2014-Flag

I think with Jamar, Johnson, Meesen et al 200cms isnt big enough for tap dominance and if you cant achieve that then you need another string - mobility, marking etc. 200cms is nowadays good for a forward see Tippet, Fitzpatrick, sheeeeeeat Watts is 196!

What is impressive about Kreuser is the guy gets the ball off the ground as well as marks and taps around the ground. Yes ruck is more than height but there appears to be two styles of ruck developing - the big tops or battleships like Sandilands, Jolly, Cox and hopefully Gawn. et al and the heavy cruisers like Kreuser, Natanui.

I agree to the generic proposition that our ruck stocks are not up to scratch.

Burke,

David Neitz is 196 cm. Need i say more? Jack Watts will be a superstar....

We've got depth have we ?

Any quality ruckmen?

Or is there another kind ?

Obviously, everyone seems to want to go with the status quo going by the non popularity of this thread. No one would like a dominant ruckman to take on the likes of Kreuzer, Naitanui, Cox, Warnock & Co in the years to come.

Ask yourselves can Jamar acquit himself well against these types and have the better of them around the ground? Because he's our No.1 ruck at present. If the answer is no, start crossing your fingers.

My point is if we're going to rebuild from scratch and have our sites set on a Premierhip, you want to have at least one Premier ruckman of the comp competing against Kreuzer or Nik Nat in 4-5 years time, otherwise the rebuild could go to waste and we'll pretty much get smashed !

If someone like Gawn developed and competed as much as in the air than on the ground as Kreuzer and Naitanui do, I'd be over the moon. But at the moment no one knows any wiser because he is rehabilitating and years away from showing a great deal.

I think lots of people underestimate the Russian. He is not only one of the best tap ruckmen around, but is an outstanding pack mark. With Spencer and Gawn in the team, I can see him developing into a dominant forward in the Salmon mould, and teamed with Watts, Jurrah, Bate, Pettard, Davey, Tengove, Sylvia - i reckon that in two to three years time is a premiership winning forward line.

My point is that we don't need him atmo, we have Jamar who I believe at the mo is better. we'll see during the course of the year.

I don't think carlton will win a flag in 2010 - 2012, & by that time we will be making our push. I think we'll overtake them, unless they whiteant some of our players again.

Our facilities are about to be the state of the art of the AFL.

As I said, I bet we will win a flag before Carlton

Spencer & Gawn will work him over a treat in a 3 years time.

And Jamar up forward

lol great bump.

Nice punch to the groin for me.

This is one decision with which I agree with the match committee. Brock just did not fit into our long run success plans. Too slow, and not an accurate enough kick. I other words, not skilled enough.

I think in the long run it will be a wise decision

PS I bet we win a premiership before Carlton do. WHY? Their list is not as skilled as ours,and they have major cultural problems built into their club (along with Collingwood). The closest the AFL has to a Rugby League club, and they seem not at all interested in fixing it. It will cost them dearly in the end.

The quantum of $$$ involved with Volvo will not have the impact of a Tassie type deal. In most cases any sponsorship money is good revenue.

I think our current sponsorship deals are promising but our sponsorship history has been a weakness for us financially.

I think we are arguing semantics. I dont think at the present time there are "breakout" strategies of the type the Hawks have enjoyed. I think with the current administration under Schwab, there is the commitment to finding succesful solutions. However there are no easy ones. I think the present administraition is laterally looking at opportunities. But to date none have been identified as the big strategy. In all fairness you have put four untested ideas down. That's good. Tell the Club. But its not clear they are anymore than the 100s of paper ideas that get put forward, reviewed and determined by the MFC admin.

My comment on the Hawks was in reference to their financial recovery in comparison of MFC. The two deals that the Saints overlooked (Waverley and Tassie) were extraordinary, one off type deals that literally fell into the Hawks lap. The Hawks were blessed with manna from heaven. Not too much innovation or nous required there. However they were extreme and very profitable cases which in the absence of deals like that I would be surprised for MFC to make such a rapid phoenix like rise. MFC did however take the opportunity when the Kaspersky deal fortuitously came across their desk.

Given the situation and legacy MFC has, the MFC admin needs to do exactly as you say. I have no evidence to suggest they have not been doing this nor wont be doing such going forward.

I think it is time to be constructive. I'm not suggesting, Rhino, you are anything else but this. Others on this site seem to want to tear down the good work that has been done by the Club in its current form, I am not one of them, either are you.

