pm24

I like these changes, but hopefully Blease gets up for the game so the only change is Macdonald out and Frawley In. Leave Sellar in the backline to take on Cloke as I reckon he's the one guy that probably has the strength to match up on Cloke in a one on one wrestle. Leave Garland up forward for another week, and then use McDonald, Rivers, Frawley on players like Sidebottom, Dawes, Fasolo, and hopefully Bartram is back as well to take Blair. Watts can then pick-up whoever is left, and play that floater role again. Looking at those match-ups i think we could be quite effective at stopping Collingwood. I'm feeling much more optimistic about our chances in the QB match after this win.

The approach you have outlined is get rid of all the underperformers and expose those players that are not yet in a position to contribute. Jamar is the main one....if we move him do you really want to rely on Martin full-time in ruck with Gawn still getting over a knee reco, spencer just not up to scratch and Fitzpatrick to light to play the role. Who would you replace him with??? Strauss is young as is Jetta yet you've said to get rid of both of them. Why? You've stated you would keep other young unproven players. Green sounds like he's considering retiring so we may not need to worry about him. My concerns with your approach is that it appears to give little consideration to team needs. You're suggesting we get rid of guys that have skills we need (Jetta's tackling pressure, Strauss's kicking, Petterd's versatility) with no consideration of who might be available. There's going to be a lot of players moving, but after accounting for the drafts (maybe 5-6 players) do you really think we'll be bringing possibly another 10 new players into the club. The free agency just won't create that much movement. In other systems where it is in place, rarely do you see such major changes in player personnel from one year to the next. I can't see it happening here. I understand you were just stating the players you thought weren't going to be part of the premiership, but you don't just do a clean-out of all of them in one free agency period.

Whoops i thought we still had the worst %, well we should after the Essendon and Collingwood games anyway

Sheesh that's a pretty harsh assessment. We NEEED to keep Jamar past this season because our other rucks are not physically ready to handle the duties. Strauss should also be given more time. We have dismal disposal coming out of the back line (one of the reason we've need Watts back there lately) and Strauss was recruited as an elite user of the ball by foot. Just before he broke his leg he was really starting to show something at the AFL level to. Jetta should be given more time too because has shown more with his tackling intensity and ball winning than bennell has, and if not for injuries he could be a consistent performer for us by now. I would also say we KEEP Molony, Sylvia, Petterd and Green. Green has showed some good signs the last two games and we need his ball use in the forward 50. I think he still has a year or two left. Let's not make the same mistake we made when we let Junior McDonald go. Finally I also think we need to keep one of Dunn or Bate. I would suggest Dunn because he actually looked dangerous at times on Sunday. His got reasonable body positioning and strength in a marking contest, and we also need a half forward that kick that long goal, which he is very good at. I think if Dunn could just play a little smarter at times he would be a much better player. That out of the air kick for goal he took at the back of the pack last week was a stupid decision when he could have given off a handball to Bennell for an open goal, or at least collected it in his hands first before putting it through with a drop punt.

Just a thought guys, we could still beat GWS and get pick one and two thanks to our terrible %.

Why are people so quick to write off a skillful 196cm player who was one of the youngest in his draft class (NikNat is nearly a full year older), who was physically underdeveloped when he came to the club, and is still just 21???? Tippett took until he was about 22 (in 2009) to start achieving anything in the AFL and he had a similar (basketball) background to Watts. It takes time people!!!!

I'm not sure how many here saw the team live chat yesterday but Paul Slattery, our forward line development coach, fielded questions and a number of people asked about petterd. Here were some of his responses: Hi Marty, that has been the case this year. Ricky has had some really good form at VFL level, but unfortunately that hasn't translated in solid form in the AFL at the moment. He's certainly got plenty to offer at AFL and I'm sure he'll make the most of his next opportunity. Paul. Hi Guest, Ricky is having a bit of a break due to injury. Once he has recovered, he will be in a position to impact at a much better level in the AFL. Paul. Hi Troy, we see Ricky, regardless of where he plays, as a player who needs to ensure that his form and fitness will give him every chance to compete at AFL level. Paul. So basically, it's not just Ricky's form that's the issue, he's obviously battling another niggling injury that is restricting him physically. This has been the case in previous years where his body has let him down. Hopefully he can get his body right so that he can provide that consistent spark across half-forward that we love seeing when he is in full-flight.

