Ungarie boy

I'd be keen for a pack of cards

Nathan Jones will continue to get better as the midfield and therefore his support gets better. Previously his skills, decision making and even pace were perceied questionable; but this was really becauce he did not have the time needed to execute them. Time is something that his teamates can and are now providing; blocks, shephards, tackles, pressure and fitness (making the contest, and being effective at it) all contribute. Also he has pretty much copped the number one tag from the age of 20 which doesn't help (particularily without support). Now what does Jones have in common with: Bail, Bartram, Frawley, Garland, Jurrah, Petterd, Wonaemirri? Most of whom, are considered developing or good investments for the future.

and even more relevant with free agency fast approaching and us with a young poachable list. Honour and trust is a two way street; we will expect players to place a high value on loyality; therefore it is not unreasonable that the players would expect the same from a club. This integrity or trust will be built/destroyed on actions - the MFC will likely be viewed by AFL players quite favourably because of their handling of Newton/Meeson. Like most of us that have been in a relationship, we know that once trust is broken it is very difficult, nigh impossible to get back!!!

With early draft picks you should always get the best player available, regardless of what position they play. If you then have too much quality of one type i.e midfielders, rucks, tall forwards, etc; you will then have far greater flexibility at the trade table to bring in someone to address your weaknesses. A good example of this is the Maloney/Ottens deal. Another benefit is, that whilst your drafted "Best Player" is progressing quickly, you have more time to assess players perceived as risky, develop on other teams lists for a couple of years before striking. As for rucks, there's no need to get to worked up about it. Melbourne has a good one in Jamar, and couple kids developing. The thing with rucks though is that if you are serious about them you can always get one from another club - normally one that is starved of opportunity; Melbourne's Daren Jolley is a good example or an aging ruckman who will soon be pushed out i.e Geelong's Stephen King. Most clubs have at least a couple of rucks plus a couple of kids developing on their list at any give time - inveitably more than a few clubs will be successful; creating limited opportunity behind their number one. One of Clark/Leunburger/Charman would likely be looking for more game time (I favour Charman as his toughness would be ideal support for a team full of kids; and Brisbane would likely to fight harder to keep the other two younger players). North has at least 3 ruckman fighting for one and half positions. Note if a ruckman is looking for more game time elsewhere - it normally means they are looking to leave the club and can therefore come cheap(er) or via the draft(s).

Miller plays best as a lead up forward creating space behind him - something Robbo & Neitz took full advantage of. Thats his big trick; and any side with quality deep forwards would love him in their side. The "dish off" to a running midfielder with good foot skills only enhanced this. Unfortunately Melbourne "currently", no longer has the forward structure or running midfielders to take advantage of this asset. Till we do (it may be weeks, or months or years away - think of the return/development of Jurrah, Watts, Trengove, Scully, Gysberts, Grimes); I would like to see him play with more aggression, be the protector/enforcer presence supporting our young kids (Their confidence will multiply 10 fold with this type of onfield support). I would also like to see him practice the Jonathon Brown "Mark, wheel and kick" to a one on one - obviously when he's not lining up for goal.

Melbourne has more than the 3 tall’s required to cover Collingwoods tall forwards. Even Bruce and Miller have played tall down back and could be considered. Brown is an old fashion stand and deliver forward relying on strength as much as anything. Warnock is a good match for Brown, or to be slightly more attacking then Frawley (with freedom to play off him and rebound). Martin could also fulfil this role. Cloak is a lead up forward, but does not apply a lot of defensive pressure and could be exposed. Rivers (or Garland if fit) is a good match for Cloak. Martin is another consideration. Anthony is also a lead up forward, who is not renowned for defensive pressure. Frawley should be an ideal match for Anthony. Fraser can play multiple roles but often none. He can be covered by either Frawley or Rivers. Note: Collingwood are unlikely to have more than 3 tall’s in their forward line at once. Out of our tall backs options there is potentially one left over - perhaps try as a forward or the "mobile ruck" role that a lot of teams are getting away with these days (particularily when Jolly is resting). Agreed regarding the midfield - boys will get beaten by Men 90% of the time, and it can't be good for their confidence; but perhaps they can be given roles on their outside players and run them of their feet (Scully and Trengove are more than capable of this). Could Mckenzie play a defensive role on the likes of Davis, Thomas? If not, should he play defensive in the midfield, if we are already tagging Swan out of the game. Though with Swan & Pendlebury/Ball nullified, our tall backs on top; and shattering the confidence of their glory boys - scoring for the pies should be somewhat more difficult. Our Forwards should be told they will be dragged if they are not constantly moving. You don't ever allow backman to catch their breath or feel comfortable/settled with a position on the field.

