mauriesy

We are going to have a moderate cleanout over the next two years simply by virtue of age. If you look at our list, here's the oldest players (ages at end of 2007): 32: Neitz 31: Bizzell, Brown, McDonald 30: Holland, Pickett, Ward, White, Yze While the critical future replacements for these are a full-forward for Neitz, a ruckman for White and to a lesser extent a midfielder for McDonald, I don't believe the rest of the players in this age group are critical (other than for injury replacements) to the team's performance for 2007-08. We'd be much stronger with Bartram instead of Brown, Whelan instead of Ward for example. So in the next two years these nine 30+ players will retire (probably some will be forced out by non-renewal anyway). Given, say, 4-5 draft selections, a rookie elevation and a trade in any one year (12 new players over two years) that's only three other players to go ... probably players like Jamar, Neville and Ferguson would be the sum total of any "forced" cleanout.

Sorry, I don't see it. If the team has collectively only lost 12kg (i.e. about 0.5kg per player average), how can we be "much less muscle-bound"? Muscle is a much heavier component in the human body than fat, so if they'd lost a lot of muscle it'd show in their body weights, which clearly aren't down much. Conversely if they are near to the same weight but less "muscle bound" as you say, the only alternative is that they've put on a lot of fat, which clearly is not the case. I haven't seen evidence of the players being shoved off the ball any easier. Our tackling is near the same level as last year. I agree with Rhino when he says the loss of some tough inside players like McLean, Moloney and Pickett has made a difference around the ball. Jones, if anything, was overweight and as a midfielder is running much better than last year, while at the same time looking stronger.

I suppose he's responsible for someone treading on McLean's foot and breaking it? Or for Neitz, Robertson and Bartram wrenching their knees? They are the four injuries that probably hurt us the most. What rubbish.

10. Anticipating desperately over when we'll get our first win.

Looks like you'll be dead before the season's over then.

It will take him a couple of years to develop both a bigger body and his game to play a key position. So that's out of the question for a while, and in the meantime we'll have to rely on bigger-bodied players like Rivers, Carroll (and Holland). But I can see him before the season is out being a much better third tall option than players like Bizzell or Ferguson. Is quicker for a start.

Gee Rhino, I threw you a Dorothy Dixer way back in Post #77 and you took until now to mention Yze.

That's OK. McLean's ¾ of a Judd, Pick 1-3 is ¾ of a Judd and Bruce is ½ a Judd. Will that do?

Daniel Bell ... easily. He's got a long career in front of him and is already performing well in a backline that needs him.

Read it again. I wrote Bruce + McLean + PICK 1-3 (which is about what you said we'd need to trade for Judd). Jeeez. There are very few failures with picks 1-3.

The issue with these two players is probably moot. I doubt either will get a contract extension at year's end, and they'll go down in the books as "retired". Farmer wanted to go home and there was nothing we could do. As far as Woewodin and our present situation is concerned, we'd need to identify a current much-loved under-performing, over-paid player on our list for a valid comparison. Is there one?

No I didn't. I simply said Bruce + McLean + Pick 1-3 were worth more than Judd. In a few years time, either of McLean or Pick 1-3 could be worth more than Judd alone.

On a lighter note, I did see one elderly gentleman going into the MCC members yesterday who was the archetypal Coodabeens Melbourne supporter ... Houndstooth felt hat, check jacket with elbow patches, blue RM Williams shirt with red and blue diagonal striped tie, moleskin pants and brown leather boots. There were others ... my wife thought they were a real hoot.

I think this is rubbish. It all depends on whether he makes up his mind to leave. Once he does, the Eagles trading power would be severely diminished. If our first round draft pick is 1-3, this is close to the next Judd (or Pavlich) alone. I'd never trade McLean, he's got captain and star written all over him. Bruce is a high possession getter with one of the league's top motors. Trade any other pick in addition and we diminish our ability to de-list dead wood. Trading Bruce, McLean and a top 3 pick is like trading two Judds for Judd. Stupid if you ask me, and grossly over-exaggerated.

Well I'm trying to work out what is your point. The guy runs all day, gets 36 possessions for the match, 22 in the second half which shows what level of endurance he has, and you want to discount his game because his possessions weren't "effective" (how exactly did you measure that by the way?). Apart from one kick out on the full (3% error rate given 36 possessions), I'm wondering what else he did wrong. There were a lot more "ineffective players" yesterday than Bruce.

So in the general scheme of things, would you prefer to keep the players who had the least number of possessions in the first three quarters? Just wondering.

It is harsh on ND. He's still the man in the job. Any decisions should be made following a full season review, not mid-season. Having said that, if push comes to shove at the end of the year and the coaching position becomes vacant, I don't want some old coach with baggage. I wouldn't touch Sheedy, Thomas, Pagan (or any other fanciful but recycled proposition like Blight) with a barge pole. My criteria would be someone new who has done an apprenticeship as an assistant, and who comes from a recently successful power club so we can gain the advantage of how a top-tier club develops players, administers the football department and organises on-field.

Jeez Godfrey is frustrating. Love his attack on the ball, but twice yesterday he kicked the ball inside 50 straight to a Kangaroos player, both times the ball was short of the lead. Both turnovers resulted in a Kangaroos goal.

