Akum

... dead straight. Even from the boundary line, either side.

They have definitely gone for quality of disposal as a priority in this draft with both Gysberts and Tapscott, who seem to both be one-touch hard-nuts, great tackling etc. Gawn & Fitzpatrick seem to have good disposal for talls also. I'm all for it. The player Im surprised they didn't take at 11 is Jetta, but they clearly wanted another type.

The thing I like about Gawn from the You-Tube certainly does seem to do his share around the ground, and certainly seems capable of taking a pack mark. Giants like him either can take a pack mark or can't, can contribute around the ground or can't - and Gawn just looks like he can. If he's a 208cm tap ruckman only, he'd be nowhere near #18. I'm still torn between Talia & Jetta at 11. Talia just looks like he has all the makings of a great footballer wherever we play him, but Jetta is X-factor-plus, and has performed well against men.

Right on the button. Tho' a large part of me hopes he goes where he wants. Ball's dilemma is that he wants a top-four club, yet all the top 4 clubs have great midfields already, and with his weaknesses with pace & disposal, he may detract from any of the top-4 midfields. The further down the ladder a club is, the more he's likely to make a real contribution to the team - his main contribution to the Saints was when they were struggling.

Hard to see how you can read that into it. You could also read into it that we are so [censored] weak as to be forced to make a decision just because someone else (AFL?) wants us to. It's not as if one of them is clearly better. It's genuinely just about impossible to split them - we may as well toss a coin. Or what's wrong with giving it to both? It underlines the Jordan McMahon factor. I only voted Scully because he's been locked in for months and he's done nothing to lose his position.

This would have to create a conundrum for the recruiting dept, who must have been expecting him to go before 11. He'd be a great get at 11, but that means missing out on Talia ... very difficult! BP has been kicking himself for not picking him up at 70 last year. A previous article mentions that it's not just his cousin that's the MFC connection; he's good mates with Jamie Bennell too. Imagine him & Blease slotting them regularly from the wings!

Interesting that at 18, he's still got Tapscott, Stevens, Bastinac & Gysberts left as possible mids. I'd be surprised if we pick up 2 talls with 11 & 18, as I think we still need to stock up on another very good mid or two, but Talia & Gawn would both be good gets. I really rate Talia, he's got all the elements for an A+ tall IMO, though if Burgo's top 10 is correct, I'd be really torn between him & Lewis Jetta at 11.

Funny that Talia has played most of his footy as a forward, but because Vic Metro played him CHB, he's now virtually locked in as a back who can play forward rather than a forward who can play back.

12 mids & 3 talls - plus Bartlett, Bastinac, Stevens, Gysberts not on his list. If we want to pick up another good mid at 11, there'll still be plenty left.

You have my total sympathy!!!

I'm persuaded by the thread about "Are our mids enough?" that's been moved to the other board. As great as they're going to be, I doubt that Scully and Trengove are enough to turn our current midfield into an elite midfield all by themselves, and we need at least one more very good mid from picks 11 or 18 to back them up. There are a number of "second-tier" mids (Trengove & Scully being the first tier) that have been touted as top 10 or top 15 by various experts, starting with Rohan & Martin (Laugh-In???), then guys such as Morabito, Cunnington, Lucas, Melksham, Jetta etc etc. If one of these "second tier mids" slips to 11 (which is quite likely if Butcher and another tall are in the top 10) , then I think we'll take that mid, and then the best remaining tall at 18 - Plan A. If all the "second-tier mids" are taken by 11, then we'll take the best tall at 11 (Butcher? Talia?) and Luke Ball (if he's still there) at 18 - Plan B. This way we're assured of getting a good mid and a reasonably good tall, but the mid is the priority. It may be Ball, it may not be. I like Plan A better, but Plan B isn't too bad either.

Sorry, I meant Lewis Jetta, wasn't concentrating.

=1. T Scully =1. J Trengove (Ican't see how on earth they can be separated, orwhy they have to be - $7500 bonus each) 11. N. Jetta (or any 'second-tier' mid who slips) 18. J. Carlisle (assuming Talia & Black are gone) 34. L Patrick 50. M Thorp PSD. J Macdonald

Surprisingly good OP. I say "surprisingly" because my first reaction to it was "no, that's not right!" but looking into it further, you're definitely onto something. From the current list, I could add to your list of midfielders only Jordie McKenzie (who I liked the look of last year) and Bate, who was great when he went into the midfield late last year. Trengove & Scully are certainly going to be great, but I agree that they are unlikely in themselves to boost us from the worst midfield to the best, which is what we need. We'll probably pick up Joel MacDonald in the PSD, but you're right, we'll need to pick up at least 2 quality mids with picks 11,18, 34 & 50. Ok, I'm convinced! In fact, this line of thinking could well be in the minds of the FD in their decision-making about Ball. If so, it would completely reverse our thinking about pick 11 - they'd have their eye on the second-tier (TS & JT being first-tier) very good mids (I'd be guessing Jetta, Morabito, Melksham, Cunnington) and: * Plan A: If one is available at 11, we'll take him and the best available tall at 18 and not worry about Ball; * Plan B: If none are available at 11, we'll take the best available tall, and then Ball at 18. They could well be more intent on picking up another highly-regarded mid (if not a young one at 11, it'll be Ball at 18) than on whether we get Talia or Black or Griffiths or Vardy as the tall. And we'll need another reasonable mid at 34 or 50.

