Ho Chi Dee

Lucky for him we're on the bottom of the heap. By being happy to play for us and nominating us as one option, he's basically ensured he'll be traded to whichever club it is he truly prefers. I'm sure he does want Port to be "adequately compensated", but the situation now places the pressure on Port to accept whatever is offered to them. I'm all for acquiring Burgoyne - preferably through the PSD (though pick 18 would be excellent for us) and something tells me that's the only way we'll land him. Have a feeling he has already decided where he wants his career to continue and it isn't us, but by being "happy" to land at Melbourne it removes the incentive for Port to be "tough" ala the Stevens trade.

Not necessarily. Players can nominate their pay terms when they entre the PSD and he's likely nominate a price in that range anyway. If we've been paying McLean around 400,000 then 500,000 a year for Burgoyne excellent value. Unless he nominates us as the preferred destination we wont get Burgoyne through the PSD any other way than all other deals falling over. If that happens we wont be getting him for less than he wants.

Yes. There are a lot of hypersensitive posters here. Anyone who's seen the short video of his retirement speech to the group couldn't seriously doubt Robbo's respect for the club or not see that he's a fairly level headed man. He thinks there's a potential danger in an all-encompassing youth push, has just lost his job and still feels like he has something to offer. I thought what he said in the article is neither surprising nor in the least bit inflammatory. There are a lot of over-zealous people round here.

Absolutely. And its a good indication that most people's predictions for next year around here are missing the point. Winning will be important from next year onwards, but the over-focus on results clouds the bigger picture. If we have the opportunity to develop the 'right' players together from next year and we manage to win along the way, then great. But if developing the right players means using the chance to mould as much of the future as possible and the end result in win-loss terms is only a bit better than this year, I'll wear that.

Looking through the footage posted earlier, I couldn't help notice a similarity in plodding approach to a set shot with our last number 9. Not too enthused by the kicking style or accuracy though. Does look like plenty to work with however. Good point. Thankfully though as we're all aware, it doesn't mean they'll finish up ranked in drafted order.

Agree there's too much hang up regarding "great numbers" at clubs. However, personally I just find it looks messy seeing a team run around with an imbalance of high numbers. Once a regular, good player, drop down to lower number. Its annoying that lack of 'coherence' in numbers on matchdays. Low numbers on players like Buckley, Bartram, Miller, Johnson, Dunn etc. are a waste IMO. If you're good enough to be a regular part of the main 22-26, it looks better to have a lower number. Solution, make them earn it or a year or two, then drop them down (in a few cases like Watts and Scully its pretty safe to go low early). But I don't care for specifically passing on "great numbers". Totally personal gripe I know, but seeing a team full of 30s and 40s running around just bugs me.

The only obvious things here are your over reaction and your dislike of Llyod and Essendon. Yes, well done, a collar bone is different to a skull. Have a cigar. The point is both incidents were intended to physically shake up a player / team. Llyod didn't look like he was aiming for the head. If he'd collected Sewell fairly on the side, it still would have made an impressive impact and sent a message out - and eveyone would have thought it a great piece of play. That was what Lloyd was trying to do. He missed, collected the head and will be suspended, as he should be. But labeling him "gutless", "sniper" and a "[censored]" is just ridiculous and overly emotive. The extent of Sewell's injury isn't what's at issue here. Its a horrible injury, lucky it wasn't worse and we all hope he recovers well. You (and everyone else being dramatic about this) projecting intent onto Lloyd's actions that didn't appear to be there and you can't prove was there is curious. He went to make a physical statement which our game condones. It went wrong, he'll pay the price. Where's the issue?

There's not enough important things going on in your life WYL if this incident makes you this hysterical. Yes, Llyod lined him up with intent. So what, its part of the game. Its what we all call for from our players from time to time. There's no doubt Lloyd wanted to hit Sewell and make sure he felt it - did he intend to hit him in the head? Didn't look like it. It was the start of the second half, his team were down and he'd down sweet FA up to that point, making your presence felt is what he should have done. Cast your mind back to the Neitz McCabe incident in 04 - one of my favourite pieces of play from any demon. Neitz beelined for McCabe to make sure he hit him and McCabe felt it, it worked. Did he want to break his collarbone? Unlikely. However, what would have happened had the angles been slightly different and Neitz had collected McCabe in the head? The same level of intent would have been there, but the outcome worse. He'd have been suspended and deservedly so. Same situation here. Wanting to throw his weight around and intimidate the Hawks was fair play from Lloyd and at the end of the day it was a big factor in the Dons winning. He had a dirty day otherwise, but so what? Are you claiming that because of that he shouldn't have tried to assist the team? It didn't look like he wanted to make contact to the head, but he did and he'll be suspended for it. As it should be. If anything should be sitting uneasy with you it should be the undignified manner in which Hawthorn have reacted to it. Brown and Clarkson especially have been pathetic. Too much triablism and sour grapes there. After the way the hawks carried on afterwards I too am feeling a good dose of schadenfreude. Ash 34 - I wouldn't be baited by histrionics on here. I think the your dons have been impressive in patches this year, I like watching them and though I doubt it will happen, I'd like to see them get over the crows. Enjoy it.

