1858

I don't like this criteria at all if it is accurate. Unless it is a superstar like Riewoldt, GC will be going for up and coming youth and that in turn will not relinquish substantially high picks to the recipient club despite being hurt by losing a young up and comer. Different clubs will obviously have different tactics based on their list as time goes on I guess. Bruce, as an example wouldn't be on GCs radar (you'd think) as he is almost finished and would require a higher pick than one of our youngsters - unless GC are totaly stupid then one of our good youngsters will go IMO. We may end up having a few players uncontracted who are on the senior side but do we honestly have any real quality there besides say Green that GC would bite at?

This is spot on and is the situation we are faced with.

To a degree I agree with this assessment. The body language of some of the players in the last quarter backs this up. A combination of slow older players and many youngsters is quite fitting with this result unfortunately. Another thing that makes us "look" unfit is our lack of organisation around the ground. Watching that game from a pocket I noticed that our fastest players were rarely in the right spots of the ground outside the square. At one stopage, we had Miller, Bate and Johnson in close vicinity against fast agile players from the Kangas. The Kangas had the right players at the right spot of the ground most of the time. Needless to say that the Roos sharked it and sped off so quick that our guys looked like they were in slow motion. I guess Bailey will work on this throughout the season but it certainly hurts us and takes us right out of the contest. Around half forward, our players were so slow off the mark sometimes that I think they didn't bother chasing as they were left in their opponents dust. Our faster players need to be used more effectively over 4 quarters but as a whole we are still a slow team IMO.

Our forwards were genuinely outnumbered a fair few times but what I also noticed was our ground coverage was no where near as good as the Kangaroos defenders. Even if we were kicking to a 1 on 1 or a 2 on 2 situation, by the time the ball came to dispute, there would be an extra Roos player there as an option. From a marking set up, we rarely had a player roving to the forward target as a crumber where the Roos did and most of that was due to reading the play and working harder and quicker. We seriously need to get (even a makeshift) forward structure happening not just for the ball carrier to hit a target but so each forward knows their own role and how to interact with the other forwards to put pressure on oppostion defences. Bate and Miller didn't seem to have an established relationship of any kind and kind of did what they wanted without any structure or purpose. Ricky P used the flanks well leading out from a pocket though. Another thing we have to improve on is our timing. Too often players (in possesion) took too long to get into a comfortable kicking position on the run when we needed them to place a low long kick and that hurt us a fair bit as the player on the lead would then be camped under the pass. Having said this, in the first half I though some of our ball carriers kicked the ball too early on the run instead of continuing due to the forward target being covered. In essence I think our ball carriers need to assess situations a little better when on the run as well as forwards creating valid options for them. The Roos didn't seem to have these complications when running the ball forward too often as they had a blend of speed when it mattered, running in numbers and experience.

This is all pretty close to the mark. At times we looked pedestrian by virtue of poor reading of play and positioning and I noticed a fair few players today hang off their opponent too much. We allowed too many Roos players to get on their own (unecessarily) because our players preferred to stay loose once the ball was out of their zone and when it came back their opponent had the jump on them. We still have a lot of slow players off the mark which the Kangas showed up, they were quite quick off the mark and ran in organised/logical lines from stopages. I was dissapointed that we didn't opt to use the corridore too much today also. It may have saved us a few goals but that counts for nothing in the end. All good teams use the corridore effectively and we won't improve on using it if we avoid it so hopefully we work on quicker avenues to goal throughout this season. Our ball use was considerably slower than the Roos and on the odd occasion that a player made a decent lead down the ground, the ball carrier took too long to take his kick and as a result we had more contests in posesion than there should have been. Jones was frustrating to watch despite being in the thick of it. Miller did not present himself as a useful option (despite our poor kicking) and seemed to have no purpose in his play. The defence struggled at times but you can tell they will improve. We got a fair bit of it in the middle but players just didn't know where to go and we rarely had options going forward especially in the last quarter.