I'm not sure why you think Watts won't get much heavier....what makes you say this. He has gotten bigger and stronger each year he has been at the club. He was probably one of the most underdeveloped (Physically) players in the whole draft class given he didn't play TAC Cup. Physically he's probably a year or more behind other players. He's also one of the youngest from that draft class (NikNat is 11 months older than him). I don't think his problem is that he doesn't work hard enough, his work rate has always been rated highly, even by Neeld. It's just been his appetite for the contest that is lacking. I watched the casey game on tv and not once did I say him try and run into a contest to impose himself. Rather he waited around the contest for the ball to come out. If he can get some desire for the contest then I think that the tide will turn on his career and he'll begin to fulfil his potential. But until he wants to be a player that imposes himself on contests, he will remain a decent but not great footballer.

Judging by what a lot of the players have been saying in recent articles, like Jones, Morton, Grimes etc, many have commented on how the standards being expected of them are so much greater now, and that it is a much more professional environment at the club. So is it the recruitment that is the problem, or is it the fact that the club was running a very amateurish football department prior to this season. The players are much fitter from all reports, but even Neeld has said they're only about 60% of the way towards where he wants them to be. So it's same old question, is it the recruitment or development that is the problem? I can't help but think that if we had Neeld instead of Bailey as coach when Watts was drafted, that Watts would have more of the toughness we want from him, that Morton would now be a consistent performer providing match-up problems across the ground, and that we would currently be in a similar spot to richmond (or better), pushing for a finals spot.

I think this article says more about his new management company than what Moloney's intentions are. And the statements about wanting success, few one club players in the future, exploring options are the views of the management group. Kaider never said, Brent has said he wants to find success, or that Brent was wanting to explore options. It was Kaider who said that "We will have some conversations with other clubs. My view is if he doesn't test the water of free agency, he is doing himself an injustice". This is Brent's management group positioning Brent to hopefully get a good pay day. If you follow sports like basketball in the US this happens daily coming up to the Free Agency period. Given that One Management has Bogut as a key client, as well as Patty Mills and others, they are probably better prepared for the introduction of free agency than the other management companies. I think we are getting to caught up in the Hun headline, because once you read thruogh the article there is little that suggests that Brent wants to leave the club, just that his Management thinks he should explore his options and the players (in general) seek success (well duh!).

Did anyone else notice how Denham completely failed to understand McLardy's statement comparing the Demons current situation to that of Geelongs in 2006?? Denham then went on to compare the teams performances since 2006 in about 100 words of garbage. McLardy's point was that in 2006 other people around the league were doubting the talent on the Geelong team and then, after that they improved to the point where the won a premiership. Just lazy, uninformed, out of their depth journalism.

I'm a bit more optimistic about our chances this week, but that could just be because I dread the idea of my wife and her entire family being able to say they beat us again! But in reality i think our play has improved each week, and we are being competitive for longer. Secondly, the bulldogs have a very average forward line. Keep in mind they didn't even kick 6 goals against the saints last week. Their defense is also shaky. To me our forward line is more potent than theirs and if we can actually improve in the midfield then I can see us winning this game by a couple of goals. The fact that it is at the G' could also help us.

I am happy with his play and his acquisition, but I think he could be even better than what he has shown to date, that's all.

