Akum

Great ideas ML - we can't possibly just leave it at this, we have to take it further.

Amazing, inspiring, brilliant thread. If this is the future of MFC, bring it on! We are indeed fortunate to have such impressive people on board. And Lewis Jetta with second-round pick would top it off beautifully.

So the equation goes: The only way we will ever get a premiership is to get Scully. The only way to get Scully is to tank (or list-manage or put-the-cue-in-the-rack, whatever). This is based on a guarantee that one day Judd and Kreuzer will reward Carltank with a premiership. Oh yeh, and tanking/list-management has no possible downside whatsoever. Therefore anybody who is unwilling to put-the-cue-in-the-rack is depriving the club of a guaranteed premiership. Sorry, I still don't buy it. I just don't have the faith.

Well, at around the same time on TFS he said that Carlton didn't tank in 2007. Obviously he was on a roll. Both statements have the same relationship to the truth.

What can you say? What a human being!

Hear hear

All the tankers will be ecstatic. A totally demoralised team will guarantee that we get Scully and the inevitable premiership that will surely follow.

:lol:

The Yuendumu mob must be over the moon about this. We all knew about LJ's qualities as a sportsman and as a person, now it seems everybody else does.

Redleg, I agree totally. I too have been really demoralised over some of the ridicuous things that have been posted about the club and about other posters on just about every other thread about this issue. On the other hand, this thread has been a really good discussion, and much more meaty and substantial and, dammit, intelligent than just about everything that has gone on before. In fact, this thread has been so good that you have actually proved that it can be discussed and disagreed about without going feral and attacking the club and each other. With any luck, this is how it will continue from now, and if this thread has played a part in that, all credit to you.

He ran almost from 50m line to goalsquare without bouncing it, and as he was tackled to the ground he threw it like a rugby pass, right in front of the umpire, who seemed to be claiming that he was unsighted. Heard someone call it "the worst umpiring decision of the century". IMO it's going to be a hard one to top for the rest of the century too. The only player mistake of equal magnitude that I can think of would be if a CHB turned around and passed the ball straight to the opposition FF in the goalsquare. Pity umpires can't be dragged & interchanged too.

Not rocket science I would have thought. Though it's more likely to be the sort of thing Butcher might say than Scully. They're not allowed to refuse a pick (unless they stand outside), but they can make it clear that they'll be headed back east at the earliest possible opportunity, so Scully would be a very risky pick for a WA side. But maybe it makes it even less likely that one of the Perth clubs would pick Scully if we lose No1 pick to them. The WA U18 carnival side was the best side in the comp by so far it wasn't funny, and 7 or 8 of them made the All-Aust team. The last sentence is the most sensible thing that's been posted about this. We've all seen how much the WA media deify their own (irrespective of how much damage it causes). They will absolutely crucify Freo or WC if they take anybody not from the WA carnival side in their first-round picks. Do we know what the WA views are about who should be No1 pick? Bet they're not as unanimous about Scully as we are.

Interesting exercise Rojik. You actually got down to 6 posts before the cargo-cult tanker panic merchants destroyed yet another thread. Worth trying again in a week to see if the panic increases or decreases as time goes on. Dose of reality here. Does anyone seriously think that a club with Jim Stynes as President and spiritual head is going to tank? Tanking is no more than a fantasy of some forum posters. If the tankers are serious about wanting to move tanking from fantasy into the real world, then the person that they need to spend all their energy trying to convince is Jimma. If they really believe that tanking (a.k.a. list management) is our only hope, they shouldn't waste their time & energy stomping all over every poster who sees it differently. Chances are that the end result will be the same anyway. The Dees will be busting their guts to win for every minute of every game, but in the real world the only team we are capable of beating is Freo. WC will thrash Freo in the local derby and will finish ahead of us. If we happen to end up ahead of WC on percentage, they will choose Morabito or Lucas with their PP, leaving Scully for us. And it's not just the "pointless wins against hopeless opposition". Here are some of the results of the wins that haven't been mentioned so far. The club has demonstrated its capacity to develop young prospects. First Grimes & Petterd against WC, then Jurrah & Jetta against PA, with games worthy of votes, not to mention continued improvement in others such as Frawley & Bate. And all the senior players are also standing up and all playing well. The team is actually playing as a team, as the sort of team that we can be proud of, some of their ball movement has been as good as anyone's in the comp. We've kicked 17 & 15 goals in the past 2 games, in poor conditions. We'll be starting next year with virtually new recruits in Blease & Strauss, plus Wona & Garland & Meeson & Buckley - none of these has really had a chance to contribute at all to the effort this year. And what about Watts with the benefit of a preseason and his VCE out of the way. If the worst case scenario for the tankers happens and we fluke a 5th win and lose Scully, it's a great pity but not the end of the world. Because something else that the past two weeks have shown is that we may not need to stake the club's entire future on an 18 year old kid, no matter how good they are. The talk earlier this year of Jack being the Messiah had a large dose of tongue-in-cheek, but there's none of that at the moment in the talk about Scully. There's a sense of desperation in the talk about Scully that's really starting to get way over the top - posts about people tearing up memberships or calling for the sacking of Bailey and the coaching staff and match committee if we don't get PP. Yes, Scully would be a massive asset, but after the past two weeks he no longer has to bear the weight of being our only hope.

