hoopla

Have to agree with those who have said that this post isn't up to Joeboy's usual standard - much too negative. Overall there are two players who have been very disappointing this year - Bate and Dunn. Here are two first round picks coming into their fifth year who don't appear to be improving. Maric needed the run and both Martin and Bennell showed something. Rivers is still settling back into regular footy - and in a new role Dunny and the Master are at the crossroads

I'll tolerate a few mistakes from Cale while he steadily improves from young gun to seasoned star!! The only problem with Cale is that he is good enough to step into senior roles at this early stage in his career. Get off his back - and enjoy watching him develop.

Yes - it was a terrible game- but as Jaded has pointed out much of the blame should be laid at the feet of the Crows. Adelaide had strength skill and experience on their side - but they put numbers behind the ball all day. They are the masters of defensive football in blustery conditions. At least we tried to play some attacking footy in the last quarter -which was more than they did. I only wish we were good enough to dictate the pattern of play to teams like Adelaide

Agree Pleased to see that others are beginning to recognise Bartram's shortcomings. He has gone backwards since his first year - when his quick hands made up for his lack of kicking skills. HIs decision-making is also questionable. We can't afford a run with defender'' who turns the ball over as often as he does. Both Daniher and Bailey have clearly been impressed with his attitude. Unfortunately his kicking and marking are not up to standard - and are not improving. Just hope we don't have to replace Warnock. Cheney ( who was stiff to get dropped) would be the a logical replacement - though we would lose height in the back half. I guess Spencer could come in as back-up for Meeson leaving PJ to play in defence. Let's hope we don't sit on our laurels this week.

(I think you'll find that Martin played on Ebert. Harvey is well out of form - and if anything acted as a decoy for Thomas and Campbell) Actually Bartram is usually just asigned to a small forward . Nowadays he rarely goes in to the middle to tag one of the opposition playmakers . If anything he is less of a tagger now than he was in his first year. Junior ( and Dunn) are our main run with players - and I think Grimes is one of the next in line. I'm not so worried about Bartram's lack of possessions - but about his loose kicking when he does get the ball. He must get more depth and penetration into his kicking if he is to be part of a winning defence

Dunn kicked goals early in his career because he had great recovery - and good goal sense. Daniher started playing him in the mid field and Bailey has continued on from there. With our lack of forwards- I'd certainly try him there again. It's hard to find people who know where the goals are"" - ands as an 18 year old he did

Well said. Green is streets ahead. For mine, Brock is struggling with the pace of the game. It's faster now than it was in that semi final against St Kilda a couple of years ago. I don't think he is the standout he appeared to be then. He consistently gets run down from behind and he is not kicking to position as well as once did. Green is the man most likely to win- or save - a game by taking the lead under presuure. At 27 he should have several years left in him.

Every game this year - we have struggled to find aforward option. If ever Newton is going to get a game surely it must be now. The one youngster who is fit and showing signs at Casey is Maric. IN: Newton,Maric OUT: Petterd, Sylvia Petterd needs a run at Casey- starting at half back - to get his confidence back.I still haven't given up completely on Sylvia - but his form over the last two weeks hasn't been good enough to keep his place. I can't believe peoiple want to drop PJ. He did have a shocker last week but he gives us several options ... and he's still running into form after an interrupted pre-season. He has played enough good footy in the last couple of years to be forgiven a poor game or two.You couldn't go into a game with Meeson and Spencer interchanging all day. No reason to drop Jetta and this stage - and just let Bennell keep learning the game as he has been If Junior's fit ..I'be looking to drop Bartram - who quite frankly hasn't got the skills to be part of the side in the long-term

Every Wednesday, the AFL sends out an injury list for all clubs to the media. It is not always reliable ..but it is some sort of benchmark. Last week - we had 9 listed as injured or requiring a fitness test - which gave us the longest list in the AFL - AGAIN! From memory the list was Bell,Grimes,Buckley,Robbo,Wheatley, Whelan,Jamar, Strauss and Garland . Junior wasn't included. Add Watts and Blease to that list - and we have a heck of a lot of youthful potential off the field. The question is why are we always so susceptible to injury? Oops I missed Aussie?..maybe it was 10?