Yes so far it does seem a bit negative, but in reality it's about being competive (not inspidly flogged) so as to have a platform to be positive. I agree our foward line to date is not working and an alternative is needed, one that can perhaps expose collingwood. Maxwell, O’Brien and Presti are all very good negating backman, particularly in the air and on talls. They also have the strength to compete one on one. But, How will they go against quick leading, ground level small forwards. Green, Davey, Sylvia, Petterd, should all be able to beat them at ground level. With Bruce on Shaw, and another small goal sneak (Jetta, Maric, perhaps Trengove, Gysberts); The pies would have to seriously look at restructuring their back line to match us up – a win for Melbourne. This combination would also be better suited to applying forwardline pressure, therefore helping out the midfield. Green, Sylvia, Petterd and Trengove are all strong marks for their size. Green, Davey, Sylvia, Maric and Gysberts are all confident shots at goal. Instructions to the team would need to be: for gods sake kick the ball low and/or out in front. Putting the ball on the ground in front of these leading forwards is a better option than in the air (above the head) Lets not fall into the trap of playing tall forwards who, at present if they are not uo to scratch, then in all likelihood will be easily accounted by the Pies tall backs.

Hmmm, The Grassy Knoll option; effective yes, but perhaps the ramifications on the club, would suggest it being utilised as Plan B!!!!! Second Point - Expose players who traditionally don’t like pressure (Didak, Shaw) Both Didak and Shaw have shown they don’t like close attention, and consquently can easily be put of their game. Didak is a great ground level player and can be freakish with the ball, but is he dangerous in the air or on a lead. To curb him we need to prevent him from getting the ball – someone who is prepared to scrag.My suggestion would be Cheney who I believe has the height to match Didak. Oh, and tell Cheney to go in with a “mongrel/pest” attitude. Shaw likes to play loose, therefore just man him up; it’s really that simple. In my opinion Bruce would be the ideal candidate as he also has the running/marking power to hurt him the other way. Thomas can also be shut down, but consideration needs to be given to Thomas’s marking ability for a small player. This is probably the role for Joel MacDonald, but I would consider the other “Mac”. Captain courageous has the overhead ability to negate Thomas, and as Thomas is not known for endurance,our aging captain would not be exposed. His experience in the backline would be invaluable. Davis is also known to go quiet during games – he love his freedom and ground level play. Outside of the “J Macs” not sure who can effectively quell him. Utilising Jones as a tagger requires Grimes and Maloney to play in the midfield. Perhaps Davey, but to me this is to negative of a role (we need him in the forwards to expose their backs); unless of course he plays off Davis which negates the reason for playing him on Davis in the first place. The key with all of them would be PHYSICAL pressure!!! If nothing else out we, the supporters, would take hope and satisfaction out of seeing passion on the field.

