The Chazz

I love these threads that ask for our best 22, and people manage to add a couple extra in there - if only we could do that on game day! It's a bit like the draft boards that ask who we are picking at pick 12, and they rattle off 3 or 4 different names. Of course it depends on who is still there (just like our best team depends on injuries), but take a punt instead of sitting on the fence!!! I'm one of those guys Old, but look at the names you have used to fill that role. The thread asked for the best 21+1, neither 3 of those guys are in it for mine. While I didn't name him, I think PJ (at this stage while he is still listed) will play round 1. The pleasing thing is that all teams are in the same boat, so it's going to be the same across the board.

More than happy with my comments being challenged. I'm the first one to put my hand up if I'm wrong, especially if it is with a proven fact. In this case, I'm not sure you are able to provide me with any facts to change my opinion; Cloke - premiership player - FACT Wallace - don't rate him as a player because a player shouldn't have done what he did - OPINION, can't be proved right or wrong. Out of curiosity, how many of Wallace's team mates made the Hawthorn Team of the Century? I can see why you think Wallace was a great of the game. If you want a thug, what about Wallace's team mate that wore number 9. Grinter wasn't in the same league as that bloke. STOP PRESS: A Melbourne supporter doesn't rate an opposition player that some do rate and some don't. Who would've thunk it. I didn't rate Brian Wilson as a player either (for different reasons to Wallace), bugger me he won a Brownlow! Oh no, I'm sure that comment will have some expert facts and stats thrown at it with thanks to RR.

You're fetish for wanting to be the most knoweldgeable poster is getting beyond a joke RR. Time you turned the computer off and got some fresh air. Not once did I criticise Wallace's playing ability, I just don't believe an AFL footballer (or VFL in this case), should take any on-field incidents off-field. This in my opinion tarnishes such a player, and opinions can be formed about what sort of player he is. Yeah, he won flags, b&f's, blah, blah, but he will always be "the player" who took a bloke to court over a footy incident. Ask and Carlton supporter what they think of Milburn as a player, I'm sure there are a number of them who don't rate him as a footballer because of what he did to SOS in his last game. This is not taking anything away from his ability, it just (through some eyes) puts a grey cloud over a pretty decent career. And if you want to be a real smart ar$e, I'd love for you to explain where you see the need to to question me "plugging" Cloke as a premiership player. Is he not one? What's your point?? While it may not be the case in your Wallace arguement, there are a number of players who are multiple premiership players who you would question their right to be in such a category, christ, Cameron Mooney has won 3 and I think he is far from a great player! Don't know what your point is here. FWIW, I personally don't understand how you can call what Grinter did "thuggery", late hit, yes, but he was far from a thug. Is that bloke from West Coast a thug becasuse he broke Sylvia's jaw? No doubt you will tell me that I'm wrong, I forgot your capable of this even though it's someones opinion. I'm sure you'll do it in some insomnia preventing post that makes you think you're opinion is the only one that matters.

Probably the best I can come up with in this case is that Cheney wanted a trade, Melbourne knew he was still contracted but wouldn't get a go (AKA list clogger), Hawthorn showed interest, but didn't think he was worth pick 52, therefore, Melbourne, to sweeten the deal, had to offer a later pick, which in turn upgraded our pick 60+ to pick 52. Is that better? Still waiting on your White estimate.

I've answered your question as best as I can. For further clarification, call the MFC to find out the logic behind it and report back hey? Now, I don't give a toss if Sydney wanted to trade him or not, I'm asking you, 45HG16, to put your opinion out there on what pick you would estimate Jesse White to be worth. Just interested to know how you rate him.

To try and average out what the player in question is worth. For example, let's say Jesse White was worth pick 25, we could only offer 32, generally that wouldn't get the deal done. But, if we were to add a higher pick (for this arguement let's say 49), that would be an average of 2 pick 40's. By Sydney offering White (valued at 25) plus pick 90 for example, that would mean they are giving away 2 "picks" at an average of 57.5. That's about as logical sequence that I can work out. Maybe be far from how the Clubs do it, but it always seems to end up around that mark. So what pick do you think Sydney should have asked for White?

