1858

This is how I have personally viewed our last couple of years and how I have looked at Bailey. In this context, over the years, I've seen Dees supporters argue non-stop about how Bailey should have coached from day 1 with the players we have/had without any understanding of what it takes to create and develop a top team in modern AFL, it isn't like the good old days. Bailey quite simply didn't kid himself and I think in some ways is perhaps partially responsible for the solidarity in direction we see at the club. IMO Bailey has been meticulous, calculating and so far successful in going about the infancy phase of his tenior. What I actually appreciate is not just a coach who levelled with the club and knew what it would take but a coach who committed to a process where he not only had to wear losses but also is bringing on a mammoth task in developing so much youth. It will be a test for coach and club but at least you know that Bailey will do it (by his standards) properly or not at all. I've been a MFC supporter/member for 22 years and whilst I am not under any illusions that success will be mandatory with our squad, it is fantastic to witness such a process being implemented at the club from the ground up.

I'm 90% sure that Alice Springs will host the losers of Adelaide vs Port Adelaide and St Kilda vs Collingwood.

The winner of the Geel v North game. It would be on Sun 28 Feb at Etihad.

Quite possible. Also the realisation that we have other rookies who are genuine contenders for promoting next year means he has his work cut out just in competing with them for a future.

I thought Bate was pretty strong already if not defined as much. If he has consolidated this (as you day) and can improve his agility a little bit then I am quite looking forward to his year.

In the other article it states "The Demons are struggling with a net liability of $3.16 million." With a better stadium deal, higher attendances/members due to improvement and the draw, the Darwin games, growing in Casey, MCC relationship etc... you'd think the club should be able to combat this over time. I know DD is growing thin with some supporters but I'm glad the club is persisting with it.

I think this is an accurate assesment of Brock in the last couple of years - especially this year. Also of note, if you watch many of his games this year, he went to ground more often and got beaten or outbustled in 1 on 1 chases for the ball. Getting off the ground to take a mark was a rarity also. It all comes back to 1 of the biggest assets that a footballer should have in their arsenal - power in the legs. Without it you are stuffed. My assessment of McLean's notable flaws: Leg Speed 2/10 Kicking (power and accuracy) 4/10 Balance (holding your ground) 4/10 Leap 2/10 Lateral Movement/Evasion 5/10 Now obviously Carlton will give Brock every chance of having the best pre-season possible - for his sake I hope he does. He should be fitter and have less niggles going into the season so should perform better. Having said that I still don't beleive fitness was his main problem this year (it was one problem) but lack of power is his nemesis. Just looking at Brock on the footy field he seems to be reasonably strong upper body (for his size) but nothing out of this world and then it is all let down by the foundations which I don't think he will necessarily improve on. I think he is a little top heavy as a player. He can run all the laps in the world and win all the time trials he wants but this won't translate to power. I am not going to buy into this Gysberts for McLean stuff, all I will say is that when I first heard that we had been offered pick 11 for McLean I nearly fell off my chair. Carlton were and still are rolling the dice and for us to get pick 11 for a player who has been caught out by the pace and rigours of the modern game is an absolute blessing - not KOTD proportions though. I don't want to sound disrespectful to McLean, I hope he does well at Carlton (with better established mids around him) but that's how I see it.

The bit Keyser referenced is correct. The extra 2 players Hawthorn (now) have on their total list is because of the 2 NSW scholarship players appended to their standard rookie list of 7. This means they have 9 rookies in total (7+2) giving them a total list of 48 players. Hawthorn have 7 standard rookie listed players as they have only 1 veteran listed player. Our standard rookie list is 6 players as we have two veteran listed players. We have no NSW scholarship players appended to our standard rookie list so it stays at 6. [standard Rookie List + NSW Scholarship Rookies ] + Main Senior List + Veterans List = Total List Melbourne [6 + 0] + 38 + 2 = 46 Hawthorn [7 + 2] + 38 + 1 = 48

This should explain everything along with the subsequent post. The only thing you need to ignore is "now that each club has been granted 2 extra rookie spots this will change to give us a potential 48 in 2010." that was a mistake we'll still be at 46.

The amount of players eligible for senior football is 40. If you have 2 players on your veterans list then not only do you have 2 less standard rookies but none of them can be "nominated" to play senior football. 1 on the veterans list means 1 extra player on the standard rookie list as well as 1 nominated rookie. None on the veterans list means 2 extra players on the standard rookie list as well as 2 nominated rookies. My understanding is that "nominated" rookies are not elevated to the senior list, they are simply nominated as eligible for senior footy in order to preserve the 40 player pool in the event that a team has 1 or less players on their veterans list. As others have said, we can also nominate a rookie mid year to play senior football regardless of veterans, injuries or other - essentially another player on top of the pool of 40 if I have this correctly. rpfc - please confirm.

Now that our list is finalised for 2010, this is the age break up for our entire squad of 46 (ie including the rookies) for the ages of players ending this calendar year: ________________________ Teenagers (16) 34.8% _________________________ 20 - 24 (19) 41.3% _________________________ 25 - 29 (9) 19.6% _________________________ 30+ (2) 4.3% _________________________ In itself it doesn't give too much insight however I keep a notepad file and update it every year and the changes in distribution have been massive. Going from a top end list at the end of 2006, we now have 3/4s of our list at under 25 going into next year and significantly (as others have said) most of this pool is quality/quality prospects brought to the club who were chosen with purpose.