I view sites such as this as a means of tapping into feedback from dedicated supporters who want to see the Club SUCCEED in the longer term. The clubs should use this that way.

My contention re Hawthorn is i dont believe their opportunities are unique. They come by from time to time. My challenge is we should learn from them as to how the MFC were outgunned by the Hawks on THESE issues, and we should analyse why we were and make sure we do not miss out on similar opportunities in future.

Take Darwin. About half the population of Tasmania, but one that is getting huge injection of funds from both locally and federally and indeed internationally because of the appalling state of indiginous welfare ( to which no one in my view could argue). AFL is not only the indiginous game, it is also the one where the indiginous players have an inate and unique ability. it is also one where this is fundamental to the future of the MFC given its fabulous indiginous playing roster.It would also have hugely beneficial affects on the demographic which is of most concern to policy makers ie 14-25 male indiginous youth.It is also a key operating environment for huge mining, oil & gas, and pastoral companies who have both an employment and PR interest to promote the interests of their local populations. How better than through their local indiginous game. Maybe also a source of substantial sponsorship dollars. Surely better than MFC's current major sponsors, allegedly the lowest in the AFL in terms of total dollars contributed.

What if we did a deal with the NT government,similar to hawthorn's tasmanian deal? The benefits to both parties are different but if anything more profound. It creates a unique role model to indiginous children, and a whole new goverment backed market for the mfc. It might even pre-empt Gold Coast in capturing that market, and provide additional members and sponsors.

Another one, which is tied to the internet which i mentioned previously, is our unique connection to the MCG. There are someting like 400k people who tour the MCG outside playing times every year, of which about 60% are overeas based. What if we were to insinuate our way into this group, provide presentations as to what Aussie rules is all about, give them free scarfs and lapel badges, AND free overseas memberships for a year which entitles them to four free games a year to the MCG. We also get our web act together and give them access to replays of MFC games when they get back to their home countries, even in hindi or mandarin. How many of them would sign up fully paid the next year as overseas members or full members when they emmigrate? Even if they didn't what have we got to lose? The AFL would love it, and may even fund it.

Further, about 20% of those people are potential immigrants, often overseas students particularly from the sub-continent. There are about 250k students from the subcontinent in melbourne at any one time. If we position ourselves as THEIR club, so it becomes fashionable for them, when they arrive in melbourne to join us, where do you think that will take the MFC. Make the MFC a key place for them to socially network and meet others - a "cool" place to be. Not attractive to the old burgers of the long room maybe, but directs us to an incredibly strong and prosperous 21st century future, and into a wealthy tertiary educated market which goes with our current demographic.

At the moment these are only ideas. I realise they can be dismissed as "only one of hundreds that come in every year". As someone who has run a number of high powered marketing depertments here and overseas, that is the standard response from Product Managers who come across ideas they didn't invent themselves, and is the bane of their senior management who are interested in original and innovative thought.

Now i don't know whether these have any traction at all, but at least they are constructive, and demonstrate that the break out options are real and should be explored.

I wait with baited breath to see whether anything changes.

In reflection given the 43 years of drought and the 3 years of hell we have endured our membership has grown steadily. The Hawks even at their darkest moments of the past decade had:

1. A terrific legacy of success from 1971 to 1991 (8 Flags, 11 GFs) where they developed and matured a galaxy of stars. All the supporters they would have pulled then are now affluent 30+/40+ something who are the backbone of their membership today. Even at their worst they have always had at least 30,000 members.

2. They were blessed by the Saints on two occassions.

a) When the Saints pulled out of Waverley to go to Darklands and Moorabbin. Hawks handed toop class training venue on a platter.

b ) When the Saints (again!) pulled out of playing games in Tassie that the Hawks got 100% of a goldmine of sponsorship deal (with no sponosrs contras) which has yielded them Tassie members (5k).

3. List management - Generous PP system that has since changed. Good draft picks in quality years (99,01 and 04). Two excellent trades.

The websites are owned by Telstra(?) and I find the websites about as informative as a Hun front page. Unfortunately the club is tied to that deal.

I think given the difficult parameters that MFC is in, the Club realise there aren't ready breakout opportunities but a number of smaller initiatives that will take time to pay dividends.

Next time try a get to a Club function and see if you can corner a MFC director and enquire of the challenges and the strategies going forward. I hardly think their strategy is something they will blaze in public.

