The O

I think you're being way to harsh of Carlisle. He's a late developer in taking up AFL and I'd suggest is one of the most versatile players of this years draft and an ideal selection at pick 18. He's grown 22cm's in the last 18mths and he's still growing, during which time he's shown enormous progress in his development and there's strong evidence to suggest that hes got a heap of potential. At 197cm and with a desire to play as CHF (who's also played significant games as a CHB) I think he's the sort of player we should pick at 18 if he's still available. I'm stumped as to why you rate Temel. He wasn't invited to draft camp. Hasn't even been mentioned by most expert commentators as being in consideration for a 2nd round pick, let alone a 1st round. In fact a number have said he's most suited to rookie pick up. Sounds to me as Casey Sibasado mark 2. Sure Temel had a good 5 or 6 weeks at the end of the TAC cup, but he performed well partially due to his size and bulk against kids. To me he appears to be 1 dimensional and doesn't seem to have the potential as others.

I agree Bub that it may be a bit inconsistent about saying who a club is going to draft, however I'd personally much rather know in advance who the GC and also GWS are planning to draft as it narrows down our available choices. In the upcoming drafts where both clubs will have a long list of picks, by reducing the available unknown selections gives us a greater idea of who's available to be chosen in draft. The reason I'm all for the GC and GWS announcing players in advance is that compared with other new clubs coming into the competition (ala Brisbane Bears, West Coast, Fremantle, Adel & Port) both these new clubs have the inherent problem of few if any local talent to nuture and develop to create a team. Having personally played in the NSW league years ago and having most recently spent 2 years in QAFL, their talent and player development falls a long way short of other leagues. Both the GC and GWS are starting from scratch and don't have the luxury of the WAFL or SAFL to create a list and I feel they need as much exposure and development to create interest (especially amongst juniors) otherwise they may be the basket cases of the competition for years to come.

Alpha, you just don't get it, do you? Comparing the GC17 and MFC is completely pointless. You say that announcing the No 1 pick has changed. Really?? Maybe you should tell the AFL, the MFC and our other members. The fact is it hasn't changed. The AFL regards the draft as the centrepiece of their off-season, with enormous media exposure being drawn to who is the No 1 pick, so why would they allow the draft to be spoilt. The announcement of a GC17 player in the 2010 draft is a seperate issue with seperate rules. As both the GC17 and GWS deservedly so require concessions. You're assuming Scully is taken as the No 1 pick (and that's debateable) as I wouldn't be surprised if the MFC picked Trengove @ No 1. So assuming we can announce whomever as our No 1 pick, why stop there? Why not announce the No 2 pick, and then Richmond can announce their No 3 and so.... eventually they'll be no need for a draft, rather clubs simply announce who they'll all take prior to the draft via the media. You suggest we would gain something from having him train and receive guidance by the club over these 5 weeks. How delusional are you. In a hypothetical world assuming we could announce and take Scully and that he could attend training, how much time is the No 1 draftee going to be able to attend training now that he is in the midst of VCE exams/study. Absolutely none is my answer. Let these draftees finish of their schooling without additional unwanted distractions. On the alternative if we draft Trengove at No 1, do we take him out of school and let him complete his exams in melb? I think not.

Alpha I acknowledge you're point as to why we should be able to announce them, however we certainly aren't in the same boat as GC17 with regards to announcing picks 1 & 2. The GC (&GWS) are not established clubs and require attention and exposure to grow. So why the uproar by announcing one 16 yr old kid in the 2010 draft. The GC17 is still 18mths away from playing in the AFL and these kids are 16 and as such, I would argue fill a different category. As a new team coming into the comp the GC17 needs to get some advantages such as getting the kids earlier to help them develop, otherwise it could resemble a brisbane bears scenario where real success (in terms of being competitive and developing a following) take decades. I'm all for announcing their draft selections as early as possible, as I'd argue that it helps the rest of the comp decide who is available to be drafted in 2010. I find it laughable that you suggest the GC17 is getting a substantial advantage over the MFC (because of a 5 week announcement). As far as I'm aware no club has ever been able to announce their selections in the draft, so Alpha why should we get any different treatment than other clubs. In fact the 5 weeks to the draft further heightens the excitement. Whilst the 1&2 selections may be obvious to you, I hope the AFL ensures that draft selections remain unknown until draft day for future generations to come. I know we're all anxious to know who we'll get at 1&2, however (not only with regards 1&2 but hopefully also Ball) we should be patient and remember that good things come to those who wait.