Not crying. Mate. Just defending a top quality young footballer against what must be the lowest accusation that can be made against a professional athlete in any contact sport. Especially when it's totally wrong. You think it means nothing? Perhaps you missed the fuss earlier in the year when Josh Fraser was accused of "dogging" a contest. That was just as idiotic. Of course Jack's not immune from criticism! You can say you don't think he's hard enough at the ball if that's your opinion. You can say you're concerned that the club has told him to keep himself out of trouble if that's what you think. But that's light years away from repeated wild accusations about "deliberately avoiding contests". None of his opponents accuse him of that. You don't expect it from so-called "supporters". Wouldn't be a problem at all except that dandeeman's posts are usually good on the whole IMO - if he was a nuffer I wouldn't bother. I just think he should know better and should accept responsibility for what he posted.

RI, I think you've nailed it. There are several possibilities from whom our "top 6" could come in 3-5 years time. Except that you left out Davey, Sylvia, Jamar (who should all still be with us in 2014 and beyond), Wona, Martin, Jetta, Meesen, Spencer, Buckley, Cheney, McKenzie. As it stands, this makes 25 around the club who at least have the potential to be "top 6", or even "top 8" or "top 10" elite for any club. All these have immense upside (other than Davey & Sylvia who are near there already). At this stage it is impossible to tell who might do what it takes to step up. Think of Matthew Boyd of the Dogs. Agree that the ones you've picked are the most likely, but we've given ourselves every chance of getting the sort of team improvement we need. And this is my point. Scully and "pick 2/3" are numbers 24 & 25 on this list - at the head of the queue perhaps, but not the only options. The club's really given us every chance to get 6 or more players into the elite category in future.

That's my point. Nobody should be fooled by the fact he had 40 or 50 taps; with the advantages he had, he should have done much more with them if he was quality.

I'm readng things that aren't there?? At no stage have you bagged Jack Watts?? You need to take a look at your OP, dandeeman. I've bolded the bits where you've bagged Jack DIRECTLY for "a tendency to ... avoid the packs" and "not placing himself in contested situations". Then you talk about "a player who actively avoids contests" and "a player (who) hasn't got confidence in the players body to withstand a contest", but this is in a thread you started that you called "Jack Watts", where you don't mention any other player. OK, you've spent the rest of the thread backpedalling from these ridiculous and extremely offensive statements. You then come on all injured and hard done by when somebody calls you "idiot". What other word is there? And you have no idea what I'm talking about? Let me try again - slowly. The club and Jack want him to put himself in pressure situations, to see if his game holds up, to see whether his vision and decision-making and disposal, attributes that stamp him as elite and for which they recruited him, stand up under pressure. So far, despite him being underdone and underdeveloped, it looks good. Just because he's not crashing packs and taking pack marks doesn't mean that he's avoiding contests. Let me repeat - the most offensive thing you can say about any player is that he actively avoids contests. You've said this directly about Jack twice, and indirectly another twice. Then when challenged to back it up you repeat it and emphasise it by calling it "indisputable" in a later post. Then other clowns are encouraged by this garbage to come out of the woodwork and say it's true. How can this be construed as anything other than a post that is very offensive towards Jack? If Jack happened to read this, what other possible conclusion could he draw from it? Other than that you have no idea what you're talking about. You expect to cop this trash from outside the club, but not from those who call themselves "supporters". You've been backpedalling from the offensive parts of your OP the whole thread since. Perhaps you were trying to have a go at the club for what you consider to be their instructions. So if you didn't mean it to come across as offensively as it actually reads, have the guts to take responsibility for the words you posted, say you didn't mean it that way and TAKE IT BACK. Don't think you can counter the offensiveness by inane statements such as "Jack Watts seems like a great kid with a good head on his shoulders and immense ability" (who you happen to think avoids contests).

PJ certainly dominated the hit-outs, but he had such a clear height and strength advantage that I would have liked him to vary it a bit more, he seemed to put them all at his feet.

What he said. Not sure what you're expecting dandeeman. Jack is an underdeveloped underdone 18 year old, not Jonathon Brown 2009 version. His tasks this year are to pick up the pace, find plenty of ball under pressure, do something positive with it under pressure, find space, keep his feet. To suggest he's not putting himself into pressure situations - or, even worse, deliberately avoiding putting himself into pressure situations (whether that's a club instruction or not) is ridiculous. Sorry, there's no other word for it. If you bag him because he doesn't crash packs, take pack marks, play like an in-and-under mid, fly for speccies against teammates, then you deserve all the criticism you get. To do the first two, the minimum requirement would be a preseason or two and more muscle & bulk. He's not in any team to do the third, and it would always be wrong, stupid, selfish to do the fourth. If you deliberately overstate your OP to make it controversial, you should expect to cop some carp for it. And your problem is that you've accused Jack of the worst thing that can be said about any footballer - that he avoids contests ("indisputably"). We don't mind Jack being criticised, but it's not unfair to expect it to be for something that approximates the truth (and can be backed up with more than the fact that you consider what you say to be Holy Writ), and is preferably constructive. You fail dismally on both counts.