You'd be surprised how many country sporting clubs (football, netball, bowls, golf etc.) take advantage of the afternoon grand final to make a social occasion of the event. They have a barbeque lunch, then watch the game in the clubhouse with tipping competitions, raffles etc to raise funds for their club. My golf club has a grand final fundraiser breakfast, then a round of golf, followed by (another fundraiser) bbq lunch, then the game. If they shift the game to twilight everyone will just watch it at home. A whole social tradition will disappear.

Missed most of it, but did he imply at the end that both Rivers ("got through training") and Frawley would be selected?

What would make you think every young player at the club doesn't have a development plan?

Finding a game plan is like looking for the holy grail. It's an often-asked question that has no real answer, and those who claim to have the One Infallible Game Plan are fooling themselves. For a start, any proponent who claims to have a better "game plan" than an experienced league coach is on fairly safe ground, because they can either mouth platitudes or be safe in the knowledge that their plan will never have to be tested in the real world. So they can make all sorts of outrageous claims about how good it is, claim it would work 100%, but never have to test its validity. In short, their head's not the one on the block. To me, football's a bit like education ... everybody's involved, they've all got an opinion about what's best and right, but the easiest position to take is to stand on the sidelines yelling opinions and calling "off with his head!". I raised the quotes I did because some of the efforts are not wonderful revelations or the saviour of our season, they would be obvious to any coach in the Under 10s. I mean "small forwards crumbing" or "flankers running the ball out of the backline" ... your grandmother wouldn't find enough eggs to suck. I really don't think it matters whether the game plan is based on "run and carry", "kick it long", "tough tackling", "using the corridor", "flooding", "man on man" or a host of combinations and permutations of all these. We know that all of these will work at least some of the time, that some teams use more of one than the other mainly due to the type of personnel they've got. We were a "corridor" team a couple of years ago when Neitz, Robertson and Yze provided plenty of forward line leading and marking power, and it worked until other teams worked out how to counter it with "flooding" and "man on man" to force us out wide. Last year we got somewhere with "tempo" and "tough tackling", this year we've lost some key inside personnel for that to work well. We've been trying to develop "run and carry", not because it's The Plan, but because it's a necessary weapon in any team's arsenal. But it requires confidence, skills and a high level of fitness and maybe its predominant use is impossible for our list. The critical thing is that at the moment we don't seem to have the skill or players on the park (due to injury) to carry out whatever predominant plan we've been trying. We don't have the speed and confidence for "run and carry", the kicking accuracy or marking power for "kick it long", or the key position forwards for the "corridor". Why? Injuries? List not as good as we thought? Weight loss? Softness? Leadership? Decline of some older players? Others still too inexperienced? I don't know. But I'd like to rationally discuss what's happening and the solutions, and I'm not going to pour scorn on the coach and players and call for heads from my position of lack of knowledge (particularly on the real effects of player injury and fitness), or suggest some simplistic game plan that would be an affront to any coach with more than a year or two of Little League experience.

According to a report in The Age Realfooty (League may resurrect reserves by Stephen Reilly), from 2009 the AFL is likely to make it easier and more financially viable for an AFL club to field a true reserves side in the VFL, rather than having an affiliation to a VFL club (like Sandringham). What are the implications for Melbourne in terms of finances, player lists and player development? Would we be better maintaining our Sandringham connection, or do what Geelong does and have our own reserves side?

Actually, the analysis said the most important factor was long accurate kicking. That's definitely something we have lacked. Interesting also the lack of importance given to ruck hitouts. Those who are calling for our first round pick to be spent on a 200cm monster should perhaps rethink. A Judd or Pavlich type would be much more profitable ... to either make or accept those accurate long kicks!

As will I. Meanwhile, here's some enlightened suggestions taken from this board about what our game plan ought to be ... "Game plan: keep the ball moving at all costs, with the aim of getting the ball to our forwards as quickly as possible" Ssshhh ... whatever you do, don't call it "run and carry"! "Carrol, Rivers and Frawley backed in to take the KP forwards, half back flankers (Pettard, Whelan, Bell) expected to create lots of run from the backline" Memo: Send Coaching for Dummies to the Football Department with note to read Chapter 1: Backline play. "Davey would have a licence to run on the ball and drop forward when it suits him" Like some sort of untouchable "free agent"? That'll fool 'em. "Sylvia to play deep" [sarcasm] Haven't seen that tried yet. [/sarcasm] "Bate to push up and play like a second CHF that leads from 40m out" [sarcasm] Nor that. [/sarcasm] "Rivers to float in the backline" Hmmm ... a cunning, new and unusual plan! "Play the percentages in defence. But take risks when going forward. Plenty of run through the middle" Ssshhh ... I told you, don't mention "run and carry"! "My number 1 priority would be to play Sylvia one-out in the goal square for the whole game, he would kick 10. It's a shame Daniher can't spot talent and doesn't understand how to use a player's strengths" Memo to Football Department: interesting suggestion, could be worth a punt, just in case the idea slipped through. "Would instruct the players to try going through the corridor as much as possible and get it in quick and direct to Neitz and Robbo" See 2005 Coaches Report: Failed Strategies "The small forwards should get ready for the crumbs" Memo: Send Coaching for Dummies to the Football Department with note to read Chapter 2: Forward play.