The Chazz

Oh god, brace yourself HG - Ben Hur will have a field day with this. In 2 years they'll all want him.

Obviously difficult due to some teams being dominant in some areas where others may be crying out for those areas. But, in brief, and judging the top 8 teams, I'd only see the following players making a majority of the top teams; * Frawley * Clark * Grimes That is all.

What differences are you expecting B59?

I shouldn't use the word "blame", perhaps I need to ask who is going to take responsibility. Is it up to the leadership group to get the team together and do extra skills work? Is it up to the coach to change training programs to make sure more effort is put in to skills? It may improve with confidence, but I can't understand why players have lost it. I'm sure a lot of things are happening at training to improve this - every drill can only work with good ball use. Like you, it bothers me how shocking their skills are, and I just want to see my team hit targets.

Would be interested to know who you think would...?

It's been happening all year HG. While you have to give the coach time to implement game plans, especially when he is coming from as far back as he is, you can't excuse poor skill execution to new coaching styles. Can it be blamed on the coach? There's easily an arguement for both sides on that one, just depends on who you want to try and blame.

I can't comment too much as I don't watch the VFL (and only rely on the reports on here and the MFC website), but if someone can honestly confirm to me that Gysberts and Petterd have done enough to earn a call up to the senior side, then I will go with it. They don't need to have had 100's of possessions each game, but providing they are doing the "team" things, (ie run, chase, defend, tackle, spread), then, and only then should they be considered for senior selection. That especially goes for Petterd. In: Jamar, Jones, Cook Out: Spencer, McDonald, Moloney* * Moloney won't get dropped, wishful thinking there

Not immune whatsoever HT, I just prefer my leaders to lead by example, and would expect supporters to share the same view. Hard to kick the workers in the guts when their superiors are making the same mistakes.

Damn, I'm going to get smashed for this comment, but here goes; Neeld will either win us a flag in the next 5 years, or he will be responsible for us not playing finals this side of the next decade. The decisions he will have to make at the end of the year will determine where this Club will be come 2020+. I don't think there is anywhere in between flags (and plenty of them!) or dwelling in the cellar. The decisions will be genius-like, or they will sink us. I can't see us improving to the bottom part of the 8 and staying competitive for a few years and missing a chance, it WILL be flag or bust. Will we see a statue of Mark out the front of the G at some stage in the future? I will continue to pull these splinters out of my arse while we find out.

Bit unfair. I'd prefer you to start with the bloke whose number you wear on your back (I'm assuming you've got 16 on your back?).

B59, I'm all about the longer term view, and can only put my faith (hopefully it's not blind faith) in to Neeld and co. But, at the risk of speaking on behalf of some supporters, all we want at the moment are competitive efforts. I'm sick of hearing press conferernces from players after a loss saying "we didn't spread". This has been obvious all year, and while the players are totally aware that this is a problem, why the hell aren't they doing something about it? I strongly believe that Neeld made some poor decisions yesterday, with the first being obvious at the opening bounce. Why was Martin first ruck and Spencer in the forward line? Spencer is a ruckman (apparently), it was his first game in a long time, why start him forward? Moving Watts to Brown was obviously for Watts' development, but why? Brown's that "gorilla forward" that some teams have, Watts won't be one of those, and will not be a "gorilla tamer" if he has a career as a defender. Playing Garland and Rivers forward has been somewhat of a success story in previous weeks, and is giving both players the opportunity to learn to play a role that in future, we may need them to pinch hit. From a development point of view, I don't know if there is a strong need to play them there for the rest of the year, and as soon as we saw McDonald go down yesterday, I think that it would've been better from a structure point of view to move at least one of JR or CG back. To Neeld's credit(?), he wasn't reactive in his moves, but I'm just not sure if that was the right decision. Stupid turnovers has nothing to do with players developing in their roles. When I saw Grimes kick it on the full because he elected to kick with his non-preferred when he had ample opportunity to kick it with his preferred, that sort of stuff just kicks me in the guts. This has happened umpteen times this season from a variety of players, and I'm continually amazed that these errors are being made without consequence. The thing that concerns me the most about this season is the fact that, taking away the 2 franchise clubs, we are on the bottom. No one expected GC or GWS to be in a position other than where they are, so basucally, we're the "unofficial" wooden spoon-ists. Neeld has openly commented that he has told players that when we've played well in the past, we've looked amazing, but we're putting that style of play on hold to work on some of the basics. This is a very dangerous path to take, but again, I'm putting my faith in his decisions. At the instruction of the coach, we've shelved that run through the corridor, we've shelved that creativity and dare to take the game on, I just hope that when the players are asked to take it off the shelf that they remember how to do it. I'm amazed that we lost by 10 goals - it should've been more, and I'm more amazed that people on here are happy to accept it and write it off as development. Like Big Jim (I think) said in another post, I'm sick of draft picks. I'd rather be wondering who is left toward the end of the first round rather than wonder who we are going to take with pick 3 - at least that would mean we're finishing higher up the ladder. Then some more educated posters on here are hoping we get involved in the mini draft this year, which will mean we're picking up a 17 year old who won't be able to play until 2014 at the earliest. End rant.

