Akum

Agree totally. How well the forward line functions depends on how well the individuals mesh together and how well the ball is delivered. Bate is an integral part of any possible forward structure for several years, with Watts & Jurrah. Then there's 2 or 3 out of maybe half a dozen possible smalls, and one or two other talls (Martin? Garland? pick 18? even Miller or Newton if they improve?) that may be regulars or occasionals. But whoever else is there, it will be built around Bate & Watts & Jurrah, and that's fine by me. And it may not matter which of them is CHF or FF or whatever if an "organic" (great word!) forward structure works better and is harder to defend against. One of the hardest things to get right, especially against top teams, is entry into attacking 50 - we're worst at that at the moment, but we need to develop strategies that make us the best. And when we do, we need forwards who will convert the hard work downfield, and Bate is our best converter.

Players with defensive skills are just as important to team performance as those with the silky attacking skills, irrespective of where they play on the field. CB would be in the half dozen with best defensive skills. And to be competitive against the top teams, we need at least 2 or 3 reasonably reliable taggers, and CB is definitely one of those.

Great comments. I think his positioning and decision-making is also very good, he's a very intelligent player. I think he suffered badly from poor delivery from the midfield, and when he did get good delivery he did very well with it. My point is that with consistently better delivery of more supply next year he'll do even better. Would have done him a lot of good to get some midfield time too, and did very well there.

Agree with this. When I wrote earlier that "by this time next year we'll be in no doubt that he's well worth his #1 pick", this was what I meant. Not that he'll be an out-and-out star by then, but that he'll show definite signs of what he's capable of, the player he's going to be. This may happen simply with more game time. Others have remarked how this year he found space on his own a number of times but wasn't noticed by the ball-carrier. Once the mids are awake to this, work out where he runs to etc, they'll look for him more. Let's face it, the mids aren't used to the sight of someone in a Dees jumper on their own in the forward line! Or else it may just be that his Vic Metro mates in Blease, Scully & Strauss, who know better how he plays, will look for him more and deliver to him better.

He was doing very well on Ablett until Thompson stymied us by putting Ablett at FF. It seemed then that Jones got taken off him not because he's not capable of playing FB, but because he lacked confidence at FB. Next year, would be good to see him not thrown off balance by moves such as that. I don't think he'll be a tagger every game, but he'll be needed through the year for specific tagging jobs (e.g. he's probably our only player physically and athletically capable of staying with Ablett, who burns off most taggers but definitely doesn't like having one who can stay with him). And Jones is a "tagger" rather than just a "stopper" - i.e. he has the ability to do some damage with his own possessions too. In our future midfield, this sort of "flexibility", to use SW's term, will be an important factor.

Agree. I'd say he's found this year very frustrating, particularly with the thumb injury towards the end of the year, and then being given the last couple of games off. He'll be rarin' to go from Day 1 of preseason training. I expect he'll begin to exert an influence on games in 2010, especially if the mids start looking for him in space - he'll show us the value of his athleticism (especially initial speed off the mark) & footy smarts & great disposal. He'll still perhaps get outmuscled in one-on-ones for a while, but he'll do plenty good things in other ways, and I predict that by this time next year we'll be in no doubt that he's well worth his #1 pick.

This thread is a great demonstration that there are many paths up the mountain. Anyway, Jack's main aim in VCE will be just to get a better ENTER score than his sisters! Competitive lad.

True, but I think that's because such a large number of our young +/- fringe players have showed something at some stage, but it's too early in their careers to really tell exactly how big their upside is, and how close they're going to come to fulfilling their potential. The only exceptions to this are contracted until end 2010. Could this be evidence that, on the whole, the FD is pretty much satisfied with our current list (again, allowing for those contracted till end 2010)? I think that our first 3 picks are going to give us everything we want out of this draft. We may end up not using even our pick 34, mainly because all of our current fringe youngsters would be a better bet for the future than pick 34 anyway. And the PSD is a lottery. We may have done more or less all the delisting we need.

Agree - "goer" he certainly is. Especially liked it that Bartram, like Dunn, played so much better when they came back to the team after being dropped to the Scorps for a few matches. Showed us that for both of them there might be a lot more upside to come. Top teams have reliable taggers who can nullify the opposition's best while giving their team some drive also, and we need at least two players with that ability - Bartram is right up there for that role, and his value to the team will increase hugely if he can pull it off. If not, then he'll be competing with a number of hard-at-it smaller players and his place in the team will be more vulnerable.

