Rogue

I agree. I think that, if anything, he's over-rated on here. I don't think he'll be in (or near) our 22 if we turn out anywhere near as good as I hope we'll be. That said, I obviously hope every Melbourne player turns out to be very good, so hopefully you're right.

Hahah - brilliant.

That sort of thinking could apply to most footy fan discussion.

Older players get pushed out quicker at Clubs that are developing a young side than they do at Clubs looking for success. Surely you've seen that Clubs that are pushing for a flag are more likely to keep an older player than those adopting a youth policy?

I disagree; I'm sure he's more than happy to work at earning his spot in the Hawks side, for example. Had he stayed with Melbourne, Cameron Bruce would have been naive to think that we might not push him into [what some might see as] early retirement, given we've been very clearly going down a path centred around building a group to play in a premiership at a point in which Bruce will not be playing AFL.

I'm glad to see Gysberts playing well. If he can play some good footy at AFL-level and put his hand up for a regular spot in the 22 our midfield, with Scully and McKenzie to come into the side, will look very different to only a couple of years ago. I'm also really heartened to hear the reports on Wona - not only that he played well, but that he played in the midfield. I think players like him need to be able to push through the midfield, particularly with the sub rule, so if he can take that step it'll help him and our side. I don't know that Newton is now able to hold down an AFL spot. However, it's worth noting that last year he started playing consistently good footy at VFL level, and had he not become injured in the week before it had been decided he would be promoted to the AFL team he may have already done so.

I'm with you on this one.

Another good post; me too.

Like I said, I don't think Lynch is an effective 'sit in the square' go-to forward; when I see him play - fortunately not much - he gets most of the footy leading up to the ball, not the type of stay-home forward that ensures a contest is created. Anyway, Lynch is one - poor, IMO - player we could have gone after. Who else, apart from Lynch?

This isn't exactly a weighty topic, but it's something that's bugged me for a while. Despite the AFL mandating - depending on how powerful your Club is, of course - clash strips, the away team continued to wear white shorts, despite that often causing or exacerbating any clash. However, I saw the following tagged on to the bottom of an unrelated article: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110953/default.aspx Finally some sense - some effort to remove a clash without mandating a [horrible] clash strip.

Leadership isn't only about the on-field stuff. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the leadership group punished him recently for being out late the night before training or whatever.

Who could we have brought in and how much would it have cost? Lynch is a very average player and generally leads up and finds the footy, rather than sitting in the square creating a contest anyway. Hall isn't the type of player we need for one simple reason - he's going to be past it before we're any good. It's not time to bring in an old player; you top up when you're close to a flag (a la the Bulldogs, funnily enough). I disagree. Hale or Warnock would have played alongside Jamar, spending time up forward when not rucking.

We're on a development path, so I take it we think getting games into kids we feel are decent is important - DB and others have said this. Given that Watts was a #1 pick the Club clearly rated him, and I imagine the footy department still think he can be a player for us, so if they think he did the right things regarding effort and so forth he stays. Injuries aside, he's shown enough in his games IMO.

Thanks. I agree re: Derm - he's better than average.

Good post.

I remember getting spanked a fair bit over the years Bruce has been around. To me, that suggests that if there was a benefit to be had with Bruce in the team as an 'old head' it wouldn't have been a particularly noticeable one in circumstances like those that occurred on Sunday.

Apart from the handball to the guy's ankles - Bruce was lucky to the 1-2 worked out.

Bailey's too short to be a Gawn.

So if they're not doing it - and I assume you think they're not, given your thread - then I ask the question; why not? I'm pretty sure there's no coaching instruction that asserts 'do not be hard, tough and uncompromising'.

I think the OP makes a fair point regarding timing of introducing the numero uno ruck replacement for Jamar though; it's a pretty interesting question given the new interchange/sub rule has made it even less likely to play two bona fide rucks in the one side.

For this season I think we should, in the main, stick with Jamar as #1 ruck and a second ruck (ie. Martin) alongside him. Spencer is best served by playing for Casey as #1 ruck at the moment. Perhaps next season, or the following, we might look at playing Jamar forward for longer so we can give another potential #1 ruck game time. However, we'd want at least one of the two - and preferably both - to be able to play forward competently.

It seems like you and the OP agree on that. Another reason for not having Grimes kick out, even if he's playing back, is that he's a pretty good mark and can thus be a useful target to kick to.

Zing

I didn't listen to the commentary, but it's interesting to note - as others have - that Healy has been criticised for his anti-MFC stance in past years. Now, when we've played some good footy (albeit for a quarter) he's been marked out as a pro-MFC supporter. This leads me to believe that perhaps he just calls it as he sees it, and forest85 might be on to something.

The OP is clearly indicating that Grimes' kicking out is a libaility; you'll note that the OP doesn't suggest Grimes is no good, or even argue that he should go back to Casey - the OP instead suggests he should play in our midfield! Given that, I think it'd be better form to debate the merits of the OPs argument instead of creating a strawman argument that's easier to oppose. EDIT: On that vein, do you think Grimes should be taking our kick-outs? Do you think we would be better served with Grimes in our midfield? Do you think Grimes would be better served by playing as a midfielder?