1858

In your calculation Rhino how many senior list players out of the 5 and who? (Just curious).

Junior deserves to have some sovereignty over the matter or all respectability goes out the window. Ultimately it is down to the coach though. First and foremost it says a lot about not only McDonald as a player but the sense of enthusiasm the current state of our club seems to have given him. In an interview I saw earlier this year he said that in the tough times he asked himself if he had the petrol in the tank to keep going but he perseveered none the less. It appears that the passion in our group is at new levels from the captain all the way down to the rookies. Fantastic vibe at the club. In no way do I wish to connect this as a factor for the decision making process but as an aside I must admit it will make our list management efforts all that more challenging.

Agreed. What I have always found curious about the whole 'Plan A', 'Plan B' debate is that many posters have argued in the context that they already know what Plan A is. Surely common sense would dictate that 'Plan A', if we are to entertain such a concept is an evolving course which develops in tandem with the growth of our team. Even Bailey as a coach is developing. Whilst I agree with comments to the effect that Sydney let us play the way we wanted for much of the game, the fact we played that way didn't happen by chance. It is not as if we play Sydney every week. To my mind there was a clear pre-meditated tactic to how we approached the game yesterday. The beauty of this is that as the players develop, gameday tactics will become more prevalent due to our increased capacity to execute them. Our 'Plan A' and our repertoire is growing all the time. IMO a significant benefit of the way Bailey has approached our development is that we had a clear game style that he wanted to drill over time which means less propensity for confusion amongst the playing group once we start branching out - ie he hasn't rushed things. This isn't to say that we will play next week like we did this week but I think it was a milestone game yesterday to see almost all players on the same page with respect to the instructions Bailey gave them.

Does anyone know how much game time JMac had and how he pulled up?

I won't bother going over the game or how well the players did today because it is/will be well documented. Just want to pay some credit to Bailey who seems to be consolidating our development with some effective tactics. Against the Bombers he talked about frontal pressure and we used that to good effect and he did his homework on Sydney. We were more liberal with our kicking and we stretched Sydney quite well today. Good to see Bailey and the boys starting to take the next step.

Should this thread be stickied/pinned perhaps? There's a fair bit of info here that posters will no doubt ask about later down the track and we will have draft threads anyway so this could be the main thread?

The Bate decision (to me) is a little similar to Warnock. Both reasonably established players who the club is not affraid to send a message to. I think that is quite refreshing and to be honest this is probably the first year under Bailey where he has been able to do this. A good message for both teh players in question as well as the younger squad. It also changes the mindset that we are not bound to certain players out of convention. A good opportunity for Maric.

Yet he still gets bites.

You're not alone on that one. Another thing that stood out to me were the amount of throws Freo got away with. 1 of them was so blatant in the forward pocket in front of the ump but he just let it go and it ended up a Freo goal. They did it all over the ground today IMO.

Some pretty impressive stuff here by I'm guessing pretty talented people. Just thinking on the Uncle Sam one if putting Jim's face there why not go the whole hog and refer to him as 'Uncle Jim' rather than simply 'Jim Stynes'. I'm not in marketing though.

I was surprised to see that we were only about 1000 behind St. Kilda and Carlton in the Adult membership stakes. If we can improve on our Junior memberships over the next few years (which the club is aiming at doing) we can really build our numbers.

Believe me, I'm not. At this point in time, Spencer is gangly, awkward and severely needs to work on his disposal and general ground level play. Always was a project player in the eyes of the club and was called to service early this year IMO. In the air the potential is definitely there. Spencer has had good periods in the ruck and can get over packs and crash them and bring the ball to ground. I have no doubt that (if given the opportunity to develop) over time he can become a key marking option for us in kick outs or in the corridore and will be a solid ruck option. Sometimes you take the club website with a grain of salt but Jake apparently was omitted due to back strains so he wasn't dropped. If Jamar was unavailable due to injury for the rest of the season (hope I haven't jinxed us) I'd prefer our destiny lie in the rucking hands of Spencer than PJ.

When Essendon made their surge in the 3rd quarter, practically every time PJ was involved in play (which was a fair bit) it ended in the opposition gaining possesion. Under pressure he mucks up the simple things which is the fundamental problem. He's too slow in his mechanics and has limited tall player attributes. Can't take contested marks, rarely taps the ball to advantage in general play, fumbles, lacks conviction and ability to spoil in packs and often doesn't know what to do in general play which is significant at his age. With space he can offload some handballs, he can kick reasonably well (when not going for impossible stab passes) and on his day (which isn't often) can be "serviceable" in the ruck. I like his enthusiasm but it means little in the end. He simply doesn't deliver as a tall player.

Thanks for that. I did't know that McNamara and Cheney were coming out of contract until I saw a previous post. I don't think it would be tenable to delist any uncontracted players with intention to rookie, it wouldn't fit the MO of the club and I am not sure the mechanics are there for it to even work if the player in question becomes disgruntled. I'd be surprised if Cheney wasn't re-signed and I can only go by what I hear in the media but there are still big raps for McNamara. Many posters who have seen him play obviously are in way better position to form an opinion on his future.

Miller is a tough one to predict. A few questions on the matter. -How well does the club value his leadership? Bailey was happy to retain JMac as captain but is Miller seen in the same light, as others have noted we delisted players last year who were in the LG. Also JMac played every game prior to his hammy. -How many games will Miller play next year? He was an option for us when we had injuries or tempered our use of Watts (admittedly there are still 7 games). With Petterd back, Watts stronger, Jurrah fit, perhaps some of the smalls making an impact up forward in 2011, not to mention the fact that it is likely we will go for a "big marker" forward in the draft will there be any room for him for a significant amount of the season? _____________________ On a seperate note, does anyone know what the go is with the 2011 rookie draft and GC/GWS? I ask this because Newton and Meeson were always a monty to falling to our RD picks and this would have facilitated the decision making process. Maric, McNamara and Cheney on the other hand are equally more likely (IMO) to get snaffled by someone else. I like the idea of Maric to rookie list in concept but I think it could be tricky.

