pm24

I think Hale would be perfect for our list. He and Russian are both the same age, and in 4 yrs time when both would be in their 30's we'd have Gawn and Fitzpatrick to take over from them. Hale can play in the forward line and is mobile enough around the ground to. How many guys at nearly 200cm who have been in the league for a while, can we pick up on the cheap. Nth don't need him given they've got Goldstein, McIntosh, and Petrie as their top bigmen. I think this is a very good suggestion, and one i've seriously thought about as well.

Does the fact that PJ won it a couple years ago benefit the reputation of the award or discredit it??? Not sure.

When i saw the topic of this thread I thought it was about Tom McNamara....how disappointed I was to see it was just about Tom Scully finishing 2nd in the rising star award...

Just a question.....why is Franklins a better goal than Dunns. I don't buy the argument that it's better because it was more skillful. A freakish goal with some luck is still a great goal. Franklins' goal was all class, no doubting that. But a goal like Dunn's is so out of the norm. That's what makes it special. It'll be interesting to see who gets it but it'd be a nice feather in the cap to see Jurrah take Mark of the Year and Dunn for Goal of the Year.

Not sure if you guys have played much basketball, but rebounding situations in basketball are very physical and involve a lot of body use, pushing etc etc. I recall the rebounding drills we did at the Melbourne Tigers U20s where no foul was called because we had to learn to push and shove and fight for the rebound. Watts was an elite basketball in junior ranks so he would have been exposed to the same thing. Offensively there is less contact in basketball but defensively when playing at a high level there is a lot that goes on that doesn't get picked up. I don't think the basketball argument sticks in this case. I would actually suggest that he realises that he doesn't have the body strength to compete one-on-one in a contest of strength so he endeavours to use his strengths to his advantage to win the ball. That is, he uses his speed, his hand eye co-ordination, and agility.

I could be seen to be too generous but i've given them an A for the main reason that they've achieved more than what i hoped for this season. I was hoping for at least 7-8 wins, we've won 8 1/2 with a chance to finish on 9 1/2 or 10 1/2 wins and just outside the 8. I was hoping we'd blood more youngsters and get them playing a solid amount of matches together - that step has also been completed. I hoped that we would be competitive in every game and avoid blowouts. We've had one blowout, round 1 v Hawthorn. Off the field things are even better with new training facilities at AAMI Park, finanicial stability and real passion around the club. Not to mention the new Logo sets a benchmark for the rest of the league. I've never been prouder as a supporter because the club has stuck to its guns, followed through on the plan it laid out 3 years ago, and it's reaping the rewards. Just imagine in two years time when Watts, Trengove, Scully, Gysberts, Blease, Strauss, Tapscott, Fitzgerald, Jurrah, Aussie, Bennell, McKenzie, Gawn have all had two more good preseasons in them, there bodies are stronger and then we add Jack Viney!!!! I'm not too fussed if we miss the 8 next year either, as long as we win around 10games again and keep getting experience into the young guys. In two years time however, i expect us to be pushing for a top 4 spot.

Rather than comparing Cale's body type and size to Mitch Morton's, I think a better comparison is his other brother Jarryd at Hawthorn, who is a similar height (191cm to Cale's 192cm) and build (87kg to Cale's 83kg). Bearing in mind that Cale is two years younger, it's probably realistic to think that in 2 years time Cale will have a build closer to that of Jarryd Morton's which would be reasonable. I think we sometimes forgot, that despite the fact he's been around for a few years now. The kid is still just 20 years old!

I'm sure that many here are aware of this, but i'll say it anyway... I believe that the club are taking the same approach they did with Dunn, as they are now with Morton. They're making sure that anyone who has decent height (both are 192cm), speed, agility and forward potential are working on their defensive skills. From what i've read it appears that Morton is continuing to get dropped because of the lack of defensive pressure. He has also played a tagging role recently, where he lined up on Goodes. I remember Dunn doing exactly the same thing 2 years ago. Both are also 1st round draft picks, and a few here have mentioned it that the footy department see Morton as a future forward not a midfielder. If this is the case, lets just hope that the results are just as good, if not better. If it works out then we'll have three forward prospects that can run all day, are agile, a decent mark and all over 192cm - Dunn, Morton, Watts. Group those three with possibly Bate (another 192cm player), Petterd, Jurrah and Wonna and you've got a very mobile and versatile forward line for the future.

From my recollection, it sounds like Gawn has done exactly what Morton did to his knee earlier in the year. Though it's a set back, the good thing is that he hasn't done the acl again.

I wish people would stop suggesting Bartram to be dropped particularly to bring in Cheney. Bartram is by far our best small defender. Cheney has had his chance and hasn't shown enough to prove he's a better option. Yes he's a stronger overhead mark but his disposal is no better than Bartram's (which is Bartram's biggest weakness), but he's slower and less effective in spoiling in contests against smaller defenders. Cheney is a decent defender, but there is no-one currently on our list as being able to supplant bartram from our current line-up on current form.

You mean that missed snap that was going straight through the middle of the goals if not for the Richmond defender marking it on the line, while running back with the flight of the ball, or are you referring to another snap at goal. I actually think someone needs to get into Jack's ear and just tell him to get a bit more selfish when he's close to goals. Actually i'd say someone needs to tell him to "Kick the bloody thing when your close to goals!!!!". He was 15m out from goal in the pocket and tried to hand-ball back into the corridor when he could have just had a shot (albeit on a tightish angle) himself. He needs to have confidence in going for those shots because in a couple of years he will be EXPECTED to kick those, not handball off to someone else.