Sorry to disappoint so many of you, but Newton & Valenti won't be cut. Or Bail or Bartram or PJ for that matter. Over the next few years of thin pickings from the draft, we're going to need our current fringe players just in case one or two of them step up.

Beautiful work Hannabal! The best part is your setting out of the implications of all this to us. Totally agree with your future top 6 - I'd like to sneak Strauss in there but he's got even further to go. Maybe Grimes' BOG last week was a crossing of the Rubicon in a way? But your point about being a long way off is emphasised by the fact that 3 or 4 out of your future top 6 aren't even in the team this week. How about putting it this way - a good "bottom 6" is necessary but not sufficient for the ultimate, and the only sufficient factor is the "top 6"? I notice also that with some clubs (unmistakeably Cats & Saints, perhaps Dogs, but not Hawks) your "top 6" slides fairly smoothly into your "top 8" - in other words, your numbers 7 & 8 in brackets are much closer to numbers 5 & 6. These clubs will have extra depth to cover for injuries, loss of form etc in their "top 6".

I'm having a rethink about this issue. Some posters on other threads have advocated "delisting" anything up to about a dozen players, many of them senior. But I can't see how the club will let that happen, the main principle being that there's no point delisting anyone unless there's a reasonable chance of getting someone better. Also remember that the supply of good young players dries up for 3 years after this draft. Clubs will be forced to rely a lot more on developing their own younger players, even if they haven't shown anything for a year or two. Therefore, none of the younger (i.e. less thn about 24yo) plyers are likely to be delisted unless we can be ertain of getting someone better from a very limited supply line after this year's draft. This year's draft is good at the top, but shallow further down. We'll get a fantastic top two picks, a good third pick, then it dries up. We may be lucky and get a fourth pick, but struggle for a fifth pick who'll give us more than Bail or Valenti or Hughes, or even than Bell or Dunn or Miller or ... or ... oh hell, or even Newton!!. The PSD, as always, is a complete lottery - we've done extremely well in the past two years with Stef & LJ, both of them out of left field. One extra player from here is possible, two is unlikely We're unlikely to pick up anybody extra in the rookie draft too. Clubs will be doing everything they can to hang on to the young players they've got, because they won't get a chance to pick up top-class youngsters for three or four years, so they won't be putting rookies into this draft. We have a few on our long-term injury list, but there will always be some there. Therefore, this year I can't see us delisting any more than about 5. And what we don't want is senior players hanging on for another year or two and retiring in 2010 or 2011 when we won't be able to replace them with good draft picks - they either leave this year or hang around until 2012 or 2013 when the recruiting window opens again. OK, so who's not likely to last until 2012? Junior and Wheels, definitely. Robbo and Wheatley almost certainly. Will Bruce last until the end of 2012? Then we also have to give up someone to the Gold Coast (and also to Western Sydney??) So there's the combination of this year's shallow draft, the lack of good draft prospects in 2010 & 2011, and the ones who will be leaving anyway for one reason or another between now and 2012 - older players who need to retire at a time when they can be more easily replaced, and those we have to give to GC & probably WS. My point is that they're not going to be cutting a swathe through our fringe players. We simply can't afford to. On top of the fringe players who might be headed north, we can only afford to lose one, or two at a pinch, and that's probably only if there's a better prospect than our worst fringe player (Bell? Newton?) still in the draft for our 5th pick.

Both of these statements apply to Jack to some extent. He did support the Swans when his family lived in Sydney for a year or so when he was younger, but that really didn't last long when they came back to Melbourne. What he's said in the past about which team he's barracked for is that he's watched plenty of footy, without really being one-eyed about a particular team. He said he's liked some teams better than others (one of which is Melbourne) but has always been more interested in performances, how players do certain things and so on. DB and others have described him as a student of the game on various occasions, so maybe that's why some people avoid barracking for one team at the exclusion of others - they see the game more as a spectacle than tribal warfare. Wish I could do that, it probably saves a lot of heartache! Don't think there's any doubt about him being a passionate Demon these days though.

Total bug-eyed disbelief - it just won't happen. Port have way too much to play for. The only way we could win is if Choco does a dummy-spit on Sunday morning about some of the behavioural clauses in his new contract, which I don't think he's signed yet. I'd prefer to leave the option open for our fourth win to be against Carlton in the second-last game, which would wreck their entire season. Then an honourable loss to the Saints in a high-scoring game the week after, and look forward to the 2010 preseason with all our current youngsters fit and with Scully & either Morabito or Rohan on board.

Critical points IMO. They have to think long and hard before they let go of any young players, for these very reasons. Same applies to Jordie McKenzie. Oh, and YM also left out James Strauss, who's just had a shoulder reco apparently but who could be anything off a HBF in future because of his disposal skills, which will put him near the head of the long line of competitors for HBF spots in future. Fair to say he's struggled this year though.