Rogue

I think his point was that it doesn't necessarily show passion for the jumper etc. You can be a very selfish sportsman, and be quite angry when you lose a contest, while caring little for the team.

Thanks for the report. I think they emboldened that part to highlight what it was they were replying to. I believe the point they wanted to get across to you was that if you don't want to tell, simply don't tell. Your post came across as 'I could tell you something worth knowing, but I'm not going to, because I'm in the in-group and you're not'.

Doesn't the fact that in a year where virtually everyone played, he was only able to notch up two games, tell us something about his standing in '07? If you compare that to this year, there's a massive turnaround - he's on track to end up with almost as few games at Sandy in '08 as he got with Melbourne last year! It might be, but it's not the award for 'most surprising improvement' Do you think that'd be Warnock? At 24, he's a late bloomer, and he's getting big jobs and doing alright. I don't get that impression at all. All the comments in this thread that I can recall have been positive about Garland's development, regardless of whether they think he's been the most improved. PS. Although this season's nothing to write home about in terms of wins and losses, it's nice to be debating the merits of various relatively young players who have improved, while the majority of those who have stalled (or worse) probably wouldn't be part of our future due to age anyway.

Why do you make that assumption? By - my - definition, improvevement judges output this season versus past, not output versus potential. I don't know about the others in this thread, but I certainly didn't tag him as a no-hoper after four senior games in one and a bit seasons.

If you were competing, you'd love to have a good game on this big stage. In terms of draft hype, so many fans are going to judge players purely on their performances today. Watch the boards go into meltdown if a guy who has a quiet day today is picked up early in the draft

He's also eligible to play next year, too, IIRC. There was a profile article on afl.com.au/mfc.com.au about him the other day.

Yes - like everything. For me, most means greatest. Improvement implies a comparison from the past to now, season 2008. If you rank the list 1-40-ish at the end of 2007, and then rank the list 1-40-ish at the end of 2008, Garland will have improved his status more than most, IMHO. To cite potential upside as a reason to exclude someone from most improved is diabolical. Based on what criteria? That he only warranted two games in a season in which almost everyone played, and that in those two games he couldn't crack much game time? Was he more than a 'bit-part' player in 2007? How would you characterise his contribution last year? In hindsight, 'bit part' player is generous, given that he was really no more than an extra - two games, and limited game time within those games. Being 'surprised' by development isn't mentioned in 'most improved' as far as I can see Indeed.

I understood, I simply disagree. You speak about improvement like it is inevitable. However, it's not. I believe the average AFL career span is ~ 3 years, and most players never cement a spot in the best 22. Players don't always improve with age and experience, and certainly not at the rate that Garland has. From the end of last season to the end of this season, his status will have improved out of sight. Garland has gone from two games as a bit-part player in 2007 to 11/14 matches this season, most playing a key role and with plenty of game time. I think you're selling Garland's improvement so far short it's not funny - he's come further this season than Miller, Wheatley, and CJ have.

I fail to see the logic in that - it's not like he was just born (or even just joined the Club). If he only had a couple of games prior to this season, it's clear he wasn't anywhere near our best 22 last year. I'd say that was the case for Garland, and I'd suggest that he's clearly in our 22 atm.

MFC article: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/tabid/7415/D...px?newsid=62904 ArmyAwards site (vote here): http://www.afl.com.au/Competitions/Army/army_index.html PS. The accompanying text hardly helps PJ, just like last time we had a nomination in one of these 'awards': Brilliant smother and handball to create the goal (Carlton) Courageous mark whilst running back with the flight of the ball (Collingwood) Hard chase to force the turnover (Melbourne)

Yeah, that's right, and I agree with you regarding this week.

For what it's worth, four Melbourne players were named:

I'd argue the opposite - it's important to raise the real issues with the fixture in order to push for more equality and provide justification for the CBF. What do you suggest we do when the CBF is removed - Adelaide are leading the charge on this atm, aren't they? - and we're still getting screwed by the fixture?

If the quote a few posts back is accurate, I'm not sure how you get that. "Given where we're at as a Club, the suspension was appropriate" ie. Given we're building a new team, with new Coach, and are bottom of the ladder... That's how I read it, anyway.

He's played for the last couple of weeks at Sandy 1s, actually.

CC's comments are a fair indication that he wouldn't be, given your scenario.

Exactly what I think about the issue this thread relates to. The other stuff matters, though.

Hehe Welcome aboard.

I can't see how Green can be the most improved, given you've highlighted his 4th finish last year versus 1st (with McLean gone) this year. I imagine a few players have improved more than three rankings in the B&F. I also imagine that by almost any measure, other players have improved more than Green.

Did you read the article in the first post? This thread was created in order to complain about the fact that teams don't play fifteen unique opponents in the first fifteen rounds. I hardly feel that this needs to be scrapped in order for the credibility of the comp to be restored/saved. In fact, I think it's a diversion from the real flaws in the draft. I'd happily play the same seven teams twice each in the first two rounds if we could get a relatively fair fixture.

On the flip side, we've only scored 3/4 of what they have.

I haven't. So far from 'most improved' it's not funny. In really good form, though.

I think Bartram on Aker is worth a shot. What about Minson?

Same. Not sure about order, but I think I'd have the same five.

Great name!