Please tell me when I called suggested that he was a hack. My main point was that I believe he has to further develop his skills as a forward from what I have seen. Yes the entry into the forward 50 will influence the impact that Clark has on the game, but I was not focusing on how the ball was entered and his ability to take a mark, I was focusing on his leading as a forward, his decision making, and those brain fades. I am a fan of his acquisition, and think he is going to be a great player for us, but should that mean that I can't expect him to improve as a player so that he can become a real champion??? What is wrong with me having the view that him leading back towards the goal when we have a player 60metres away trying to kick it to him rather than lead into space to put himself into a better position to take a mark and kick a goal??? Or are you suggesting that the better move would have been for Clark to conitnue running further away from Watts leaving Watts with only one option.....to kick it long and high and giving his defender time to impact the contest??? Don't get me wrong, I think Clark has been and will continue to be great for us, but that doesn't mean he is without fault in the way he plays as a forward. If he hadn't played on, if he had approached that kick on the run from inside 50 better, if he had led to Watts rather than away from him, he could have had 6 goals. That is where I think he could improve. That he could have, and probably should have finished with about 5-6 goals on the weekend if he had made some better decisions. I'm pretty sure he'll be fine though, and will hopefully be the cornerstone of our forward line for the next 6-8 years. How about next time you read a post, you consider everything that has been put in that post, rather than just grabbing one line, and posting based on what you think was said. Good grief!!!

I've got to admit that i've got mixed feelings about Clark's performance to date. He's done just as many things to annoy me, as he has to please me. Take last weekend's game. Multiple times when the ball was coming in to the forward line he continued to run back towards the goals. At one stage when watts was bringing the ball into the forward 50 from the half forward flank (about 65-70m out) Clark just ran further and further away from him rather than backing back before making a lead into space (it was only he and Rance in the forward 50). This happened numerous times in the first quarter where he was caught playing from behind, and has been one thing he's been criticised for in the first couple of weeks. He has moments where he plays like a big strong forward, and others where he looks uncertain and weak (think the attempted mark against WC where he failed to establish position, or protect the fall of the ball, which lead to an easy punch away from the WC defenders). Then there's his brain fades and failure to execute. I'm thinking of the great mark he took out position Rance 10 metres out, then playing on only to get tackled and turnover the ball!!! Not to mention the entry into forward 50 where he ran in from directly in front, and rather than kick a clean drop punt through the middle, decided to kick a low one towards the left that never looked like going in. To me, he could be that monster forward we need, but he doesn't yet play like a forward. I rarely see him using multiple leads to put himself in a position of advantage by out-maneuvering his opposition deffender. Rather he just makes one or two leads or just expects the ball to be kicked long and high to him. I'm not sure if that's the gameplan or just him though. With that said, I do feel better about the team with him in the side, but I also believe he need to work on his ability to play as a forward. I can actually understand why Matthews ranked him as only an average forward based on what I've seen to date. He could be so much better.

Just a question for those who keep talking about how good Darling is....and I do think he's a solid player. Would he appear to be as good if he did not land at West Coast where he is surround by other tall KPFs like Kennedy, Lynch, a resting rotation of Cox and Naitanui? Darling is no taller than Bate or Dunn, just stronger and more agile. I guess i'm just not convinced yet that long-term, Darling is the better choice. I would love to have him on the team, but he fell all the way to pick 26. Is he that much better than our 33rd pick of that year, Jeremy Howe??? I might be putting blind faith in our recruiting team, but i think that it's just too early to truely know if we made the right call given how it's only the second preseason for each player, and everyone knows that it takes longer for taller KPF's to progress.