The AFL has a lot to answer for on the Jolly-Jmar saga. At the time we did the deal on Jolly ,the second circle didn't exist and Jeff White was the best ruckman in the league. Jamar could jump. Jolly appeared dispensable . A week or two after the draft, the AFL changed the rules. White became an ordinary ruckman - and Jolly's relative height made him a more valuable commodity. I'd like to think that if the AFL had left the rules alone, our ruck strategy wouldn't have looked so bad. Anyway- the lesson is there. Good rucks ARE hard to find

Actually I'm not forgetting that at all. We needed speed skill height and muscle. In 2007, we went for speed ( and run and skill) with Morton, Grimes and Maric After Watts , we had another 6 cracks at speed and skill again last year. Of the next 3 picks (the rookies), I reckon we should have balanced this up with a bit of height and muscle. Our young runners ( and Watts) are going to need protection and we haven't factored that into this year's list. Our smalls are going to need some talls to help bring the ball to the ground. If we are going to be contenders in 2011, we are going to need to find at least another 3 or 4 quality talls in the next 3 years. If we get a good run with injuries only one or two of them will be in the senior side each week , but you need depth to get through a long season and every player needs to know that someone is pressing for his position That wouldn't concern me as much if we weren't facing a series of compromised drafts. Sad but true , we need Meeson to step up ( and its a b- big step !)

To me this is the guts of the issue. It takes time to develop young ruckmen and the odds of success are almost certainly less than 'one in four'. In the last three years , we've only tried two ruckman - one of which ( Meeson) is almost certainly a dud. In the same period we've taken about 15 midfielders. The fact that rucks take longer to develop (and may fail) is a reason to take more young ruck prospects - not less. I don't understand why we took 3 small rookies this year. The fact is that we will only need them if the majority of our recent midfield draftees fail. But going forward we will need to bolster our ruck stocks - and I don't think it is a sound strategy to rely on rejects from other clubs .The rookie list is an ideal place to turnover young big-men. I know this thread started as a thread about this year's problems - but this year's problems are going to be next year's problem....and the next years..... We all think Meeson is a waste of space ...and Deano's own comments on Meeson's pre-season were less than flattering. But surely we expected something from him when we went into the draft? The fact that we didn't promote Spencer from the rookie list suggests that we expected to give him another year in the VFL. I can't believe that we expected Jamar and PJ to play 22 games each! At some stage not long ago , Bailey, Connolly and Prendegast must have expected Meeson to be good enough for a senior game this year. This is the only way our list management strategy makes any sense. I heed Rhino's warning - "Don't hold your breath on Meeson" - but he's the one we need

Next time I'll have to figure out how the split quote feature works!!

There is no doubt Colin has been a disappointment in the past . I have been prepared to excuse him on the basis that he has had major injury and fitness worries. He has not been strong in 'the core' which would have made it very difficult to play four quarters of footy. Up until this year, he has never had a proper pre-season. Perhaps our mistake was in recruiting a kid who had OP at 17...but that's not his fault The saving grace on the latest issue is that he wasn'y drinking - so I'm going to get off his back one more time and judge on the field after his first full pre-season . He has ability - and I recall Daniher saying that he is very competitive. Let's just see how plays in the next month

