Radar Detector

I agree that Maric was on a hiding to nothing. The ball wasn't getting down there which is my point. A midfielder in reserve is a safe bet (barring injuries) cos you can always shuffle a Sylvia, Davey, Bennel forward or back depending on the flow of the game. But a specialist sub (i.e. a small forward) can only have an impact if the flow of the game allows it. Midfielders are always in the play. Not sure that Gysberts is the right guy though. I think we'd be better starting with him and bringing on someone like Jones who can provide 45 minutes of grunt.

Great post RR. I agree with all that you have said. The key to this team will be time to develop and we are unlikely to see the rapid improvement some expect. I'm not sure that this should spell the end for Bailey however as some are calling for. Some further observations based on the Hawks debacle: 1. It's hard to criticise Bailey's game plan based on yesterday's game. We looked pretty good with the ball in our hands but just could not get a clearance or win a hard ball. Our game style actually allows us to attack quickly and score from good positions, hence our scoring efficiency last year and again yesterday despite miserable i50 stats. Hawthorn, on the other hand, attack wide and often have shots from tough spots, hence the inaccuracy. BUT... 2. Surprisingly, given our focus on drafting key forwards, the midfield remains our weakness. Jordie and Sculls will help when they return but our midfield rotation is light on numbers. I'd like to see Joel Mac or even Strauss back in the side (Morton could play the role too) and Grimes moved into the midfield for a few weeks. It's almost impossible to win games when the defence is under siege and the forards are getting no ball. 3. Our kick-ins rely too heavily on hitting Jamar which is very predictable and easy for opposition teams to counter. He was often competing against Hale/Renouf, Buddy and a third tall... he's not superman FFS. 4. Our use of the sub yesterday was terrible. Hawthorn injected Lewis who had an immediate impact. Maric was never going to.

So, with two rounds down to observe the use of the sub rule, I thought I'd guauge some views as to how we're using the rule. For what it's worth, I think we have taken the wrong move both weeks. Round 1: Whilst Petterd had an immediate impact off the bench and the move looked like a masterstroke, it was convenient that the logical player for us to sub off at the time was a small forward. This was made to look even better by the fact that Sydney completely botched their sub by bringing on a dinosaur when fresh legs were needed. Round 2: Having a small forward as the sub is not a good idea and those asking for Wonna to be the sub this week should consider the balance of the team. Forwards rely on ball from the midfield which is where most of the gut running (and fatigue) happens. Jordan Lewis came on and smashed us and Maric had little impact. It would appear that the most effective use of the sub is having a player in reserve who can come into the guts and make an immediate impression on the game. The question is, who is the midfielder that can provide this for us? Would Jetta or Jones have been better as sub? Who plays the role when McKenzie and Scully return? Is there another way to use the sub more effectively that I'm missing?

Also gave it a go: Rank Team 1 Collingwood 18w/1d 2 Hawthorn 18 3 Geelong 16/1 4 St_Kilda 16 5 Sydney 14/1 6 W_Bulldogs 12 7 Essendon 12 8 Carlton 12 ---------------------------- 9 Adelaide 12 10 Melbourne 10/1 11 Fremantle 10 12 Kangaroos 8 13 P_Adelaide 8 14 Brisbane 6 15 W_Coast 6 16 Richmond 5 17 GC Suns 1 Tipped us to lose a couple to the likes of Kangaroos and WCE again as I think we'll still be a bit up and down. Won't be anything like the final ladder but I wouldn't be too disappointed if we finished on 10 wins. Just hope we can start to win the "shoulds" and pinch a couple of "maybes". Surprised myself with how high I have the Swans finishing - don't really rate them that high on paper but I guess they have some good games at home.

Absolutely. There will always be a spot for a quick, reliable small defender. In terms of a negating role, he is the best of his type that we have and that is his key responsibility. Hope he gives it to Cyril on Sunday.

I agree with this - even your use of the word "whom" was correct in this instance.

FWIW a mate of mine's father in law is a recruiter at the Eagles. He said last week that even taking exposed form into consideration, Jack Watts will be the best player from that draft. I still can't comprehend how many people, journalists and supporters the worst, were prepared to say that Jack was a four or five year proposition when he was drafted, yet continue to write him off on an almost weekly basis. The kid has serious skills, pace and vision. His physicality is clearly improving despite him still having an undersized body. The impatience is unbelievable.