The point our about our midfield being about set is optimistic, however I share your enthusiasm for Butcher. It was a wasted opportunity that we didn't have the first 2 picks last year when there were so many gifted / exciting prospects. After Scully this year, the top end looks good, but not like the last few years. Whilst I'd like all of Butcher / Trengove / Morabito, each seems to be a little closer to looking like they'll be "good" players rather elite (we need plenty of good players btw). With that in mind I find it tempting to take the best tall route. As much as we desperately need an increase in quality of ball winners and users in the middle, our forward structure is also in need of further quality and options. With Watts' range of abilities, he'll spend plenty of time further up field and as good as Jurrah looks like being, a good big target should make life easier for him (and he will also be used further up field given the quality of his use). I don't think Butcher would've been touted as highly in 05, 06 and 08, but he still looks a good prospect and one that we are in need. We wont have an opportunity to expolit the pointy end of the tall prospects for a long time again, unless one of the next few years is unsually tall laden. Being realistic, with the concessions next year we are likely to have a pick somewhere in the region of 8 - 16. Promising midfielders with good speed and ball usage are usually easier to find around this mark. Trengove and Morabito are exciting for different reasons, but neither scream almost definite A grader to me. Though I'll be happy with any of the 3 options, I'll also be nervous - we'll not have this opportunity again and this draft does seem "good" rather than "great". Our list is taking shape, though there is still plenty of space for better quality footballers if we want to make the ultimate in the coming 6-7 years. If we nail this draft we could be on the way, but this one will be harder than recent others to do so. This November will be crucial to the next decade. The club has a hell of a responsibility to get it right.

You're carrying on as if people somehow manage to always communicate their messages completely as intended. We make minor mistakes with our language use constantly - particularly with a tense complex language like English, and particulalry in spoken communiques. You are skewing the "facts" by projecting or implying what was really meant to be said. Why on earth would he seriously want to highlight a lack of courage? And, would you really want or expect him to say "I used to be a wuss, but now I'm the toughest person man on the park"? I'll give Jack the benefit of the doubt and assume that how he said what he said wasn't strictly correct for the message he wanted to communicate. He doesn't need to say he has no issues now in going for the hardball, his play says it for him. That will do me. Now stop derailing these threads with your egregiously irrelevant semantics and stop wasting pages of valuable virtual space - And our not so virtual time.

Maybe, but it all depends on the length of the bottoming out process required. Ours is going to be (has been) a long one. I'm not sure we're good for many more than 4-5 wins next year either. I too like the look of Grimes, Blease and Bennell, but we've said that before about countless other prospects. We're in dire need of a couple of genuine top liners and the best shot we have of those is having early picks. I think (and hope) we're likley to be fielding an even younger, more inexperienced side next year, which while beneficial long term, will continue to be unimpressive next year. This will prolong the bottoming out. Who knows, we may already have brought the players we need onto our list by this november (though the most likely case is we haven't), but whilst we're not in a position to threaten, I want access to decent picks. I'd be surprised if we weren't bottom three again next year and if thats the case we're going to be as hurt as any of the other lowly clubs next year. Having said that, I'm glad we're not in Richmond's or Fremantle's position either.

I'm not convinced that any of the above you mention, with the possible excepetion of Grimes, will be the panacea we need for our on-ball problems. Obviously Blease and Strauss are relative unknows at this stage but Morton and Bennell appear to be more icing than cake. Quality icing though, none of that cheap-powder stuff. You can never have too much midfield talent anyway. And counting on players who are yet to show anything is fool's gold. The midfield is the area that requires most attention.

Strong marks are usually contested situations. He doesn't need to be an under-the-pack player.

Definite disagree. Our midfield is the worst in the comp by a considerable margin. It's probably the worst combination at Melbourne I can remember. The fact that teams are able to kill us off in one quarter bursts is testament to this. A strong midfield signficantly decreases the need for a great forward line and significantly increases the pressure on the opposition defense. Our most pressing concern is the midfield. By a long way. I think the draft concessions to the CG next year are bigger threat to Melbourne's stocks than most believe. This year, apart from one, there doesn't appear to be the midfield talent of recent years. Sure we'll end up with Scully, but we're going to need more.

Good post, I've heard that Voss story too. Only difference being that a young Voss already had more of an appetite for contested ball than Cale does. And more of a natural nous for it. The shirking he did on Friday night, although ugly and not acceptable will hopefully leave his game as he gets stronger and more confident. Its possible to be brave and still not be a great winner of contested situations or have a playing stlye that even gets into those situations. That's why his desire for contested possessions that is more of a concern. Currently he seems uninterested in playing a style of football that sees him in contests at all. I hope you're right about the 3rd year development, as his bow is a little under strung without being able to force and win contests. This can also come as he matures, but he is coming from a long way back in this regard, especially compared with a young Voss. He'll be good either way, but if he is to turn into a match turning star we desperately crave he needs to develop his ability to make and win contested situations.