Unfortunately I can only agree. Spencer really needs time to develop at VFL - and yet he may have to lead our ruck division. PJ is much better as a relief ruckman in between stints up forward and down back. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that we don't have a tall forward who can contest in the pockets. - allowing the main ruckman to sit back accross half forward. Stef is big enough to try in the ruck - but we are trying to develop him as our big-bodied defender. For several years now, people have whingeing that Jamar is not good enough - yet right now we are crying out for him.Let's hope PJ stays fit I am afraid I find it extraordinary that we didn't try to boost our ruck stocks in either the draft or the rookie draft ( after missing on Warnock). The argument that you shouldn't have more than 4 ruckman on your list doesn't wash - particularly when one is not up to it ( Meeson) and another ( Johnson) is better as a utility tall. We lost our lead ruckman ( White) and a relief ruckman ( Holland) last year - and made no attempt to re-balance the list. I don't understand why we took three small rookies People say that there were no talls in the draft worth trying. It's interesting that Richmond are thinking of naming a 205cm rookie in their team on Thursday night. I wonder if Roughead will make his debut this year? Perhaps Meeson will surprise us all. We really need him. Go number 26 !!

I've gone on record several times saying that our list is too heavily biased towards midfielders. I think we lack depth in big-bodied players - and have too many eggs in the Jack Watts basket. Jack will cop his share of injuries - particularly if he's our sole tall target up forward.We often needed to play Ben Holland up forward to take the physical pressure off Neita - even when Robbo was there to contest. In 2007, Geelong had Nablett, Mooney and Ottens - with King helping in the ruck and Hawkins in reserve; in 2008 Hawthorn had Buddy, Roughead and Dew's physical presence - with Boyle and Thorp in reseve. I would like to see more big man depth

Quite frankly...the fact that we have a healthy sponsorship locked in for the next three years is just about the best news the MFC has had since the goal umpire signalled goal after Froggy Crompton's kick in 1964. I think its a bit sad that Hazy has found it necessary to perform micro calculations on starting dates to defend his earlier criticisms of the current Board. The Board's determination to hang on - and to insist that a sponsorship would be in place by Round One has been vindicated - full stop. The fact that it was the initiative of a supporter that got the deal to the table is beside the point.A week ago Hazy had good reason to worry - and to ask questions. ..... all of a sudden the world has changed. I look forward to watching the Board operate now that it has something to work with Thankyou Andrew Mamonitis Go Jimmy

Clearly I hope your optimism is justified.... and I agree that the backline options are beginning to look healthy. At the end of the day, the balance of our list is such that virtually all of our young talls will have to come through - and stay fit - whereas we will be OK if only half of our young midfielders make it.Over the years , the success rate for 'talls 'has tended to be lower than the success rate for 'smalls/mid-sizers'. We have more considerably more midfield depth than big man depth. Whether or not that becomes a real problem will depend upon the pattern of injuries over the next few years.

THankyou for this analysis. Bearing in mind that neither Jurrah nor McNamara are big men - and that McKenzie, Healey and Hughes are all smalls - I think it demonstrates my point very well, particularly when you bear in mind the young utilities from the previous year- Bartram, Buckley and Jones Every post I read about our pre-season form seems to stress our lack of key forwards and our thin ruck stocks ... and our reliance on the ability of Garland, Rivers and Co to keeping fighting out of their weight division on the back line. I don't want to nominate any of our inidvidual draftees as "duds" - but Casey is going to have to have a lot of big men on its list - if the Scorpions are going to field a balanced side>

There's no point bagging Jimmy because we were pipped at the post on the Mission deal........just like there is no point bagging the previous administration. I seem to recall Gardner, Phillips and Co walking into untter chaos with substantial unpaid tax invoices sitting in a desk drawer! The club lost its way in the mid 60s. The writing has been on the wall for years..... Schwab is on the record as saying that all we have is "hope "and "heritage". Well- at least now - we also have half a sponsor. Things are slowly getting better - and there are hints of further improvements in the pipeline ie closer community ties ( at Casey) and closer afiliation with the MCC. I'm just keen to get that second sponsorship confirmed ... so we can forget MIssion ...and move on.

