Akum

Maybe this is part of the rationale for going for "hard-hitting" over "silky skills" - it's one strategy for beating the future GWS & GCS, and hopefully everybody else. "The hardest team to play against".

1. There's a few ruck/tall forward options around though - as well as Dawes, there's Tippett (who we won't get), Giles, Zac Clarke, even Hamish McIntosh as possibilities. I'd expect they'd have more than one of these in their sights, depending on how other things work out. 2. The more I think about it, the more I think that pick 4 for D&W can't have been a real bid - for one thing, they would have known that Wellingham does not want us. So why did we offer it as an opening bid (but knowing it would never fly) and then allow it to be publicised? A suggestion was made somewhere (can't be bothered looking it up) that it might have been to show other clubs that we'd consider a high pick for a package of the "right" two players. The obvious possibilities might be Caddy + Toy (plus some help with Viney) to GCS, or Butcher & Jacobs (PA), though I don't think either of those combos necessarily justify Pick 4. Or maybe there are other twin targets that we don't know of yet.

Comparing Martin in a lousy team with Dawes in one of the best teams ... We'll only get an idea of their relative worth if they do swap.

Pies fans on BF uncertain whether Dawes or Simon Buckley is their biggest spud. Let's get him!

If Adelaide get their hands on Pick 2, they will definitely nominate Viney!!

I think the only one from Perth on the panel is Glen Jakovich. Must be either an unbelievably good negotiator, or the only one who was sober during discussions. And he's obviously Weagles >> Dockers.

Jamar uses his body far better at stoppages than Martin. That's not at all surprising - Jamar has had 9 years where the only position he's played is No 1 ruck. Martin has been played all over the ground and is very much still learning the game. As someone said, after 5 years he's still got a big upside because he has so much to learn, especially as a ruckman. But Jamar's taps seem to be very predictable, very easy for opposition mids to rove to. If he's not under instructions to do this, it makes him very one-dimensional, even if he wins many tap-outs. And Jamar gives nothing - absolutely zero - around the ground. Rarely more than 5 kicks or 10 possessions a game, and it's not like he doesn't turn it over when he gets it, it just doesn't seem as much because he hardly ever gets it. Rarely kicks goals - except for that single game against Carlton where he got 5 goals from 5 kicks from being one-out in the square & capitalising from breakaways in a game where we were killed. At least Martin gets the ball enough to (occasionally) turn it over! In fact, all ruckmen who get enough of the ball around the ground turn it over a fair bit, especially off the boot. Great disposal by foot simply isn't their thing. It's why ruckmen make lousy CHFs. Jamar certainly looks like a great ruckman at stoppages. He simply isn't that effective over the whole game. If we continue to rely on him as first ruck, we will be perhaps the only team that gets zero input around the ground (i.e. from everything other than stoppages) from their No.1 ruckman, which puts far more pressure on our other talls around the ground to make up for the drive we're not getting from the first ruck. Jumbo, sounds to me like you're just comparing Jamar's best with Martin's worst, not their overall contribution. Or comparing Jamar in the ruck with Martin at CHF, which is equally unbalanced. You're not acknowledging the things that Martin does better and that Jamar does worse. There's been a very strong recent history of second-string ruckmen at one club getting more opportunities at another and ripping it up - Mumford, Maric, Jacobs, even Hale, as well as Jolley, Ottens, Gardiner et al from a while back. If Martin was groomed for No.1 ruck at a top club, especially if he could learn the craft from someone like Jolley (as NikNat has been able to learn from Cox), he would be another name on this list.

Not ruthless enough???

One of the few times I agree with RR. I can't see any evidence that Neeld sees Riv as a defensive option into the future. If he did, he would have put him back there at some stage after the Essendon game, like he did with Garland, who he does see as a defensive option in future. Instead of putting Riv back, he preferred guys like Watts & even Dunn & Sellar in defence. Because there's no way Neeld sees Riv as a permanent forward next year. That was only temporary. Riv is certainly one of the few who can hold his head up after the 2012 season, Would have thought it was blindingly obvious. By saying that Neeld "doesn't like" Riv, I meant only that he doesn't see him in a future role at the club; I didn't mean that he dislikes him personally. And I consider Neeld to be "the devil incarnate"?? Come on, get a grip! Of course he's not, apart from being a demon like the rest of us. But is he ruthless? Is he autocratic? You betcha. In fact, that's part of what we got him for. And there's a solid Demonland cheer squad urging him on. But for some, the penny hasn't yet dropped that he'll be just as ruthless with some players that you like as with some players you don't like - the favourite Demonland whipping boys, some of whom are already gone. We can't cheer the "exit" of Petterd or Moloney and then complain if a favourite is also "exited". By the way, I like Riv a lot, for all the reasons that others have put on this thread. If it was up to me, he'd stay. But it's not. The question is, does Neeld (not you or I) see him as part of the team he wants to create for the future? For me, it's a firm "no, he doesn't". Furthermore, what's happened to the "no-longer-leaders" Green & Moloney? I'm not saying there's animosity on Riv's part, but he's not a fool, he's smart enough to see the writing on the wall and check other options. And it's possible that Neeld would prefer him to leave on his own terms, rather than being delisted.

