Akum

Our game plan, at least what has been on show so far, is winning contested ball and bang it anywhere in the direction of our goal. The kick to a lead has been virtually eliminated, which is bad for Jack. And the last thing MN wants is for Clark, Watts and whichever resting ruck (Martin or Jamar or even Spencer later on) flying for the same ball, with nobody down. Clark's instructions seem to be to just go for the ball if it's within his reach, no matter who's in the way, including team-mates. With plenty of high bombs, there's a lot of area in the forward line within Clark's reach, and it seems to be up to others to get out of his way and give him a clear run at the ball. So Jack needs to work out how to avoid getting in Clark's way, and avoid having his opponent be "third man up", but still have an influence on the game, while not being allowed to play to his strengths, which is a lead-up forward. I'm just hoping that we haven't simply exchanged one one-dimensional game plan for another. It's like we've gone to the other extreme - from skill without toughness, to toughness without skill - rather than a game plan that blends toughness and skill. Of which we got an excellent exhibition on Saturday. Last year, there was far too much tendency to heap the blame on to individuals, when the game plan was the problem. IF (and it's a big if) what we've seen so far is all there is to our game plan, it's going to be a long year.

But this is the point. We're not even in the third year yet. It's PRE-SEASON, FGS. Little else to talk about, and Malthouse is marking out his territory as a commentator. On Sportsnewsfirst, no less - how the mighty have fallen! No longer coach of the biggest team, he's desperate to stay relevant. Jack is an easy target, so in go the boots. As others have tried to point out, it's all so out of proportion to what's actually happened.

So even the games where he's played well, on account of his "talent", you're still not satisfied? Balanced analysis? Or prejudice?

Yeah but which club does he play for? They only get head-butts to the fist, don't they?

Only when he's sinking the boots into Jack Watts.

To me the games on the weekend were almost a negative image of how we played last year. None of the flashy, attacking, lightning-ball-movement-thru-the-corridor (of course the conditions had a lot to do with that, but I have a feeling that even if it was a perfect day, we wouldn't have gone about it any different). But plenty of grunt, hard-at-it, defensive play & contested ball, kicking along the boundary & to the pockets, clearing the lines, defensive zones and so forth. Sometimes it seemed to me that we were deliberately trying to avoid spotting up targets, for the sake of putting the ball somewhere safe where we couldn't be hurt on the turnover. Don't know if this is how we're going to play this year, or if Neeld is throwing out a challenge that, OK, I can't teach you much about attacking front-running footy because you know that already, but what we need to do in the NAB Cup is to learn to stay in the contest when things get tough, because that's where we were hopeless last year. Either way, it's a big change, and it seemed that the extent of the change was even being exaggerated. I think Neeld is making a huge imprint, even at this early stage. He's getting them to learn to play in a way we haven't done for years. We're never going to win big games against top teams unless we're able to tough it out at least as good as they do. I just hope we don't lose the rapid ball movement on the rebound in the process. I hope that we become multidimensional & can play flashy or tough (or anywhere in between) as the situation demands, rather than just exchange one monodimensional game for another (a la Ross Lyon's Saints)

You really do need to get out more.

I see your point. But I'd think that those who didn't do well in the wet - Bennell, Watts, Gysberts, Dunn - would be the ones you'd want to keep in to see how they go in better conditions. These guys are not, and perhaps never will be, mudlarks. And will Garland be fit?

Yeh right - important players should always go all-out in intraclub practice matches, especially if it means risking injury to themselves or one of their colleagues. You may or may not be right about Jack, but it's a terrible example.

Absolutely correct

Can always rely on training reports for a huge diversity of opinion.

It's "fuchsia". After a guy by the name of Fuchs. No kidding.

Jim is the one footy person who's respected, admired and loved by everybody associated with the game, and probably by many who have nothing to do with AFL. This is a remarkable thing, I can't think of anybody else of whom this could be said. And he's thoroughly earned every microgram of that respect, admiration & love by his quality as a person, an athlete, and a leader. Hate to think where we'd be now if it wasn't for Jim and his leadership.

