 years ago anyway).

In my opinion we had far more instability when ex-footballers (e.g. Ridley, Dixon) were prominent. But I don't think it would be bad at all if we had another experienced footballer (or two) on the board (Bickford played a handful of games). We had Flower before his health problems, another one or two would be good provided they were also good at business and not just there to be "blokes". But this could be done through evolution and the normal processes of election at an AGM, not through a damaging spill. And if you don't have direct experience in appointing a coach, you get advice from knowledgeable people ... I think that's happening in the current coach process. I agree with Rhino that "suits" is disparaging and implies facelessness. Gardner's experience is in advertising, Nattrass and O'Connor in media, Dohrmann is a neurosurgeon with wide medical experience, Coglin is a doctor from the health administration sector, Starkins is in finance, Sitch is a lawyer, Karen Hayes is in human resources (the third token woman!), the only accountant is Phillips and I suppose you've got to have one. I think that board experience is a broad brush and good for stable football club governance. Besides, I don't think they're actually there to be "faces" ... there is a lot of important work behind the scenes that "faces" are often not interested in. Why is the club poor? Because of wasted opportunities in the last four decades to build on the success of the 50s and 60s. There are lots of threads here on the curse of Norm Smith etc. But I think the current board are on the right track to grasp the mettle and see the whole of football development (e.g. a new 'home' training base) as a solution. The indicators (e.g. finances, members) are pointing the right way long-term, and it certainly wouldn't help the club by having boardroom coups every few years.

You don't necessarily want lots (or even many at all) ex-players on your board. Most of them have no experience of running a business. You definitely want ex-players in your football department, but the board is a different proposition. The board is all about business administration, corporate governance, sponsorship, advertising, marketing and media ... it's about growing the club and its membership, and administering the club properly. The people currently on the board have a very wide experience and good performance in these fields and I can't see any evidence that they are neglecting their duties or being in any way ineffective. We are on track with a new home and membership, although the finances are yet to come in, and that's largely linked to our playing fortunes. The performance of the football department is a different matter entirely, and I wouldn't be poking the board with the wrong stick.

Absolute madness. The board is the least of our troubles. The period of instability would do untold harm to our chance of signing a good coach, re-signing wanted players, building on our (record) supporter base, and keeping or building sponsors. The cost of an EGM would take badly needed money away from football operations. All to satisfy a few disgruntled egos.

I agree with Wheatley. I don't agree with the other three. To say Ferguson is an "exciting prospect" is ludicrous. He's had years to impress, is a VFL footballer at best, lacks strength and has only modest skills. Can't take anyone except a lightweight third tall, of which there aren't many. I'd have Warnock and even Holland over him. Bizzell is too old to survive a "rejuvenation" process. If his contract is up, it's up. Godfrey has had some good days, but was thrashed by Harvey last week who worked harder and outran him, and was ineffective yesterday. Poor skills, especially by foot and is not quick enough. He might have one more year, simply because there are worse players than him to clean out.

A reasonable process. I just wish the supporters (and particularly the knockers looking for anything to fault about MFC at the moment) didn't jump to conclusions, and that "seeking the perspectives of a range of people ... including Garry Lyon and Robert Walls" didn't become "Robert Walls is picking the coach".

Which makes me think that if you could get Sunday's team and: Get Neitz and Robertson fit Have Bruce and Bell not in their first week back from a hamstring Add Johnstone, Bartram, Rivers, Petterd, Whelan, Carroll, Davey, maybe Dunn and even Yze, it would look a hell of a lot better.

Yes there is. Definitely Bartram and Whelan, and probably Petterd given experience.

I reckon the last thing we should be doing is trading noted skilled players (with the exception maybe of Bruce's kicking) just for the heck of it. We've got far bigger problems on our list to get rid of than those three.

These two statements partly contradict each other. If you were worried about kicking skills, Godfrey and Ward would be top of your de-list agenda.