First Point - Stop Dane Swan Dane Swan has great endurance, speed of the mark, footy nous and strength (a man's body) – who racks up possessions, sets up numerous goals and then also kicks goals. In my opinion this limits the options on who should take him on. Our younger players don’t have the strength, he would break their tackles, push them of the ball or out of a marking contest. Most of the rest of our players don’t have the endurance and speed to keep up. My suggestion would be Nathan Jones, with the instructions to not worry about possessions and when he gets the chance “to bury” swan i.e. make him earn his possessions. Jones game could also benefit by running with a dangerous midfielder like Swan. Swan needs to be tagged out of the game and towards the end of last year; he was shown to struggle with a GOOD tag. Other options could be: Bruce – has shown when given the role of locking down a player, that he is very effective. Also whilst gathering a lot of possessions, we may not miss their input/effect on the game as much. Maybe he could also play a “ling” type role, as a tagger who can go forward and be dangerous. Maloney – if he has the endurance, and can apply a defensive mindset. Batram, Dunn, McDonald – have all done this role in the past, but how effective are they likely to be against Swan

Thought it might be interesting to create discussion on How to beat Collingwood and see what shape the resulting team would take (I found the exercise also helps shifts your mindset away from the negatives of last week) . Some discussion key points could be: • Stop Dane Swan • Expose players who traditionally don’t like pressure (Didak, Shaw) • Take advantage of their under performing tall forward line (Cloak, Fraser, Brown, Anthony) • Limit the damage of their backs (particularly Maxwell, O’Brien, Presti) • Expose a potential lack of speed/endurance in their Midfield (O’bree, Ball, Johnson, Lockyer; perhaps Pendlebury) • Target their youth (sidebottom, Wellingham, etc) • more suggestions Okay in reality, as the current two teams stand we should'nt beat them; but that should NEVER stop us from trying.

A considered response I like it. My thoughts: We have way to many players, who don't or know how to apply defensive pressure. Note Defensive Pressure is not the ability to chase and run down a player - it's about not giving them space, freedom or even confidence to get the ball (no forward likes having the back of their heels trod on all game, or being continually ribbed or even any form of constant physical coontact). With this in mind I like Cheney in for Bennel. For people at the game does Maloney and Jones play defensivley enough (you can't get a true reflection from TV coverage, but it does not appear so on TV - Particularily Maloney); if not then they cannot both be on the ball at the same time. An out of the box suggestion would be for Maloney to replace Strauss (let him come back in a couple of weeks when the draw is more favourable for younger players - let's not shatter their confidence). This would toughen our backline, whilst teaching accountability; a huge upside is his penetrating kick could also help break open the "on ball defensive pressure" that oppositions uses so successfully against us (because they know our first, second and third option is to handall - whilst plan B is to kick short). Spencer needs more time at Casey (again lets not ruin his cofidence). For a backup option to Jamar, Martin is the obivious canditate - but with the way the style of footy is headingat the moment, a flexible tall could also provide this type of support; again outside the square, but perhaps Rivers (we do have a few talls to cover this), Dunn or Miller or Bate (we are not likely to lose to much from their current positions) We need a Foward, and we don't have any. No point painting sh*t gold and trying to use it as currency! For the moment we are probably best trying to follow a Bulldongs model of previous years (they didn't really have any quality tall forwards) and go with a small, quick and skilled forward line that expose tall backlines (lets make the opposition coach make reactionary matchup decisions). Green, Sylvia, Davey, Petterd, Perhaps Maric, Jetta, Hughes - most of whom can mark on the lead, above their height range, and importantly are quick.

Not sure if you could class Yze a champion, but yes a very, very good player over a few years; although Jeff White could be classed as a champion. Farmer left without adequate compensation, as he was reaching his peak. Still you are reinforcing the point why we are experiencing an extended period at the bottom, compared to other clubs; as we don't have any of these "champion" players to develop and build our young team around. Buddy and Roughead may have been from Hawthorns first year of bottoming out, but the bulk of the premiership team came from drafts before their bottoming out. Their Bottom out period brought players such as Thorp, Muston, Dowler, Ellis, Birchall, tuck, whitecross, Bailey, Murphy, Renouf, Morton, that skinny red head backman; and of course Franklin, Lewis & Roughhead. Note: haven't had time to reasearch this, it is based on conversations with a fanatical Hawks supporter - who like most of us, openly believes they stole a premiership. Of course this is where luck comes in: the draft with Franklin, Lewis & Roughhead was a beauty - note it also helps having Richmond heavily involved early!!!!!!