Presidents are meant to exercise leadership & governance. Jim has been outstanding in his exercise of leadership, which is his great strength as president. Jim seems to be competent with governance, but there are probably others on the Board - McLardy for example - who may be better than Jim for governance. That would by no means be unusual. It would be very unusual for a club president to be outstanding at both leadership and governance. There seemed to be a difference of opinion between the FD and the Admin, for whatever reason, and what became inappropriate (although we won't know the full story, and that's probably for the best) was that some of the players (senior players?) got dragged into it. It would be totally inappropriate for any Board member to have first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day operations of the football club, and when these sorts of issues come to a head, it's almost inevitable that the Board is a little bit off the pace. Things seemed to escalate quickly over a few days, and then 186 ... While it's true that the president has to take responsibility for things that go wrong, they may not be responsible for things that go wrong (i.e. it might not be their fault). I don't think 186 was Jim's fault, but like a great leader, he had to take public responsibility, which was what motivated Gaza into action. Jim is a great leader, and his leadership is to a large degree responsible for things being much better now than before he started. His inspirational attitude and conduct n the face of his serious illness only adds to this leadership quality. However, his illness probably means that, more than before, the club needs to rely on other Board members to exercise governance. In summary, while Jim's illness may impair his governance (which can be and should be covered by other Board members - that's often how Boards work, and there are other obvious examples in the AFL) it does not impair his leadership, and if anything it enhances it. Oh, and I checked with my daughters - it was Bambi's mother who was shot.

I reckon this is the closest. Had the feeling that the first Niall article was an orchestrated link, to get everybody used to the idea of co-captains, so that when they do announce it, it on't be a big deal. And I think that instead of having 2 co-captains and a VC, you may as well have 3 co-captains - Grimes, Trengove & Frawley. Though that will depend on all 3 of them being at the top of the heap with the coaches' leadership attributes. And they'll balance it up by having 3 senior players make up the leadership group - 3 out of Rivers, Jones, Green & Moloney. Will be interesting to see how they divvy up the co-captaincy duties. Sounds like the start of a bad joke ... "How many co-captains does it take to toss a coin?"

Totally agree DDM. IMO at the end of 2010 season it was just too hard (or impossible?) to tell whether or not Bailey was capable of taking us further. But as season 2011 progressed, it became clearer and clearer that he wasn't, until 186 when it became blindingly obvious. But a lot of strange things happened - or, more accurately, were reported as happening - in the week before 186.

I was going to say in response to Clint's comment that the great thing about getting reports from different posters is the diversity of opinion. Getting three reports gives a much richer picture than one report; five reports gives a richer picture than three, and so on. I think (hope!) that Clint was trying to point out the folly of subsequent posters latching on to a single impression or comment from a single report as stand-or-fall proof of a player's overall attitude or whatever. I'd hope it's not the reporter being criticised. Far as I'm concerned, like everyone else, your reports (and your opinions and comments and impressions that go with them) are very valuable and very highly appreciated - the more the better. Especially at this time of the year, it's like manna from heaven. Don't know how I'd get thru the week without them!

Like the romanticism! But let's take it further. Who is it that stands tall when the chips are down? When the rest of the boys are struggling, who continues to do the right things, the hard things, to show the way by example, to rally the troops? All your list of past great captains would tick that off. But the Dees? Frawley definitely. Trengove & Grimes, both yes. Watts at times, & even Jones perhaps, and McKenzie as a smoky. But frankly ... that's about it. None of the senior players I'm afraid.

What got me about Green last year were that there seemed to be a number of times when he had a chance to kick a real "captain's goal" and get us back into a game in which we were struggling. But in such a situation, he missed what for him was an easily-gettable set shot every time. You could look at it one way and say, well, the game was in the balance and the captain's managed to get the ball in his hands, which is where you'd want the ball to be and what you'd want the captain to do when the game is in the balance. So that's a good thing. On the other hand, he invariably flubbed it, which is not good. But at least he was there for the opportunity, so something's gotta be said for that.