I hope to Christ we are tanking, at least it would explain why so many areas were/are so poor, headlined by the coaching department.

Malthouse?

I'm now more interested in these secret deals that a few posters have been talking about. Would be great to have a prior agreement to trade our pick 3 to the GWS for the first pick in the mini draft, allowing us to get Viney with our 2nd round. Can someone, perhaps Jose, Old55 or RP can tell me what the field of ELIGIBLE 17 year olds will be like, and where they would rate in the draft proper. I can be convinced...

How the hell am I meant to prove my point when you conveniently ignore written rules? Picks 1, 2 & 3 of next years draft are not necessarily on offer in the mini draft. Unless we know that what is available in this year's mini draft would most likely fill the top 3 spots next year, then it's no deal. I fully inderstand it Jose, I think it's quite clear even for you to realise that, but rather than acknowledge that, you prefer to leave facts out to suit your argument. Poor form champ.

At the risk of opening old wounds, and am happy for mods to lock the thread if deemed appropriate, but just finished reading this article on The Age website... http://www.theage.com.au/national/i-was-not-the-boss-polis-tells-court-20120628-215fl.html An interesting comment made by Polis, ''As much as everybody thought I was CEO and founder … what people don't actually realise is that in the period Jan to November 2011, I was not running the business, I was told to stay at home. The reason 'CEO' was next to my name was so I could talk to the media about it. But I was not running the business, I was the spokesperson.'' I was at a MFC function in August 2011 where Polis attended, which wasn't that long after the Energy Watch deal was announced. As you could imagine, he was the White Knight in the room, and was treated accordingly. I had a brief conversation with him - it's amazing the crap that can be going on in a persons life, yet on the surface appear to be living the dream. It would appear a pregnant nun would be safer than this bloke at the moment. While we have discussed/debated the whole "what was Schwab thinking", and the above paragraph/quote highlights that the would've been some serious concerns raised over his business dealings, it is credit to the MFC for how they handled the whole saga this year, and that we've come out of it, in my opinion, a better Club. I'm sure all involved have learnt some valuable lessons, which will only hold us in good shape for the future. Now let's go about building our brand so that it is truly worth $1.9m a year to advertise on the back of our jumper.

That's all I've ever asked for.

Jose, I totally understand your deal. The issue I have with it is regarding the 17 year old player. Who are they? If there were no such things as "mini drafts", what position would those players be going in the "normal" draft? If there is a number 1 pick amongst the 17 year olds, then we consider giving up out Pick 3 for it. If there are 3 or 4 players that could go between 3-15, I don't want anything to do with the mini draft. People put a lot of trust in the mini draft. Last year, O'Meara was obviously a standout, and was widely regarded as a potential pick 1-3 in a normal draft. That's the type of player I'd want if we are giving GWS our Pick 3, especially considering the top echelon of this draft appears to be bloody good.

