pm24

With all this criticism of Morton I was just reminded of one crucial thing I think we should all remember, while i was looking over our player list. Morton was born in 1990, the same year Bennell, Strauss, Jetta, McKenzie, Howe, Maric. So in other words, he's still young. I think most of us would be prepared to give the other guys born in 1990 more time, so in that case we should do the same with Morton. I guess the fact that he's been in the system for 4 years already influences our views of him, and the fact that he started his career so well, but when it comes down to it, he's still got possibly 10 more playing years ahead of him, and I'd rather give him a cpl more years to turn things around than risk him breaking out at another club. The one thing he has going for him, is that there is no other player on our list who IMO has the same flexibility that he has. So I reckon we should give up a Dunn or a Bate before Morton.

To me this review reveals that they are trying to get him to work on specific areas of his game, and focusing their reviews on whether or not he addresses those specific areas. His disposal has been very average, but maybe our expectations are very different to that of the Footy Department. Maybe they are still very much focusing on developing Morton, rather than expecting him to be a top line player now. For mine, I would much rather see him retained over guys like Bate and Dunn at the end of the year though. He's just got more potential upside.

Good post John Dee, i've had numerous conversations with people recently about how the age of the players we have in the midfield is hurting against the older, stronger, and more experienced midfields. Look at the teams we have beaten and the teams we've lost to. There's a consistent pattern. Against those teams who have a younger midfield group, like ours, we generally win or go close (e.g. Richmond, Essendon, Port, Adelaide, GC, Nth Melb, Bris). Against those teams with more experienced mid field groups we get belted (Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Dogs). The other wins come against interstate teams that struggle with travel (e.g. freo, port). I truely believe that this team is two years of development physically, skill wise and maturity away from being a consistent finals presence and top 4 threat. By that stage some of the key youngsters like Scully, Trengove, Watts, Strauss, Blease, Cook etc will be 22 and have bodies of men rather than boys. Then we will see an improvement in the consistency in effort because physically their bodies will be better conditioned for it. I actually think Bailey has done enough with this list and this year to earn at least another year or two. Why??? Because the players have clearly developed, although it has been at different rates. The team continues to show improvement from year to year in the W-L column. The team is still a genuine chance for finals this year and should reach 10 wins, with the 4 additional wins to come against Port (twice), GC, and Richmond. 10 1/2 wins is a good result, and next year I reckon 12 wins would be right. Bailey has done everything expected of him, and I think we've seen that the game plan can be effective, particularly now that the team is improving its forward pressure. With Davey, Aussie, Bail, Joel Mac, and Tapscott to come back in, the team can only get better and should have a better blend of youth and experience as the year plays out. Things continue to improve and Bailey has been a big part of that.

Before criticising I wouldn't mind hearing your reasons for these trades....... I mean has oakleigh nickols done anything in his career to warrant being anything more than a rookie list player (currently at west coast)? If you keep putting out new threads like this with out substantiating any of the reasons for you proposals i can see you becoming very unpopular here in a very short time.

I think it's all a matter of perspective....I mean the only players in 07 that i think could have been taken instead of Morton would be Dangerfield and Rioli. I'll be honest and say i haven't seen much of Palmer, but i've been to a lot of bulldogs games and Grant could arguably be one of the worst picks of the first round in that year. As for Maric over Collier....well i think Maric could still be good, but what has collier done to show he'll be better??? 2008 is possibly the draft where i agree with you the most. However it's worth noting that Shuey was picked ahead of Strauss (and just one pick after Blease). As for Ballantyne and Suban, one could argue we should have chosen Ballantyne but I think we still haven't seen enough of Strauss or Blease thanks to their injuries, to pass any accurate judgement at this time. I think Strauss has been effective since returning to the team and has shown he has strong kicking skills. One ommission you've made is the selection of Bail at 64 which was a fantastic pick, and you could argue a much better pick than many others picked before him. Swings and roundabouts. 2009. It's too early to tell but i think Gysberts could become a fantastic midfielder and do not believe that we made the wrong pick here yet. As for Gawn over Vardy. Gawn is going to take time given his height, and Vardy has also only played 2 games. Too early to tell for both of them but I think Gawn could be fantastic. Remember he had knee reconstruction just over 18 months ago, yet has still been able to crack a couple of games in the seniors. That's not something to be sneezed at. As for Newton instead of Barlow........every other club in the league could make the statement, but i ask you this....did we really need another midfielder who would slow the development of the young brigade coming through?