Sorry, but surely we're not expecting the likes of Monfries, Lynch & Pearce to take us into the top 8, let alone a premiership.

Neeld's played him out of position for most of the season. Pretty clear sign that Riv is another one that the boss doesn't like. He'll be smart enough to know the lie of the land.

... and I'm still concerned that, unless our development has improved vastly under the new regime, history will repeat itself, no matter how our drafting looks at the time of the draft. Unless we can pick up some of those rare birds who can become stars with minimal outside input, of which Viney may well be one. Most of those who we drafted have hardly improved at all since they were playing U18, while many of those drafted by other clubs have vastly improved their game over the same period.

He Who ... Farnarkled Us Around

I think it entirely depends on how many Neeld wants from other clubs that he can manage to attract to us. There'll be a minimum of 6-8 in ND + PSD (depending on whether we upgrade Nicho & Evans), but the maximum depends on how many (OOC or FA) from elsewhere Neeld can attract to MFC. It could be none; it could be another 6 or 8. I doubt that Neeld has any maximum number in mind. There's no point getting rid of players if there's nobody to replace them, but I have no doubt that he'll delist or trade as many as he needs, depending on how many incomers he can get to sign on the dotted line.

Neeld will tear this list apart. That's always been the plan. The point is whether he's also capable of rebuilding it. Maybe, maybe not. The jury will be out until at least midseason 2013. But it's a high-risk strategy, and if it doesn't come off, there won't be much left. Many if not all of us will have to get used to one or two of our three favourite players leaving the club, and maybe even tearing it up somewhere else. Or have to change our favourite players.

So the SANFL/WAFL/VFL is the best we can hope for in the future??? This can only be because we're really struggling to get anybody AFL to talk to us.

The point is that a number of us considered it to be within the realms of possibility. The fact is, we don't know who's no longer wanted, and how they're going to respond. IIRC, Strauss James is one of the 10 or 12 who won't know whether they're still wanted until after the drafting & trading period, depending on who gets picked up.

You seem to blame him for the fact that he's only playing to the one-dimensional role he's been asked to play by the coach. He also seems to be under orders to kick more and handball less, for whatever reason. Which also blunts his effectiveness at clearances. I agree that it's admitting defeat and that it means we're one short for getting clearances. But it seems to be what Neeld wants him to do. In the process, it makes him a more limited player than he looked last year. Hopefully, it's for his ultimate good, rather than to fatten him up to trade or delist.

One conclusion: take out those who are at other clubs and those who are injured and it's a pretty good catalogue of players whose performances have gone backwards at a rate of knots since Neeld became coach. Subtract Jones and maybe Howe, and add Green, Moloney, Davey, Martin, Bennell & McKenzie and it's just about complete.

Playing like a demoralised team.

Agree to a point. Quite a few of these young players are only now able to put consecutive matches together after coming back from long term injury - as well as Spencer there's Blease, Tapscott, Strauss, even Grimes at the beginning of the year, now Jetta. Next year this will apply to Watts & Jurrah, and Martin & Morton if they're still around, & not forgetting Gawn & Taggert. Not many of our younger brigade have been able to string together say 15-20 games without injury. Perhaps that's one reason for the feeling that we haven't got enough out of them collectively.

I think his decision-making is not as bad as his execution. If he'd switched it successfully to Jetta, we could have taken it up the other end, but the 40m pass fell well short. He's got a very high ball drop.

No, Saints percentage is way above their rivals for 7th & 8th. They have to win an extra game or two, but percentage isn't a problem for them.

Saints' bench at the start of the last quarter must be one of the best ever - Hayes, Goddard, I think it was Montagna, and Riewoldt injured. They definitely took the boot off the throat, because their percentage is not a problem for them. Not saying that there weren't "good signs", just not to get too carried away. A "good sign" not mentioned so far was the sheer quality of Trengove's clearance work in the last quarter. Particularly liked the "third-man-up" hitout down Blease's throat for a goal.

If Neeld doesn't like him, we'll get to see how good he can be ... playing for someone else.