Akum

Yeah, I was wondering the same - did he stuff up badly? Or are they being extra hard on him (maybe following on from that strange statement last week about him having to get used to not dominating a game) for a purpose?

Fair enough. But it's hard to keep the faith when: (1) Our current crop of injuries are all of the type that are completely preventable - foot stress fractures & hammies; (2) All 4 of our specialist ruckmen who have played an AFL game have a preventable injury which has made them unable to participate in full training, and is likely to keep them all out of full training until at least the start of the season. This is not a position that other clubs are in.

BBB, I take this to mean that Strauss went OK with the kick-outs as well as with his field kicking? If his disposal stands up under pressure, he could make a huge contribution in a few areas where we really struggled last year. And Scott West sounds like the midfield coach we really need - as a player he was known for being an absolute perfectionist at training.

What I like about Martin in the ruck is that with his athleticism he has the potential (there's that word again) to give us a lot more drive around the ground, while hopefully holding his own at stoppages. On the other hand, this spate of entirely preventable injuries occurring preseason is very disconcerting (even if it may be related to the players being so fired up that they're pushing too hard). Doesn't exactly promote confidence in the club's fitness management.

Yeh, maybe. I'd want to leave after 4 years hard work with absolutely no result. But I suppose that it's the belief of every sacked coach that improvement is just around the corner that stops them from walking before they're sacked. My point though is that by mid-2011 the appropriate course of action for the Board in relation to DB's future will be obvious to all; the 12-month extension is just responsible governance. Seems the thing to pick up on one minor phrase and ignore the main points.

In terms of risk management, the decision to give DB a 12-month extension to his contract is an obvious one for the Board. Look at it this way. To move up the ladder, we'll be relying on big improvements in individual performance from many players old and young, but most of all for the team to click together and play much more effectively together as a unit. Now, this improvement may come in the early rounds of 2010. But it's more likely that the team won't really click into gear until later in 2010, or even until the early part of 2011. The Board is showing by the 12-month extension that they appreciate this, but also that if there's no improvement by mid-2011, their next course of action will be obvious. BUT, if there's no contract extension and by mid-2010 there's not much improvement in team performance, the pressure will mount week by week on the Board to take decisive action, while the team and the club is destabilised more and more. Very few poorly-performing clubs have been able to stand up to this level of media-driven destabilisation. My point is that, as the Board realises the likelihood that major improvement in team performance may not come until after mid-2010, the 12-month extension manages that totally avoidable and unnecessary risk right out of existence. It removes the pressure on the Board to take decisive action on DB's future until the time of their choosing - the latter half of 2011 season, by which time the correct course of action will be obvious. And an extension of more than 12 months makes no sense. If we're on the rise by mid-2011, DB will want to negotiate a new contract with higher rewards, and if we're in the doldrums, he'll want to leave. Either way, he won't want to hang around for another 12 months. The 12 month extension is simply a very good governance decision, albeit an obvious one, on the part of the Board for the good of the club.

Not everyone is going to do well enough in their VCE to become an environmental ambassador for Visy!

Valid point. But the other side of the coin is that there's so many players with so much untapped potential at the club that if only half of them disappear without a trace and the other half get close to their potential, we'll be a damn good side. Remember Hannabal and his "top 6"?

Just a hint - 15 posts is a helluva lot when all you're doing is trying to bag a particular player. Your OP indicated that you expected some opposing views, and there's nothing wrong with defending your opinion. But if what you're trying to do is bring all the opposing views around to your way of thinking, you're always going to be shovelling it uphill. Long may you post!

Yeah fair enough. Suppose it depends whether you think he had it in him to improve even further. I thought a couple of games at the end of the season showed that he might have, but as you say, 15 other clubs didn't think so (though I doubt that any of them were looking closely at any of our fringe players toward the end of the season).

I think this nails it. In our midfield, Brock always attracted the No.1 tagger and became too easy for other teams to counter. And it wasn't just his disposal that suffered; it was his overall effectiveness. It got to the stage where he just wasn't able to hurt the opposition. The dilemma for Brock at Carlton will be the same. If he doesn't get tagged, his footy nous and (generally) good decision-making & play-making will do a lot of damage. Unfortunately, that will also get him tagged again and blunt his effectiveness. Nobody doubts Brock's ability to be an effective and damaging midfielder, but he needs to demonstrate that he can be that when he's getting tagged. If he can do that, then yes, he will have been a big loss.