Thought I would point out some reasons for our seemingly extended period at the bottom of the table: First and probably most paramount is that we are now really feeling the pinch of the draft penalties. The result being we don't have the necessary quality core experience (28-32) around to support, guide, develop and assist the plethora of young players we have. Most sides that have had any success at "bottoming out" have had quality experience i.e Harvey, Crawford, Another very large contributing factor was that Neil Daniher over achived with the list he had (only 1 champion player in Neitz) and a lot of good to average players - making the finals consistently (at least by victorian standards). This meant that when the required rebuild of team took place their was no quality experience around to help. I don't recall to many all australians in these years (particularily multiple all-australians). It should also be noted that the successful teams have also traded well, it is nearly impossible to draft a premiership team. Think Ottens for Geelong; Hall, Jolly, Bolton for Sydney, Croad, Dew for Hawthorn; Port brought in defenders such as Bishop, Hardwick; West Coast had Stenglien and Chick. Even St Kilda brought in Gerhig and Powel for the first tilt and now have numerous players origanally from other clubs for their second tilt. Bulldogs - Hall. These trades served two purposes to a) address a shortcoming in structure and/or B) to bring in experience and muscle for the development of youth. I also don't believe any team has truly won a premiership through the "bottoming out" method first that was first instigated by St Kilda. Hawthorn's premiership was more a result of ruthless trading and clever drafting (Croad, McPharlin, Chick, Hay, Thompson). Their bottom out period (Thorp, Dowler, etc) is really yet to take shape. Geelong didn't truly bottom out, as per the St Kilda model (can't think of any number 1 draft picks for Geelong). Luck: the one year we were in a position to take advantage of the draft whilst our list was still in reasonable shape (so as to quickly build a premiersip side); was just a very very weak draft year. Not to many success stories in the 2003 draft. Unfortunately the delisting/retirement of experince players such as Robertson, White, Whelan, etc has exasperated the short term pain. Of course the upside, is the long term gain from extra youth developing; which may result in an extended long term period of success. As for the forward line and ruck problems - Sydney has shown they can be traded in when needed. Also Geelong, West Coast, Port and to a lesser extent Sydney and Brisbane have all shown that you need only 1 quality foward to win a premiership and some may argue the word quality. This year our side is just to young!!!!!

Agreed!!!! We should be out supporting Baily and the MFC: Has anyone thought that Baily may have been trying to win the game!!!! Warnock in the forwards was responsible for 1 goal assist late in the last quarter, whilst Petterd in the midfield kicked the goal that put the Demons in front. How many goals did Riewoldt kick on Johnson??? If melbourne had of won (with little to no bench) we would be saying Baily is a genius!!!! We should not be adding to the tanking debate and embarassing us!!!!

can anyone point me in the right direction for a team/squad list of the players; preferably with numbers and positions?

Is this truly about workplace choice? Do all proffessionals have that choice? If I was a soldier in the army or a fighter pilot with the airforce, I beleive my choices to ply my trade would be severly limited. Yes I may be able to find work elsewhere - perhaps another country, or an airline (not sure how you can utilise your dog-fighting skills); but in general there are no obivoius alternatives. There are many other occupations that have restrictions such as the Police force or even Teaching (try landing where you want to for your first job, as I understand it you need to nominate zones). Another choice players have open to them is playing in other football leagues - WAFL, QAFL, Ireland, etc; but like the soldier and the fighter pilot sacrifices must be made, should they not wish to adhere to the employer's (Army, Airforce) rules. or is this about greed????????

Jones Miller Davey Bennell Johnson Morton

6: Warnock - our best, did what he had to do 5: Jones - needs help from his fellow midfielders, do they know how to shepherd, clear a path or in Mcleans case CHASE. 4: Davey - our most reliable kick 3: Martin - Strong overhead (punch, mark) and quick 2: Petterd - provided a contest, and pressure 1: Miller - the only non-back capable of taking a mark consistently Can anyone at the game, comment on what midfielders provide any defensive pressure????