We have Gawn on the LTI, and now we will elevate Clark. We were able to elevate one at the start of the year due to having 1 listed veteran. That means Magner, Nicho, and Couch can and will remain on the primary list.

Thanks for the advice. Ok, here's how I think it'll play out (assuming ladder positions remain the same); Pick 3 - we take Viney due to a team below us bidding for him Pick 4 - we keep to use in the draft Pick 12 - we keep to use in the draft, or possible trade to Port in the Boak deal Pretty straightforward. No trying to hide players, no need to do outside deals. We get 2 of the top 5 kids in the draft, and possibly an established midfielder. You're right Jose - it's not rocket surgery.

Settle down Hose. My issue is with doing deals with other Clubs when we don't need to. We will either have to use Pick 3 for Jack or we won't, most likely we will if he plays tomorrow how RP is calling he will play. GWS HAD to trade those picks either last year or this year. We don't HAVE to do anything of the kind.

Me too mate, that is why I'm arguing against the idea of special deals with teams below us, as I strongly believe that it isn't the best outcome for the MFC.

Are you kidding? You're the one wanting to do deals with them. I don't want anything to do with them, and I don't want them bidding on Viney to force us to go early. You're right, WGAF?! The teams above us know that if GC or GWS don't bid for him, that we'll be getting a top 10 pick for 20-something, and they can't do anything about it other than make noise in the media. Any wonder they're pumping him up. I'm on the wagon now of just using our Pick 3 for him. It's a lot easier to think that way as a/ it's most likely, and b/ it's not worth talking to you about any alternatives.

Thanks Radar. My point all along is that having one gun big forward (ie Clark - was on track to kick over 40 goals this season, and was being talked about for AA nomination), and the other being even a B-grader (ie Cook/Watts/Martin/Garland) can win you a premiership, providing you have the talent in the midfield. Boak would abslutely bolster our midfield, and would be cheaper than Cloke. As you said, 2 gun forwards would be great, but they're useless as [censored] on a tomcat if we don't get the ball to them enough due to our poor midfield. While this will make Ben Hur laugh even harder, we can't forget that when we are seriously challenging for a flag, that Watts will have another 2+ seasons in to him.

You are offering GC and/or GWS something to stop them from bidding for Viney. They won't do that for free - for them to consider it it would have to be a deal that is in their favour, not ours. Anything we do should not advantage a team more than the MFC. If you say it won't, why the hell would they (opposition teams) agree to it? I can't see Sheedy/Grubby agreeing to "help" us out, with the end result being equal for both teams. You've been around long enough to know that Sheedy doesn't operate that way. And I will bring Jimmy in to it if I want. I would imagine he'd be bitterly disappointed in the MFC having to do such a thing. If the MFC can come up with something that saw both Clubs finish equal in the deal, then I would consider it. I just think you're wasting your breath going to another Club, especially GWS, and getting them to agree to it. They would want to be ahead in the deal, it's an ego thing for them and realistically, if the deal was level for both teams, why would they give a sh!t about satisying us? In regards to "hiding" Jack. It makes it bloody hard with so much media exposure these days. Firstly, when he plays for Casey, play him in the back pocket or forward pocket. Seeing him play in the midfield and racking up bulk possessions against some AFL listed players isn't helping to keep a lid on it. He would have to play in the U18 championships, and it's hard to see their coach "experimenting" with Jack by playing him out of position. That said, there's always the injury concern smoke screen. If he has to go to the draft combine, we have enough players on out list that can teach him how to look like he is putting in 100% when he is actually only travelling at 70%. Perhaps I'm just sabotaging bastard! Maybe I'll get a role on Revenge!