Fat Tony

We might not be able to successfully execute the short kicking game yet, but I would prefer we implemented a game style that is likely to be successful in 2-3 years. Soccer has had over 30 years of trying to navigate past formation defences and it is clear that short possession play is the best method.

IMO the preseason has been disappointing and if we don’t beat Brisbane without Brown the alarm bells will be ringing. Three points: The MFC is misguided if it thinks the reason we are where we are is because of player development. We have drafted poorly with our high picks. Going forward, given our limited resources we should be investing more heavily into: 1) paying 100% of the salary cap by frontloading the contracts of our best young players; and 2) boosting our recruiting department. (IMO the most valuable people in football are the best recruiters.) Players make coaches, not the other way around. IMO, given our limited budget, we should cut back on the resources applied to assistant coaching and fitness science and spend the money elsewhere. I don’t believe Neeld’s ‘kick it long down the line’ game plan is the most effective method to beat the press. IMO the best method is the one Clarkson is adopting. Play on immediately upon gaining possession if you have the chance. Otherwise, if forced into a slow play, use short kicks to maintain possession and avoid getting too close to the boundary. The reason for avoiding the boundary is that it makes the press more effective and limits your options to kicking long down the line. (So you need to win three one on one contests to kick a goal.) One thing Neeld is right about is the importance of getting some size and grunt into the midfield. Demonlanders (and now the coach it seems) love getting into our senior players undeservedly. It’s not their fault they were drafted to the MFC. Players like Green, Bruce and Davey have never had the ability to be an Ablett, Judd or a Swan. They have each had good careers for us and it is not their fault they haven’t delivered team success. They just haven’t had the support around them (because we have drafted so poorly).

We broke even in the contested ball count and lost by 79. My thoughts: Neeld’s kick it long and wide game plan will be obsolete by the time we have the talent to challenge for a flag. We need to get of our some better kicks playing in the back half and pinpoint our way through the press. Davey and Watts should also be played more on the wings so their kicking skills can be used to navigate through the press. By contrast, Bartram should not be played in the backline anymore and should be used in the midfield as a tagger. Our backline needs more run and we should play only three KPD. There wasn’t a lot fundamentally wrong with Bailey’s game plan, we just did not have the skills to execute. Mitch Clark looks a great pick up. I think he needs to be used a bit higher up the ground to help combat the press and better utilise his running ability. Despite his good preseason Bate is still too slow and one sided and isn’t in our best 22. Dunn has lost weight and looks like he will play more games than most on Demonland expect.

Anything that opens up the game and reduces flooding/pressing/zoning is a good thing. But I would prefer to see a cap on the number of interchanges per game or fewer players on the field than subs as I feel sorry for the sub.

I am not sure we have any player on our list who is capable of being an elite mid. Viney excluded, IMO Sylvia and Frawley are the best chances. Trengove will be a top liner, but I think he lacks a bit of pace. Bail is exciting but lacks a little polish. Martin is a pipe dreama and is better being led to the ball. Watts is too outside. Moloney has peaked IMO. Tapscott can't get fit enough and is not overly quick. Gysberts lacks polish and size.

Stef should play on the oppositions second ruckman all day. IMO he could do OK as a forward but looks better as a defender.

I think Bartram needs to be played mostly in the midfield for this reason. When he plays in the backline he picks the easy target too often and this slows our transition from defence to attack. He should only play back on specific match ups (i.e. Rioli).

It would be hard to go past activating both picks given the expected quality of the draft. However, we should hold off on a decision until other clubs with similar picks have stated their position. The mid round pick is the one you may want to hold back, as it could be well down the draft this year.

He is extremely one eyed.

1. I did say trial it in the preseason, so if we lose the clearances in a preseason game it doesn't really matter. (IMO Frawley would be excellent in the clearances, so I disagree.) 2. The chance of injury is similar in the midfield to down back, so I see that as a silly argument. He may need more bench time as a mid. 3. 193cm is not that tall for a midfielder these days. Pendlebury, Kouta, Hird and Judd. All have been/are bigger than average mids and excellent clearance players. Even NIcNat gets a run with Cox in the ruck these day. 4. While we lose our best defender, the hope is that we don't have the ball in the backline as often. The press killed us last year. Having the ball in our forward line means we can impart our own press. Martin will only play up to 30% of game time in the ruck and needs to play 50% either back or forward. I prefer him back as he is a great athlete but not a great mark. It does mean we lose some run from defence, but our forward line looks better with other options. Clarke can also be used in the ruck if the changeover between Jamar and Clarke does not workout perfectly.