I'm happy with that one - we need leg speed to go against the Bombers. Most exciting line up of the year thus far. 5 indigenous boys must be a record for the MFC? And, although it may not gel tomorrow night, that forward line is the most promising and balanced we've named for a while. Really looking forward to this one.

If football were a battle of team's bottom ranked players, Melbourne would currently be sitting comfortably indeed. Depth is only really useful if you've enough very good players to guide a team. And I would mark depth differently. Rather than seeing depth as "bottom" ranked players, I'd argue that true depth is in having a wide range of middle tiered players. This is were Carlton fall down - there is far too much gap between their best and worst. Teams will always have players that just struggle along. You need a good smattering of excellent players backed by an even spread of good middle tiered ones. Strugglers will always be there. Melbourne certainly have a number of younger types that could become very good - however even if they do become so, we'll need a much better average when it comes to good players aged in the 23-28 bracket if we're to do more than make up the numbers.

You're not a very subtle thinker are you? You're fanatical devotion to single issue elements of a players game is both boringly lacking in a wider perspective and egregious. However, you seem to be able to continually match this unaffected simplicity in your non-critical backing of any player you feel meets your criteria of being "elite". Being able to be a very good or even elite player invloves the application of more elements than kicking - some of them intangible. That being said, Cale is a very good user of the ball by foot - well above average. He may not be amongst the exalted company of the very best kicks in the league, but he doesn't need to be in order for him to become top line. What he currently has is sufficient. Its also worth moting thay his kicking appears to have improved over his short career as he's settled to the pace and demands of the game at this level. I'd back it to improve further in the future. Even if Cale's kicking doesn't show improvement, his other attributes including his ability to read the play, find space, mark, link up and his work ethic are a solid enough foundation for him to become very good. This is why there is an appreciation in the wider footballing community that Cale's ceiling is a lofty one indeed. From what I have seen (which is considerable for a 2nd year player built as he is) I'll back him to mark out an impressive career and be viewed as one of the best of the 2007 crop. He does needs to find more of an appetite for the contested ball to make the most of his wide-ranging skills, but I'll give him time to develop to do so, rather than rush into pre-mature evaluations. As for the overall question of this thread, its far too early to be definitively declaring whether we made the most of chances at the 2007 draft but I think its becoming clear that we will do quite well out of it. Your self-righteous, dismissive conviction that you are able to assert the MFC has blundered in its opportunities at the draft is symptomatic of the impatient and self-proclaimed wise. The irony of it all is that you're unware of the fact that your opaque arguements highlight the limited scope of your footballing "insight".

Thanks for update Cameron, its much appreciated. What is the timeframe on the Docklands project? As you say, we are almost ready to move into the new Olympic Park facility, yet it would seem on a few points this setup is less than ideal. What is the nature of the MFC's commitment to the OP facility? Although the Docklands is only at a conceptual stage at the moment, will the club be in a position, contractually speaking, to take such an opportunity if it is deemed preferable? It seems one way or the other, it will be a while before we are truely settled. Enjoy the game - I'll have to make do with following it online.

That's my understanding, but I wouldn't be holding out for what the plundered club would view as good compensation. I think the AFL's decision of silence is an indication that most wont like the criteria they've devised. And anyway it wouldn't make sense for the GC to be granted such bountiful early picks if they were then forced to part with those in the early stages of their recruiting. Conclusion, make all attempts to sign players we're desperate to keep because we wont receive a lot back in return for those we lose. Trading for one of their early picks sounds nice, but I'm expecting that the powers that be are hoping that the GC will be able to prise a few of their preferred targets pre-trading for relativley little loss. So their early picks will be more highly valued than we would all like to hope.

More challenging to call this week. If it were me, I'd leave out Maric - only because Subi suits players with larger tanks. I want to see him in for a few weeks straight after this one though. I'd go Jones, Bennell, Grimes and Cheney. Due to injuires and the ground I'd have thought we'll need players with the running ability and defensive capabilities of Grimes and Cheney to better utilise Petterd and Bruce. I have a feeling though that Newton will come in though to free up Martin for the ruck.

Pity they couldn't have seen the Docklands development coming, there could have been a suburb named for the new entity. The poor old Roy Boys.

That's alright - add some gray to the blue, white and red of the clubs, throw in some green, black and yellow to represent the Apple Isle, have the team responsible for Port's away number this year and have a "sexy" club strip the Gold Coast would be envious of.

The multi-million-dollar-misplacing Tasmanian Demonic Kangaroos has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

He thinks it would be to the benefit of the competition? Merge the two clubs with the lowest support base in the country, disenfranchise half of each clubs supporters and likely be left with a total following equal to one of the clubs on its own. And how tempting it would be for potential corporate sponsorship - the club that essentially represents no-one and no place and the club that is perennially viewed as down-trodden battlers up against the odds. Instant powerhouse. However laughable Jackson's suggestion may be, what it does reiterate is that our position is far from secure long term. It only takes a change of personnel at the top of AFL management for mergers and relocations to be back on the agenda - particularly if the code needs to look to tighten belt straps in the near future to absorb some of the financial pain of 2 new clubs. We need to make hay whilst the sun shines.