Radar Detector

Milne Harvey Brad Dick Dishonourable mention to Didak

6. Jones 5. Watts 4. Gysberts 3. Sylvia 2. Martin 1. Warnock Apologies to Evans, who had a great debut, and Maric, who I am beginning to get excited about - he is starting to show the excellent kicking and decision making skills we were promised when he was drafted. Very happy with the ball in his hands. Hopefully Strauss can show the same improvement.

I think you'll find it's "Yeeeeeoooooooooow!"

Pendlebury has signed for one year. ONE YEAR. If Scully was to do the same it would end the hand-wringing for about a minute. The fact is, there are a number of players across the comp who are playing a "wait and see" game in light of the fluid negotiating landscape. As Artie mentioned, Scully has the added incentive to delay because his market value is only likely to improve once he gets some game time. The club is not in a position to force negotiations on players when it is not in the player's best interests to do so, in much the same way as the players can't force the club. For example, we were happy to give Jamar a one year contract a couple of years ago because it was in our interests - that was our "wait and see approach". Nobody was in a lather about how unfair that was for Jamar. Scully is doing the same thing but in reverse. Whether or not supporters think that its right or that he should be showing more loyalty by signing on now is irrelevant. If I was in his position I would be doing exactly the same thing.

Is it any surprise then that we were over-run with two of our top four contested ball winners out?

The difference is Juice is a forward who pinch hits occasionally in the ruck as neccessity dictates. Martin is a back-up ruck only. I would expect Martin to perform better in the ruck than Juice. I understand all the arguments about Newton only being retained as a forward/ruck but he showed plenty as a forward only - IMO enough to give him another run in that role whether they play him as second ruck or not. Give him a chance to play permanent forward and see what he's got. If we get some more consistent ball, I'd like to see whether he can burst some more packs, lay some tackles and kick some goals for a whole match. Or several matches. He may have improved or he may remain a c*ck tease but he showed a bit on the weekend and we should see what the 2011 version is made of.

I agree with both of your comments, however the point I am making is that it would appear to be necessary to draft a key group of players that become your leaders a long way in advance of when you challenge for a flag. If we'd drafted well when we had the opportunity in 2003, we'd probably be approaching our premiership window now. Unfortunately, we topped up with far too many payers like Pickett, Holland, Vardy etc. at the expense of long term development. There is no doubt that the current Melbourne list is youth-wighted, but that in some ways is my point. The older guys in our team are probably not "past it" but there are too few of them and the talent pool is too thin for us to be truly competitive right now. The bulk of our talent, and in reality the bulk of our starting 18 any given week, is 23 and under. They are a promising group, but the realit is we're unlikely to see true success until the first batch of these guys is 26 or 27. Originally most of us probably thought that when we were starting to challenge seriously for a flag that Brad Green might be like our Crawf. In actual fact, it's far more likely to be Sylvia or Davey in their twilight when we really hit our straps. The hope from a Melbourne perspective is that we've recruited more in a block than in a wave and that a steady stream of talent between 2006 and 2010+ will sustain our challenge for a considerable number of years. Again, what I'm suggesting is that history tends not to reflect blocks of successful drafting, possibly because needs change over time. For example as teams get closer to their "window" or perceived window, they tend to look a bit more readily towards reasy made players (like Hawthorn the last two years). Carlton, I feel, topped up too early and may find that they need another wave before they seriously challenge. In any event, by all measures we are young and still a way off. Here's hoping that the guys keep improving and that the leadership void is not a problem for too much longer!