I hope you are right, but I would still trade Strauss for Zaharikis in a heart beat.

I would trial Frawley as a full time midfielder in the preseason. Big, fast and strong mids are vital in the centre bounces and Frawley is our most Judd-like player. Our midfield is one of the weakest in the comp and if it doesn't work, what have we lost? I would also prefer to see Martin used as a KPD when not relieving in the ruck. He looks more natural in the backline and Clarke, Watts, Howe, Green, Jurrah, Petterd, Sylvia etc gives us enough targets up forward. However, if the back six includes Garland and Frawley I would prefer both to be used as KPD. We get a lot of extra run in this set up.

I don't think Strauss has shown himself to be an excellent kick at AFL level yet. Hopefully he makes it, but I think the jury is still out on whether his pace is sufficient to go with the really quick small forwards.

We should offer him a big fat contract if we have room in the cap. At least we would force the Tigers to pay more. I think Sylvia is also a free agent, so we may have our own trouble.

I doubt a back six including Sellar and Rivers has the run and skill required for us to go all the way in 2012 and beyond. Particularly if Bartram is also in the six. Having Grimes as the second smallest defender also means he may be exposed for pace. Rivers v Cloke was as much down to the midfield as anything.

Does Seller get a two year contract? I ask given he is a recycled player.

The trade window is over. Let's wait 12 months and decide. I think he will be a good player in time. Tall with a good pair of hands. Skillful and makes good decisions. Just too skinny atm.

We would be mad not to try and get Ray. Only 25 and a proven finals performer.

I would play Frawley in the middle and Martin on the gorillas next season. I understand we are losing our best defender, but I still think we will be much better off. Rationale: Chip could be like Kouta in the clearances. He is big, strong, fast and tough and is also a good user of the ball on the run. Size/strength and pace off the mark matter most in the clearances. Chip has all these ingredients and is also an excellent tackler. His height and leap could also be used as third man up in some instances around the ground. We need to make sure we win the midfield given the evolution of the press. It is now so hard to defend from deep in the backline in modern AFL. You can have the best forward line and best backline in the competition, but it still doesn’t matter if you lose the contested ball. We have good depth in the KPD department. Martin, Rivers and Garland have the spoiling ability to nullify most forward lines. Grimes is not overly quick and needs to play on the third/fourth tall or slowest small. If Martin, Rivers, Garland and Frawley are all in defence, Grimes’ likely opponent will be too quick. I still think Rivers is in our best 22 and he should benefit from Martin being able to take the really tall, strong forwards. I think Martin is best suited to defence. (Although he showed he could also make it as a forward this year which surprised me.) If Martin plays forward, then Watts is likely to be pushed onto the wing. IMO this would be a bit of a waste, as Watts will get stronger again next year and with better supply could become a star as a CHF. He will also benefit from Clark taking the focus off him. Best 22 Rivers Martin Blease Bail Garland Grimes Trengove Frawley Davey Sylvia Watts Howe Green Clarke Jurrah Jamar Moloney McKenzie Jones Gysberts Petterd Tapscott I also don’t think Gawn and Jamar can really play in the same side unless big Max really starts to kick some bags for Casey. Both are number 1 ruckmen and need to be played there for 70% game time.

Should we consider packaging 12 with Bate for the Doggies compensation pick?

Mitch Clark plays his best footy in the ruck and is not quick enough to play as a permanent KPF. We should go for the best value permanent KPF. I would like to see us go for Ó hAilpín, Fevola and/or Walsh as they are much cheaper options and we get to keep our picks. We could also do well out of brokering a deal so Clark gets to Freo. We have the ruck well covered with Jamar and Martin. We also need to remember that Gawn and Cook will be good players. I doubt we will get Clark anyway given he wants to go to WA.

I am glad we went into the whole thing with a plan and stuck to it. Overpaying in an auction feels great until you have to pay the mortgage. Unless we can now attract a genuine star like Goddard we should be happy to be a bit player this year.

I think the minimum draft age should be abolished.

I agree it would be an advantage if we had our own VFL side. On the Jamar trade, not being a forced seller, we should only do it for fair value in return.

