Akum

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.

Absolutely right about Sellar, Bob. It's the only reason we drafted him at all. Along the same lines, how about Tom McDonald? Another pick in the 50s, but has excellent endurance (see 3km TT), good speed, and when he grows into his body might be ideal for the N. Riewoldt types. Except that he might turn out to be better offensively than just having a negating role. A more attacking defence (by releasing Frawley to a more attacking role) and a more defensive attack! Like it!

Agree totally with your main point, but the forwards were actually playing to their instructions to "get sucked up the ground"

I can understand the concern about Jack being "named", but I don't think either party would have seen it as "public humiliation", or even as "exerting authority". On the contrary, I expect that Jack would have been highly inspired that such a "no-BS" guy as Neeld considers him capable of reaching elite standard, and highly motivated to do whatever is needed to reach that standard. All indications since then are that this is exactly what's happened. So it's simply a master instructor pushing exactly the right motivation buttons. And I'm sure Neeld wouldn't have mentioned Jack to the journalist if he thought he'd be fazed by it. Jack has already experienced more than enough "spin" from journalists to let it bother him that the journalist in this case "spun" the interaction between him & Neeld to make it sound like something it's not.

Going to take a slightly different tack here: 1. Grimes: Because any season where Grimes gets on the park 20 times is simply going to be heaps better than when he doesn't. 2. Morton: Because I don't think they'll pick Morton 20 times if he's only going "so-so". To play 20 games, he'll have to be playing close to the best footy he's capable of (which is very very good), and it will mean also that the team is going so well that we can afford to play him as an attacking position. 3. Blease: Because it will mean (a) that his fitness has held out for 20 games, and (B) that using him as a crumbing forward has been an unqualified success. 4. Jurrah: Similar to Morton (and a number of others) - I simply don't think they'll pick him in 2012 unless he's doing really well, so he'll only get 20 games if he's averaging say 3 goals a game plus assists, which will be 60 goals to him plus another 40-60 to the team. Which in turn will mean either that he's learned how to star against the best defenders, or that Clark & Watts are going so well that Jurrah only gets the 3rd defender each game. 5. Strauss: Partly because he'll do better with every game, so that games 16-20 will be so much better than 1-5. And partly because he'll only get 20 games in 2012 if we play off in the Grand Final! Yeah sure, our most important players are Jamar & Frawley. But they'll do well whether the team is going well or not, and they will always be among the first picked. The guys I've chosen will only play 20 games if 2012 turns out to be a very good season.

Just wonder if Col might struggle this year under a more disciplined team structure. He seems to enjoy having a relatively free rein and may chafe if he has to play to structures. And Moloney, who's used to being on the ball for the whole time he's on the ground, may have to get used to playing some of his game time in a field position. We could have a lot of players rotating through the midfield during a game, and Beamer could be very dangerous resting in a FP, for example, or attacking off a HBF. The key influence on our story in 2012 will be how these senior players adapt to a team structure and strategy, which will be a new experience for them after playing for several seasons. Old dogs & new tricks.

And not a hint of suspicion about the result? That a batting lineup that includes Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman & Dhoni can't get 200 against 2 honest toilers & 2 raw newbies? Tendulkar chasing a wide one & Dravid playing all over a straight one? The field set to Australia's last pair?

Not frog - hypno-toad. Actually, a hypno-toad or three in Canterbury would explain a lot.

As long as "we" don't take ourselves at all seriously

... and if it was, THEN we would have a reason to be pussed off!

Gee, if the only 'Jills' you know have that much facial hair ...

This will be interesting. We're likely to go tall in the forward line, with Clark, Watts, Howe, Jurrah & Green, and also in defence, at least against some attacks, with Frawley, Rivers, Garland & Sellars. Some of our best games in 2010 were when we went in with just Jamar as ruck, with someone like Dunn as back-up, and included an extra runner. Hope we don't sacrifice too much run for the sake of height. On the other hand, we are blessed with extraordinarily athletic & agile "height" among the players I've named, so we just might get away with it. It will be an interesting balance.

There's a number of elements to this, but it probably comes down to his aerobic fitness. He did not seem fully fit last year, and seemed to be carrying a leg injury, and assuming that his aerobic fitness will be better this year (notwithstanding the latest setback) I think he'll chase and harrass more. When he does chase & harrass, he does it really well.

Sounds a long time for a medial meniscus tear (by the way, "meniscus" is medispeak for what most people would know as the "cartilage" in the knee, so "torn medial cartilage" might be a more familiar term) so maybe it's a larger tear. The medial meniscus is often damaged at the same time as an AC tear, so I wonder if there was any previous damage to it?

During the surgery for the meniscus repair, they'll be able to have a good look at how the ACL repair is holding up. And hopefully they won't have to remove too much of the meniscus.

I'm all for facial hair as a rule. I'm all for micro-mini skirts too, just not on fat girls. Some people need to stay well away from stuff.

And ... um ... Jack Viney?

I'd be a bit worried about my long-term future right now if I were Clint Bartram. This guy can play a run-with game & get plenty of ball going the other way, is hard at the ball, great tackler and reasonably good disposal - at least he doesn't seem to miss running into an open goal from 30m. Clint will have to improve his disposal out of sight to keep him out.

Yeah, it's never a "fitness cardinal" or a "fitness mufti". They must all be Hindu.

Clearly resting the number out of sheer respect.