He's certainly in the "Scully" bracket. He's a proven performer as a 16yr old in the WAFL against grown men. I'd content that he would have been a certainty to be a top 5 pick in this year draft if eligible. I think this is a very smart move by the GC. Get's him settled into the GC, allows him to adjust to the new football clubs culture and allows McKenna to get games together with his future teammates. The latter is exactly the same thing Bailey has/is try to achieve.

Where has Ball said he doesn't want to join us?? Answer: He hasn't. He's never made mention, nor has his manager Connors about Ball's refusal to play for Melbourne. In fact both have never made public comments about Ball and the MFC. In the rush that was trade week, he expressed a preference to be traded to Collingwood because they satisfied his 2 requirements. He's never expressed any intention about the MFC. In fact Bailey summed it up pretty well, when he said it best that Luke should take some time to think about his future because he's no doubt had very little time to think about it post the GF. I'd much rather draft a proven 25yr old contested ball winner, who is one of the best tacklers in the competion and who has the one quality we really need at present with our list - Leadership and experience in the midfield than some 18yr old. I believe if we can secure Ball it will be a massive bonus to the MFC and will do the following: 1) complement and assist in the development of Scully, Trengove, Jones, Grimes, and Blease 2) provide support and free up the pressure and tagging of Davey, Moloney and Sylvia 3) help develop Jetta, Wonaeamirri and Maric to become midfield options.

Daz, Luke know's that I'm a passionate Dees supporter however he has never mentioned that he has ever been interested in playing for another club including the MFC (as he has always been contracted with St Kilda), although you could tell that Luke hasn't been happy with his role since being dropped from both Matt and Jenny. He sought a request to be traded to Collingwood because they satisfied his (2) requirements of being premiership contenders and his desire for more playing time and a suited on field role. Now that his desire to be traded to Collingwood hasn't eventuated, expect Luke to think about where he wishes to go over the next 2 weeks as I wouldn't be expecting any quick decision as he's now got time to go away and think about which club now suits him and his game. I would strongly doubt that Luke would join simply due to leadership opportunities, however think that this would be an obvious attraction to him and one he would certainly entertain. Knowing Luke, he's the sort of bloke who would not like to take such a position without earning it and if drafted to the MFC, it would surprise me that if he hadn't earnt the respect of the players very early on. For those that query or are hestiant about picking Luke up in the draft due to his desire, let him make up his mind about where he wants to play. Once it's made up, I'd expect that if he wants to come to the MFC it will be in the PSD and NOT the ND as he's the sort of bloke who would try to assist whatever club he decides to go to.

As someone very close to the Ball family (& another Old Xav), there seems to be a lot of unfounded gossip as to Luke's intentions. His request to join Collingwood was done with the aim of getting more playing game time and achieving a premiership. Knowing Luke (& Matt) personally, he's an intensely proud person and has often recently mentioned that he felt that his development was being hindered by his role and his value at St Kilda. It's of no surprise to me, knowing how competitive his entire family is at sport that Luke sought to leave St Kilda and wished to go to another premiership contender. The suggestion that Paul Connors has put a price on Luke's head (as mentioned of $800k) is absolute rubbish. The simple facts are that he was offered a 3 yr deal mid year on close to 1/2 his previous salary of just under $600K at St Kilda and delayed accepting it until after the finals to focus on playing. Strangely enough his manager's another Old Xav. I'd expect Luke to be only considering options 2 and 4, where I'd expect him to be offered a 3 yr contract on around $400K yr. For what it's worth, I think this could end up being a bargain if (as I hope we do) MFC pick him up the draft. Knowing how driven and motivated Luke is (not only in a sport sense), I see enormous benefits from drafting him, not simply from adding another talented player who's a proven contested ball winner but his leadership and example as a role model on and off the field in a manner similar to Judd at Carlton.

You're seriously deluded if you think he's in consideration for pick 11. Whilst he performed well during the last 5 weeks of the TAC, he has far less upside and potential than other KPF's worth considering at picks 11 and 18 such as Carlisle, Panos, Black, Griffin or Butcher. Whilst he has the size and strength advantage at TAC level, his skills and workrate dictate that there is a lot of development work to be done for him to reach an AFL standard. At best he may be a consideration as a smokey for pick 18, although suggest he'll be picked up in the 3rd or 4th round. For what its worth, I was speaking with Shifter last week at the camp and he reckons Temel would have been rookie listed up until 3 or 4 weeks ago and believes that his TAC final form will see him move up the pecking order and that he'll be picked up as a 3rd round pick.