Easy way to describe it is this; If Geelong wanted to use it this year, they get the pick straight after their first pick (which is pick 23), meaning that compo pick is worth pick 24. So, the traded it, for pick 15 in this years draft. That means, if the Gold Coast want to use it this year, it is worth pick 24, but let's say they use it in 2013 (when the draft is of the standard format - Pick 1 for last, pick 2 for 2nd last, etc), if Geelong were to finish 10th, the compo pick that the Gold Coast picked up this year would be straight after Geelong's first pick, which would be pick 8, meaning the Gold Coast would get pick 9 for their compo pick. It's very smart investing by the Gold Coast. They have 3 of those situations where they traded back a compo pick.

I am thinking deeper Ox! When was the last time we had a fully operational forward line? Hopefully we will see some consistency of players over the next couple of seasons, just like the backline started a couple of years ago. While you are spot on saying that we have the firepower already, we need to see more goals kicked from our midfielders, as this covers us for when our forwards like Petterd and Jurrah have their off day, which happens! I'm just not sure why they don't kick more goals than they do. Is it because they don't get the ball close enough to goal (meaning they look up and kick rather than work their way to 50m), I'm not sure. Would obviously like to see Watts start striving for 20-30 goals in 2011.

They were a feral bunch at the WO. Can remember a game we played out there, we won thank god, our safety was in jeopardy!

B: Bennell Frawley Rivers HB: Grimes Garland MacDonald C: Morton McKenzie Davey HF: Sylvia Watts Trengove F: Jurrah Green Petterd RUCK: Jamar Moloney Scully INT: Jones Dunn Gysberts SUB: Bruce How good is it to have depth? We all had to leave players out, but to think I've got Bail, Tapscott, Blease, Wona, Warnock to name a few playing at Casey, there's going to be some competition to keep spots in 2011. Bring on 2012+!!!

and on behalf of E25, a special Hello to our New Orleans posters.

Is that rule still in place that to nominate for the PSD you have to nominate for the ND first?

Still a disgrace that he took it to court. I've been hammered on a footy field a few times, and probably dished a couple out myself here and there, would never cross my mind to take it off-field.

Understand what you are saying Ox, but I can assure you there will be people on this forum that will not accept anything less than making the finals in 2011. they are the ones I was directing that at. I hinted that we wouldn't make the finals becuase we didn't have enough goal kicking options this year, and we haven't increased that in terms of someone ready made for next season (as indicated by our FD as an area that requires attention). To be in finals contention, we have 2 options, restrict the opposition from scoring more goals than us, and for us to kick more goals than our opposition. I'm just unsure where we are going to increase our goal scoring options with no key forward. I'm sure that is the question that the FD are asking themselves, and no doubt will make appropriate changes to game plans, etc to cater for this. I am slightly nervous that we are putting too much emphasis in to drafting for this team of the decade. I couldn't see how paying a bit now for a 22 year old KPF would have interfered with this philosphy. Time will tell if White (or Hale) would have been a good option. I can assure you, I'm one of the most optomistic blokes on this forum. While the Club will come out and say why we didn't chase certain players, etc, we will never know who they chased, and why they didn't get certain players. All we can do is keep guessing, and it's that reason that we have these forums!

We will have to agree to disagree. I think you have some valid points, but some of your other points aren't valid, but we could go on forever arguing about them! That's the joys of opinions, but I don't think it's a case of you setting me straight (who's to say you are 100% correct??!!). Cheers.

I don't rate Wallace as a player because a player would leave incidents on the field, not take them off like he did with Grinter.

A bit shattered we din't get him to be honest. Don't quite understand why we were hoping to fill an obvious need with Hale, but when that didn't eventuate, we didn't make a play for someone else to fill that need. So, while the FD are saying that we need a big body to free up Jurrah and Watts, we haven't actually done that, and unless some miracle happens and we get someone via PSD, we will still have that hole for the next 12 months? Interesting decision, obviously made for a reason. Another development year folks, be prepared for early September holidays!