Just a few points - Jamar has had foot trouble before. At the end of 2006 ( maybe 2005) ,he spent months walking around with a heavy protective boot -I agree that our ruck situation is a product of poor list management over 4-5 years - and not just one or two. Its a problem that may take the same 4-5 years to fix. We have to start some time. - I don't know enough about this year's draft market to categorically name some "talls" we should have taken - but I was surprised we let Roughead through and that we didn't try to rookie one of the '200cm plus' kids other teams snapped up after us. - I agree that it can be difficult to effectively manage any more than 4 ruckman at any one time - as long as all 4 have either form or potential. One of ours, Meeson, is a very doubtful proposition at best. Deano's less than flattering comments about Meeson prompted much of my concern.I wouldn't class PJ just as a ruckman...much of his value lies in his ability to play back and forward All of the positive responses to my thread are based on the assumption that Spencer will develop into a top class ruckman. Let's hope he does. Our young midfielders will need effective ruck support if they are to achieve their full potential.

I shouldn't really be raising a "less than positive" thread on the day we found a sponsor - but I can't help but hark back to the concerns I expressed after the draft about the balance of our recruiting efforts over the last 2 years. Mark Jamar is out for 4-6 weeks. If the injury is more serious than that he may go on the long-term injury list - which will allow us to promote Jake Spencer. But Jamar has had foot problems before.If the injury is that bad- his season is in jeopardy.This would leave us with three ruckmen to get us through 22 rounds: PJ ( who is better suited to a support role) and Meeson and Spencer ( who are not even proven at VFL level!). I don't really rate Jamar - but the balance of our list is such that we need him. From the perspective of the season as a whole, we'll be better off if it is only a 4 week injury. This means going into the first two rounds with an underdone PJ to carry the rucks on his own - without the likes of a Neitz or a Holland to save him running deep into the forward line. The option is to put Meeson into the 22 as relief ruckman. Deano's recent attempt to boost Meeson up ( http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsart...0/default.aspx) is pretty sad. " His last couple of weeks haven't been too bad" ...." His ruckwork was adequate" ...."His pre-Xmas work was pretty ordinary but he's done everything right in the last two weeks".Don't go overhead about this guy Dean! As a direct result of our approach to list management over the last few years ( including this year) it looks like we are going to have put a bloke into our team whose recent training "hasn't been too bad"! I guess Stefan Martin might be a ruck option - but we've just spent 18 months trying to develop him as our only big-bodied defender. There is simply no other choice than to play a bloke who is not up to it. How will that affect the morale of the many promising (smaller) guys who will miss out? What if PJ comes up a bit sore after the first round? You can win a game of modern footy without dominating the ruck - but its a hell of a lot easier if you can at least compete in the hitouts.

To secure a worthwhile sponsor, we need to demonstrate to the market that Melbourne generates news. In the past week, Melbourne has had two newsworthy events - Support for the Red Cross on our jumper in Tassie - the Youth Summit Yet all the press has been interested in is Bl- Ben Cousins!!!. Are we issuing press releases - and being ignored? or are we neglecting our media liaison activities? Leigh Newton was our media liaison man last year ( amonst other support roles)- and from all accounts he was popular with a number of journos.Has anybody been assigned that specific responsibility this year ?- or we relying on Jim's press links to save costs? The Age has implanted Martin Flanigan in the club for a year - which provides fodder for the ocasional interesting article such as the one about David Bridie and his mates last Saturday. But what about TV and radio? We get diddley-squat.... and most of what we do get is negative ( thanks Dwayne!) We are in a 'Catch 22'. By holding back our season launch until we get a sponsor - we are not in the news.And it's because we are not in the news that we are finding it difficulkt to get a sponsor. Geard Healey, Gary Lyon and David Schwarz - we need you right now. Gerard generate such support for Ben Cousins on his radio show - that Richmond had no choice but to take him. OK Gerard - now start pumping up the Dees!You don't just need to pump us up on the field (which is a bit hard anyway) - you need to pump up the marketing potential of an association with our heritage.

How about that? Good to see - even better that a paying sponsor may be around the corner..