1858

I don't think this is entirely about toughening up his own troops tbh but that may be part of it. I think Lyon has reacted to a very real threat to player safety in light of the public altercation Riewoldt had. I don't profess to know exactly why Lyon said what he did but I find his use of "community standards" which he reiterated to obviously be by design. wrt the on field stuff last year he didn't seem that phased IMO. Is it possible that he was indirectly sending a plea to the public (as subtly as possible) using the AFL clubs as a channel? I also suspect that he is concerned about on field taunts specifically because they may manifest in the public domain rather than the pure sledging side of things which his players should be able to handle on field. From their pov perhaps they're thinking that if they can get opposition players to perhaps set an example/standard on field wrt this issue then perhaps it may propagate off field which is a much more dangerous and volatile environment which they've seen first hand with their prized player. I could be way off here but it seems odd to say what he did without player welfare (off-field) in mind IMO.

Not sure about this one. We (the AFL at least) have a very particular product we are trying to sell to Western Sydney. Using a significantly modified version of the game might actually juxtapose it with rather than promote/compliment common aussie rules. I'm not sure about the message it sends either although I agree with Sheedy re: his pov on exposure.

Deary me, they may have been able to gag a silly teen girl but if they think they can gag the opposition on the footy field (let alone thousands of opposition supporters) then good luck.

Absolutely and it isn't just the on field performance side of having a ready made replacement. It also gives the club some peace of mind that there isn't a gaping hole that needs to be filled and hence rush back a recovering player too early and risk further injury. There may an appreciable difference between Frawley and Warnock (obviously as Frawley is AA) but not to the extent that it will be a significant factor in deciding outcomes (hopefully). Warnock is at least competent at the type of role he plays.

Good to be back.

I think so too. Mid season will come around quick enough for any aspiring young rookies but in the mean time I think we'll need ruck redundancy in the preventative form (ie sharing the load) not the cure form (ie LTI upgrade). There is of course the arguement that perhaps Campbell could benefit by starting off in the reserves but I don't think that he needs at least half a season there. He played at AFL level a couple of years ago, he knows what to expect, he knows his own body and he'll have Jamar and Spencer (not sure where Martin is at) to help share the load and defer his introduction by a couple of weeks if required. Give him say 3 or 4 reserves games (or whatever is required) and then consider him for senior service. Leaving it until mid year to nominate him or if there is a ruck LTI defeats the purpose to some degree I would have thought. The fact that it is a 24 week season and that we have the bye in rounds 5 and 16 I suppose scuttles my arguement a little as Jamar (and the whole team no less) get a breather but there is still the possibility that Spencer may not yet be up to scratch. It also means that if we are unfortunate enough to lose Jamar (touch wood) Campbell may be able to take up the slack a little better with some senior games already under his belt. No matter the scenario at the end of the day it's all about options. If Nicholson or any other rookie gets the nod ahead of Campbell though I'll still look forward to watching them play.

Regardless of which ruck should play how many games etc. I would be very surprised if Campbell didn't get the nominated upgrade (injury/conditioning aside of course). It will no doubt take a decent pre-season but I hope he gets there. If we have the ability and stocks to play Jamar for most of the season, share his ruck load and perhaps even rest him for a game or two at strategic points then this is optimal. IMO we'll shape the use of Spencer and Campbell as 2nd rucks around that (based on a system best left up to the FD) and I doubt it will simply be a case of 1 over the other. Again I qualify this on the proviso Campbell remains injury free. Excluding LTIs of course, mid year another rookie can then be nominated after getting some reserves games under their belt (in the event that neither Newton or McNamara are nominated) - I'm getting a little ahead of myself here though.

Available rookie spots (for 2011 at least) are Hawthorn and Richmond. Not sure what the go is with GWS ie spots or eligibilty to add to their rookie list prior to end of year.

With all due respect I don't think they are questions, I think they are valid observations and they are made in isolation to other aspects of his game some other posters may have commented on in the past. I don't think anyone has said that he won't improve or that he hasn't had injury setbacks. It isn't about who's right or wrong or Morton proving posters wrong here - naturally we want every player to improve. It is simply a case of outlining a key area for improvement, not baseless criticism or condemnation of the player. Just because these areas are in context (mine at least) of his physique or kicking style does not make these personal attacks either. All players need to have strong legs for balance, power, movement etc and this is quite significant in Cale's case because of his dimensions and clear lack of power in the bottom half to play the way he wants/needs to play. I agree with your comments about how his marking has improved and even though he may have had tailored roles at times during season 2010 he still displays a very good football instinct and he has a good tank - he knows what he wants to do and he works to space well he just didn't cash in on it enough in season 2010 due to aforementioned limitations, consequently he may or may not have had altered roles because of this. Close in and under pressure IMO he was most susceptible though. Whatever the causes ultimately are, the sypmtoms (to me at least) are obvious and if they can be addressed (and I have no reason to believe they can't be) he will add significantly more options to his game and be the player I think both he and the coach want him to be. Irrespective of injury, confidence etc he quite simply needs more leg strength to achieve this, especially if he is building up his upper half.