I agree with you here. We need to get another tall forward in our line up who is a genuine target. He doesn't necessarily have to be a superstar but has to be competent in marking and kicking and interact well with Watts. We got Jurrah in the PSD to be a handy forward but as much as we are excited about his ability we have to remember that he is a project player - sadly there are no guarantees here. IMO we have to establish a more concrete forward set up and treat Jurrah as the icing on the cake if/when he comes on board the way we hope. We seem to have redundancy in defence and the midfield is shaping up a little better so why not have options up forward as well? As you say we don't want all the pressure on just one youngster. As for relying on the midfield to do the job week in week out that is just not going to happen. Obviously we want our midfielders to become damaging players by pushing forward (as has been stated by others) but even the best midfielders have off days. A class foward line can get you a win even if you are outplayed in the middle and creates headaches for the opposition.

This is a hard one, some close options here. If our defence holds up a little better this year and Rivers stays fit then IMO this gives Green more of a licence up forward where he would be good for at least 20 - 30 you'd think. Miller, Aussie and Bate are all contenders I think with Green and some others outside chances. With Robbo we need him to stay on the park for the rest of the year (once he plays) if he is to catch these guys - fingers crossed anyway. Even Davey is good for 20 - 30 if he is fully fit and we use him right I suppose. Anyhow I'll go with Aussie but with no real certainty.

No doubt most people would be aware that the AFL have introduced two new laws into the book for the season proper. Synopsis: "The Commission's view was that the deliberate rushed behind rule and the 50m penalty for tackling a player after disposal rule had worked well in the pre-season period and would benefit the game," Anderson said in a statement released by the AFL on Friday. Firstly, I would be interested to hear people's thoughts on the implications of the first law (if any) on our young up and coming defence, our transient forward line and on our team structure/tactics as a whole. Will the 'Deliberate rushed behind' law improve the game? Will teams find any significant ways to exploit this law that we never actually saw in the pre-season comp? Given that teams did not (at the time) expect this law to be brought in to the season proper and hence did not focus too much on it tactically, was the pre-season competition an accurate depiction of how the rule would influence the game? If this is brought in will teams tailor their game play? These are just hypothetical examples but could we see more long kicks deep inside forward 50 to put defences under pressure so they can be coraled? Will forwards hang off until defenders gain possesion and then perhaps alter their zoning as well? Will there be no changes to the way the game is played what so ever? I do not necessarily think that these new laws will hurt the game, they will hopefully do what they are intended for. I do have some reservations though as to whether the AFL should have used the pre-season competition (given the circumstances of teams not significantly incorporating this law into strategy) as a model to base their findings. Cheers for your thoughts...

After the 6 o'clock news which is on right now.

Excellent stuff, in my mind this is good for MFC as well as Hankook. As the MFC/Hankook association grows over the next couple of years I am hoping that when people see your venue signage that they also think of MFC and that we build a bigger presence - especially at the MCG (reverse advertising was my initial thought). Given Hankook have built up a good association with footy (in my mind anyway) over the years with their bold venue signage anything is possible - who knows. Obviously I wish all the best to Hankook on getting a good return on their advertising investments both at the footy venues as well as with the Dees in any case.

hankook1, just out of curiosity are Hankook continuing their seperate sponsorship with the MCG this year ie the signage they have/had there?

Hear, hear... This is not just a great moment for the club but IMO this is just a great story. A passionate supporter asks himself not what the club can do for him but what he can do for his club - what a great bloke. If this doesn't get the red and blue army stirring then nothing will. Well done to Jimmy and the club and all our valued sponsors as well.

lol I was wondering that too. To answer the question, yes we do need a KPF - in fact we really need 2 if we want a potent forwardline with redundancy. The 2nd doesn't necessarily have to be KP but height is important as an extra tall option so you would imagine they would be a KPF anyway.