Ablett and Carey are miles ahead of Lou Richards in any discussion when considering admitting Richards in the Legend status. Whilst Lou's done an enormous amount to promote the game via his media work, the Legend Status is reserved for those actions on the field or with an AFL Club. Unfortunately there is no way Lou fits the requirements over other such candidates. If you're seriously going to consider Richards, why not throw up names such as Ron Casey, Rex Hunt as they have also contributed significantly to "promoting the AFL" in many supporters eyes.

Saints for me (and also end the long suffering of their supporters), the Cats supporters as the name suggests are ferals. I think they're living proof Tasmanian's can swim!

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. I find it laughable that injury updates to players in the offseason would be considered "vital information". I'm sure that the footy department have got bigger things on the plate at present (list management/trades/draft) than satisfying the whim of every supporter. I think the emails and letters sent to us members re Debt Demo and MFC updates, and progress during the year have been very good. In fact a great improvement on previous years. I'm sure that the MFC will in time post the final amount for the Debt Demo and know that like all things, good things come to those who wait. So be patient JCB. I don't expect and nor should we anticipate any updates on injuries until pre-season training resumes.

Mousey very excited by the prospect of Trengove and Scully in the guts for the next decade or so. Whilst I hate to say it, I agree with you that if we had to let someone from the midfield bracket go, Jones would probably be my first choice also. I see Sylvia, Jetta, and Davey playing longer periods next year up forward on the HF or FF line and being much more versatile than Jones. Regarding you're comment on Davey, I tend to see him next year being used in his current role this year across the H/B line as a general (in the mould of Hodge) who can spent more time next year as a "resting" forward. I think that during his "resting" periods in the forward line, we're more likely to see Wonna and Sylvia pushed into the midfield, providing that Wonna can get over his injuries. Whilst I'd suggest that Brock, Moloney and Jones all have "less" flexible playing options, both Moloney and Brock are finally getting over their injuries and I would argue that both have far better upsides and attacking potential than Jones. I also think we will see Green play up forward full time next year, probably as a leading forward from the pocket/square. For what its worth I see Morton, Strauss (and also Bennell) spending the majority of their time next year on the half back flank (with very little time in the midfield) as running defenders in the mould of Gilbee, McLeod and the Shaws, with support (and advice) across the HB during the year coming from McDonald, Bruce and Davey. I'd like to see the forward line developed along the lines of: Sylvia/Davey Bate Jurrah Watts Green Wonna/Maric With the intention that Green be used to take the pressure of Watts and assist with his development.

I converted from being a Hawks member to the Dees after the 1987 semi, after watching Jim Stynes run over the mark at the MCG. As we are/were family friends with Barry Richardson who had brought him over to AUS, I felt a personal attachment to the forgettable incident and have never looked back. Changing to support the Dees certainly caused plenty of abuse considering almost all of my 36 cousins, my brother and sister support the Hawks.

I wouldn't be trading Rivers or Jamar unless they wanted out. I'd rather see trades involving Johnson, Bell, Bartram and possibly Jones if the FD were wanting another 1st round pick. In the event we pick up a late 1st round or early 2nd round am hoping BP considers Vardy, Craig, Carlisle, Panos, Talia, or Duncan. I'd say people considering drafting Majak Daw at best is a 4th or 5th rounder, but realistically expect him to be rookied by a club. Dylan Grimes is probably also a 4th of 5th round pick, however can't see him developing into a key position, rather a HBF or back flanker.

No chance of us drafting him. His manager has already expressed that his desire is to go home to Qld. So I'd expect a trade with Bris, or at worst will stay with a club for 2 years before heading to the GC. I would have thought we've got plenty of good young players coming through who can provide run off half back and expect Strauss, Bennell, Cheney, Morton, Tom Macnamara (if we resign him as there are rumours he wants to head home to SA), Bruce and maybe Buckley to be used in such roles and see Grimes still spending a lot of time there in a similar role to Hodge at Hawthorn.

Morton, Jamar was the one (according to a number of player managers) who has sought out a trade. Probably to increase his next contract $$$. I'm not suggesting that any of those players were worth a 2nd or 3rd rounder. I'm suggesting that a couple of players could be "packaged" as part of a trade. Ie Jones and Miller to Sydney for a 2nd round, Bell and Jamar to Port for a 2nd round. Do you think that such a trade would be worth it?? For what it's worth I expect almost all of the above (including Bartram and Jones) to be shopped around at trade week, due to their lack of opportunities, failure to secure a spot in a team that has "won" 2 wooden spoons and their personal development.