Dear Garry, We have now not won a flag for 47 years and we showed no real improvement in this year. Regardless of who we select as our new coach, in my opinion we need to think outside the box and make some hard decisions going forward. Here is my 10 point plan for the future: 1. Pay 100% of the salary cap – If our current players do not deserve any extra money at the moment we should use front-loaded contracts. Preferably this should be done with an option (which the club may exercise) so as to extend the players’ contracts on below market money in the later years of the contract. Effectively the players would be paid early, so they will not be disadvantaged by this type of arrangement. This contract should only be put in place for players that have a high chance of being in the system for an extended period of time (i.e. Watts, Trengove, Frawley, Garland, Sylvia). For example, we could strike a deal with Watts to play for $500K per season for the next two years with a club exercisable option to extend his contract for a further two years for $250K per season. 2. Increase our recruiting department even if it comes at the expense of reducing expenditure on player development – IMO the difference in the ability of clubs to develop players is minimal these days and the real gains to be made are in getting recruiting decisions correct. Does anyone really believe Bartram would be a better kick if he was drafted by Collingwood? Would Judd, Franklin or Martin be lesser players if they started their careers at Melbourne? If so, why has Frawley been able to develop so well at Melbourne? Genetics are the key determinate of a player’s ultimate ability, not the club that they are drafted to. This means we should focus on getting our recruiting decisions right and the rest will follow. While it would be nice to go to Arizona over preseason and have altitude training facilities etc, unfortunately we don’t have the money. IMO the balance in AFL footy has erred too far on the side of focusing on player development rather than on recruiting. 3. Only offer Scully what he is worth – I doubt Scully will stay, but I also doubt he will be the player he has been touted to be given his size, average disposal and not exceptional (but good) pace. His injury also makes the chances of him being a future top 10 AFL player less likely. Overpaying him would be a mistake given the compensation we are likely to receive is reasonable. 4. Pick our best side – We have not picked our best side every week since Daniher was our coach. IMO this is the most crucial ingredient to building a strong culture. We need to remember that players can also develop in the VFL and the weights room. 5. Trade Jamar – I doubt Jamar will be at his best when we are in contention to win a flag and he looks to me like he is probably on the decline. Only one dinosaur is needed in modern footy and you cannot have two, so I would therefore focus on developing the team with Gawn as our ruckman. Jamar is probably still worth a first round pick (or one of GWS’s 17 year old picks). 6. Trade/Delist Morton, Bate, Fitzpatrick, Jetta, Maric – IMO we need to make a judgement on players much earlier in their careers than we have been doing and then quickly move them on if we believe they are not going to make it. A player’s trade value drops dramatically after a third mediocre year. Bailey believed that he could turn develop players like Bate and Dunn into quality AFL players, but in my view this was always unrealistic and instead we should have traded them when they had value. Going forward, we should learn from this and be more ruthless on players after two years in the system, looking to trade them if we are not convinced that they will make it. Sometimes this approach will come back to bite us (and a late bloomer will develop at another club), but in the long run I think we will be better off with this approach. 7. Train Frawley as a midfielder over preseason – Centre clearances are more crucial with the modern press and large, strong, quick midfielders are the future. We should put our best clearance players in every centre bounce and Frawley could be a star in this area, as he strong in the contest and has the ability to burst away from the stoppages. I have considered the impact this will have on our backline and I still believe it is worth trialling. Next season we need to defend from the forward half and the only way to do that is to win the contested ball. 8. Look to acquire older players at bottom clubs and ‘bad eggs’ – Players such as Fevola, Lovett, Power, Cornes and Tuck will play on low money contracts and could potentially provide great value. While none of them will have long careers, they can always be replaced by the next batch of older players coming through. AFL clubs at the very bottom are incentivised to clear out their lists and go for youth, but we are now in a position where we need to look to improve. 9. Ascertain the worth of GWS’s 17 year old picks – Hawthorn supporters were in uproar over the Croad/Hodge deal but the decision was clearly the right one in hindsight, even though it did not look like right at the time. Essendon’s deal to get Lloyd was also a masterstroke in retrospect. While a difficult process, we need to clearly determine the value of these picks, remembering that Jaeger O'Meara could either be the next Judd or the next Banik. 10. Keep Green and Davey – There is no point losing players of their ilk for little return. The fabric of our footy club has been dented by the departure that many of our older players in recent years. Moreover, their current trade value makes them more valuable for us to keep given they are/will be on the veterans list. Go Demons, Fat Tony