Rogue

I agree. Six, possibly seven.

With these three gone it certainly feels like an era is coming to a close. Despite some flaws I quite liked Wheatley, but he never quite got to the level I'd have liked him to. He never seemed strong enough in the contest to play down back on medium-talls and I always wanted to see him on a wing. Under DB we we released him further up the ground and I thought it better suited his strengths, allowing him to play some decent footy. I'll certainly miss seeing Wheels play! I always felt he was underrated by 'the footy public' and it's a shame he - like Wheatley - had a number of soft-tissue injuries. I'm really hoping to see him make that 150 milestone and still can't fathom how he didn't make the list of 150 heroes! Robertson, like Yze and White, is a player who has copped some flak in his declining years which has IMO warped the perception of his career as a whole. For his size he's done a great job playing as a key tall for us and I wonder how dangerous he would have been if he'd been allowed to play as a third tall (something I'm hoping Jurrah can do). Even in recent years Robertson would have kicked many [more] goals had we been able to kick out in front of his leads, rather than spraying them above his head and allowing the taller opponents to easily spoil. For what it's worth, I agree.

First, you're assuming we're aiming to draft a ruckman, but I doubt we're going to draft a ruckman with one of our high picks. I'd rookie a ruckman, like I'd have done every year for quite a few now. Even if we do bring in some young rucks, they're likely to be years off the pace, aren't they? PJ and Meesen will be out of contract soon. Second, Jamar's our number 1 ruckman by a long, long way. Meesen's only had people in raptures because he played okay when they thought he wasn't fit to play 2nds at my local Club. PJ's had plenty of opportunities to take the #1 ruck spot in a weak side without great ruck stocks and hasn't been able to do so (I don't think he's a #2 ruck either, as he hasn't been able to find a niche anywhere else). Spencer is very raw. Even if you wanted to get rid of Jamar - and that's IMHO quite silly - why would we just delist him?

No way will we just delist Jamar. He's of far more value than Cheney.

The fact he had young kids might have been an issue.

Nothing revelatory but I guess it lists a number of the reasons many supporters are optimistic about the Club's fortunes, despite some horror results over the past couple of seasons. I'm not going to nit-pick over minor details, but one thing I wanted to comment on was the suggestion that Melbourne supporters are apathetic. I'm constantly amazed that Melbourne's own supporters propogate a stereotype of our fans that is not only false but also unflattering and possibly damaging. For starters, take a look at our ratio of members to supporters or the level of financial generosity shown by the Club's supporters over the last year. If anyone wants to throw low crowd numbers at me, please correlate on-field fortunes of other Clubs with their crowd figures first (Hawthorn in the 2000's is a good start). Oh, and take a look at our membership numbers over the past couple of cellar-dwelling seasons while you're at it

Exactly what I thought.

I don't know what the other candidates presented, but I would have thought that anyone on board with the 'building around kids' angle would actively look to offload older 'talent' for early picks. Maybe it's just hindsight but TJ seems the perfect candidate for that. On one hand he's very skilled so he's marketable and others clubs would feel there was something to work with. On the other hand he's not a leader, someone you'd feel the Club would miss as much as others if he wasn't there. How could you not have? I think your first sentence should read 'cattle', not 'structure'. You can still have a decent structure without a great list or even great forwards. I think CB would and has persuasively argued that you don't need a Franklin and Fevola to play some of your 18 as forwards. Plenty of times we've be outmanned in the forward line or have no one there, leading to the handballing, chipping sideways - and inevitable turnovers - that annoy so many fans. CB's been banging on about the forward structure for longer than just this season. You'd certainly hope the forward line structure was a work in progress because for far too often the forward line is devoid of structure (literally).

To clarify, I'm certainly not out for DB's blood - I just don't think he deserves a heap of credit for 'playing the kids' since he had no other option. I totally agree. This sounds like a nightmare. I'd say every second post of CB's is about forward line structure ...or a Coach who wants to reclaim his glory days. There'll be some benefits from the AFL so it's not all bad IMO. I also think there fact you can set the foundations for an AFL Club might be exciting.

