Binmans PA

I'm with you on today's performance, but I'm happy enough to trust BP to pick the right boy on our third pick.

I actually thought they played a lot like us. In both disposal efficiency and game plan. If Metro had a dominant key forward they would have won, but they really had no one to kick it too. The string of handballs involving Scully and his goal, is how we should be executing the run and carry game plan. At least, we know he can do it, considering he'll be playing that style next year.

I think people are becoming a little too scared of a Richmond type scenario. I watched the last three matches today and no key position player really stood out enough to suggest going at number 2. I could understand taking a Roughead, but there simply doesn't seem to be one. I'm for Scully (who was incredibly awesome today) and Trengove, although Carlisle (spelling?) was kind of impressive for Metro in the second half. How tall is he though? He seemed to read it well. I'm not sure, could he fall to the late teens and into our hands?

I might be wrong, but I don't think 'calabreseboy' was actually saying Flanagan is literally an MFC supporter, but merely that he may as well be, because his article touches on the themes and issues that Melbourne supporters themselves feel.

Very true, Hannabal. It's a pity a few more media people don't understand this.

They'd have to be as arrogant as hell. I wouldn't want anyone on my list who was like that anyway. Not sure how far fetched it is. It's the sort of thing you'd expect of Carlton or someone like that though.

Yeah, I don't think the Eagles are looking to tank at all. I thought so a few weeks ago, but going on their win against the Hawks the other night, I can't see them not winning that 5th game. I think they realised there's no way they could win less games than us, because we've been so pitiful over the last three weeks. It's Richmond and Freo who are the two that will compete for the bottom spot.

We have a very good record against Port in Melbourne. They've only beaten us once. I think we're more likely to beat them, than the Eagles.

You have a good point, 45.

I might might reading this incorrectly, but I wouldn't have thought we've been a top 8 team consistently, for the past 20 years. Every second or third year, yes, but certainly not consistently. Consistency has certainly not be a hallmark of the MFC over my life time. Consistency would have been the Bombers under Sheedy for the last 20 years. If we can achieve that sort of consistency, then we'll have a sustained membership base well and truly in the 40,000s.

Pardon me. 2011 draft. And no, he's at least 16.

Agreed. I also love the sound of Jack Viney. If we got him in 2010 we'd have our elite midfield. Prodiving we pick two elite midfielders with picks 1 & 2 this year.

Yeah, it'd have to be a sustained period. And obviously, we the club couldn't survive another 45 years without a premiership. We need one soon and we need to be a top 8 side consistently for the next 10 to 20 years.

Fantastic article, a great read.

I still believe we have heaps of 'supporters' out there, who haven't signed up for memberships this year. But, once it's the in thing to do, I could see us gaining an extra 5-10,000 members. The Hawks proved this. All we need then is to get an NT contract, similar to Tasmania with the Hawks and like I said before, we could add another 5,000. 50,000 might be asking a little too much, but in 5 to 10 years, 45,000 is very doable. Add, Casey Melbourne supporters over the next 15 to 20 years and all of a sudden the 50,000 mark could be very attainable.

Isn't he only on a two year contract at the moment? That would mean we offer him a one year deal, with certain requirements to be met, for him to retain the job beyond 2010. I'm not sure that's the wisest move to be honest.

I see what you're saying. Personally, I'd go for young kids with genuine leadership. Trengove and Scully already sound like born leaders and possibilities to play Round 1 next year. If they could develop as quickly as a Luke Hodge, then that's exactly what we need. Of course, Judd or Pavlich would be good, but I still like the youth policy. It's been mentioned on Demonland before, that a lot of the champion Brisbane Lions players that played in the three Grand Finals, all played in a wooden spoon together. It's not all doom and gloom if they fail to begin with. It's all part of the learning curve and to achieve success you sometimes have to suffer before you succeed. We are not in the position of a Hawthorn, when they were rebuilding, to have a top notch leader/champion to look up to like a Crawford, so it'll just take a bit longer. But I think persistence is the key.

