Rogue

Looking at the fixture I came to a guesstimate of 13 wins. That was from marking x games as 'wins' and giving us 50% of the games I marked as 'maybes'. However, at this stage in our development we're more likely to drop games than the reverse, so I'd vote 11-12. That still relies on a few of our better players playing most of the season though - I shudder to think of a season without Jamar, for example.

Blease can be a jet, so I'm glad to read his leg is recovering well.

Sure, everyone turns the ball over at times, but I think it's fair to say Bruce's disposal is worse than average. I also think the number of people exaggerating it are cancelled out by those who lean to the opposite extreme. On Ward, he would have been 'good enough' to play more footy if he didn't turn the ball over as much and I reckon this is pretty uncontroversial, irrespective of the 'other issues' you point to. Fortunately for Bruce he's a better player than Ward, as you suggest, and this is why he's still around. Collingwood were tipped by many to be right up there, so it's not like they came out of nowhere. I think many would have listed the Pies shortly after Geelong and St Kilda. (As an aside, I'm not so sure they so comprehensively won the flag - the first game was drawn!). We'll see. I agree. Playing good footy is just one part of the equation. Sure, we did that. We also played horrible footy against some average sides.

If we don't select Bruce, and he thus doesn't take a vet spot, can we then 'nominate' a rookie come round 1? Newton's keen! Are you saying he wasn't a bit of a turnover merchant? I reckon there was probably a bit of selective bias when it came to that game, but if Ward had better disposal he would have played more games when he was on the list, and he probably would have had a longer AFL career. He was pretty quick and could certainly find the footy. Do you think we will be playing for a flag next year? I think we might make finals. but if we do we'll be making up the numbers anyway.

I think Grimes' disposal issues might be more about concentration than anything else. The kicks he fluffs are generally the ones where he's under no pressure. From memory they're not often the longer kicks, so it might be something technical re: kicking through the ball or whatever though.

Ages ago in this thread I said the selectors need to pick a bunch of players and stick with them. While talking primarily about the Test team, consistently applies to the shorter forms of the game too.

I reckon this is a fair question to ask. I think the answer is no, you don't need to have been a defender to coach defenders, and so forth. However, many people on here throw up names of recently retired defenders for defensive coaching roles, and so forth, based simply on their playing record and not with regard to whether they're actually any good at teaching people stuff, it seems. From that I take it my view isn't a universally held one.

I find it pretty annoying when watching AAMI games on TV. I imagine it'd be detrimental for fans at the game too, so obviously I wouldn't be keen.

^ Indeed.

So bad.

Morton's only going to be helped by the reduced interchange rule IMO, given that endurance then becomes more beneficial for players. Has faults, but most players do.

There was a Laycock thread? Geez.

We just delisted Miller (thus, we could have kept him for a 50+ draft pick). If Hansen is worse tell me again why we would want him.

He's a fair way back in the tall defender race, so forward/second ruck is probably his best opportunity to carve a career at Melbourne. Things can change, though.

I agree with the OP on it not working particularly well on the afl.com.au site as a small image.

How amusing that Collingwood markedly improved their attendance this year when apparently all their supporters always turn up regardless of form...if that was true, how could they improve by 20%? Perhaps a few percent would be understandable due to neutrals, but 1/5? That's not a shot at Pies supporters - just the idea that Melbourne are somehow different to any other Club in that we have lower crowds when losing and vice versa.

I don't remember the moment and the clip vision isn't 'wide' enough for me to see what else is going on, but what is clear is that even if that was Watts' plan, it was clear it wasn't happening well before he kept running straight into the arms of a Collingwood lover tackler. It's also not the only time he's been caught after hanging onto the footy for quite a while, unable to choose (?) an option.

That, and the fact they have a lack of mature forwards, is what Richmond have talked about. As for the Miller clip, there's a good argument to be made that Miller should have been proactive, but it was another example of Watts looking like he doesn't have much in the way of game smarts (something I'm surprised by, and something that concerns me the most about him).

I don't think the new rules help PJ, but I'm interested to see why you think this. I think the new rules will help subpar ruckman with a second string to their bow, because unless you're a #1 ruck you're going to need to be able to play somewhere other than ruck. This is because there's one less interchange spot, so teams will be even less keen on a ruckman taking up space on the bench that can be used to rest midfielders and the like. Since I don't think PJ is a #1 ruck (and I don't think you do either), then how do the new rules help?

Predictable decisions along the lines I was thinking. Wasn't sure whether we'd think TMac was better than pick 50-odd, but we can always re-draft him then or in the rookie draft if we want. Good decision with Newton IMO. As old has said, he's a second ruck/forward option (better than PJ IMO, vying with Martin for now...and Fitz for the future).

Horrid. Apart from that, a pretty decent draw at first glance.

:D

I'd delist Meesen and upgrade McKenzie, which I believe we'll do (if we haven't officially done so already). We're keeping Spencer, and thus upgrading him, which is fair enough. I imagine we might find better players than Healey and Hughes, so they'll probably go. That said, I don't see much VFL so I'm not really qualified. I'd keep Newton - his form at VFL level as a ruck/forward has been good this year and given his competitors (Martin, PJ) he's worth retaining. I completely disagree. He has a future only as a second ruck/forward IMO (a role more important given the introduction of a sub).

This sort of stuff isn't good enough. Play the ball and not the man or you won't be playing at all. Sanderson's not moving so I'm closing the thread. If you want to continue discussion on coaching structures etc feel free to start a new thread free from personal attacks.

Bail's already exceeded my expectations. Major query for me is his disposal. He's not best 22 for me though, but I do like him.