That is what I wanted to clarify thanks. I wasn't sure whether CAC considered Molan best available for that particular pick despite him being a KPP.

Always great to get first hand feedback on various MFC issues. Really adds to the substance of this site. I would be interested to know if CAC elaborated on why he concluded the Molan pick to be an "error".

On the issue of player game time turnover I don't think we have been too bad. The Zero club for 2011 is 9 (excluding the 2 rookies who were not promoted/nominated) and there's still 9 games to go. Take out 5 of those who are injured or coming back from injury that leaves 4. Bell, Cheney, Maric and McNamara. We have a couple of players who have played only 1 or 2 games but given the pure number of kids we have had to blood we have needed to keep some semblance of senior balance in the process. To just throw in as many kids as possible is not responsible coaching, particularly in the first half of the season. We should also remember that McKenzie is a rookie so to have got 10 games into him this year so far is a bonus. Senior List Zeros: Bell, Blease, Cheney, Fitzpatrick, Gawn, Jurrah, Maric, McNamara, Tapscott Rookie List Zeros: Healey, Meesen

No doubt yesterday's game was hard to watch and we do have a horrendous record at AAMI. The frustration in this thread is quite heart felt and understandable. The only thing I would add is that (as hard as it is to consider) our poor performances at AAMI since 2001 are a legacy that most players on our current list should not have to wear, especially the kids we have recruited in the last couple of seasons.

I share a similar concern. Like you I am all for the attacking play they are trying to develop (either in the middle or from defence) but I fear certain aspects of our game are being lost here. There is an obvious trade-off happening out there IMO. In another thread I made comment that I think our play on at all costs approach is over the top and it can get to a point where "coaching" can simply become "conditioning". We are playing on in situations where we quite simply shouldn't and the repercussions are quite big due to not only the opposition capitalising but also our expended energy in mopping up our self made messes - not to mention that our opposition can exploit it with a simple zone. Attack is the best form of defence (by convention at least) so our general game philosphy is a sound one but we have to be smarter in how we go about it IMO and that comes down to the coaching side of things as well as the players.

Firstly, when has any MFC ruckman since the departure of White "dominated" at senior level in order to render Jamar (when fully fit) battling for a spot? Secondly, last year Jamar was quite solid when he got into the side after coming off the LTI. His first game back clearly set a tone, against St. Kilda's Gardiner and King (no slouches) he amassed 29 hitouts along with 11 possesions and 6 tackles. In another 3 games (of his total of 7) he had 31, 29, 29 hitouts clearly showing his centre bounce dominance. Thirdly, Jamar was a genuine 2nd ruck to White playing 22 games in '06 before injury problems started hampering his progress. I'm not saying that Jamar has been a top shelf ruckman all these years but to put him in the "fringe player" category IMO misrepresents the circumstances. At his best, he has clearly been our number 1 ruckman or in the case of his early yrs solid 2nd ruck. In my mind this is not the definition of a "fringe player". I realise this can come down to semantics (as many discussions often do) so don't take my disagreeance to heart mate.

Off the mark IMO.

Very happy with this.

Whilst I have my suspicions, in no way do I wish to perpetuate the ideology that Petterd will leave the club because we simply don't know. I will answer the question in a general sense by saying it is a chook raffle. When the concept was first floated of club compensation based on the "level" or "category" of player who was to be (we'll go with) poached, I think most of us had raised eyebrows. The AFL are the last entity I would have faith in to value a player based both on what they bring in a commercial and professional sense as well as what impact their absence leaves on their former club. The AFL is about to exercise a policy of subjectivity never before seen and it has great propensity to be a debacle. Time and time again we see controversial nominations and entrants into the annual AA team and that is based on the opinions of a panel of "experts". I would give my left nut (I wouldn't really, just a little inebriated from some birthday beverages) to know the process of player evaluation the AFL will adopt for club compensation of poached players. Will they have "expert" insight from Mike Sheean, James Hird and Gerard Healey or will Andrew Demetriou pull out bingo balls from Adrian Anderson's backside?

It doesn't have a huge impact on this discussion in the context of future list management. Every club can nominate a rookie mid-season who is eligible to play senior football for the rest of the season although strictly speaking this is not a promotion to the senior list - they are still a rookie. Up to this point, McKenzie had been playing senior games this year because he was a promoted rookie to replace a senior player who went on the LTI list. Subsequently he gets demoted when that injured senior player comes back but by luck of timing he can be "nominated" as a rookie to play senior footy due to the mid-yr rule. In a nutshell: R1-11: Promoted Rookie - takes place in senior side of injured senior player for duration of injury time before being demoted. R12-22: Nominated Rookie - stays a rookie but can play senior football on top of the regular 38 seniors and 2 veterans giving us a potential pool of 41 players. End of season: Elevated to senior list. _________________________ One thing to mention is that if any veteran listed players (JMac/Bruce) end up finishing up then that means (as others have said) next year 1 or 2 rookie listed players being nominated for senior football all season in order to preserve the available player pool of 40 players. In this event, if we wish to relegate any current senior listed players ala Newton and Meesen last season (to the rookie list) they at least will still have a chance to play senior footy (if they get nominated) but we will still have to go through the draft process again to do this.