18 teams neatly divides into two divisions of 9 teams o One division would comprise of essentially interstate teams the other Victorian teams o Each team plays every side once; and every side in their division twice o Total of 25 games – perhaps eliminating the preseason competition Advantages include all Victorian teams get to have home games against the big 4; The draw becomes even for all teams (on a divisional basis); Minimal effect on interstate clubs as their travel arrangements remain the same The final series could remain as a top 8, but include the top 4 sides from each division o The top 2 sides from each division could play in the qualifying final o The 3rd & 4th from each division would play in the elimination finals o The semi final would be between the losing top two side and winning (3rd/4th) side for each appropriate division o The preliminary final would be between the qualifying winning side and the remaining side from the other division Advantages include 4 Victorian sides always in the finals, and one preliminary final always at the MCG; whilst still allowing for the two best sides to play in the Grand Final. Arguments for the 5th place side in one division not making the finals, when its clearly better than the top sides of the other division, is weak – if they deserved to be there then, they needed to finish fourth! Arguments against a 25 game season can be countered, as the current season is currently 22 with a preseason comp of 4 games (for some players). Another option though, would be an initiative where no player can play more than 22 games for the season (excluding finals) with rookies allowed to replace players who have been “rested” – this would just mean greater player management by coaching staff whilst maintaining the current playing arrangement that the players association are happy with. Another benefit of having no preseason comp could be that all sides would take every game seriously! The greatest difficulty is which Victorian side is placed in the Interstate Division? Obivious candidates are Geelong, and Hawthorn: o Geelong because they can be considered outside of Melbourne, but more importantly have their own home ground (perhaps allowing them home finals as a recompense) o Hawthorn as they already partly interstate (TAS), 4 interstate games would fit nicely into the draw of the interstate division. Ensuring home games against the big 4 vic teams could be provided as a recompense o Melbourne Demons, North Kangaroos and Western Bulldogs could also be slated for this division on the basis that this is their contribution for gaining financial assistance (whoever receives the greatest assistance for the year, plays in the interstate division). o Consideration coulds also be given to a relegation system between the divisions for the bottom placed Victorian side. Other considerations need to be given to rewarding the minor premiers of each division, & the order of the draft. A thought for rewarding the minor premiers could be: o Allowing all the rookies to be available for selection during the final series o Letting them have an extra rookie pick for the following year o Allowing them a free upgrade of a rookie during the following year A thought on the draft under this system As there is no clear cut last across all the sides (only a last in each division), the remaining teams should play for their position in the draft. This would take place concurrently with the finals. Each team would start with the number of draft points equivalent to their position within a division i.e the last placed side would start on 9 points. In the first week of the finals the sides would play their equivalent placed side form the other division i.e the two bottom placed sides would play each other. The winners would then gain more draft points. The following week the two lowest placed winners would play each other, the two lowest placed losers would play each other whilst the highest placed winners would play one of the two eliminated teams (from the top 8 final series) that have now just entered this draft comp (the eliminated teams would come in with the amount of draft points equivalent to their final position, in this case 4). The next week two more eliminated teams would enter the draft comp, and so on ….. . The draft order would then be determined by who has the most points – the more points the higher in the draft order Advantages of this would include: o Eliminating talk of tanking o Creating a level playing field for the following year as all teams off season would begin at the same time o Exposing younger players to the AFL, and o Obliviously the cash and marketing opportunities generated by more games. I hop to elaborate more on this when time permits, as consideration needs to also be given to how points should be awarded for a win; I’m toying with the idea of o 1 point for beating a side lower than you (as of the end of the home and away), o 2 points for beating a side equal to you (as of the end of the home and away), o 3 points for beating a side above you (as of the end of the home and away) Also toying with the idea, as to whether clubs in the draft comp be allowed to play scholarship players, AIS invitees, players from their reserves (affiliated comp) and/or retired players; with of course consideration given to contracts, insurance, injury, and existing clubs priorities (their own competition final’s) Anyway just some thoughts that I hope will generate a new and healthy discussion