Well that's the way I'd do it if it was my decision to make. But I'm trying to make the point that if the process for selecting the captain comes up with Moloney or Jones, it won't be because we need an interim. It will be because they have the best leadership attributes by a clear margin. The process as described by Neeld himself will NOT throw up an interim. It will give us the guy with the best attributes to be captain, for Feb 2012 and for the future.

I've heard something similar. And it's not who you'd think.

I agree with AoB and I think it's a really important point he's making. It's the "whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts" factor that was badly missing in 2011 and made it so easy for top teams to score against us, whether our individual defenders played well or not. Our main 3 defenders are all 192-193cm tall, and will be vulnerable against a side with 1 or 2 198-200cm forwards. Sellar has the potential to fill that gap. A lot of top forwards are in the 193cm range (e.g. Riewoldts) & Sellar won't be any use at all; he'll only get a game when we're facing the true gorillas over 198cm. I don't think the gorilla-stopper role is all that difficult - even Warnock could do it reasonably well as long as he didn't get his hands on the ball too often & have to do something with it. You don't have t beat your opponent - all you need to do is to stop them getting clean ball more than a few times in a game. I agree with AoB about the reason for Sellar being drafted, and I think there's a good chance that he'll be up to the limited role he needs to play. However, I agree with rpfc that Sellar won't be picked for every game, he'll only be picked when we need him for a specific match-up. And the "whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts" factor is going to be even more important in the midfield. If there's going to be a Great Leap Forward in our midfield in 2012, it will be because of combining much better as a unit, rather than because of one of them mutating into a better midfielder than Pendles or Judd.

Fan, I totally agree. If it was up to me, I'd choose Green for another year with Trengove & Grimes as VCs & other senior players in the LG. I agree with those who say that there's no ideal candidate, but I think that this time next year that either Trengove or Grimes will have stamped themselves as an obvious choice, and we will then have a much firmer knowledge of who's the best to take us forward. My point is that Neeld has clearly stated the way he's going to do it, and it doesn't sound like the way I'd do it, but it's probably for the best. And I'd say that if we end up with one captain, that's because one player has clearly stood out through this process as having the best captaincy attributes right now rather than in 12 months time. If there are two who are neck-&-neck - whether it's an "older" & a "younger" (e.g. Green & Grimes) or whatever - we may end up with co-captains.

Neeld was quite explicit about the process for selecting the captain in a radio interview on Saturday. He said that the coaching staff were drawing up a list of leadership attributes that they consider to be necessary for a club captain, and they will each rate every player under every one of these attributes. The input of the playing group will also be sought, but it sounds like it won't be as influential as it seemed to be under the Leading Teams model. The final decision will actually be Neeld's and his alone, though obviously you'd expect he'd take the views of others into account to some extent. The implication of this is that there are unlikely to be maneouverings in the captaincy - i.e. Green (for example) to be appointed captain for this year to allow Grimes & Trengove a year to "audition" for the captaincy in 2013 & beyond. Furthermore, it looks like the captain will be selected purely because of their leadership or captaincy attributes (they may or may not be the same thing) in the here and now, rather than their potential at some time in the future. Therefore, if a young captain - Grimes, Trengove, or even Jones - is selected, it will be because of their demonstrated leadership attributes as of late 2011 & early 2012 in the opinion of the coaching staff overall, and as such, they will have immediate legitimacy. This only makes the final choice even more interesting. It won't necessarily be the most popular with the players, or the one who may be the best captain in 2015. I think MFC has had enough of "selections" (in various ways) being made on future potential rather than on current form, and it seems to me that Neeld has made a strong stand against this type of thinking. This process of selecting the captain bears this out even more strongly IMHO.

Funny thing was, you chose to disregard the two reports that had some positive stuff about Jack at training, and to take the one negative report as gospel truth. That's your prerogative, but don't expect to be seen as objective.