I don't agree there aren't any breakout strategies open to Mfc in developing new markets. You went through the opportunities which Hawthorn used to build its list. Hawthorn very acutely took advantage of st kilda's lack of foresight on those issues. We could have too - we were just too slow and too lacking in imagination,and probably stuck in the old ways of doing things.

There are always breakout strategies available to organisations with strategic strengths (as we have got) and a strong organisation (which we now have got). All it requires is some lateral thinking and innovative ways of looking at things. Off the top of my head I listed four possible directions in post #35 & #42 on here. I could have listed another half dozen, but it requires far more of course than a simple post on here, especially a strong basis of fact and planning which is the basis of decision making.

But on the general point that you made that the club has examined all the alternatives and there are no breakout strategies available to them - well I would never accept that. With the right commitment they can be identified. It is a question of getting to them before the other guys and taking advantage of them.

Most people have Bate pencilled in for the round 1 team, with this his only leadup game before the season, just wondering if Watts clearly outpeforms Bate on the weekend should Bate still get a spot ahead of Watts?

If both perform well, both should play in my opinion

Sportingbet has us at $3.50 to take the Wooden spoon.

Unfortunately I think this might be the surest MFC based punting option for the year.

Get on now before the odds shorten post round 1

Sportingbet

An even better bet is Melbourne is at $4.80 to beat Hawthorn Round !. I'll have a bit of that.

In reflection given the 43 years of drought and the 3 years of hell we have endured our membership has grown steadily. The Hawks even at their darkest moments of the past decade had:

1. A terrific legacy of success from 1971 to 1991 (8 Flags, 11 GFs) where they developed and matured a galaxy of stars. All the supporters they would have pulled then are now affluent 30+/40+ something who are the backbone of their membership today. Even at their worst they have always had at least 30,000 members.

2. They were blessed by the Saints on two occassions.

a) When the Saints pulled out of Waverley to go to Darklands and Moorabbin. Hawks handed toop class training venue on a platter.

b ) When the Saints (again!) pulled out of playing games in Tassie that the Hawks got 100% of a goldmine of sponsorship deal (with no sponosrs contras) which has yielded them Tassie members (5k).

3. List management - Generous PP system that has since changed. Good draft picks in quality years (99,01 and 04). Two excellent trades.

The websites are owned by Telstra(?) and I find the websites about as informative as a Hun front page. Unfortunately the club is tied to that deal.

I think given the difficult parameters that MFC is in, the Club realise there aren't ready breakout opportunities but a number of smaller initiatives that will take time to pay dividends.

Next time try a get to a Club function and see if you can corner a MFC director and enquire of the challenges and the strategies going forward. I hardly think their strategy is something they will blaze in public.

Essendon managed to negotiate their way out of the telstra deal. They are the only club that had the gumption to do so, and are now reaping substantial dividends from it. We could do the same

I've done some research and discovered the innovative work that Hawthorn have done in order to improve the profile, brand and support of their Club.

How do you think they got there? By being innovative, progressive and professionally run. We are very close to being there, but not yet....

You assume the Club (both current and previous) aren't looking at all avenues. My understanding they have looked at a number of proposals (Some with potential, some that are not viable).

There are a number of issues (in no particular order) for MFC both present and in the past:

1. Lack of success....46 years of drought...Almost 2 generations of supporters can say they have never seen a flag

2. Lack of regional or demographic representation.

3. Mediocre brand and profile.

4. Lack of infrastructure and poor non match facilities.

5. Poor membership and membership support arrangements.

6. Poor sponsorship history.

7. Historical legacy. (Both good and bad)

8. Lack of brand penetration interstate.

9. Divisive and unprofessional Boards / administration (at times)

10. Poor financial management

There are possibly other

The natural advantage MFC had in the 1950s and 1960s has been eroded by the changing face of the game. MFC has traditionally been slow to realise that.

MFC are in a difficult predicament where there are no low lying fruit opportunites to quickly turn it around. Schwab and co have taken some of the good initiatives from the old administration and add a few of their own. This will take time. If you have suggestions then let the Club know

Rhino,

I think we are furiously agreeing with one another.

The Club may well have looked at some of these things, but the membership numbers are stubbornly hovering around 30k, nothing like the breakout number of the hawks which have gone from 20k to 50k. I have read all that I can lay my hands on on their strategies to build on these numbers (admittedly not very much - i'm sure there is more it is just I can't see it), and no where can i see a breakout strategy which conciously develops new markets as I have suggested here.