More than just when he went to the bench, every time he kicked the ball we should applaud him as i'm sure we would get flashbacks of last season and that beautiful goal on the siren to give us picks no.1 and no.2. Stynes should present him with an honourary Melbourne jumper to acknowledge his contribution to our club. And for those who wish to recall that memorable day.... here's a link to the video:

I'd hate to say it, but I think Hurley deserved it this week. He played a blinder against one of the top teams in the competition. Mackenzie and Watts were good but Hurley was better. You'd have to think that Mackenzie or Watts would be a good chance this week against the Tigers to get a nomination.

Does no-one else remember that Chip was playing unwell. He was apparently as sick as a dog before the game, just didn't want to the miss the game regardless of how he was feeling (i love that type of character in a player). For a player that relies on strength and speed, feeling unwell would have dramatically reduced his effectiveness. Therefore i'm going to rely on what we see this weekend versus what we saw earlier this year to determine who i think is more effective. Regardless, its going to be a great matchup.

It's worth noting that Chip did matchup on Riewoldt earlier this year even though he was apparently unwell. I think bailey puts Frawely on whomever he deems to be the most dangerous forward, be it a small or a big. I don't expect that to change this week.

Does look like a good list, but it's safe to say that 2 of the melbourne listed players won't be playing for the Seniors as their are 14 listed and only 12 allowed. This could mean that we're sending 2 travelling emergencies possibly. I wonder if it'd be Warnock and Maric. I think Warnock would be likely to travel get the last incident that occurred when Frawley got injured and we needed another key defender so we absorbed the fine to bring in Warnock even when he wasn't a named emergency. Great to see Strauss back as others have said, and interesting to see Tapscott named in the backline. I wouldn't think he'd play there though, unless they're doing it for developmental reasons.

That change makes a lot of sense. Maric played well but Junior is both fit and superior.

I know junior returned through the 2's which was done to help him get confidence back in the hamstring and probably for match-fitness as well.... but the fact that he came back through the 2's supports the theory that Trengove or Moloney should come back through the 2's. I guess all i'm trying to point out is that the even though a player might be available it might not be best for the club for that player to return straight into the seniors in favour of a player who has been performing admirably, if that superior player is not 100% match fit in the minds of the trainers. I don't think people are arguing that we shouldn't pick our best available 22, more that a player shouldn't be dropped just because a superior player has returned from an injury layoff, particularly if that returning player is not 100% match fit. It's probably a moot point, but in my mind selection should always come down to what is the best team for us to put on the ground each week giving consideration to the opposition and matchups, but most importantly structure. If Trengove and Jnr are available and match fit, then by all means some of the lesser players need to make way for them. But we don't drop defenders like Bartram (and i know this wasn't necessarily suggested) or ruckment like PJ (and i'm not a fan of his either) just to fit in two midfielders and ruin the balance of the team structurely.

Here's a question for you given your statement above ID. Is a "clearly superior player" still superior to a player who has performed decently in recent games (though not in our top 22) if that said "clearly superior player" is only about 80%-90% match fit? At the start of the year people were strongly arguing that players like Bate and Aussie shouldn't have been playing until they were 100% match fit. Are you now suggesting that a player like Trengove or Moloney (who are easily top players at the club) who is just coming back from injury and hasn't played for a couple weeks (thus potentially reducing their match fitness) should be selected regardless of whether or not they are 100% match-fit, and purely because they are superior players to others???

The one thing continually puzzles me when reading these threads is the lack of consideration people give to the structure of the team. For example, those suggesting Bartram to be dropped to bring in two midfielders doesn't make sense. Yes one or more of Jnr, Trengove or Moloney will play, but if you drop Bartram who do you propose will play his role in the back line?? In case some of you haven't realised, his inconsistent disposal aside, he has been one of the most consistent defenders we've had, continually shutting down his opposition. I'm all for Jnr, Trengove and Moloney returning as soon as possible, but i would think it would be better structurely for them to come in for a mid-fielder or half-forward. Sylvia can move back to the half forward line and out of the middle to make way for one of them, then we can drop one or two like Maric (who i thought showed some great signs with his pressure and chase) and Bail or Bennell. It's going to be tough determining who gets dropped, but I think a top defender on the team should never be replaced because of average disposal to make way for a midfielder. Structurely it stuffs up the balance of the team. I'd rather have someone preventing goals and put up with a couple turnovers than replace them with someone who's an average defender at best.

If Frawley is our Scarlett does that mean that Garland could be our Mackie. I certainly wouldn't mind that if it did happen. Mackie and Garland are both great at spoiling, have slight builds but use their quickness to their advantage. If Garland can continue to improve his foot skills we could essentially have two clones of key Geelong backmen. Scarlett and Mackie = Frawley and Garland

hmmm so the scoreboard is confused because 9.8 is 62 not 72...... Maybe they've got a few more issues to sort out still.

You could consider it to be lazy journalism or you could realise the fact that the Herald Sun holds a debate like this each and every week. Last weeks was Pendelbury v Cooney. They've also had ones like Griffin v Deledio etc etc. Its actually apart of the Herald Sun strategy of utilising the web to engage its readers more effectively. Given how there's continuing to be a drop in newspaper sales this is a very smart move. The journo's always put their own opinions first before opening up the discussion for others. You can view it as lazy, or you could also view it as innovative.

1. Hanneberry (has been the most consistent of all the young players) 2. Scully (is really starting to play more consistently and has more of a WOW factor than Trengove IMO) 3. Rockliff (i want to put trengove here but Rockliff has had a very consistent season no a struggling Brisbane team. He's continually racking up 20+ possessions per week) Note: Martin would have had to have been favourite if not for him being ineligible due to tribunal charges.

How are you guys watching the game?