It's not like playing the kids, culling older fringe players and losing games is something that is a) terribly difficult* or B) hasn't happened before and won't happen again. Anyone who got the gig would have gone down the 'play the kids' road. As a coach, you don't get much opportunity to turn over the list and set yourself up. DB was given this on the platter, with the Club entirely supportive of us bottoming out. If he'd put forward a plan that didn't involve what he's done he wouldn't have got the gig. Even if the Coach took a self-interested perspective the pros outweigh the cons - there's no other 'road to success' for DB. If you want to argue that DB deserves credit for development of players and other things, okay - I'm sure you can mount a more convincing case. However, like I said, I think you're giving DB way too much credit for going down the 'play the kids' road. *particularly when there are low expectations from the fans and media, you've just taken over the Club and the Board/staff are supportive of the direction

I'm not sure I agree with you, but nicely written all the same. I wouldn't be bragging about that one. Petterd's been handy but I don't think he's cemented a spot in our best 18. Btw, say 'hi' to Grimes, Jurrah, Garland, Frawley etc. Jaded, were you responsible for this chestunt?

If that was his plan he wouldn't have been appointed. You're giving Bailey too much credit for what he's shown so far IMHO. Culling ordinary and/or older players and 'playing the kids' while losing lots of games is the easy part. Bailey's followed the same general gist that any coach who got the gig would have done. Although you could mount a case for giving credit for the drastic 'experimentation' versus Richmond I don't think DB was alone. How these players are developed and what our gameplan and structures are like in 2009 is the start of the hard part, and it'll be interesting to see how Bailey goes.

Pretty interesting!

He did the same this week ago, a great pass out into space for Miller IIRC (city end, members side).

So Bruce is one forced change. I guess Bail might be in trouble - anyone else from the Round 19 game unavailable through injury? The injury reports from Melbourne are so specific these days :D

IMO there's plenty of room. Of course, this is assuming they all make the grade and remain injury-free etc.

Interesting hypothetical, old55. I don't know enough about why Hale can't get a gig at North, but I'd certainly look at the pick or player swap. I mentioned this in a post in this or another thread - KPF's take longer. If you think we need a KPF at some point then the sooner we get one the better. I also think that it's harder to find KPFs than it is mids later in the draft and, as you point out, we won't be getting pick 1 and 2 again any time soon.

Agreed. North probably has one too many talls.

It's based on next year's Debt Demolition month - with any luck we'll have less than $1M to demolish, which should be a motivator. I think the Club will continue Debt Demolition month as long as there's a debt to demolish.

Agreed - looked alright presenting up forward and kicked the ball to a teammate in the 50 very nicely at one stage. Poor Bail, had a hard few weeks, finally gets to debut, has one really good kick and gets injured. Will definitely play next week if fit to go. Disappointing moments for both Bail and Spencer, for sure. I thought Spencer worked pretty hard to provide an option today but his kicking - and I'm not talking about the shot at goal - is pretty bad. I was really hoping Spencer would get another shot later in the game, but it wasn't to be.

PJ slowing it down when we had momentum heading towards half-time was laughable. That said, I thought he did some decent things today. I find this pretty funny too. The fact is that we're not a very good side atm. What do people expect if they take a relatively poor side and then have half the list out injured?

Yes, we lack a KPF. I'm in the camp that wants two key forwards, a la Hawthorn, St. Kilda, etc. If we rank Butcher (or some other KPF) equally with a mid at #2 I'd want us to take the KPF - in a heartbeat. I reckon it's easier to find decent mids later in the draft and I also think that since talls take longer to develop it's a perfect time to pick one up. Geelong's forwards probably lost them their 2008 flag, and despite great delivery (and inside 50's) it could be the same story this year. If those are the five we're pinning our hopes on we better hope that every one of those exceeds their potential (let alone one or more getting a serious injury or not making the grade).

No way.

I agree.