Akum

If the punishment was going to hurt hi, he probably would have refused to play along.

From Chip's point of view, I wouldn't expect him to re-sign until he sees signs of definite improvement. So a lot depends on how quickly we show definite improvement. So I'll be worried if: (a) we're well past halfway and yet to improve from last year, or (b) we do improve and he doesn't sign. I think Chip stands out in that list as the one who could add a lot to most teams, and who may be gettable under certain circumstances, so it will be vital for us to be able to sign him up a.s.a.p.. The ones most likely to add something to us are Ibbotson and Mundy, but I'd expect them to be hard to prise away from Freo. I wonder too about Dane Swan, especially if PIes have a bad year and us a good one, just in terms of him being one of the few players able to take our (hopefully) vastly improved midfield up another notch.

Nev has a lot in common with his 2008 draft mates Blease, Strauss & Bail. They have all spent a lot of time injured and showed promise in patches, and have had to play in one of the worst sides of all time, so it's not unreasonable to give them another chance. On the other hand, none of them have been able to sustain good performances for one reason or another. So 2014 is the make-or-break year for all 4 of them. Unfortunately, any who spend a lot of the season injured won't get another chance.

Those bananas looked a bit ... er ... diminutive. Ladyfingers?? Has anybody ever tried plantains? Bananas on steroids.

I liked it a lot down to here ... I think he's good at finding space in traffic (agility/sidestep), and his ball use isn't bad. And like one or two others, he seems to take 2 or 3 games to get into stride and show his best. His trouble has been that he's rarely been able to string more than 4 or 5 games together before getting injured or suspended. He'll never be in the top level of the midfield, but as the 9th or 10th mid + flanker/winger, he can make a solid contribution. Having said that, if he can't string a number of good games together in 2014, he's toast. But he's worth another crack, especially under a better (i.e. non-c-rap) coaching and development structure.

You can see why they picked him ahead of Tippett & Sully et al. He looks like he could become the negating niggling frustrating (to his opponent) type of defender that we lack. If he were to do well enough to get in the 22, he would take the negating role and allow the likes of Frawley and Garland and Strauss to use their attacking skills more freely. We have at times been forced to play these three in particular as "lock-down" defenders, because we've had no other options. And in doing so, they have been far less effective as rebounders than they're capable of. This is a shrewd selection. He may not ever become good enough to lock down the most dangerous forwards, but the thinking behind getting him is good.

I understand the point you're making and I agree with you as far as it goes. But the main issue is whether we are able to turn Tyson, Salem & Hunt into serious contributors on the field. From now on, it really doesn't matter whether Kelly and Crouch might have been better or not. We need to focus on making the best out of what we've got. As I'm sure the club is doing already.

This is the part that makes me feel better. My biggest concern about him was the 15 possies a game average for VM, when others were racking up over 20, points to a concern about his ability to find the ball at higher levels. But if this was because he was assigned roles (which must be unusual at U18 Champs), it explains it. As well as giving an indication about what coaches think about his ability to play a disciplined game & still get a bit of the ball. Shows why Roos would be such a big wrap for him in the interview.

Good to hear about the intensity. But I'm totally disorientated by the phrase "kicking accurate 50m passes to fast leading" in association with MFC. I understand the words separately, but together they're much too far fetched to make sense, even in groups of two - "kicking accurate"? "50m passes"? "fast leading"? I mean, what's Roos trying to do? It's not even December and we're practising ball skills at high intensity!! Next thing you know, we'll have the Aussies winning an Ashes test. Or the mad monk apologising for something. I'm sorry, it's just all wrong.

This rhyming thing isn't going to go away, is it?

Did we upgrade Clisby with a 4th pick?

This is exactly how I feel. I also think Salem is the safer choice. Freeman is probably a better chance of being an absolute star, but also a bigger chance of being a bust. Salem won't be a bust, but his ceiling is probably "a very good player". And for where we are at this point in time, that's probably the wiser choice. Even if I would have preferred Freeman.

Hate to say it but Pies have killed it again.

Yeah I think we need a mid with speed to balance out the midfield. Scharenberg & Lennon etc would to me be duplicating Tyson or Michie. I think we'd do better with a different sort of player. And at this stage I'd prefer a genuine mid rather than a converted flanker. There may be a draft when we can take a bit of a punt on a flanker who looks a good mid prospect, but not this draft. So if Freeman's not available, then perhaps Taylor, who hasn't really been mentioned but who seems a similar type.

Find it interesting that, after a fair amount of agreement among phantom drafts about the top 10 or 12 (with us getting Freeman), in the past week things have really diversified.

Well, footy's a winter sport!

Yeah OK. The question is whether we'll get anybody at 40 in this draft - not to mention 4 rookies - who's any better.

The point is that we wouldn't need Hannath for 2014, but for 2017 to 2020, when he'd be coming into his prime, Clark & Gawn & Fitz would be showing signs of wear, and Jamar would be long gone.

Good points. However, there's different roles for mids. I'd be surprised if he'd ever be in the centre square, for example, or as an inside mid. But Roos must have put a fair bit of thought into how to get the best out of him. That's how he persuaded him to re-sign, remember? Two possibilities off the top of my head are: (1) the main go-to option for coming out of defence, and link between defence and attack; (2) like a half-back in rugby league, where he gets the ball on the edge of the pack & has to distribute it. These would be playing to all his strengths, and there would have to be more, but I'm not good enough to think of them.He'd still need to harden up a lot, because if he turned out to be any good at it, he'd get a lot of attention. On the other hand, he'd be very hard to match up on, especially as he's good at reading the play, and good at finding space. Not a conventional mid, but a mid all the same. It could work well.

Yeah, I thought his disposal was fine too. I like that he seems able to deliver long (and to goal easily from 50m), medium & short with equal effectiveness. Also that the delivery to him was pretty poor on a number of occasions - they just put it out in space somewhere around him and relied on him to do the rest. The only minor quibble was that he tends to chip his short kicks rather than spear them low and hard like Flash. But very few U18's do that anyway. He's definitely got the hang of kicking into space for a teammate to run onto, and kicking to the side of a contest that gives his teammate the advantage. Which immediately puts him ahead of most of our best 22 of 2013.

Always thought that Cross's great attribute as a mid was in getting first hands on the ball and getting it out to one of the Dogs' runners (Cooney, Griffen, Aker, Gilbee & so forth). Lots of contested possies, lots of handballs in heavy traffic, lots of tackles. All of which our midfield has conspicuously lacked so far. If he does that for us for the next year or two, then develops Viney and perhaps even McKenzie to take over, he'll be well worth it.

Is there a possibility that Taggert might be rookied? As in 1-yr-only last-chance contract? And you'd expect that to leave 4 rookie spots clear would imply that we've got a pretty good idea of what rookies we're after?

Jack's problem is that he gets a 2m break on his opponent on a lead, and the pass from a teammate misses him by a good 10m. So the next time he's more tentative about leading so hard.

Exactly the right point

Which was actually what we did. At the time we picked Morton, Bennell, Gysberts, Scully etc we had a few one-paced big-bodied inside mids (Brock, Junior, Moloney and Sylvia, as well as Jones), but as a midfield it was unbalanced and we needed outside pace & class. We then proceeded to get rid of the former one by one, leaving us unbalanced in the other direction. I know there were other reasons for getting rid of Brock Junior and Moloney, but it had the cumulative effect of making the "outside-mid" picks utterly useless. Stupid short-sighted list management. It's the difference between building a list (of individuals) and building a team (that knits together). And building a team is what Roos excels in.