I wouldn't change much about the team from round 1, but I Nathan Jones could be a good sub option this week. A bit of toughness off the pine could be just what the team needs in a close last quarter against the Hawks' big bodies. Failing that, Jetta or Bail but I think Bail should get a run-with role on one of their mids. I think Maric should start on the ground as we need a small forward at the feet of the bigger guys and Bennell is the only other in last week's 22 that offers this but I feel he's better used elsewhere. Petterd should start on the field, no question.

Whilst I don't have any real issue with the loan, I disagree that the club is getting a commercial rate of interest. It is not a true arms-length deal, as typical commercial loans of this type would attract a margin of at least 2% over a base rate of about 5.2% for two years. That said, the club describe it as an investment in one of their key people which is important in retaining quality employees like Cameron. The loan is therefore not worth all the fuss Caroline Wilson is trying to stir up.

I actually liked what I saw from Jack yesterday. Didn't kick four goals but took a great contested grab, looked much better in the marking contests than I had seen him before and appeared more willing to accept physical contact. He also did some smart work that won't appear in his stats like repeat leads that weren't honoured and a terrific tap on. Held on to the ball a little long once or twice but rarely wastes a possesion and I'd prefer the ball in his hands than many others. This game was a step forward and I think it showed that he is working on those areas of his game that will help elevate him to the next level.

No Adam Cooney, James Frawley, Matthew Scarlett, Mark Jamar. Moloney ahead of Davey is ridiculous. How Daniel Connors made this list is a mystery. No credibility and will get no more of my attention.

Brendan Goddard was a ready made star. He just took about seven years to prove it.

I've always felt that Dunn plays best as a forward target and struggles further up the ground where he has no outstanding attributes. Bate IMO has actually played his best footy as a high half forward/wing where his massive boot gives us an attacking weapon into the F50 but he struggles as a key forward target. Now that our forward line is starting to take shape and we have several targets up there, I'd like to see Bate played a bit higher up the ground again in a Ryan O'Keefe kind of role before I write him off. On Watts, I missed the Essendon game but thought that he looked ok in the Adelaide matches and he kicked a couple on the weekend. In fact, aside from Maric I'd be interested to know which of our forwards have kicked more goals than Watts in pre-season? Or how he stacks up on goals per game averages. Anyone have the info? I don't doubt the validity of the source but I'd be a little disappointed if Watts doesn't run out round 1.

Sylvia Davey Scully I think that if Sylvia plays a full season and we are in the mix for finals, he is a serious Brownlow chance. Davey, I think, will relish the formal leadership role and Scully has the goods, it's just a matter of when he explodes onto the scene. I think Green is the real danger to upset my top three with Jamar and Grimes if he stays fit.

I agree with you in the main but in the same way that I don't consider Garland a KPD, neither do I consider Morris to be one. In any event, the point is really moot as in any given week, it's more about match-ups than some archaic notion of positions.

Given that I usually find your posts to be well considered I will put the "video game" jibe down to a momentary lack in concentration. The question as you asked it was "is he a key position backman". Not, "is he one of Melbourne's best key defenders?" or "is he capable of playing a key position role?". I prefer to use a wider frame of reference than MFC's current list when evaluating the question and come up with a different answer. Big deal. As Daisycutter (I think) said it, if Frawley goes down our backline is very exposed as he is really the only one on our list capable of playing genuine KPD week in-week out. That is not to say Col can't do it effectively given the right match-up, but he doesn't inspire the same confidence playing on the true gun KPFs as would Scarlett, Lake, Frawley etc. I would be nervous relying on him to tame Riewoldt, Brown, Pavlich, Franklin etc every week but have no such reservations with Chip. Garland is a fantastic defender and definitely has more weapons than other tall backmen on our list like Rivers and Warnock. That again doesn't mean he is best suited to the role - it merely implies that necessity would have him fill it at times givn he is better equipped than others we have at our disposal. I stand by my original assertion that he is capable of playing the role at times but IMO is better suited to the third tall role which, among other things, would allow him to zone of more and be creative with his drive.

I tend to agree with most of this. It is a bit of a misnomer that Garland 'plays on Franklin' or 'is a good match-up for Franklin'. We keep getting this argument on the back of one game three seasons ago. Don't get me wrong, I rate Col and think he's capable of playing a KPD role at a pinch. However I don't see him most suited to that position and wouldn't want him playing it long term as there are a few big forwards who could probably expose him in this role. I think we would be a stronger defence with another genuine KPD releasing Garland to play the role Rivers currently does.

