Fat Tony

It’s a good idea if you barrack for Collingwood.

I would start him in that case and play Bennell as the sub.

Scully (sub) for Warnock Trengove for Evans Dunn for Petterd Bartram (if fit) for Morton (Strauss otherwise) Gawn for Newton Howe for Bate Points: • Martin to play the majority of the game as a defender Essendon are likely to have a player which needs a gorilla and Warnock is not up to it. We should get innovative with Martin and play him as a KPD/relieving ruckman • Morton’s disposal is not good enough for an outside midfielder. • Scully should play as the sub given it will be too big a risk to start with him and then intend to sub him off later. • Dunn should play on Watson if he plays. • Dunn’s only real problem as a footballer is that he does not find enough of the ball. This is partly due to our midfield being consistently beaten. Bartram Martin Frawley J.MacDonald Rivers Jones Green Trengove McKenzie Howe Watts Jetta Maric Jurrah Dunn Gawn Sylvia Moloney Nicholson Bennell Gysberts Scully

I have the same 21+1. The only issue is that Dunn would probably have to play as second ruck. Having three mids on the bench also leaves us a bit vulnerable if a KPP goes down.

I quite like the selection of Campbell as insurance, but I think we should play Dunn as our second ruckman. Barring injury the second ruckman only needs to be in the ruck role for around minutes per game. All the alternatives do not give enough during the rest of the game for mine.

I am not saying Bailey has lost the players. But it is naïve to think that this is not a danger for all coaches. It happens all the time. (Particularly to underperforming coaches with anonymous playing records. Look at Jeff Gieschen.) You are right on one thing though – the players are not stupid and the older ones in particular will remember playing for a coach who tanked and also how it ended for their mates White, Robertson and Bruce et al. They will not want to see this happen to them.

It doesn't sound like money is now the issue though. I think Bruce probably just wanted an assurance that as long as he is still in our best 22 he would continue to get a game. (I think this is a pretty justifiable stance to take given he only gets one crack at it.) I also think Bailey needs to consider the long-term impact on the club culture of continuing to build for the future. IMO most of the older MFC players will have a lot of sympathy for Bruce’s situation and taking this path could eventually see him eventually lose the players.

You could also argue that most of the older players on the MFC list have been overpaid in recent years given that we have been a basket case and we were forced to pay 92.5% of the salary cap. As such, I don’t think Bruce has been getting a massively disproportionate share of the MFC salary cap given his output. While he was on very good coin versus peers at other clubs, someone already at the MFC had to get the money (as no one from outside wanted to play for us).

I agree with this. I also think Bailey is walking a fine line in terms of doing considerable damage to our club culture. Tanking in late 2009 was very distasteful but had to be done. Retiring players while they were still clearly in our best 22 was unpleasant to witness but was also the right call. However, I think Bailey now needs to turn it around and show the players (particularly those that are getting long in the tooth) that he wants us to start winning. It is impossible to motivate the team on one hand and forever play for the future on the other. The older players are not stupid and are the key leaders of our young stars. Bailey needs to now demonstrate to them that he is trying for a premiership in their window. He needs to start doing this by now picking our best 22 each week. Moreover, I still think Bruce had a lot to offer as a player and is criminally underrated on this site. He was our leading possession winner last season, one of our best stoppers and was one of our key leaders. He was also costing us nothing in terms of a space on the list for two years. He was also one of our fittest players and, despite the rubbish written on here, he had not yet seen a major drop off in performance. While Bruce turned the ball over more often than most, he also got it 25 times per game and generally nullified his opponent. It would not surprise me if he plays another 50 games for his new club.

I could mount the same argument for a large number of players. It would have been better for the club to have tied Strauss and Blease to one-year deals this year. In previous years we have given longer-term deals to Cheney, Newton, Maric and Meeson. There is/was an element of risk in all of these deals. The risk with Bruce is that his form slips away and that he is being overpaid in the second year of the deal. There is no major risk in him clogging the list, as he is only taking the place of a rookie. Given his durability and consistency I think two years is a reasonable risk to take.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think Green and Bruce are the only players eligible for veteran status in 2011. On that basis, I don’t really understand the need for the club to hold a firm line and only offer Bruce a one year deal. Bruce has been a very consistent and durable player for a decade now. I also think he is a player who is unlikely to lose his pace. I can see him playing another two years easily.

Everitt is definately a player we should target. He could be the next Leight Brown. (Who would have thought we would be saying that in a good way 12 months ago?)