Gerard Healy was one of the people who selected Bailey in the first place! Healy gives me the shits.

I'm beginning to think we should take Scully and Trengove. The only thing I'd be worried about from the Trengove point of view is the go home factor (hello, Scott Thompson). Other than that, we still need that other key forward. Also, I don't think taking a ruckman that could go forward (ala Kruzer) would be such a bad thing. I'm just not sure of the talent available in that department, this year. Scully's obviously a shoe-in for #1, but for #2, I suppose I should reserve my final judgement for a few months time. Or even, this coming Wednesday. To be honest, I can't see us going for another small forward. Aussie, Jetta, Maric and possibly even Jurrah can all play that role. I'm not sure we'd need any other small forwards. That said, if Brandon is anything like his (uncle?) Phillip, then he and Watts could have a handy little partnership up forward, in the years to come. Good post, 'two sheds jackson'. You've almost persuaded me the other way. Who knows, Butcher might just tear up the Championships this Wednesday. I'll certainly be watching. I think I'll go back and sit on the fence. It really depends who shines through in the coming weeks. If it's another mid, then take him. If it's Butcher or another KPF, then take him. What would you propose doing with the forwardline, Hannabal? Do you think our forwardline (let's say: Watts, Aussie, Jurrah, Maric, Bate, Sylvia etc) will be good enough? Or are you thinking, we'll use a later round pick to bolster the forwardline and use our first 3 picks to build this elite midfield? I'm just not sure we can build a gun midfield in only one draft. We'd need at least two drafts. So let's say we go Scully and another elite mid this year...that's not going to do it, as you say. So where do we go from there? Do we push the likes of Grimes and perhaps Strauss in there, once they've developed further? Why is it that we've never had an elite mid in, at least the last twenty years then? Drafting is not as simple as it may appear. Yep, still a major concern for me.

It's an interesting point this. As soon as the sting went out of the game (aka pressure), our disposal became slick and accurate. A number of times in the last ten minutes we strung 4 or 5, slick disposals together and raced it from one end of the ground to the other. So we can do it, it's just a matter of having the confidence to do it, when the pressure is on.

The good players always seem to have time. That can make them seem more casual. It's composure and poise. Watching him get tackled a couple of times over the last few weeks, illustrates he hasn't quite got the pace of the game yet. But expect him to get better with each game.

I don't recall anyone saying that. They simply said, it's kind of pointless comparing the two.

Oh, there's no doubt Craig Cameron was an incipid recruiter. I'm so glad Richmond wanted him.

Actually, as a coach myself, it varies. If you're coaching young kids (cognitive learners), then it is the coaches job to teach the players the skills. But come AFL level (supposedly elite level), the coach maps out and implements a game plan. At the moment, our skills aren't up to that game plan. However, Bailey's thinking is (probably) that if you get the game plan into these kids early, at least once they feel more comfortable under pressure and in contested situations (after 40 or 50 AFL games), then they'll have that foundation and game plan in their make ups, to implement it with effective disposals and decision making. I do agree with some posters, though, that are saying it's up to Bailey to get them to gut run and do the team things. It's a coaches job to motivate players to do this. Otherwise, they're not doing their job. Of course, if the players they have at their disposal are not up to it, then that's a different story. Perhaps, it's the latter?

So many overractions here. I'm not saying I'm sure Bailey is the man for the job, but he's barely got anyone to work with. The majority of our senior players wouldn't get a game at any other club, but that's what Bailey's got to chose from. And the rest...well, they're just kids. It'll be very interesting to see who we delist at the end of the year. The problem is you can't simply delist/retire the majority of the senior list. We've already done that over the past two years. We need some experience, even if it doesn't showing the leadership qualities you'd hope for. Bailey needs at least next year to prove himself. If the team shows nothing next year, then perhaps.