C'mon people, check the words used by the journalists (in both rags) and the words used by CC. It seems that the Dees are going to "brazenly" (journo's word) "strongly consider" (CC's words) LB at both 11 and 18. Subject to it "being rubber-stamped by everyone". Why would he telegraph this at this stage, if not to try to get another club to pull the trigger earlier.

I'd like to know whether TOX is keen for his team to pick up Ball. The Pies need to improve in some aspects, but I thought their midfield was pretty good. Surely Ball would be only a marginal improvement at best, and he may even deprive them of pace & delivery-quality. Who would he push out - Pendlebury? Thomas? It might be interesting if Ball does get through to 30.

Talia, because of his mobility, disposal, ballgetting ability and versatility. And because I think (hope?) that Tapscott will still be available at 18 so we can pick him up then.

IMO the most value we can get from rucks is around the ground. At stoppages, they just need to do enough to stop the other side running away with it. That's where I think we need Martin to spend more time in the ruck; with his athleticism, he needs to be developed to do the Around-the-ground things (mark kickouts, play a kick behind when it's in our attack etc). The others may be better than Martin at stoppages, but that's not such a big thing. Even Spencer held his own at stoppages in his 2009 games, but he looked a long way from having what it takes around the ground. So far, all of Meesen, Spencer, PJ and Jamar have shown that they can hold their own at stoppages (so we're better off than quite a few other sides here), but only Jamar looks likely to ever be capable of contributing more around the ground. Meese is probably 4th in line, and if he can get a game at another club (eventually), good luck to him.

Great OP. I can understand why some are so enamoured of the big "crashing-the-pack" mark & goal because it looks so good when it happens, but in reality it so rarely happens. The top big forwards get most of their marks & goals on a lead, and many of the rest in a one-on-one contest, and a lot of their goals come when the ball hits the ground. Relying on a big-bodied forward to "crash a pack" must be the most low-percentage way to goal. All forwards, even big forwards, need above all to be mobile, to kick straight, and to apply defensive pressure. With Watts, Jurrah & Bate, a big stationary forward would make us top-heavy, while a big mobile forward would be OK. If we choose one big forward with either 11 or 18, they must be mobile, kick straight & chase. Two talls would be a missed opportunity. A very mobile tall (Talia?) and a straight-kicking smaller forward (Tapscott?) would balance it well. HT is on the money with the "multi-dimensional, multi-optional forward line". The best would be to have 6 forwards who are all capable of getting 5 goals in a single game, but who between them have as many different ways of getting those goals as possible.

Jack will be fine. I'm sure he'll show us enough in 2010 to justify the No.1 pick, though it's more likely to be in short bursts rather than across 4 quarters, and in a few games rather than every week. You get the feeling in the Sheahan interview that he's set pretty high standards for himself and he's much more concerned about coming up to these standards than being affected by either the publicity or the Bay 13 garbage. My main concern about Jack is avoiding the sort of injury that's cut too many promising players down before they've had a real chance to show what they can do. But barring injury, I'm sure we'll see plenty from Jack next year.

MacDonald gives us the flexibility to counter different forward set-ups. We've pretty much got tall forwards covered, but we'd struggle against smaller mobile forward lines. He might make it easier to vary our defence structure slightly game-by-game according to who we're against.

That wasn't what I meant. I was following up on Chook in Perth's point about risk-reward ratio: "If Thorp turns out to be a spud, well he only cost a PSD pick. If he's even servicable then he's been a bargain." And trying to make the point that if Thorp's an improvement over our current options for both KPFs, then he's worth getting.

If he's better than Newton, then he's a bargain???

Agree 100%. If we're talking about pick 18, I think we win whatever we do. The only BAD decision would be to take him at pick 1 or 2, and that's not going to happen. TS & JT are maybe 80% of the future benefit we're going to get from this draft, because they're almost certain future stars. After that, there are another 10 or 15 prospects who may or may not be very good for us to have in future, and whether we pick Ball-plus-one "prospect" or two "prospects", it matters a lot less than getting picks 1 & 2. My main question about Ball at MFC is similar to the question St Kilda asked themselves about him - is he right for the sort of team that we are looking to develop over the next 2-5 years? If the FD think he is, then we get him; if they don't, we don't.

There may be teams who have a burning need for a player who's got pace and a good ballgetter but whose disposal is wayward. We don't have a burning need for such a player, though he could be handy. No harm in getting him to train. The only problem is that for us to consider him, his disposal - especially disposal under pressure - would have to improve a lot. How much can training tell us about his disposal under pressure? Farren Ray, by the way, isn't a good comparison, because he always had very good disposal, he just had to get it more and not try for so much.