Maybe unusual, but I can assure you that Jack & his family wouldn't do it if it was going to hinder his school obligations in the slightest. They'd weigh up the pro's & con's of it like anybody else would. And perhaps he'll be getting some tutoring from Stef Martin! Didn't Stef do spectacularly well in his VCE a few years back?

I'd love to know what our average was for inside-50s per game. I bet we were 16th by a long way, but our goals-per-inside-50s ratio probably wasn't too bad. If we can improve our inside-50s by 1/4 with a better midfield next year, we could get closer to 15 goals per game, which would be right up there. I think our forwards do quite well, but their supply is far too limited. What I like about our forward line is that we do have a variety of ways to goal, and that's something we should keep. It's just that if the supply doesn't improve, it won't matter what we do to the forward line. We will only kick scores that are competitive against top teams when we get a competitive amount of inside-50s.

My reservation about having a Kurt Tippett type is that it makes the midfielders think they can just bomb it high every time. That will work well against sides without an above-average tall defender, but will cost you against top teams as it did on Saturday. Adelaide vs Collingwood was a textbook example of the futility of the high bomb into the forward line against a half-decent defence despite almost complete midfield dominance. All the top big forwards - Riewoldt, J. Brown, Fev, Buddy etc etc - get more of their marks & goals from leads than any other way, because it's by far the most reliable high-percentage way to get the ball to a forward within kicking distance. In fact, it's so reliable (i.e. boring!) that marks-&-goals-on-leads rarely make the highlights reel, unlike the freak snaps or specky marks which get highlighted precisely because they're so infrequent. Our forward line needs to have a variety of ways to goal, majoring on leading forwards & running goals. My problem with a 200cm big-marking forward, even one as good as Tippett or Kosi, is that the team tends to structure itself around long bombs. This works well against lesser opponents, but is the easiest method to get shut down by good defences in finals.

Who knew Adelaide were so one-dimensional? They have no forward prepared to lead, and no midfielder (except for McLeod, who was played far too far back) capable of working the ball through a crowded corridor. Their only play into the forward line was the long bomb, which made it so easy for Maxwell & Presti & Shaw (one brain, one big, one small) to clean up. Collingwood do well against Adelaide because Adelaide make it so easy for them! Malthouse is the best match-day coach, assuming it's Malthouse who does the match-day tactics (if it's someone else, we need them no matter how much it costs). If an average or one-dimensional team belts them for a quarter, Malthouse will always figure out how to stop them at the quarter break. This is why it was a completely different game after quarter time, when Collingwood went man-on-man and closed up the middle. IMO Malthouse's coaching has got a side that should struggle to make the 8 into the last 4. There's major lessons for us in that game too. One being that long bombs to power forwards who can "crash packs" is one-dimensional, can be easily countered by a team with a half-decent defence, and teams that rely on this tactic rarely have an alternative once it does get countered. It's far harder to counter a team that has a number of different avenues to goal. But the biggest lesson is the critical importance of that last delivery into the forward 50, no matter how good a team looks in getting it to that point.

Quote: 'There was no running, no hiding from the mistake I had made against Hawthorn. I could not blame it on this or that. I could not blame it on the umpire, or on my teammates, or that the siren was not loud enough. It was _my_ fault, _my_ mistake. And I had to take responsibility for it.' This is the sort of statement you will never hear from Judd, or from anybody associated with his pathetic club. He just doesn't have the guts or integrity or character of the man took responsibility for a mistake that he made several years ago.

Seems to me that he's placing a lot of emphasis on getting the current playing group to play together as much as possible over the next year or two. He seems to be very pleased with the current group overall, and sees little need for further cleaning out This could mean that this year they're not planning to cut swathes through fringe players (Dunn, Bartram etc) for low draft picks or ambitious trades, and that they'll go for just the bare minimum in the ND. Perhaps it could be different next year.

Hope they excite rather than exit.

