mauriesy

Peter was a prominent QC, a former director of the Melbourne Football Club from 2000-2003 and a strong financial benefactor. There's a headline/tribute on the MFC website and the players will wear black armbands on Saturday.

At the moment we most need a big, strong, skilled, marking CHF who can impose themselves on the game, like Pavlich, Reiwoldt, Brown or even Franklin. That means pick 1-3 in the draft and hopefully a good player to select. Since we had pick 1 a decade ago when we got TJ, we have only had two picks inside the top 5 (three inside the top 10). These were used on hard-bodied players (Brock and Col) that we needed at the time. Our "mediocre success" has meant we haven't "been to the well" often enough to grab that elusive star, like other struggling clubs. We desperately need a power forward, either by selection or by trade.

On the news just now.

I think the points you make might well be valid. But I'd want to see some figures about player weights and aerobic capacity (which we probably won't get) rather than just judging from an "impression" about how they "look". Certainly fitness and aerobic capacity was a primary objective at season's start, or else we wouldn't have hired new staff in this department. And you can't have great endurance with an overly-muscled body. It's also well-known (e.g. athletics) that power and endurance are essentially exclusive. Fast-twitch muscle fibres can "explode" but need constant rotation, slow-twitch fibres can go all day but are exactly that ... slower. But it would take more than just a couple of commonly-mentioned players like Bruce (who's never been well-built) and Jones (who does seem to run better) as evidence. Generally, I can't see how their performance has waned vis-a-vis last year. If anything, the problem still seems to me to be the bigger-bodied players that we don't have rather than the size of the bodies we do. The "spine" on Sunday was weak for starters ... no big but quick full-back for Lynch, no tall top-level CHB, no McLean or Moloney in the middle, no imposing CHF, and an out-of-form Neitz at FF. Probably in a past life I was Doubting Thomas, and my sceptical side says I want to feel the nail holes rather than just believe. I'd like to see some concrete evidence before we make assumptions about the mismatch between the team and the game plan, but I'm happy to be convinced.

Sorry, it might have whooshed right over! A bit esoteric. I thought our 'hot god' was No. 30.

When will you people realise Bruce's value? He's got close to the best engine in the league, can run with and negate playmakers like Judd and Hird, gathers possessions like they're autumn leaves, and can mark and play forward. Sorry ... you want to trade Bruce for someone whose best position is on the interchange bench?

Interesting article on Realfooty: Tigers' young hopes sacrificed in push for consistency. Quote: Richmond football operations manager Paul Armstrong said the changes reflected the fact that young players sometimes struggled for consistency. "Young boys, when they're not winning, their form fluctuates a bit," he said from Adelaide last night. So you're right Pates ... packing a team full of youngsters is suicide, as Richmond has learnt.

Shouldn't your name be 30hotgod?

Top players have changed clubs before though. A major factor in trading value is whether the player wants to stay with their current club or not. As soon as they decide time's up, the demands their current club can make come back to earth ... in the end bidding competition from other clubs will determine the result, not simply what they ask for. And it's not as though clubs haven't been held over a barrel before with the threat of pre-season draft nomination.

I think your scenarios are wrong, particularly this one. Byron will either play on with Melbourne if he reforms himself (yearly contract at best) or be gone ... retired. What's more I think he knows it. I can't see him having any trade value whatsoever, and I don't think Melbourne would even try.

Worth a punt?

We are getting our new administration and training facility in 2-3 years. That will make a huge difference to both stability and how the football department is resourced. Our current facilities are another factor in how disjointed the club's performance has been, or conversely how well ND has performed relative to the resources he's got.

I think the problem with Brown's statement is that the majority of the time the contest is not an "even 1v1". The odds are naturally weighted towards the forward because the ball is usually coming down the field through a member of his own side, who can put it where the forward wants it. That tips the votes immeasurably.

Have you checked to see that the planets are in alignment at year's end and that you've got a goat to slaughter?

Funny how he's stuck on 198 games.