Er ... we've found the right path but we're not out of the woods yet??? Each cliched metaphor more laboured than the last ... Sure, we haven't reached Nirvana yet. But speaking for myself, I'd have to say that this result is well beyond what I'd expected. They've done well, they need to keep it up.

Stef is an ex-basketballer (not like Jack who played both basketball & footy from a young age - Stef was basketball only). He's still very much learning the game - positioning, use of body etc etc. I can't remember him ever having been seriously thrashed by anybody, or having made heaps of mistakes during any particular game. The thing about Stef is that from time to time he does something great, but like a lot of young players (especially with his background) can find it hard to get into a game. The hardest task is to turn potential into actual performance, and it's true that Stef still has that task ahead of him. If he fails to improve any further from where he is now, then your comments have substance. But with his athleticism, his intelligence, and the sheer grunt that he shows from time to time, most of us expect that there is still a helluva lot of upside to come from Stef. We'll know for sure in about 2011.

Actually, during a particularly competitive game of table tennis, Jack managed to slice off his right leg. This is not expected to disrupt his preseason, though BB will need to adjust his running style. Jack's only comment was "it's just a flesh wound".

I must admit that I thought Valenti was really stiff to be cut in the first place. He has a really good football brain for his age, which almost makes up for his lack of height & average disposal, though I thought his disposal improved last year. He played a couple of great games towards the end of the year, but he just happened to be the same type of mid as Beamer, Brock & Jones and we couldn't afford to have too many of those in the same side. I have a feeling that he was cut before Brock decided to jump ship - if so, then I can't help but wonder that if Brock had decided to leave a few weeks earlier whether Valenti might still be on the list.

There couldn't be anyone better to take Gysberts under his wing than Beamer! Great pic on that article too.

This to me is the key point. The potential upside across the team is so huge that if everyone with "improvement in them" improves by 10% of their potential upside, it will translate into a big improvement across the team overall. It also creates the climate which makes it more likely for potential stars to really excel. There are so many possibilities, especially among our recent top-20 draft picks, you'd have to think that the most unlikely scenario would be that none of them makes a major impact. If, say, one in 5 of out of those with the potential to really rip it apart manages to actually do it, then maybe 3 or 4 are set for a great season. Which are the most likely? I'd go with the quality & look at our top 5 draft picks - Sylvia, Morton, Watts, Scully, Trengove, and of course Jurrah. I can't see any reason why either Scully or Trengove (or both) couldn't do as well in 2010 as Rich or Ziebell did in 2009. But the reason I think we're not far off being a really good side is sheer weight of numbers - there are just so many possibilities on our list, meaning that we can afford for several to fail.

"Scully-to-Watts" is a great start! By which I mean: (1) MUCH better supply (quantity AND quality) from the midfield - we were by far the AFL's worst at forward-50 entries in 2009. This would surely have to improve in 2010, and dramatically. More goals from the midfield too. (2) A better-structured and more settled forward set-up - our forward line was different in every game in 2009, every game was another improvisation. These are of course dependent on each other. This is what needs to happen for more goals to come: * Sylvia, Jurrah, Bate & Petterd did well in 2009 - 3 of them just have to at least maintain their 2009 form, plus the better supply from midfield. * We will get more out of our small forwards, whether it be Wona, Maric or Jetta - only one of these 3 has to fire. * Reasonable forward contributions from new players - Watts, Blease, Tapscott, Trengove. * Better contribution up forward from "wild cards" such as Morton, Garland or Martin - only one of these has to fire. * Davey isn't needed so desperately in defensive midfield so he can play further forward where he's more dangerous. The point is that the extra goals will come from slight to moderate improvement of a number of players. Of the 15 that I've named, it only needs 5 or 6 of them to find good form, we can afford to have half of them struggle for form or get injured. The chances of 12 out of the 15 of them bombing out are tiny. We don't depend on any one player to rip the comp apart, though there's a fair chance of one of them (Jurrah? Sylvia? Morton?) having a stellar season, which will only add to the overall improvement.

I can understand the frustration of some in relation to Miller. He's good at getting the ball, and certainly gets enough of it within scoring range. If he could improve his goalkicking efficiency, he's capable of 2 or 3 a game which would easily justify his place in the 22 and the frustration that's directed at him would evaporate. With his work ethic, I'd imagine that he works very hard on his set shots at training. It's not as if he's a bad kick in general, he just seems to get the yips when shooting for goal. And that's the problem - a bad kicking action can be corrected, but the yips (in any sport) are rarely successfully overcome.