And that's part of what bothers me about this. If it was a lesser player, would the same fiasco be taking place? Judd is seeking special favours here, just because he's St Judd and thinks he should be untouchable. Why should special favours be sought or given just because he's a great player, club captain or Brownlow medallist? Or the Visy man? Is this just all a desperate attempt to rescue Judd's reputation? That seems to be what's motivating Judd himself, and possibly Carlton (he is their club captain, and their so-called "environmental ambassador" - they stand to lose a lot if he DOESN'T get special treatment). Time will tell whether Judd's reputation is more important to the AFL than the integrity of their own system of upholding the rules. Because if Judd gets off a second time, the barrier to any sort of contact to the face will be in tatters. The AFL will have condoned this act two times out of two. It will put the MRP in an impossible position if another player does it, or especially if Judd does it again, so there will be no point in dishing out a sanction of any kind. And it sets a precedent, based on the fact that the player on the receiving end was not seriously disabled. OK, Judd and Carlton are seeking a special deal to be judged on another level to the rest of the competition. The question is, will the AFL lie down and allow this to happen? Yes, he's a great player, but if he was a great man, he'd cop it sweet.

Everybody makes mistakes, does things they wish they hadn't done. But people with honour & integrity & character will admit to their mistakes, apologise, make restitution if necessary, cop the penalty, promise not to do it again (and don't do it again), and move on. Judd has now done this low act twice. Each time he's twisted this way & that to avoid responsibility for a mistake he's made. First time he got a player from another club to lie for him, and then to take the hit for him when the lie was found out. Even now, Judd has never been brought to account for what he did. This time he's tried to deny it, brush it aside, then say that well, it really wasn't that bad and I don't desrve to be punished. He's done everything except to act with honour and integrity, take responsibility for what he's done and take it like a man. This from the captain of an AFL team. This has been a real test of character for Judd, and he's failed it miserably in just about every way possible. If any of my children ever behaved like this, I'd be extremely disappointed. And as I've posted before, I'd be disgusted if MFC were ever to behave like this in future. On the other hand, Judd seems to think that having got off scot-free the first time, he's entitled to special favours every time, so that he should never have to face the consequences of any mistakes. It would be a tragedy if he manages to get away with it a second time.

Weren't stooged by the AFL, it was all their own work - what killed them was letting the Dogs get that last goal in Rd 22. That meant that they played the Saints instead of Geelong, they played on Sunday rather than Saturday, and they would play Adelaide rather than Brisbane or Carlton if they lost.

And we have: 3 players with around 200 games 2 players with just over 100 games 11 players with 50-100 games, and ... 27 players with less than 50 games.

A low act. There's no possible way it can be justified or explained away or turned a blind eye to, no matter how great a player he is. I'd be absolutely disgusted in any Dees player who indulged in this sort of garbage, and in a club with any backbone I'd expect there to be a club-based sanction on some level (a la Colin Sylvia). In this case, it seems that the character of the player is a perfect fit for the character of the club.

I thought through the year that the Pies weren't as good as they thought they were. They got to top 4 thanks to being extremely well-coached & well-drilled by Malthouse so that half the time they don't need to think where to kick it, but above all to an extremely favourable draw, without which they would have struggled to make the 8. They crumble under pressure (remember 2nd qtr QB against us?), and as soon as a decent team works out their game plan they have nothing left. They did OK not to get blown away by the Saints yesterday and by the Dogs in Rd 22, but both those sides had them well covered. I thought weeks ago that the Blues & Pies weren't good enough to win a final. Having said that, Adelaide might not be as invincible in Melbourne against a team that might pressure them a bit, but it would still be a surprise if the Pies beat them.

How do we do for scores-per-inside-50 compared with other teams?

The question is not whether he's telling the truth, but whether he's given the AFL enough of a "fig leaf" for them to turn a blind eye. The rules of "spin" are that it doesn't have to be the truth, it just has to be "defensible". Maybe he was just using acupressure to relieve Rischitelli's headache!!! That would fit in with the existing "fig leaf" of "Judd the philanthropist" which allows the AFL to turn a blind eye to the Visy deal!

If you're right, it would be yet another AFL farce if he wins the Brownlow & then gets rubbed out for this low act. Let's face it, it's the sort of act that even the NRL takes a dim view of. And it would beg comparisons with Chris Grant who got the most votes but was ineligible for the Brownlow only because he got rubbed out for a week for the softest tripping charge in the history of the human race.