I don't know that either have actually 'emerged as a possible CHF'. They were played last weekend as tall running midfielders, who could go back or forward. Mobile 191-192cm 'power' midfielders are what a lot of teams long for ... it's what Fremantle had that killed us in the semi last year. I think Bate and Dunn offer a lot in this regard, especially as their aerobic capacity peaks. I thought Dunn especially looked to have a future in that role rather than as a CHF, his running capacity really impressed me and it's a role we haven't seen him undertake much before. Judd is a better version of McLean (at least at the moment). I think a Judd-less midfield (McLean, Bruce, Jones, Moloney, Bate, Dunn, Bruce, Green, Bartram etc.) would still hold us in good stead. So I think there's heaps more upside to Pavlich in terms of being a forward improver (including as a Neitz replacement at FF) than Judd as a midfield improver. Having said that, I'd hate for Judd to end up somewhere like Collingwood or Carlton. :angry:

Word around town is that a B-double of 35,000 Melbourne jumpers personally signed by Paul Johnson left the MCG this morning after massive orders in the west. It'll be a sea of red and blue on Sunday.

Last night was symbolic of the way the game has turned ... just basketball on a bigger court. Everyone runs back into "dee-fense", the other team kicks around the perimeter until someone makes a lead ("cuts through the paint") and there's an opportunity to mark. What's called man-on-man is usually really just a "full court press", resulting in kicking around the perimeter as far back as the defensive side of the centre square. When there's a turnover, they all then "transition" to the other end for the same perimeter play. "Tempo football" is just another name for passing it around the perimeter, only with no shot clock. I'm waiting for the first commentator to call the inside of the 50m arc the "paint", and a free kick a "foul".

Prior Opportunity wins! Except no one accurately predicted the remarkable Petterd resurrection from his gammy hamstring to get 31 disposals and 2 goals!

No, you've got it all wrong! Players can only be stars or duds. Plus the occasional category of 'good ordinary player'.

So what's the definition of a 'hard ball get' for AFL statistical purposes? Unless you know that we can't discuss the issue on the same basis. Bruce is currently third on our stats for tackles and leads the 'hard ball get' stat by a fair margin.

So has anyone actually accurately reported what Maher said? Was he serious? Was it in jest? Was it just another team's supporter having a bit of a poke? I suspect either we're taking it a little too seriously, or the truth might hurt about our current level of crowd support. OK, I declare my bias. I've played golf with Andrew Maher and had the pleasure of his company for four hour rounds on a couple of occasions. Off the TV and radio you could not meet a nicer fellow. Very happy to talk football with anyone, and certainly not pompous or arrogant like a lot of ex-footballers. Quite happy to mix it with us mere mortals and the conversation is certainly not one-way.

And who's Hefferhan, Funck, Norrshi, Chisolm, Ciric, Morcroft and Neil Daniher?

We can't get games into Neaves and Hughes until they're off the rookie list. That would mean a player or two retiring mid-season (or getting dumped, which is the last thing I'd want to do). We should definitely look at getting some games sometime this year into Garland (again), Frawley, Newton and Buckley, provided they earn it and to see what they've got at AFL level. But there are plenty of players that we are putting game time into ... we forget that Dunn, Petterd, Paul Johnson, Chris Johnson, Jones and Warnock have not played 20 games yet, Bate has just got to that mark and Bartram 23. Even players like Carroll, McLean, Sylvia and Bell haven't played 50 games yet, and seemingly established young players like Rivers, Moloney and Davey haven't yet cracked it for 75. Ferguson has now played 40 games. He's tall, courageous and an OK mark, but I question his accountability (and strength) as a defender. He's had enough time since he was drafted in 2002, and he hasn't come on anywhere nearly as well as other better players drafted earlier in the same year like Bell and Rivers. He's been "trade bait" for two years without anything happening. I don't think there's a real upside to him in the backline unless he can show something different, and I think the forward line has better competition for places than him. It's interesting looking at our list. They're all largely established 150+ game veterans (Neitz, Yze, Green, Johnstone, Bruce, Pickett, White, McDonald), other "near to retirement" veterans (Brown, Bizzell, Holland, Ward), or players of various abilities still building experience. There are very few in the 75-150 game category (5-6 years on the senior list, 24-26 years old) ... about the only ones I can think of are Godfrey and Wheatley and you wouldn't stake your future on them. Post-2007 crystal balling I can see 5-6 older players going, a couple of others delisted or traded. I can see 7-8 new players next year (4-5 draftees, maybe a trade, 2 rookie elevations). That leaves a lot of opportunity for emerging young players to get a game in 2008 and beyond. But I really don't think Ferguson fits in anywhere much in 2008.

It's a "have you stopped beating your wife" question that ND can't win however he answers it. All the three possible answers ("Yes", "No" or "Maybe") have negative rumour possibilities.