Great news. Not sure about the decision to sign Strauss for two years though. One year provides greater flexibility. IMO we have made this mistake before with Newton and Cheney.

IMO the brains trust showed poor list management skills again in giving Cheney a two-year deal. They obviously didn't learn anything from what happened with Newton. All fringe players should be given one-year deals from now on. I would look to trade players outside what I would call our 'core' bunch of young stars to try to upgrade our draft position. Players with market appeal that I would consider trading include Morton, Bate, Bennell and Warnock. (e.g. Our first pick plus Bennell for WC’s pick 4.) Of this group, the only one that I would be really worried about letting go would be Bennell. Spencer has not shown me enough to be given a contract. He is too slow and uncoordinated and I don’t think he will make it. I would like to see Junior go on, but not as captain. Of the rest, it would depend on any trades we do.

I think a cap on the interchange has some merit. The players are all so fit these days that everyone plays as a midfielder, moving up and down the ground en masse. I think a cap would bring more structure back to the game. The game was a better spectacle when full forwards stayed in the goal square.

The ‘Changes’ thread after the Bulldogs loss includes many posters who wanted him dropped for his goal kicking. (Admittedly there were also a few who wanted him dropped for lack of effort, although I doubt they would have held this view so strongly had he kicked straight/we won/Watts not kicked five in the VFL.) Posters also proclaimed that ‘Dunn is done’ and that he should go to the ‘tip’. I just laugh at the short-term reactive bandwagonism that consistently goes on here. The chorus will begin again when Bruce, Dunn, Bartram or PJ have another ordinary game. Dunn has always had the tools to be a very good AFL player. He just needed game time to get confidence at the level. All he lacks is the ability to take a strong overhead contested mark. But, I suppose, neither could Garry Lyon really.

Oh come of it Nasher, you know as well as I do that Lynden Dunn has never been a favourite on this site. Half the board wanted his head after he dropped a few marks in Round 1. Then you all wanted him banished after he missed a few goals against the bulldogs in dreadful conditions. As if his kicking was ever a major long-term issue. He has always been one of the best kicks in the team.

This thread just goes to show that the Demonland Mob are pretty good at dishing it out, but incredibly poor when it comes to eating humble pie.

Tough decisions need to be made at selection again this week. The key considerations are: • By reports, Trengove showed yesterday that he is way too good to be playing at Casey. He must come in. • Moloney has been our best midfielder this season and is an automatic selection if he is fit. • Jurrah is struggling to have an influence and would have to be the first one omitted at the moment. The only query about this is if it will hurt our forward structure. (Do we have enough tall targets? Particularly with Watts basically playing as an extra midfielder. Do we need to bring in Bate?) • Bail has been good in every MFC performance this year. I cannot see him being dropped. • Scully has been getting a lot of the ball, but his kicking has been mediocre. We need to give him games to develop though and is probably in our best 22. • Since coming back into the side again Morton has been improving. On his most recent form he will probably hold his spot. • Jones played very well last week but looked pretty sore after the game. • McDonald will be better for the run and is an automatic selection if he is fit. • I think it will come down to Bennell and Wonnamerri for the last spot in the team. I think we will go with Wonnamerri based on the fact that he had more tackles last week (6 vs 1). Assuming everyone comes up, I would go with: INS: Trengove, Moloney OUTS: Jurrah, Bennell Rivers Garland Bartram Macdonald Frawley Bruce Scully Moloney Trengove Sylvia Watts Wonnamerri Davey Green Dunn Jamar McDonald Jones Johnson Morton McKenzie Bail

I don’t really want to see anyone dropped, but I want to maximise our chances of winning this week (and making the finals). So Junior and Moloney definitely need to come in. This requires tough calls to be made. (We can only play 22.) So far this year Morton’s performances have been just mediocre. Although he tried hard and got a bit of the ball last week, he was well beaten by Goodes, who was in scintillating form. At present he is not in our best 22.