I am not arguing that we add Martin to what people are callling an already tall defence, obviously we can't have 5 talls in the back line (at the same time anyway). Rivers will be used sparingly I think. I too beleive it is not feasible to have too many talls. Consider this though, we have 4 defenders ranging from 191 cm to 193/195 cm and not one of them matches up in height with either tall Roos forward. Is it not playing the percentages to at least replace one of them or at least use one off the bench (Rivers) to sure up at least one of the talls with Martin? It is a hard choice but Martin's height easily counters what you refer to as "least amount of flexibility" simply because he is on a tall forward who is not too mobile. This is where you are not looking at this clinically. Warnock has had a great pre-season and deserves to play but that doesn't mean that he can easily cover Hale who is nearly 10 cm taller. I agree, Warnock has handled taller players before but Hale is close to the tallest. Your comment on Hale not being a power athlete is what I eluded to in my 2nd post and is why Martin is a perfect match up. Unlike say a Roughead, Hale will not give someone like Martin the runaround and Martin can play body on body and compete in the air better. Just because Hale is not very mobile doesn't mean that Warnock can pick him up any easier. The Kangas are going to put the ball in a spot to Hale's advantage because they know where he will be. They will use Hale as a long kick option (ideally one out in the goal square) not a leading forward getting it lace out on the chest in the forward pocket. IIRC Martin was not in the marking contest (if he was then my mistake but I'm pretty sure he wasn't) which actually does support my arguement immensely. I don't know if he was on the ground or not but it was Warnock going back with the flight of the ball as the extra spoiler and the other player who was going with Roughead escapes me (possibly Frawley but not 100% sure). Suffice to say they were at their limits and Hale being 8 cm taller (than Roughy) with a ruckmans leap will be far from an easy task for Warnock. Roughead used his experience to get into position but (when you include his big leap) our defenders were done for height. Warnock actually made it back to the contest but couldn't get a fist on it, Martin in either roll would have made an impact. I make reference to this mark (unlike the others Roughead took) not because it broke our hearts but because it is the exact same type of leaping mark Hale will be going for close to goal. You are missing the point again. Key forwards do that, it's called football. Roughead is not the first nor the last forward to use his body. He quite simply had space to take a leaping mark up front and our defenders had no hope of spoiling once he was air born. Hale has a ruckmans leap, once he is airborn we're gone if we don't have the height. Yes, I understand all that, if Martin replaces one of the other talls this is not an issue though (or at least one of the other talls rotates off the bench). Again, if Martin plays instead of one of the other talls it will keep this aspect in check with extra runners. A stay at home forward is not as obvious a roll as it once was I suppose but in general you can use it to describe a key forward who does not move far from thier starting position or from goal. Hale for example will not roam around the park like say Petrie will. What this suggests is that regardless of whether the defence is clearing or the offence is moving the ball in from the middle, Hale will remain IMHO in the same dangerous area close to the goals. Perhaps no more than 30m out. If we are running the ball out and there is a turnover, the Kangas have an option of kicking long to a one out tall forward - good luck Frawley/Warnock is all I will say on that one. If Hale was more mobile then the other defenders come into play a little more in assists - but I concede this can vary depending on the play. Very rarely do two key forwards both roam outside forward 50. With their small forwards, the Kangas will be able to mix it up a bit so they won't predictably go to Hale all the time. This actually makes things harder because we can't automatically double team him with say a Warnock and Frawley or Garland. One thing we do know is that when they do use Hale it will be probably a long kick to his advantage, and if they see it as a mismatch then they may try to exploit it. Obviously we will have to make a hard decision on who to leave out. I am not saying we should cram the defence with talls, I am saying that of the talls we play I think Martin should be one of them. You will no doubt reply to all of this but you don't have to point out the advantages of more runners (I agree) or reinforce our defenders ability to hold Hale (agree to disagree). Which ever way we go I have confidence that our defence is on the up and will give it a good shake. _______________________________________ On a seperate issue, even though Miller was reasonably good last year I think I prefer him closer to goal like some others have said. Bate and Green at HF could be damaging for us with their penetrating kicks. Although Bate is a little slower than Green, he is strong and is quite adept at breaking tackles and moving play. Miller has been a bit suspect any more than 40m out so far and he has proven before he can take decent marks in/near the goal square if he attacks the ball and gets a decent leap.