I think it's got to be development. The players we've picked were usually highly regarded. I think our recruitment has gone reasonably well, particularly given some of the players we've grabbed late who have actually proved to be decent AFL footballers, think Howe, Garland, Bail, Bartram. I thnk Davis and McDonald have shown a bit, Gawn could be great if he can get his body fit, Tynan looks like a decent prospect, then there's McKenzie, Jurrah, Magner etc through the rookie draft. I could throw Bennell in there too, but I think his downfall will be his work ethic. He's got all the tools, but seems to lack something mentally. I reckon Jetta could be better for us if he can get healthy. I think it's also too early to write off some of our early picks, particularly guys like Watts, Blease, Tapscott, Strauss, Cook etc. Of those 5 guys, 2 are KPF with light builds (and in Watt's case hadn't played even much TAC Cup before the draft) who are taking time to build an AFL body, but are both obviously skilled and talented. The other three, Strauss, Blease and Tapscott were all first round, or early second round (strauss) but all have been hit by injuries throughout their first few years. That basically means that physically they are a year behind every other draftee from their year. Gysberts has all the skills (and injuries to), but again needs to build an AFL body, but he could be a key for us as a taller mid (190cm) who can win his own ball and become like a pendlebury. The reality is that every year there are players who fly under the radar only to develop into very good players (Rockliff was a rookie-draft pick - everyone missed on him in the NAB Draft). So, that's why i think it's the development side that is to blame. I think we've drafted some very skilful players but looking through the list, we've probably picked more project players than other clubs, and also had more prospects get long-term injuries than most other clubs too. This has meant less game-time and less development. I seriously think that we're about 2 more years away from seeing this group come through and push us to finals contention. Hopefully with the improved funding in the footy department we won't have the development problems that we've had to date.

I would like to see Bennell string a couple of good games together before seeing him come in, but the layout of Subiaco may work to his strengths so I can see why he could be an inclusion. Against the WestCoast tall timber in the forward line I think Sellar is a must. With Cox, Kennedy, Darling, Lynch and Naitanui I can't see how we can afford to play Joel Mac. Why, because I can't see a match-up for him. For mine, Sellar can take Cox or Naitanui when resting in the forward line. Frawley should go to Kennedy. Bartram to Hams/Hill. Grimes onto Gaff. I reckon Garland on Darling and then Rivers on Lynch. Even when looking at those matchups I feel like our back line is undersized, but that's just against the behemoths at West Coast. I think Tynan showed good intent, but is clearly not strong enough for this level yet. So he and Joel are out for miine. In the middle I think we need to keep Moloney in. I'm not for making too many changes when we are so early in the season and so early into a new game plan. Rather patience should be preached for the first couple weeks until players have a better chance to get used to the new gameplan in "real" afl games. So Moloney, Jones, Trengove, move green onto the wing (watts back into the forward line), and bate onto another wing where we can use his long kicking and marking ability up the ground. To me that gives as a good group of strong bodied inside players, surrounded by some more stronger bodied players with good marking ability and decent foot skills. Forward line, Watts to CHF or Half Forward flanks, with Howe and Petterd. Mitch Clark at FF with Martin and Davey around him. I want us to give Davey another shot because I believe the problem with the forward line on the weekend has more to do with the way the ball was delivered into the forward line, and how predictable our play was. Davey showed good pressure, and I don't think we have anyone else who can provide that same pressure with his skill-set at present. I reckon we still maintain a very mobile half-forward line with the extra size deep with Martin and Clark. But for the forward line to work, this team needs to identify the open players through the corridor, and look for the short passes to ensure the team is in the best position to kick to a contest WHERE WE HAVE AN ADVANTAGE! Jamar in the Ruck of course and the bench to comprise of McKenzie, Bail, Couch, Magner. So my outs would be: Tynan, Blease, Joel Mac Ins would be: Petterd, Couch, Sellar I'm tempted to say we play Morton, because i'm concerned that with Moloney, Couch, Magner, Jones, McKenzie we have too many of the same type of player and not enough guys with versatility. So that makes the following:

Maric is out of contract, so i reckon Nth Melbourne is just going to try and land him in the pre-season draft. Meaning we get nothing in return.