Certainly there is nothing about it in any of their publications nor on their website. Neither are they doing anything remotely innovative around the use of the web, unlike Essendon who have conciously gone their own way as far as a web presence is concerned and claim to make anything up to $1m each year out of it. Being in this game myself, I can understand how this might be done. The website MFC has is little more than an online newspaper and has none of the revenue generating and innovative constructs you would expect from a sophisticated web presence. An imaginative web presence is also an excellent way of building a membership base, but perhaps not the traditional membership base. It does require some innovative thinking.

The AFL commissioned an extenisve survey of AFL supporters throughout Australia through one of the major research companies. One of the outcomes was the MFC was one of the least supported brands throughout Australia. Collingwood being one of the highest (Ugh!). MFC's conversion of supporters to members is one of the highest. It would be more if some of the chaps in the leather patched jackets also sign up.

I'm not doubting that MFC is one of the least supported AFL. My point is why has it come to this and what do we do to get out of it. Being a foundation member of the VFL/AFL, and having one of the biggest supporter bases in the country in the 50's, 60's and 70's, and one of the wealthiest, we have managed to let it slip by neglect and incompetence. But we still have many advantages that others don't have: foundation ties to the MCC/MCG, a relatively wealthy supporter base, a well presented brand if somewhat neglected over the years, a strong administration, an exciting emerging playing list, and a new home right in the middle of the famous melbourne sporting precict. These are things we can build on.

My point is though, we need to do more, just as Hawthorn have done by looking at and building new markets. There ARE things we can do here which exploit our traditional markets, as well as build on our new strengths (see my earlier post on this thread).

Nope. The players, the fans and the clubs should be. I don't see how the Fat Controller has done anything to write home about.

Before the AFL Commission was established the Game was going no where and was controlled by the self interested clubs.

Since it has been established, the games has gone truly National (the basis of the lucrative TV deals on which the economics of football is based),ground rationalisation providing first class fan facilities, salary cap, drafting, codes of behavior have been inforced placing our code of football miles in front of any other in the land. That is why the NRL are desparately trying to set up something similar so it can compete.

Sure the game needs fans and clubs, but they had that before. What was missing was first class organisation which has made the game the leading sport in Australia, and the envy of its competitors.

Operating surplus of $213.5 million

Now just handball over 1% of that in small change Vlad. B)

It is great Aussie Rules is in such a healthy state financially. All of the competitive codes would love to be in such a position. If you dont believe me, just look at the current state of Rugby Union. It is a mess, and really struggling financially, in spite of its strong international base.

The AFL should be congratulated for developing such a strong code in purely a domestic game, quite un-precedented in world sport. Relatively, it is far healthier than even the NFL in the US.

Most sensible MFC supportrs will have heard and realise the need for PATIENCE with such a young group of talented footballers. Membership numbers have steadily grown as the members have seen the Committee undertaken a number of on and off field initiatives to get MFC back on the right track.

As a number of posters have said numbers will swell when we have the main H&A numbers coming through. A couple of wins will be nice but given the where the list is at with injuries, this may be more of a stretch than getting 30K members by rd 1.

And if we dont have 30k members by rd 1? The end of the world is nigh. Growing membership is important but we are getting steamed up over an ambitious metric.

Where is that storm in a teacup picture when you need it?

Did anyone note Cameron Schwab's comment at his new Wednesday Whiteboard forum (currently posted on this forum) that MFC has the highest ratio of supporters to members. Personally I find this difficult to believe given the number of demon supporters i know who are MCC members but not MFC members.

The club's real challenge though is to develop new markets to expand their base such as Hawthorn did in Tasmania and outer suburban Melbourne around the old Waverley Park where they went from about about 20k to over 50k in about 10 years. We need to find similar niches. Perhaps Darwin might be a good place to start given our fantastic indiginous list, it is an untapped AFL market, but a very knowledgable and fanatical one. I also think new immigrants (particularly Asians) who are currently coming into melbourne in large numbers are a potential market, particularly those who have a knowledge of the MCG's legendary status through cricket eg those from the subcontinent. MFC is THE MCG team, and we all know the quickest way to acceptance in Melbourne is through your football team.