form, ability and team balance you say? ...based on some pre-season games. Howabout common sence as well? Form: Going by a few pre-season games some players have impressed (especially Frawley) fair enough, but does that mean they are an automatic starter on a 201 cm forward? At the end of the day Martin has been in reasonable form anyway. Ability: I would have thought that being 198 cm would improve your ability to spoil a 201 cm forward relative to someone of the height of a Frawley or Warnock. Balance: What does this have to do with respect to marking tall forwards? So if Hale takes the shorter defenders to the cleaners (if we don't play Martin) it will be alright because we have "balance" in the side will it? Actually the more I think about it, I would have thought that we would have more balance with Martin in the side. Warnock (192 cm), Rivers (192 cm) and Garland (191) are all interchangable being similar height. I thought the definition of balance was covering your bases in the different height steaks. You are leaving too much to chance with your setup. Think back to the last 30 seconds of the pre-season game against Hawthorn. In the dying seconds a Hawthorn player bangs the ball on the boot and Roughhead takes the mark about 20 meters out even though not one, but two defenders could not spoil him. Form, ability and balance counted for sfa - Roughead took the mark due to his height advantage (when you incorporate his big leap I should stipulate). Hale, being a stay at home forward will be a similar prospect and is much taller than Roughead. We have enough "runners in the team to rotate through the midfield" as you put it that we don't need to leave a 201 cm forward to his own devices - Martin is one player, hardly going to suck the life out of our running stocks. Rivers may have class and be a pedigree player but I doubt Bailey will use him too much in the early stages, he has had one full practice game as is my understanding. TBH I wouldn't be terribly worried if he started from the bench. We face two of the tallest opposition forwards in the comp (as a combination), if Martin is not a candidate for this week then I am stuffed as to why we would even have him on our list if we go by your rationale. I don't understand this point, so because these players are more agile Martin for some reason is better for them but not a stay at home 201 cm forward? If anything, players like Tippett and Hall would be better suited to a more mobile defender like Frawley or Warnock - I think you have this all back to front. In isolation your individual points (about our defenders) are not too bad but I think you are letting that cloud the big picture. Perhaps Bailey will indeed opt to leave out Martin for reasons similar to yours but IMO it is a hell of a risk.

I hope I did not convey that sentiment in my post (if I did it was unintentional), I merely wanted to mention the crux of the article - I agree as a Melbourne man he should be welcomed back at the club irrespective.

Here you go...

A new Gutnick article from the HUN. The crux of it: "Asked if he was a chance to contribute financially again, Gutnick said: "It's possible . . . it's possible.""

We will have to agree to disagree I guess. Why is round 1 any different to 18 other games? Martin is fresh, he wouldn't get towelled up (theoretically) compared to being on say Brown or Franklin or a class player like that. I don't understand your logic tbh, we have an up and coming 198 cm defender so why not use him? Spencer hasn't even played a senior match but people are (rightly) expecting him to play in the ruck round 1 and he is 3 years younger than Martin. Martin turns 23 this year, now is not the time to put him on the backburner - we just need to give him spells when his body starts to feel it. Yeah, those guys are going to be a real pain for us - apparently Thomas will be used a bit more this year in the midfield for the Roos but I won't expect it this early unfortunately.