I think it's reasonable to drop Nicholson and Evans when guys like Strauss and Blease are also there for selection, and have been playing reasonably well. To me, Evans goes out to make way for Scully/Trengove, whereas Nicholson is dropped to make way for Bartram. One of Blease or Strauss should be brought in to utilise their kicking skills so that we don't have to float Watts in the backline just so we can have someone with half decent disposal skills to begin thrusts into the forward line. It was great that Evans and Nicholson had the chance to debut, but when there's guys who are coming back in and also deserve a game, then i think they're the two that make way for them, particularly as neither were really stand outs on the weekend.

I can see how your matchups would work, but Warnock played well the previous two weeks and just had a shocker on Friday night. I just think this week might not be the week to blood McDonald. If Warnock has another shocker next week, then yes drop him. I just fear that we lose to much size and strength of we drop for this weeks game. And although McDonald has shown some good signs I think one more week of solid VFL form might be better before bringing him in.

I just want to check that those who are wanting Warnock out realise we're playing Essendon this week. That's right the team that plays three ruckmen every week. Warnock is our tallest and possibly toughest backman. I would think that we would need to have him play this week against the Bellchambers/Ryder/Hille trio. Otherwise we would be seriously undersized in the backline when they've also got guys like Crameri and possibly Hurley running around. I also hope Bartram comes back because God knows we'll need him. Blease has probably done enough to warrant inclusion to, and would give us some pace and foot skills out of the backline. If not him, then Strauss. So i'm going to go with the following this week: In: Trengove, Scully, Bartram, Gawn, Blease/Strauss Out: Bennell, Morton, Evans, Newton, Jetta I reckon these changes boost our midfield, and ruck, while also giving us some extra footskills in the backline which would hopefully mean that Watts can return to playing on the half forward line. I think Dunn goes back to Casey for a week or two unless we are to swap him with Bate and get him to play as a defensive forward on someone like Heppell.

I would have thought that a few of the guys mentioned would still be contracted next year. Strauss has already been mentioned, but i thought we had most of the list signed for next year. I'm pretty sure Maric signed an extension last year and based on this years form, none of Maric, Spencer (was playing well at Casey) would be dropped. Fitzpatrick would most likely be safe as well given Chris Connoly apparently is a massive fan of the kid. I would think Bate has some big ??? against he's name, however i thought Dunn also signed an extension last year after his strong year. So that leaves Bate, Bennell, MacDonald, Jeta, Morton, Aussie for mine. Realistically, Morton could end up a GWS, though i wouldn't like to see this happen. I wouldn't be able to choose which one would be delisted out of that group.

Warnock would go to Setanta I reckon. Can't think of who MacDonald would go to if he retains his spot though.

I would be very surprised if the Blues risked rushing in Kreuzer after just one game in the VFL following a knee reco. That would be a very stupid move I reckon. Then again they did take McLean off our hands and gift us Gysberts, so stupidity is one thing they're probably used to. Regardless, i don't think it'd be wise for us to rush Gawn in after he has also only played one senior game at the VFL level. Let him get a couple of consistent games together before bringing him back. Martin should be fine with Newton helping out where required. Anyway, i think it would be great to see blease and strauss in. One of them to line-up in the backline in place of Tappy, and the other to come off the bench. If it happened then it would mean that picks 1, 17, 19, 58 and preseason pick 1 and rookie pick 1 from the 08 draft, pick 2 and 11 from the 09 draft would all be lining up to play. Given that a few of our other picks from the drafts of the last 4 years aren't playing because of injury or suspension (Tapscott, Grimes, Scully, Trengove) to me this shows that our recruiting has been solid over this period and should mean good things going forward. Particularly when two other recent draft picks in Gawn and Howe are also in consideration.