What about the other premiership player they have running around up there - N Ablett? Cloke's miles ahead of him, but I'd expect if they gave Nath a contract that's the type of position he'd be playing.

Forgot about Cheyney! I would think TMac would be thrown a rookie lifeline if that's an option. So there is a chance that we will only use 12 and 32 on "new" kids, then use 49 and 52 on Jordie and Spencer. Pass on the rest. Actually Lost McDonald - pick 12 - _________________ Miller - pick 32 - _________________ Bell - pick 49 - Jordie Cheyney - pick 52 - Spencer Is that right? So, if we were to delist TMac and make him a rookie, that means we could use pick 49 in the draft too? Sorry, can be a bit confusing!

23 year old Full Forward. Can kick 60m goals - something Melbourne has lacked. Premiership player. Kicked 38 goals this season (and 40 points!!!). Bloody hard not to consider him. If we got Hale and we got 38 goals a season out of him I would have been stoked. BTW - I'm not a big fan of Trav, but sh!t, he fills that need.

I ask again, is a straight swap of Warnock for Setanta a win-win for both Clubs? Simple yes or no!

Gee RR, let's pick the sh!t out of everything I post. Hope you have all day becasue I will keep stating my case. Mumford prior to the start of this season would have been happy to play 2nd ruck. That's because he was playing 3rd ruck at Geelong (behind Ottens and Blake). Mumford wasn't in good enough form to warrant a first ruck spot, but as we saw, he improved significantly throughout the year. Going in to season 2010, Jamar hadn't consistently shown the form he did this year, mostly because of injury, so surely having Mumford as a 2nd ruck would have allowed Jamar to play more forward, or be there in case Russian broke down (which history shows could have been possible). Now, that's all pre-the form of these 2 guys during 2010. Now that we can sit and see how they both performed over the year, and with the new interchange rules next year, it could have meant that Jamar could have become that Full Forward that we were looking for in Hale, and imagine having a player like Jamar as a 2nd ruck. It would also mean that Mumford would be our number 1 ruck going in to 2011. this can be seen as a ludicrous comment, considering Jamar was AA, but he wouldn't have been able to play more forward throughout this year. Do you really think the Swans traded for Mumford beleiving that at the start of 2010, he would have been their number 1 ruck? Would he come straight in over Seasby and Pyke? In hindsight, yes he would, but at the start of 2010, I'm sure they would have been hoping that either Pyke or Seaby was their number 1 - turned out a bonus that Mumford took that role. The Brock Mclean situation clearly defines my opinion about that fine line between agressive and stupidity. Brock wanted to go to Carlton, they wanted him BAD, and we weren't going to stop him but weren't going to give him away for nothing. I don't the MFC would've belived they would gety pick 11 for him. I would have said that was agressive of Carlton, not Melbourne. As it turned out with the year Mclean had and who we got for him, it could prove to be a stupid decision on their behalf. We were reasonably agressive toward Hale, but are still amateurs in that department because we missed him. Good agressive Clubs wouldn't have let that player consider any other options.

So, in your expert opinion, do you think a straight swap of Warnock for Setanta would have been a win-win for both clubs? Me - I don't, I think Warnock's value is more than Setanta's. He would add more to a backline than Setanta would to a forward line.

With that in mind HT, how many of those picks can we use? * We've had 3 leave (Junior, Bell, Miller), means we can use 12, 32 and 49. * Have given Spencer a contract, and you would assume Jordie will get one Does this mean for us to use those 4 picks, we still need to delist a minimum of 1 player?

Cheap shots at Terry Wallace aside, he believed Melbourne should have been in Cloke's ear as soon as they heard about his news, and suggested we offered pick 12. His reasoning was that you only get 1 shot every 4 or 5 years for a proven KPF, and for pick 12, it would have been worth the punt. I don't rate him (Wallace) at all, as a man, as a player and as a coach, but in the media his input is more valid I believe. I know it's a public forum, but see if you can put an opinion to this comment without using the standard Wallace bashing!!!!