Anyone who is dropped from the side will be unlucky given how well we played last week. But team changes will increase our chances of winning this week. IN: McDonald, Moloney and Warnock OUT: Maric, Morton and Rivers Rationale: • Junior and Moloney are in our best 10 players and are automatic selections if they are fit. • Trengove is probably in our best 22, but I don’t think he is an automatic selection just yet. He should come back via Casey given Junior and Moloney are automatic selections and how well we played last week. • Maric was good on the weekend, but Bennell and Aussie were better. And Sylvia and Davey will spend more time up forward this week due the inclusions of Junior and Moloney. • Warnock has played very well at Casey and is our best matchup for Fevola (if he plays). Rivers has been getting better each week but Garland and Macdonald have been excellent and are more flexible options. • Another midfielder needs to come out of the side for team balance. This needs to be either of Morton or Bail and I think Bail offers us more. • If Dunn or Watts are injured then I think we need to bring another key forward into the team for team balance. (i.e. Bate or Miller)

We should do pretty well if Petterd leaves (looking at the points system the AFL will use to rank players). He will get huge money to go and will only be 22. I think we will get a first round pick.

I would probably make no change. It was pleasing to see Watts do well in the VFL, but I don’t think bringing him in this week will enhance our chances of winning. (After all, this should be the main aim of team selection.) I would also like to see him string a few good games together in the VFL in order to earn a call up. I also think Dunn deserves another chance, as his form has been solid this season. He was nowhere near as bad against the Dogs as has been suggested on this site (as usual). In my opinion, Dunn is generally well skilled, but makes a few mistakes due to being low on confidence. I think he has the potential to improve substantially once he becomes truly comfortable in his own mind that he belongs as an AFL player. Looking at the match ups, I think Frawley will play on Le Cras, who is the Eagle’s best forward. That means that Warnock, Rivers and Garland will have to play on Kennedy, Lynch and McKinley. Cox or Naitanui may also go forward if Worsfold tries to stretch or backline. This could be a worry, so Bailey might consider recalling in Martin for PJ, as Martin is probably slightly more comfortable down back. The other option for Le Cras is Bartram. (If we decide to go that way I would definitely leave PJ in the side.)

In: Sylvia Out: Scully Comments: I thought Bruce was ordinary yesterday, but he is still easily in our best 22. Sure he makes a few errors, but he also gets a lot of the ball and his good generally outweighs the bad. He also provides our defence with much greater run and flexibility, which is important given the high number of rotations these days. We are going to have a selection dilemma if Rivers is fit, as I think that a backline including Warnock, Frawley, Garland, Rivers and Macdonald is too slow (particularly given Richmond’s forward line). I think Rivers is ahead of Macdonald, but it would be a very harsh call to drop Macdonald. So Rivers returns through the VFL for mine. People calling for Bartram to be dropped must not have been watching our recent games. He has been in excellent form over the last two weeks. If Jamar can handle the ruck by himself, we should continue without a true second ruckman. Spencer has not shown he is up to it and I think Martin needs to consistently demonstrate he can be a good forward at VFL level before gaining a call up. Newton has not set the world on fire, but he is a better forward than any of the other options. Scully has been a touch disappointing in the last two weeks. As much as I want to keep him in the side for his development, I want us to pick our best team. At the moment, his form does not really warrant a game. Given we are playing Richmond, I would also like to see us pick Watts. But another good game in the VFL would also be good for his confidence. Bate needs to lift. He has had a very slow start to the year again but I am still more confident with him in our forward line than without him. Dunn did some good things and bad things yesterday. But he has all the tools to make it as an AFL player and I think he needs to be persevered with. If he can gain confidence (which will only come through playing in the seniors) I still think he could make it and be a part in our future.

If we are picking our best side the changes should be: IN: Sylvia, Rivers OUT: Bennell, Strauss Strauss needs time to develop, but is obviously behind Rivers as an AFL footballer. We should pick our best side given it is only Round 3. Bennell did not touch the ball in the first half against Collingwood and his attack on the ball was not good enough on two separate occasions. Sylvia should replace him as a forward. Other Comments: Bartram played a good game on Leon Davis and deserves to keep his spot until his form doesn’t warrant a game. Bruce has been consistently in our best five players and had an interrupted pre-season. His game against Collingwood was serviceable and nowhere near as poor as is being suggested here on Demonland. Bate needs to lift his game, but he should only be replaced if we have a better option as a key forward. At the moment we don’t. Playing Jamar as the only ruckman worked exceptionally well on the weekend. It made us more mobile and, while he is in such good form, we should continue to just use a pinch hitter as a backup ruckman. I am no fan of Newton, but I thought he played one of his best games for MFC. He looks like he has put on size and he was also better than expected when he went into the ruck. If he were to be dropped, I would like to see Miller be given a similar role. Scully had an ordinary game but needs time to adjust to the pace. At times I thought Warnock was a little bit disappointing. Moloney reverted to bad habits by kicking long to the opposition on two occasions.