In light of all the discussion regarding leadership (or lacke thereof) at our club, I thought it would be interesting to compare our list to those of the recent benchmarks, Geelong, Hawthorn and Collingwood. Specifically, I am interested in the timing of their recruiting and how they managed to generate such a strong spread of quality players across the spectrum of ages - something we clearly lack. In both the Geelong and Collingwood examples, the clubs have traded for mature talent that have helped bring them closer to flag success (Mooney, Ottens at the Cats and Jolly and Ball at Collingwood). What is interesting to note when you consider the recruiting of these clubs however, is that the successful recruiting has typically gone in waves. By that I mean that they had two distinct drafting periods that enabled the club to harvest a group of leaders at the time the next batch of guns were coming through. In Geelong's case, they had 2 distinct periods, albeit reasonably close together, where they drafted an enormous amount of talent. In 1998-99, they drafted Scarlett, Corey, Chapman, Ling and Enright to add to guys like Milburn who they had acquired shortly before. The next wave for them was only a couple of years later but they managed to acquire Bartel, Kelly, Stevie J and Gary Ablett in 2001. Hawthorn similarly had two waves. In 2001 they drafted the core of their premiership leadership group in Hodge, Campbell Brown and Sam Mitchell. Three years later, they had their second wave in Roughead, Franklin and Lewis. Collingwood were similar to Hawthorn. In 2000-02, they drafted Didak, Swan and Maxwell. In 2004-5 they added Cloke, Thomas and Pendlebury. The question this poses in my mind is where are we in terms of our waves? In 2003-04, we had a golden opportunity to draft our first wave but squandered an enormous number of those picks. Of Sylvia, Mclean, CJ, Bate, Dunn, Newton and Davey only two are regulars. We also got Moloney at this time but had to swap Scott Thompson so its a nil all draw. Our first successful tilt was probably 2005-06 where we collected Jones, Frawley, Petterd and Garland. Our next wave is hopefully the 2007-2009 crop. What that means I don't know for sure, but if you look at the precedents it seems to confirm what most on here still suspect. Generally, it takes around 8-10 years from your first wave to be in flag contention which brings us to the middle of this decade. No surprises that this is when several of our young guns will be at the age where they are truly leaders of the club.

He was performing well as a forward and the supply dried up. Surely you agree he offered much more than Bate did last week in terms of output? I realise that Newton didn't set the world on fire in the ruck yesterday and he has failed many times. I DO NOT think he is any sort of saviour or even that he is likely to last beyond this year. However I do think we need another tall forward option aside from Watts and Jurrah and, of all the alternatives tried so far this year (Dunn, Martin, Bate, Newton) I saw more from Juice in one quarter than I have seen from the rest of that list all season (in that particular role).

I agree with this. I think I mis-interpreted your initial "Wrong" reply to Roost It as diminishing Juice's efforts. On a re-read I can see how it was saying that he was not the main reason we were in front and supply from the mids was the key. I agree with this. Happy to retract the "ridiculous" comment on that basis. Apologies.

Exactly. I know it's Juice we're talking about, but it seems that no matter how well certain players perform, some on this site can't look further than past perceptions.

No need to be so patronising RR, I understood exactly what your earlier post was saying. However I feel that your initial lack of acknowledgement of his part in our early lead is narrow-minded. And your allusion that because he was playing well as a forward means we should expect the same in the ruck against one of the better combinations going around is folly. Now I will keep it simple: Yes, he was picked as a forward/ruck. No, he did not dominate in the ruck, but was considered the next best option given Dunn was at no staged thrown in to the centre bounces. Yes, he was our best forward on the day, despite being shuffled around the park. Yes, he deserves his spot even if as a forward only for next week. Any other conclusion is coloured by past failings, which was my original point.

But why should you take Boomer out of the analysis? He played and was one of their best which is almost the point of the comparison...

What a ridiculous reply. To say that Newton was just ok in the forward line because our midfield was so dominant is to let past failings cloud your judgement. Newton was the best performed of six forwards who were on the end of that service. And to say that because he was playing well up forward he should have more impact in the middle makes no sense at all. Next time Jurrah is on fire, let's move him into the ruck shall we?

Agree on Jetta's performance on the weekend. Just not sure he has the fitness to make an impact for a whole game. Would make a good sub who can come on and have a real impact at the stoppages.

I know that there is seven years of frustration bubbling into some of the comments on this thread and there is no doubt they are well deserved. But Juice's first quarter was outstanding on the weekend. He led hard, bodied well, chased, tackled and did basically everything you could ask of a key forward. It mey very well be that Juice will fail again but he's obviously got talent and has earned the right to play again. He has continually put his hand up at Casey and performed well enough on the weekend. If somebody else was crashing the door down then maybe he'd be the one left out but they're not. I keep thinking back to Jamar every time I feel like writing him off completely.