I feel the same way.

Agreed.

I think you are on the money and I love this approach the club is taking and if players are on board as a result then it shows that it is working.

In the words of Harrington: “We are really happy that a player of Joel’s calibre has elected to come to the Melbourne Football Club. He fits nicely into our List Management strategies, given his age, his 80 AFL games and the roles he can play within our playing list. He is an experienced player, who will add another dimension to our promising group of young defenders.” Very important pickup IMO.

I think a while back that a poster mad a rash generalisation that players around 192cm were no good for anything which then became folk law and a running joke but I am not on this site all the time so someone may be able to clarify.

Again, I hope that is the case.

He was joking.

I thought that originally as well but it was pointed out that players more or less have a contract with the AFL via clubs. Newton and Meesen would be on the same contract as rookies with us (I beleive). I doubt it is the club's prime intention to jettison these guys, they simply wanted to make space on our senior list and put them on the rookie list. The contract does not terminate however with regard to player salary. If they go to another club then they should be on the same contract however if the club they go to only pays them a certain amount then we have to cover the excess I beleive. Happy to be corrected though. Well, to me it appears that they can. It is just that the AFL stipulates a 2nd chance option for the players in question to be picked by another club first. The contract remains even though the players are delisted and then reinstated on our rookie list under AFL guidelines if they are not taken beforehand. When there was talk of Thorp coming to MFC, the posters who had more idea of the contract situation stated that he would retain the same contract. MFC was not obligated to pay all of it though so any short comings would have been made up by the Hawks as they delisted him whilst under contract.

Well, I'd like to think so but I tend to share Crystal Dees's concern. Not jumping to conclusions at all it is simply curious (if in fact that it is true) that Blease has the idea in his head of perhaps debuting on QB.

I agree with that and in particular in the middle of the ground it is crucial especially when many of the mid options we have are low 180s. A fundamental problem we have had in the last couple of years is our passing in general play. Our disposal has improved but it is a two way street - the ball also has to be marked. On too many occasions when we had mids such as McLean or Jones open in the centre corridore, recipients of 30 - 40 meter passes (not recomended but the best option on the spur of the moment in the heat of battle) we saw the ball either just sail over them or see them be spoilt by an opponent as the ball hung in the air and they were not tall enough to protect the ball and take the mark. It also comes back to the defensive side as well, very rarely could many of our short mids exert an effective aerial spoil of their own - a combination of lack of height and lack of leap. Also remember that leap is a handy thing but the shorter mids who run hard all day obviously tire and can lose that edge where a player who is a few inches taller retains their edge regardless of how good their leap is. Gysberts sounds like he will be a real player for us so I don't want to trivialise his value/attributes by just focusing on his height but the reality is that his height will be important for us. I'm not suggesting that he will be a go to man or anything like that but simply he will be a better option for ball carriers to pass to in general play (particularly longer passes in the middle) and should be more effective in 1%ers like spoiling. We have a short midfield and the game not only went up in pace a couple of years ago but also taller mids are becoming more common IMO - definitely a game of inches.

There are quite a few players who I expect to have a big year next year and who I am quite keen to see play. In particular I agree with the OP though, Jones is one player of note who I am anticipating going up a notch next year. Surrounded by pace rather than plodders will help him going forward. The last handful of games this year seemed to show a different kind of Jones IMO, perhaps one who played without the weight of the world on his shoulders. He backed himself, found space and hit targets. Whether there was less pressure on him from the opposition or whether he was a bit more relaxed in his footy (more free form than indicision) I don't know but he finished off well. Still only 21 and has done it tough which will hold him in good stead in the future.

That all sounds good and I have also read that Garland will be put up forward as a forward option as well. I'm not suggesting the club hasn't addressed the issue simply that I will wait to see how it pans out rather than pencil it in now as a successful long term solution. All good, the club certainly did it's homework on this. The mids we got all sound like class prospects - great draft.

A case of "watch this space" as far as our forward line is concerned. I'm not sold that we have covered all bases up there but we can address that in future if we need to. It doesn't change the fact that we had a great draft.

ok, well perhaps I didn't peruse enough threads on that one. Thankyou, that's all I was getting at. If a 3rd tall is the best or equal best available then they can't be a wasted investment of pick 11 or any pick. I made the exact same arguement and I enforced the point that this in turn aided the suggestion that pick 11/18 would not necessarily be wasted based on being 3rd tall. No problem with that at all but IMO they are two seperate opinions. The first one I agreed with, the second one I didn't know enough about the talent to offer an in depth opinion. When making general rules though I think it is a grey area when you argue (in this case) the 2nd opinion based on the 1st opinion ie concoct a rule out of the two. Adapting these opinions to the line you followed in the other thread at the time would yield: Talia or Black would be third talls, and hence not worthy of Pick 11. I simply questioned this as a general rule.