Seems to me that a major concern for Demetriou is that information seems to be drip-fed instead of him being fully briefed about exactly what it will involve. The bids for both 2018 & 2022 have to be put together fairly soon; Demetriou doesn't want to find himself in a position where he has to sign off on a proposal that will create big problems for AFL, but which if he doesn't sign he will be accused of undermining the bid and going against the "national interest" (whatever that is). Let's face it, the track record of soccer administration in this country historically leaves much to be desired, although the FFA does seem to be a massive improvement on its predecessors. But Ben Buckley is an ex-player and ex-administrator of Aussie rules, he would have as good an idea as anyone of the requirements for transferring an arena from AFL to soccer and back again, and he would also be in close touch with FIFA. He should surely be as aware as anyone of the requirements for AFL & NRL. I thought also that the wording was that there cannot be a major sporting event in a city that's participating - does a normal round of AFL qualify as a major sporting event? It's possible that the AFL season may well be able to continue, though it will certainly be attenuated. And surely the MCG would be first in line among stadiums in Australia to stage the WC final and other big games. By the way, Australia is considered to have a much better chance of getting the 2022 tournament than 2018. That gives 14 years for arrangements to be worked out. The main focus of the bid will be on the proven "never-failed" ability of Australia as a country to host extremely successful major international sporting events of whatever type, not on the capacity of the FFA alone. And how many soccer matches were played in the 2000 Olympics? Enough venues were found then and it seemed to go very well.

It might not be a matter of whether we want Jamar to stay - it might be more about whether Jamar wants to stay. Is it possible that Port made an absolutely huge play for Jamar in trade week (they'd be crazy not to in their situation), and this unusual 1-year contract was the only way we could keep him for 2010? That a deal was made, him agreeing to stay one more year because that's when we really need him the most to help develop our young ruckmen, and the club agreeing to consider a trade at the end of 2010 if he really wants to go? Sure, I have nothing to base this on, but how else do you explain this weird 1-year contract? The club must have been happy with Jamar's performances in 2009 (when he managed to get himself on the park) and would not have hesitated to give him a 2-year contract like everyone else. Especially as I'd have thought we'd want to get players like Jamar out of the reach of GC17 by keeping them in contract past the end of 2010. The idea that the 1-year contract was to align with others doesn't cut it, and I haven't heard another reasonable explanation. We have 2 experienced rucks (Jamar & PJ), 2 promising novices (Spencer & Gawn), and 2 possible "pinch-hitters" (Martin & Fitzpatrick), plus Meesen. The young guys in particular need to be given maximum game time with either Melbourne or Casey. Provided all 4 are fit, maybe 1 old-hand & 1 novice will play together; if there are injuries, Martin or Fitzy step in. Frankly, I'm not sure where Meesen fits in - he seems to be nowhere near recovery, maybe he'll be injured most of the year; maybe Casey 2nds if not? Therefore in game 1 2010, for example, Jamar & Spencer & Martin play for Dees with Spencer doing most of the ruckwork, Jamar playing forward and taking over if Spencer's having problems or needs a rest, with Martin in reserve when Spencer's benched or needs an injury. And PJ, Gawn (if fit) & Fitzy play for Casey in the same manner. I repeat, they need maximum game time in "first ruck" from the young guys, but with back-up from the old-hands in case of trouble. On the other hand, it makes no sense to play Gawn & Spencer in the same team - they'll just be taking "first-ruck" time away from each other (it also makes no sense to have Jamar & PJ in the same team). My points are that: (1) we need to use 2010 to prepare for the possibility that Jamar might not be around in 2011, and (2) Jamar's main use in 2010 may well be helping to develop Spencer & Gawn (& maybe Meesen if he comes through).

Substitute Grimes & Sylvia for Green & Bruce and you've just about convinced me. Oh, and you may be a tad optimistic re Gawn ... but then again ...

Rogue, am I reading you right in saying that you seem to have no problems whatsoever with what the filth and LB (or, more accurately, Paul Connors) have done, nor with attempts on the part of established players & their managers to manipulate the draft? Just interested.

Certainly is a good read. I think JF has a very big upside indeed, especially once he fills out.

Er, no, because if he'd agreed to talk to us (or to anywhere other than the Pies) he wouldn't have been acting like a latter-day Foschini. The point is that after Foschini went to the extent of taking the AFL (might have evne been the VFL then) to court to allow him to transfer from Sydney to St Kilda, his footy career sank like a stone. I have a lot of respect for Luke Ball as a player and a person, and for what he's achieved. But he may well find it difficult to break into the Pies' midfield. We would have taken a huge gamble to have taken him; now he's taken a huge gamble going to another club with a strong midfield. Happy to move on now ...