I think the following guys are in the gun for this week: Garland and Bail - obvious outs for injury reasons Wonna - is unfit and frankly not firing a shot. Was excellent in the first quarter of the Brisbane game (his first game back) but has looked listless and lazy ever since. Too often on Saturday he was led to the ball and tried to turn his opponent inside out by nudging him past the ball. I can't remeber it working. Dunn - Is a massive source of frustration as he lacks discipline and tries to be aggressive at the wrong moments. Would prefer him to channel his aggression into getting the ball rather than laying crude hits. Is well down the list for contested possessions and has surely used up the (few) credits he earned late last year. Bennell - Played a half for seven touches and I'm not sure he did enough to earn a recall in the first place. Was described by by Barry Prendergast as as someone who "could win the ball at stoppages" but I'm yet to see it. Bennell and Dunn are two of our absolute worst for contested possessions per game played this year. Bennell needs to stop flashing in and out of games. I would like to see Juice line up in the forward line again. He gives us structure (in much the same way Bate did last week) and earned his spot with a great first quarter and a solid game overall. I would also like to see Maric have the same run of opportunity that has been given to Wonna - he has shown far more in fewer appearances so far this year. In terms of ins, If Rivers is fit, he is a monty to replace Garland in the back half. McKenzie should also come in for Bail if he is fit enough. Howe might be a good replacement for Dunn, or maybe Bate, although I can't see where in the line-up Bate would play if Juice is retained. Howe may offer more flexibility. I would like Joel Mac in for Bennell and would be happy for any of Strauss/Evans/Nicholson to be given a run. Gawn might also be in the mix and give Juice the chance to stay home at full forward. In summary: Outs: Garland (inj.), Bail (inj.), Dunn (susp. or omit), Wonna (omit), Bennell (omit) Ins: Rivers, McKenzie, Joel Mac, Howe, Bate/Strauss/Evans/Nicholson/Gawn I would make either Jetta or Joel Mac the sub. I query Jetta's ability to run out a whole game but it would be good to sub on somebody who can hit bodies and have an impact at the contest.

I reckon Jones and Watts have been by far the most unfairly chastised players I have seen on this site. Ever. It seems that old stigmas die hard. People contine to knock Jones' disposal and decision making but his disposal efficieny is actually quite reasonable and compares favourably to Sylvia, Davey, Gysberts and everyone's new love child Rohan Bail. He also hit Bartram with one of the best foot passes I have seen from a Demon all season at the end of the first quarter, which shoed amazing foot skills and vision. Jones deserves the congratulations of the club and all supporters for his passion, attitude, endeavour and output over this season and seasns past. Well done Jonesy.

I have hope for several, including Scully, Trangove, Gysberts and Watts. Problem is, these guys are all under 21 and so can't reasonably be expected to perform this role yet. I hate to come back to the old argument of how much time we need to give these guys but there's clearly a way to go. Unfortunately, we don't have any game-changers in our 23-27 age group and that kills us. Sylvia can be the guy, but doesn't have enough mates in that regard.

Appeal dismissed. F*n sucks.

I think you'll find it's Tinney's job whether he agrees with what he's saying or not. He's been hired to prosecute for the MRP, not go in and argue for Jack. Give the Tinney bashing a rest.

I think it's clear from the live feed that the biggest mistake we made at the MRP was using Iain Findlay instead of David Galbally. The QC is presenting a much more coherent, factual defence that is far more likely to succeed than "this is how they are taught to tackle and he did it again in the next passage of play". Still not confident, but he's presenting a much better case.

Adelaide have tabled a new medical report as new evidence stating that Dangerfield has trained well and suffers no lingering effects. Not sure it will change everything but surely a better start.

Surely Joel Mac. Should've been in before Bennell. Agree with the other ins thouhg, best outcome possible in the circumstances.

Time to "Let loose the JUICE!" Oh dear, what has happened....