If there is one team in the competition who bang the ball long it is the Kangaroos and their tall timber forward line is testiment to that. It is quite funny actually because when I watched the Kangas play the other night the commentators (not that they are gospel or anything) were all saying how the Kangas play a traditional game plan and kick long but have done it very well and that is what has won them matches. The beauty of putting Martin on Hale is that Hale is a ruckman. Unlike say Buddy Franklin, Hale is nowhere near as mobile and this plays into Martin's hands. Martin has quite a strong body, at 198 cm he is by no means lanky and the more big players he plays on the better he will become. Obviously you wouldn't give him the big players all season as you would burn him out but at this time of year I think it is worth a shot. In the second half of last year Martin played on a few big players and did alright IIRC. Bartram seems a logical option to take the other small like you say, my only query is pace. I guess we have to go with him but Bennell sounds like a good future option for this type of roll. Good to hear about Frawley btw this makes him some what of a versatile commodity at 195 cm - they should update the MFC website lol. I think either Frawley (or Warnock to a lesser extent) could handle Hail with the assistance of either Rivers or Garland as an extra spoiler but I suspect Rivers will be rotated heavily in the early parts of this season. The thing you have to remember is that in many ways there is no absolute right or wrong line up to use. We could be really settled through out the game or different defenders could be being moved all over the place because the North forwards are taking us to the cleaners. IMO the key is to have redundancy in a game where you can make changes if you have to and given that the Kangas have two forwards 197 cm or taller we would be mad to not at least match one of them up with a 198 cm defender. If Martin gets killed then we at least have a plan B with say Warnock, Rivers and Frawley. So the real question is "should we take our chances with just Frawley, Warnock, Rivers and Garland? or do we go with the percentages and start with Martin and then replace him if required" Martin surely must play. Agree with that, we are starting to find ourselves with options here.

Consider this, the Kangaroos have Hale (201 cm) who will most probably start up forward for them and also Petrie (197 cm) who is CHF/FF material. After Martin (198 cm) our next tallest defender is Frawley (193 cm). If you don't see a need for Martin in this game then I don't think you are looking hard enough. Also the Kangas have some nimble small forwards in Campbell (174 cm) and Thomas (181 cm). Cheney (184 cm) is looking like a good match up for one of these two so I agree with you there. As far as Rivers is concerned I think they would be mad to throw him straight into a CHB roll after just one full practice game. To a greater extent it could be argued that Rivers is more suited to a third tall roll across half back to help spoil. This would also preserve his footy career IMO and possible releive Green from his roll where he has to come back to assist the defenders from time to time. As fantastic a player Rivers is, we have to remember that the guy is human and at 192 cm it can quite often be a huge task for him to dominate tall opponents. I think Martin at 198 cm is tailor made to take on a permanent roll at CHB rotating with FB depending on opposition teams.

That sounds about right, maybe a few others depending on how the fitness team assesses them. With Wona I would look at half a game max, he looked ultra fit and perhaps was previously overdone. If he looks underdone (and could benefit from more game time) then give him the whole game but if he looks sharp in the first half then that is all he needs IMO or we risk injury to a key player in a nothing match. Someone else mentioned Buckley who I can understand needing another game under the belt too.

I'm not anwsering this question on the grounds that I may incriminate myself.

No doubt I will make many more changes as r1 gets closer. So far I have had Morton and Sylvia and then removed them, considered Green (still not sure) and have added Grimes and Cheney (emer) to the defence. I am more likely to keep tabs on Melbourne players more than opposition so even though I don't have many Dees in the starting 22, my emergencies are littered with red and blue. I have both Meesen and Spencer as ruck emergencies on the basis that one of them quite simply is guaranteed to play. I have both Benell and Jetta as midfield emergencies on a similar rationale although this is no where as water tight. I would be interested to hear other people's strategies, ie are you going all out best 22 for that one lucky week they are all in or for a good over all squad to cover injuries and focus on the whole season. Also I have not played this before, can someone please explain the full benefit of having players that rise in value. My understanding is that if they are worth more then you have more to trade with but why would you trade if they are going so well anyway - I am obviously missing something here.

Agree with that. I would love to know where Maric is at. He trained apparently a week ago so hopefully he can push for a spot not too late into the season proper. We need a sharp shooter and he looks like a player with nouse to me who can get away from an opponent.