I think there are a number of areas we can considerably build our membership base from, and even out do Hawthorn's success

As an atheist it irks me to say this, but having the 'Demons' play on Good Friday would be a bad move in terms of branding. Personally I would love to see it, but 1) i doubt there would be a huge crowd and 2) George Pell or Tony Abbott or someone would kick up a huge fuss about "DON'T RUIN OUR SPECIAL DAY, AAAAHHHHH POOR US WE'RE SO MALIGNED" etc etc ad nauseum. Unfortunate, but an all-too-obvious part of our "secular" society.

That said, give it a few years.

Don't agree.

Let Pell and Abbott kick up a fuss - fabulous free publicity, and national too. Would be lampooned all over the country by comedians and late night shows, and build it into something really big, which im sure would appeal to the AFL. We would have to first though get past Dimetriou's obvious personal religious commitment to NOT let this happen. It is about time the AFL Commission over-ruled him on this one.

Hi guys & gals,

I am the father of that 10 year old who kicked the goal at the forum match. Not that that is totally relevant but just thought I'd introduce myself!!!

Anyhow I am an Essendon supporter and we are blessed with a few blockbusters every year. Of course ANZAC day being the most recognisable of all. You guys have a good one with Queens B'day.

As an avowed secularist and footy fan it irks me no end that there is no footy on Good Friday. For goodness sake it is always in footy season and as it is a holiday everyone would love a game that day.

How about St Kilda vs Melbourne. Yes that is right Saints vs Demons!!

Both clubs could do with a regular blockbuster, I'm pretty sure that the Saints don't have one at all. It is a good money spinner as people can plan all year to go. It would rate very well on TV too. If it was the only game on that day I'm sure you could get over 70k at the G.

What do you think?

Fishard, welcome to the Forum.

I think this is a great idea. Let's hope the powers that be take it up with the AFL. Demons vs Saints certainly has a certain symmetry about it on Good Friday.

Terrific post, and a great initiative by the club. The framework is very impressive, but as we all know 60-70% of success is in implementation. My guess is the club itself would agree they are slightly behind on expectations of the plan so far this year, but im sure they would be confident of eventual progress once our injuries work their way through the system.

To me though my biggest concern is the coaching at the club. I'm still not confident they have a winning gameplan, at least to my mind they have not revealed it on the field yet.

I guess though that like anything in business, or sport, you have to trust the professionalism of the Board and the senior managment. They have appointed the Football staff and if they are not satisfied with progress they will take action. We are a long way from that though, but without progress this year I certainly think questions should be asked and if necessary action taken. This is not necessarily on DB himself as he is contracted to the end of 2011, but just like we need to continually renew and improve our list, so we need to in our coaching staff as well.

For those of you who missed this comment in Emma Quayle's post draft blog, I thought it might be worth repeating in view of the doom and gloom on here at the moment:

Hi Emma, I am a Melb supporter and very dissapointed in picks 11 and 18. We could have taken Talia and Black and built a very tall and strong spine for a decade, now we have a list full of 180-188 cm mids? Your thoughts? Ed

Hi Ed. In my mind they have four of the best young tall fwds/backs in the country with Frawley/Garland in defence and Watts/Jurrah in the forward line. Fingers crossed Garland gets his foot right, he could be a real star. But I was a little surprised they didn't grab one more and add a bit more depth. They obviously really loved Gysberts as a player - Sydney were hot on him at No. 14 and the Demons clearly didn't want to miss him. So you should take confidence from that. I know one thing, in a few years you could have the best midfield in the competition by a long way. Plus Jack Trengove and Luke Tapscott are best mates... should make the settling-in process easier for both of them![b]Emma Quayle

Puts the future in perspective in lots of ways. For her to say we could have the best mid field in the comp by some way is quite a statement, and makes the propect of Jack Watts in full flight all the more exciting.

Speaking at the club's family day today, Jim Stynes said there were 8,000 at Casey yesterday.

When the players were introduced to those in attendance, you got to see and feel how many walking wounded we have on our books ATM. I had noticed James Frawley's absence in the latter part of the game yesterday. Today, I saw the reason. He was limping noticeably and had his right calf bandaged. At a guess, I'd say it's not all that serious but I never went to medical school. Liam Jurrah and Daniel Bell had their arms in a brace and Cale Morton was getting around on crutches. Naturally, Colin Sylvia wasn't there and nor was Aussie. Most of the players who were rested yesterday e.g Bartram, Grimes, Rivers and Joel Macdonald all looked as if they would make it to round 1. I think Col Garland would have to play a full game for Casey to get a gig. That gives us up to 5 players to come in for the Hawthorn game and 8 plus Colin Sylvia to go out. At least that gives us many more possibilities for the season opener and less reason for doom and gloom than what we're seeing from some quarters.