i think it's worth remembering that this saints team is Not the same as the one that lined up in the GF. They've blooded 7 newbies this year and they've got four of them, plus the recycled Dean Polo, playing for them this week. Tell me if you recognise these names: Jamie Cripps, Nicholas Winmar (not the St Kilda legend), Jack Steven, Arryn Siposs....... Montagna is an important IN for them this week, but they've dropped their ruckmen (McEvoy) and replaced him with Blake as 1st ruck. Therefore neither team is strong in that area. I honestly believe this is our best chance to beat them in a long time and our inclusions for this week, despite some of the injuries are still encouraging to me. My biggest concern is our poor play at etihad, but i still think we can get up in a close one this week.

The Herald Sun is now reporting that Martin injured his ribs on the weekend and is unlikely to line up this week. Here's the statement: The injury to Jamar comes on top of the loss of back-up ruckman Jake Spencer, who seriously injured his knee in the VFL on Sunday. Another ruck option for the Dees, Stefan Martin, hurt his ribs in the same VFL game and is unlikely. With young tall Max Gawn struggling in the VFL reserves, Melbourne may be forced to use 193cm Michael Newton in the ruck against the Roos. So it looks like this means no Jamar, Martin, Spencer, Fitzpatrick. So we've only got Gawn and Campbell who could come in and both just played in the Casey Reserves. Could we have had any worse luck this week?

And what are you basing this off?? There's been nothing reported on the club site, nor in the Sun teams chat which doesn't start until 4.45pm?

Add an inch to your estimates and you've got Warnocks actual height. He's listed as 194cm on the club site. Given the height of the crows forward line, we'll need his height and bulk against the likes of tippet, walker and mckernan.

i'd just like to see the opposite of last thursday

I thought he handled his interview after the game. His frustration with the game was written all over his face, and no doubt it was shared by the rest of the team. I thought that was great to see. So amidst all the frustration he's then congratulated for how he played. I imagine he probably felt like saying "it doesn't mean s@#% because we didn't win", but he did the right thing and accepted the compliment. I think he actually showed a fair bit of maturity in that interview. If anything, at least he was honest.

The midfield is not an area where the GC is lacking in talent. With Ablett, Rischitelli, Swallow, Harris and a giant ruckman in Zach Smith to tap it down there throats, they are set up nicely. They felt that coming into this game that their midfield was superior to ours. Arguably, it is with Ablett included. I was also one of those who expressed disappointment in our effort on Sunday, and my disappintment is based on the same concerns others have expressed. Lack of intensity across the 4 quarters. Poor skill execution. Poor decision making at times (see Dunn and Morton chipping to a contest in the forward pocket when they could have lined up for goal from 50 out in the 3rd Quarter). We didn't excecute as cleanly as we know we can, and the club has acknowledged the need to improve in some of these areas. So for those who are labelling us idiots, sit back for a second, and actually read what IS being said. Don't just react with negativity without considering the views of others. Otherwise you are the idiot.

Watched the whole game on TV and I must admit, I also came away disappointed. Yes we should have won by the margin we did, but had our disposal and intensity been better we should have won by over 100. 6 posters also didn't help, but in the third quarter there were a number of times where we were rebounding out of the back 50 along the wing, only to miss targets and turn the ball over. These missed targets were not small misses either. One breakaway saw Morton kick it about 1 metre over the head of the a leading dunn. This was not the only time this happened. To me, based on the evidence we have seen to date, it actually looks as though this team has gone backwards since last season. Disposal has been inconsistent. Defensive pressure, particularly around the stoppages has been inadequate, and I can understand why Bailey has been getting so frustrated about the lack of maintained effort over 4 quarters. Decision making seems to be a real issue at the moment. Why Dunn didn't fire away at goal from 50 in the 3rd Quarter, instead choosing to kick poorly to a contest in the forward pocket, is beyond me. He kicked 2 goals from almost that exact spot last year against brisbane to help win us the game. The same for Morton who chose to kick short to a contest rather than having a shot for goal when 45-50 out. Have they lost confidence?? I would prefer it if they would back themselves and have a shot on goal rathe than kicking a guaranteed shot on goal for the chance of closer one if we win the contested possession. Despite this it was great to see Morton playing a full game and doing well, Beamer leading from the front, Green get his hands on it a bit more around the goals, and Bennell using his pace well. However, despite all this I came away disappointed with the teams effort and fully believe that West Coast will and should be favourites to win at Pattersons Stadium in 2 weeks time.