I agree with you wrt to his kicking, he isn't that bad but it is his range of kicking lengths which is inhibited which you touch on. IMO the reason he looks better with the longer kicks is because he usually opts for them when he is in space and therefore takes more time with them. Beacause of his lack of leg power and IMO kicking technique, he needs that little bit of wind up time to finess the ball to where he wants it to go, he can get good distance when he isn't rushed. When under pressure however and he has to get it away quickly this is where he struggles and more often than not under pressure it is easier to spot up a closer option. As a result his shorter passes are not that great and with long lanky legs the short game is not as natural as the longer kicking game. Rushing this gives less than optimal kicks. He is the opposite to say a Josh Hunt who can bang it on the boot off one step and kick low and flat to a team mate (2 different players here, just illustrating the kicking contrast). The reason he doesn't take the first option IMO is because he can't make the break or get the kick away quick enough when under pressure but you see that he wants to. He doesn't have the penetration when he has to kick quickly and as a result he holds the ball up way too often as he doesn't want to turn it over. As I said, leg strength/power is the key to his success.

I don't see the point in comparing him to other players. For mine the number 1 issue with Morton is his power in the legs and speed off the mark. His shoulders are reasonably broad and he sounds like he is filling out a little but if it is all in the top half with no equivalency in power/strength in the bottom half and improvement in movement then he'll struggle. Simply bulking up will work against him. When I watch him play I see so much potential it isn't funny but he is restricted by what his skinny legs can do to heave around his tall frame. Often when he takes a mark on the wing you see he wants to play on but has to go back over the mark for his kick because he just doesn't have the leg power to get around an opponent. I have no doubt that a lot of his condifence is based on this aspect of his game as well. Improve the movement and leg power and he's on his way to being one of our more important players.

This is from The Age: I honestly don't know what to say other than that I hope no more player reputations are senselessly damaged by this. Edit: link

Anything over 35k is a win for me, we are tapping into one of the smaller AFL supporter bases atm. Hopefully this supporter base will increase over the next few years but it doesn't mean automatic memberships. If I were to make a prediction I reckon around 36k. I realise that we are roughly 2k in front of same time last year but I reckon that margin will probably hold its ground at best from now on. Over 36k and we've done extremely well, where Richmond were at this year.

Touch wood it stays like that. Terrible luck for Freo, Morabito out for 2011. I feel for any player (and the supporters) when this happens. btw thanks for the report.

Interesting. So the Hawks had a sniff that "Bruce wanted out". Do we take this to mean that Hawthorn's understanding at the time was that Bruce was merely disgruntled at Melbourne or more specifically he wanted to go to Hawthorn (and perhaps had already contacted them)? I'm thinking the latter. The sceptic in me says that all that tripe about the Hawks trying to convince Bruce to stay is an alibi for keeping it under wraps and not working for a trade. Make it look like the final decision to take him was made after the trade period so they could get him in the PSD. Purely hypothetical I know.

That sounds great but he didn't know what sort of deal he would sunsequently get when he first made the decision to explore alternative options though. Having said that, if it is purely about bottom line then he's had a pretty good bottom line at Melbourne over the years.

I agree with most of your sentiments in this thread. I just can't fathom a 10+ yr player walking though simply because of possible success in their twilight at another club - to me this isn't very common. He may genuinely believe in a better chance of subsequent years at Hawthorn but sheesh I'd love to know their terms of reference. If they have a bad year then they could have some wholesale changes given the influence of certain stakeholders, they can be a volatile club at times. Bruce being their oldest player and not on their VL is in the cross hair (to a degree) regardless of how he plays in 2011. The enhanced security simply isn't there IMO despite what may have been indicated. I still get the feeling there's a significant element here of him making a statement. I don't know what was said, never will and tbh don't really care but I just get the feeling strong words were had after the clubs (IMO fair) offer was put on the table and possibly became something more emotive for Bruce as a result. To the extent that he actually looked for another club (which suggests he didn't know where he stood with them prior to deciding to move on) strongly suggest more to the story.

Good question, the "vibe" I got was less than what we offered for 2011 but I don't know that for sure. Perhaps someone can elaborate. Having said that for a team like Hawthorn with such a high amount of experienced players I 'm guessing salary cap could be a factor here though.

So what exactly is the fundamental difference between the situation his is now in at Hawthorn compared to his previous situation at Melbourne? Apart from being on less money that is.

From that clip I have to agree. I probably should have checked it out first.

Is that from a wind up set shot or can he do that on the run? I ask because with Dunn I associate him with winding up from a flank with a bit of time up his sleeve but a player who can burst from opponents and drive it 60m on the run is a different kettle of fish and a player we could really do with.

Massive pre-season for our 7 rookies given 1 of them will be nominated for senior service for the whole season. Another gets a chance mid way through not to mention promotions for injuries. Importantly we got our stock ruckman. B)

Yeah look, the semantics are becoming more abstract by the post but I'll concede you know what you mean. Having said that, if you can survive small in AFL why is the club significantly focused on building its market in Casey, building its membership base, building its asset base and building its brand? MFC had some confronting issues which threatened its position as an AFL club and as far as I can see faced them head on so I'm not sure about "jumped". Perhaps you could say we "jumped into action" but if that is the whole substance of your analogy then sheesh.

I see the semantics but that is about it. wrt to business models though, which I think this debate has centred on, there isn't much of an analogy here IMO. You made a sound decision as a sole proprieter to leave a particular market, in fact wind up a business, with (from what you suggest) minimal loss in realising your original capital. MFC has certainly made some important strategic decisions with the MCC (MCG deals) and expanding in Casey and debt demolition was crucial towards us being a going concern but it hasn't really (from a business model pov) emulated your sole proprietor example IMO. I think to a large degree our full business model remains to be seen from a public pov, ie how we'll go about expanding our asset base (both monetary and physical).

What exactly has MFC done in the last 3 years which mimics a sole proprieter closing down their business or "upgrading the vehicle"? Not looking to contend your pov WYL just not sure what you actually mean.