And on the Casey game, don't get carried away with Jack Fitzpatrick's two goals. The first was a gimme when it was delivered to him while alone in the goalsquare, the second came after a strong mark and a 50 metre penalty. He worked hard, has good pace but needs to put on bulk and is a long way from playing AFL. On the other hand, Jordan Gysberts played a terrific game and shouldn't be too far away. Garland played well down back and I hope he pulled up well and plays a full game next week. As I said earlier, he's an outside chance for round 1 but he will be an aquisition when he finally gets back in the side because he's a class player.

I think givenour forward woes, if garland is even half ready, and plays a full game at Casey next Saturday, he should play round 1, and play forward, I would suggest in the pocket next to the resting Russian, or at full forward. His marking and agility is I think just what we need down there

That they bring nothing to the table is quite clearly rubbish, otherwise they'd never have been drafted. And I don't think that was really CB's point anyway.

I view Fitzpatrick in the same light as pretty much everyone else we've picked in the 50s and beyond -- my expectations are very low but that doesn't mean he brings nothing to the table.

Brad Green , I think maybe 56.

Cameron Bruce, rookie list

Aaron Davey, Rookie list

Liam Jurrah, pre-season draft, didn't make the first draft...

do i need to go on....

When I spoke to DB at training just before the National Draft I said that we needed a big bodied forward to help Watts and Jurrah. He said mids win games. Mids, mids and more mids is his plan.

In the last few drafts we have Morton, Jones, Grimes, Bail, Scully,Trengove, Blease,Jetta,Gysberts who are all midfield typs. Watts and Frawley are the only KP players selected. Jurrah is not a KP player. At the game today we were seriously lacking in size compared to WC.

Warnock is a good average footballer who was carved up by Natanui in the first qtr. Warnock is just not big enough to take on the elite in the competition. He really isn't a key position player. I noticed today that he Does Not look at the ball as it was coming into the WC forward line. On a number of occassions he had his back to the play just looking at his opponent, he had no idea where the ball was coming from. Result, outmaked, outmarked, outmarked every time. We need a general down back like a Nathan Bock.

We also desparately need a big bodied, strong contested marking forward and a ruckman who can play like an extra mid who can kick goals and take marks. Spencer was useless today, never takes a contested mark, never kicks the ball.

I cannot see how we can win a premiership with what we have at present. Sadly, with the compromised drafts I don't know where these KP players will come from.

I personally think Martin is far better suited to back play than forward. He has the size and the smarts to play well there. I agree with your comments about Warnock. He should take the number two forward not the number 1. River take three.

I certainly think some of our back could play forward. River has some marking skills which reminds me on occasion of Royce Hart (not his kicking skill though. I'd definitely play Garland there, and Jamar and Spencer in the ruck, with Jamar resting at FF. With all our injuries we clearly need to do something to ensure we at least kick a competitive score. Against the Dons and WCE we were nowhere near competitive in front of goal

Round 1, assuming Morton, Jurrah, Bell, Aussie and Sylvia are the only injuries (I've probably forgotten others).

B: Frawley Warnock Bennel

HB: MacDonald Garland Rivers

C: Bruce Moloney Green

HF: Bate Watts Dunn

F: Davey Miller Petterd

Fo: Jamar Grimes Jones

Int: Martin Scully Trengove Mcdonald

If Davey, Grimes and Frawley are out for some reason; Strauss, Cheney and Maric come in and I possibly shoot myself in the face.

Unfortunately that team is nor going to win anything

I think what most Demon supporters are looking for is not only a competitive team, but glimpses of play that will show us how we will be play winning football in the future. Football with flair, aggression,great skill and relentless uncompromising running. That is probably all we can ask for at this stage, and over time those glimpses will expand in extended periods of play, then in to winning games, then consequative games, then finals footy....

My problem is that i'm not seeing any of those glimpses. Certainly not against the Dons, nor yesterday, possibly against the Crows although I wasn't there. Can anyone give me hope that there have been any more than endless turnovers, missing targets, both at players and goals, and any more than static, conventional play?