This is a pretty fair effort DA! Cracking side.

Thanks for the info. Always a little averse to judging players solely based on a 3 minute highlight reel. Sounds like he ticks a lot of boxes though and could be a handy prospect. IMO we ideally need one more big backman to assist Frawley and release Garland to third tall defender. Had originally figured Stef Martin for this role but doesn't seem to have panned out that way.

What I'm interested to know, having not seen anything other than the highlights, is what deficiencies resulted in him being available so late in the draft? Can anyone help out? Looks like a nice prospect.

The irony.

Wouldn't surpise to see someone like Blease or even Tapscott spend some time as a dashing HBF with good skills. I reckon Morton will spend some time there too. All of which would release Grimes for some time in the middle.

Just to clarify, I have no issue with drafting a 27yo if they realistically add to our 22 and, more importantly, may still be there in 3-4 years time when our younger brigade are firing. If Riewoldt, Pavlich, Brown etc. were available, and we deemed their bodies to be up for it, then I wouldn't hesitate to bring them in (caveat: at the right price that doesn't jeopardise our ability to retain said young brigade when they fire). I was also in the camp that supported the idea of getting Hale who, whilst not being the world beater that the above are, would have been a versatile and useful addition to our team and in a similar age bracket to Hansen. What I don't support is bringing in players whose bodies aren't up for it or who otherwise just aren't much good. In my opinion, Hansen fits both of these categories and would be a waste of a spot. Apologies for the confusion - I agree that a 27yo is clearly not washed up as a rule.

No it wasn't. Not every prospective recruit gets shot down on here, only ones that make no sense - Ash Hansen is one of those. He is a 27yo with a body that's shot and was a very average footballer even when fully fit. Why would we even look at this guy when we just delisted Brad Miller - he is worse. And I'm not buying the "he's a premiership player" or "he just had a great WAFL season" arguments either. Plenty of pretty marginal footballers have premiership medallions and Miller (and even PJ) manage to dominate at the next level down. I'm all for looking to improve our list but improve is the operative word here. Someone like Hale may have been able to provide that but just because we couldn't get him doesn't mean we need to chase down every rejected tall going around. Our forward line this year is likely to see Green, Jurrah, Watts, Petterd, Bate, Dunn, Jamar and maybe Martin or even one of the new draftees spending time as marking targets. IMO that's enough depth without chasing another NQR for insurance. If, heaven forbid, our entire swag of tall forward options go down, we may as well give Howe or Cook some time like we did for Watts. There's nothing to lose and everything o gain by making sure the players we actually expect to be around in three years are, by then, ready to play their role. The bandaid mentality that some people advocate on here absolutely astounds me. End rant.

Have been thinking about this trying to convince myself that we will be able to compete with the new franchises in 3-4 years. The reality is they've had a number of very high draft picks, and I think Scott Clayton has said that between the 17yos they stockpiled and their bevy of picks this year, they have the equivalent of approximately 16 first round picks on their list. I would think that there would be a number of clubs, ours included, that also have around that number of first round picks on their list, the difference being that most other clubs have had the ability to weed out some of the underperforming first rounders over time. Think Daniel Bell (and you could even include someone like John Meesen) from as recently as this year. On that basis, I'm not really convinced they're getting as much of a leg up as some are suggesting. Sure, they have some great young talent but not all of them will become great players. In any event, people look at the picks that GC have had this year, but in the past 3 or 4 years we've had two no. 1s, a 2, a 4, an 11, a 12 and a 14 who all look like being seriously good players. Over the next few years, they will drip in a few more first rounders but may equally lose a few too. I would suggest that our drafting over the last few years has been at least in the same sphere as theirs. I would also add that I will be highly surprised if they go anywhere near vying for the eight next year. They basically have a raft of 18yos and about half a dozen decent AFL experienced players. Most clubs even with a development bias like us, the kangaroos and the tigers have a much larger core of senior players capable of playing senior footy. Too much will be left to the like of Swallow, Toy, Day and Weller in their first year of AFL footy. Don't be surprised if they finish right near the bottom for the first few years before some of their rising stars start to really develop. I would think finals is a pipe dream for this team until at least 2013.