Bate and Dunn, though playing similar roles, to me are completely different players. Bate is no where near as gifted phsically and athletically as Dunn, but is a good honest footballer in that he has certain things he does well, and he does those thing consistently well IMO. By that i mean, his leading at the ball and his marking while usually being a reliable kick for goal. Dunn on the other hand is more unpredictable, but also potentially more damaging as he has got a massive kick, and seems to have decent instincts around the goal. He's also a decent mark but where he differs largely to bate is that his work rate is not as high. Bate is not as quick, but he still works hard, and has shown an ability to win the ball in the middle. Dunn has not shown this ability in the middle at all. Last year I was rapt with how Dunn was playing and would have said Bate is on the way out. Now my view has changed as Dunn had the opportunity to really breakout this year. Instead he played average football at Casey for chunks of the season and took a big step backwards. On that basis I would rather keep Bate then Dunn as he reflects more of the attitudes that i think this club needs. Dunn, on the other hand, seems to just be selfish. I would like Maric to be retained as he has shown the capacity to be damaging with his disposal into the forward 50, and around the goals. We just don't have enough players on the list with that skill set to move him on. Warnock is gone....he's requested a trade so lets move on. Newton.......rookie listed......has never fulfilled his potential and hopefully with Cook having a strong preseason and with Martin's development he will no longer be needed. Though he showed some positive signs this year, i think it's time to say fairwell to Newton. McNamara, has shown some good form at Casey and is still young, but to me he just doesn't have the polish to play in the middle or up forward, and things obviously didn't work out for him as a defender. I really hoped he'd do well when he returned but I can't see him reaching the required level at this stage. However, if this years draft crop is really that poor, then I say we give him another season. He's young enough. I hope we can keep all the 'brothers' as I love Jetta's attack on the ball (that bump on Harbrow when we played GC was gold) and Wonna's enthusiasm, forward pressure and goal kicking. Campbell has been a good player to have, but with Spencer likely to come back fit, and apparently having made significant developments before getting injured, Gawn, Martin, Fitzpatrick and Jamar all as rucks, I don't think we have space for Campbell. Although Fitzpatrick is being developed as a forward, which could mean we have space for Campbell on the rookie list again if needed. Aside from this group I am unsure who else we could delist as the rest of the group is still young and has a lot of promise. If I remember correctly Evans and Nicholson have already been resigned for next year so they aren't going anywhere. Not sure if Cameron Johnstone has shown enough to be retained though. Don't know much about him either.

The Hun is now stating that Mark Neeld is set to be offered the Melbourne Coaching job. Looks like the Burns and Craig rumor could just be another unfounded one. here's the link: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/collingwood-assistant-coach-mark-neeld-poised-to-coach-demons/story-e6frf9jf-1226139072436

It's part humorous, part sad how many people have responded in this thread without appearing to have even read the first post. I think a number of good points are made. No matter how much the club and even the players say the stuff with Scully and Bailey isn't effecting them, you would have to think that it is. However, i think probably the biggest reason for our form fluctuations this year has more to do with the lack of stronger/mature bodies on the list compared to last year. This year we have no Junior, Bruce and Miller for a start. The scully and bailey stuff is one contributing factor to everything that's happened, but i'd say there's other factors at play as well.

KC, can you explain what's happening in the game. Are we getting belted in the middle??? Is it our defence. It's amazing this is happening given some of the guys we have in there like MacDonald, Davey, Warnock, Bennel, Blease, Bartram etc etc

I received this phone call as well, to my mobile during office hours. I receive at least 2 or 3 phone calls of this nature a season. It just appears to be a standrad part of their fundraising efforts.

The thing I hate about articles like this one is it always comes across as if the club is being unreasonable. Therefore those who are aportioning blame to the administration and just saying "get this s*$t sorted out" are the type of people i'm glad aren't involved in running the club. What's to say that Sylvia's demands aren't unreasonable, and that the club is actually putting forward a responsible (for the club) and fair offer? These articles are always weighted towards creating pressure on the clubs. I'm starting to wonder whether the sheer volume of articles about melbourne and contract discussions with its players this year is a ploy by the media to try and get Melbourne to talk more openly about club matters given that the club has said on numerous occasions it would not discuss these things in the public forums. I mean i haven't said any of the other melbourne based clubs have their contract discussions publicized as much as Melbourne's have. I'm actually encouraged by the clubs "reported" stance regarding contracts. If anything, we can say that they are not willing to overpay players, and that they are also not willing to restrict their future options by over committing now. I think this is an approach that should be applauded not criticized.