You have to expect morton to have some struggles. I mean it's his first game back after missing the entire NAB Cup and without any preparation down at Casey. Even chippa looked a bit average against the hawks after coming back from such a long absence. Give the guy a break.

My main point for the reference to basketball was that compared to Hurley, Watts has not had the same amount of time training at higher level of football that Hurley has. This is because he spent a large portion of his youth playing basketball at an elite (state) level. Therefore, as he gets exposed to more and more football preseasons and training, his approach to the game should change.

Firstly, i know my body fat % because my trainer at the gym monitors it, and because weight is not the best indicator of health given my body type. Using standard BMI tests i would be deemed to be overweight, so body fat% is the better indicator of fitness. Anyway, from the time my body filled out and I got physically stronger even in a game like basketball there was a noticeable difference in how I was/am able to play. Previously the older/stronger players could easily bump or push me out of the way. I would lose balance much easier when getting bumped, then i do now. So overall, now that i am stronger and have filled out, I am able to hold my position better, push back and actually use my size and strength to my advantage. My skills may not have changed much, but my ability to use those skills effectively has improved dramatically compared to when i was an 18/19yo playing against men. So, from my experience, body size and strength make a significant difference in sport, whether it be basketball or football. For taller people it takes longer for the body to develop. So we should expect that with Jack's extra 3cm he will take a little longer to develop physically then Hurley. Once his body is stronger, then he will be able to utilise his skill set more effectively.

A statement like this must come from someone who's not very tall. 3cm in height is significant enough to effect an individual's capacity to physically develop, particularly when we are talking about someone who is 6'5". I'll use myself as an example: i'm a shade under 6'3" and my body didn't actually fill out until I was about 19/20. Prior to that I weighed in at just 75kg when playing rep level bball in U20's. 2 years later, and I was at 95kg's after my body filled out. Now i'm at 99kgs with just 13% body fat at 28yo. So i don't think the mans body/boy's body argument is overblown at all. We all grow differently. I mean Nick Riedwolt was a skinny kid when he came into the league and look at him now.

Watts is clearly superior by foot and by hand. The issue is that he doesn't get enough of the ball to demonstrate this. He also has the bigger tank, and better agility than Hurley. In reality i think Jack has a more diverse skill set than Hurley, while Hurley is more effective at utilising his core skills. IMO toughness can be developed because it's mostly got to do with mental state. Jack has grown up primarily playing basketball where you use your agility to out manoeuvre players. He has not been exposed to the same type of training that Hurley had growing up, as he did not spend the same amount of Hurley in the TAC Cup System. Had Jack spent as much time in the system as Hurley I think Jack would be much more advanced physically than he is currently, and probably more effective as well. People are not born tough, their environment shapes them to become that way.

I would take the option which is the safest option. That is, which player is in the best position to receive the ball and is in the better position compared to their opposition defenders. If Jack has a good metre or so on his man while leading while Liam is a one on one wrestle with his defender, then go to Jack. I think the reason that we our team is so ineffective with our inside 50 entries is because we don't choose the best option often enough. Too many times we seem to just have a long bomb into the forward line where an opposition defender can just float back and block out our leading forwards. This team needs to lower its eyes more and find those players in space, and in a position to better our next movement into the forward line. In basketball ball movement is crucial in opening up space, and teams that just have one pass and shoot often get beaten. I see no difference in football. Those teams that continue to look for the best option when moving forward, and utilising ball movement to keep the defence on their toes, are more effective with their forward 50 entries and more successful as a team. When Neitz was around when too often just bombed it long to him. We're doing the same with Jurrah. I think our forward line setup was actually more effective when we just played with a lot of mid-sized forwads that kept moving. I'm talking about the Petterd, Dunn, Green, Bate, Bennell etc lineup. No-one was a particular focus in that forward line, but our movement into the forward line certainly looked better.