I see us trading a player (or a couple of players) to complement the list that both Bailey and the FD want in 2-3 years time. I expect Melb to trade or seek a deal which would see players of the calibre such as Bartram (possibly to the Saints), Jones, Jamar (rumoured to want a trade), Bell, Dunn or Miller for a high 2nd round pick or possibly late 1st round. This would enable us to secure 2 first round picks and 2 second round. Ideally we would improve our list with 2 A grade midfielders, 2 key forwards and/or a young ruckman. I personally hope to see an end result of Scully and Trengove as the first round picks, the 2nd round picks used on 2 talls in Carlisle, Talia, Panos (if still around) or possibly Duncan/Craig. This would still allow us to further improve our list with the best available talent in the Pre Season Draft, regardless of position.

Mr Morton, would you consider a 3 pronged mobile "mid" half forward line instead of the traditional KPP? I could see a half forward line where Sylvia, Morton/Green and Jurrah would certainly work well, whereby Sylvia, Green and Morton could rotate into the midfield at times giving Bate, Davey and maybe Martin chances to rotate through.

HT I believe there is enough room for Moloney, McLean and Jones, however they need to add further attacking skills to the arsenal. They are arguably our toughest midfielders, with all three placing great tackling pressure on opponents, but it is their inability to hurt their opponents with their speed, ball caring ability and their goal scoring ability. Whilst I'd be disappointed to see any of them go, I think we need to see another year of them injury free at the Dee's, especially considering the restrictions to Moloney and McLean. If it came to forcing one of them off the list for a trade, personally I'd suggest Jones would be the most suitable due to the flexibility, foot skills and speed of Moloney and McLean compared with Jones. In addition we all know how damaging an injury free McLean is and we've also seen the development in Moloney too now that he has gotten over those injury worries. That being said, I wouldn't consider a trade until 2010 when the GC picks will be worth their weight in gold.

Is it a coincedence that both McLean and Jones appear one dimensional and appear only suited to the midfield, and as such should be considered for trading?? I think not. I think both Jones and McLean should be tried in various positions and roles off the half back and forward lines until the end of 2010. If both cannot add any flexibility or options to the team structure, then it would come at an opportune time to trade them to the GC, where Jones could spend more time surfing and brock doing burnouts with the locals. With top draft picks becoming even more valuable over the next few years, this could be a win/win for both players and MFC.

High Tower there is no x, I am known as The O, although was a great admirer of The Ox. No reason for leaving out McLean, but would consider him in the same capacity as Jones and Moloney as being unsuited to other positions. That being said, maybe DB should consider giving all 3 some time during his experimentation phase across the half back line. I do recall Mclean playing a couple of great games as a "sweeper" across the back line, and with Moloney's foot skills maybe he could develop some additional skills. Thus going well, it gives greater flexibility and options to the Bailey game plan going forward.

For whats it worth, I think Trengove's game and development is more like Mark Ricciuto than Bryce Gibbs as he has the added string to his bow of being able to play as a medium lead up forward. I see the Dee's midfield development and future draft picks going along the lines of the Geelong, where players must be able to rotate through a number of positions (ala Chapman, Ablett, Selwood, Bartel, Ling, Corey - all spending some time in the forward line during games, or being able to play a role across the half back line as Enright, James Kelly do). I envision the future midfield, where Grimes, Strauss, Bennell and Bruce can come into the midfield rotation for periods of the game from the half back line, where the likes of Sylvia, Morton, Blease, Davey, Jetta, Wonaeamirri, Green, Dunn, Trengove, and Scully can spend 'resting' periods of the game in the foward line. But more importantly they develop a number of midfielders who are capable of being able to kick 1-2 goals each game (or collectively be able to kick 10 goals a game), taking the pressure of the forwards to kick a winning score each week. For those who noticed I omitted Jones and Moloney, I have my hesitations about whether they can spend time during a game as a forward due to Jones' kicking ability and ability to hurt the opposition on the scoreboard and Moloney's speed in the forward line. I believe Bailey's current "experimentation" of players playing in different positions, is a step in the right direction, where players such as Morton, Petterd, Jetta, Dunn, Grimes and Bennell have obtained valuable experience for the Melbourne model (being a rotational one) in which DB will develop the game plan around. I'd appreciate your thoughts on such a rotational set up, and whether the Dee's should try Green, Sylvia, Davey and Wonaeamirri in the forward line for longer periods of the game than the midfield (due to Davey and Wonaeamirri's ability to put pressure on backmen, and Green and Sylvia being able to kick accurately and provide credible 3rd and 4th key targets).

I think we'll consider two mids (ie Scully and possible Trengove) for the first 2 picks, and arrange a trade for someone such as Ashley Hanson with a latter pick, or use the PSD to secure another tall forward.