Slartibartfast

And a very good one at that!! Much more eloquent than the rather rough around the edges Rhino!!

Don't forget Jack. I wonder if he could be the long termer for Valenti.....

The day Barry downs a few frothies will be a day to remember!

Sorry H, I tried...

I can make it a sticky, but I can't stop the ....

I deleted Redfin's post. Redfin we encourage opinions but they should be supported by solid arguments if they are as negative as yours. Please keep this in mind in future. Thanks Fan

This is an interesting development. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl...8-19742,00.html

Morton, Grimes, Maric, McNamara, Cleney, Martin, Wonaeamerri, Zomer, Valenti, Meesen and Spencer would have all voted. That's 11 players on the list who have not played any football with him . That's 25% of the votes from people who, frankly, don't know. But they soon will. I'm a Brad Green fan. For all the crap he cops on the websites he is brave, he goes when it's his turn, he does a job every week whether it's his natural game or not, he prepares his body well for the season and during the season and he's a ripping bloke which anyone who has had the pleasure of speaking to him will know. Brad Green will be promoted to the leadership group in due course. I think he has a very good chance of being our next captain. That is further evidenced by the way he has responded to the situation. In short, through no fault of their own, the players got it wrong.

I wondered how long it would be until someone picked up on this point. In my post I said:- "We clearly don’t have the experienced depth this year that we’ve had other years. A similar run of injuries this year will be even more disastrous than last year." I'm not predicting injuries Rogue although I'd not be surprised to see them. We have a lot of injury prone players like Sylvia, Moloney, Mclean and Whelan with Bartram and Rivers still to join full training. I believe our greatest exposure this year is our lack of experienced depth. Gone are Brown, Ward, Godders, Bizzell, TJ, Ferguson and Pickett. Whilst I agree with the cull we had and the necessity to refresh our list these were the players who we would turn to (TJ aside) when injuries hit. They were, in the main, not first picked players but when brought into the team could hold their own. These guys have been replaced with unproven youth. MFC4Life's post on our best 22 shows our lack of depth. I reckon we have about 24 players or thereabouts that I feel confident can play competitive AFL footy today. The rest I reckon have yet to show that or just aren't up to it. We desperately need players like Dunn and Newton to fully establish themselves. We need Buckley, Bode and Johnson C to take the next step. We also need a first year player to be competitive at AFL level in the way Petterd was last year and Bartram was the year before. If we have a run of injuries like last year we'll be in real trouble. Even a few injuries could seriously derail us. But an injury free season that Geelong enjoyed last year and Sydney for a few years would see us comfortably in the 8. Injuries are a critical component of any teams success but for us this year they will have an even greater say.

That explains a lot! <_<

I don't think anyone disagrees we had an injury riddled season, I just think the vast majority completely underestimate the impact injuries have. I don't agree our season was "shot before it started". Our preseason involved a loss to the Hawks in the first NAB cup game where Franklin did his thing (against Warnock from memory) in the last quarter. We were only just beaten. Our team was seriously injury depleted in the warm up games. Of course we lost. Too much has been made of the failed "run and carry". We never had a settled team on the park so we'll never know if this was a success or failure but I do agree it looked terrible early. Bailey is not going to set high expectations. A first year coach has latitude and he's taking it. I would too. On the Parkin issue he endorsed Britten as the next great coach and said that Carlton had a great young list going forward. When the Hawks person described how to unravel Melbourne it's a pity he didn't write it down. They killed us in round one 17.17 to 10.10. In the return bout we won 15.17 to 9.9. They remembered it again in 2005 but forgot it in 2006 losing very badly. Plans are great but you've got to do it. It's a lot easier said than done. I don't know how good we'll be this year. I can't reconcile us finishing outside the eight when I look at the performance of the 2006 team but like many I'm not putting my house on finishing in the top half. I guess I reckon that if we have a good run with injury (like Geelong last year or the Swans for the last 3) we are top 4, but who knows!! I also think with a young team and "fragile" mature players it takes very little to unsettle us.

Couldn't agree more fatty, but the point I was really trying to make was "will the 2008 version be better or worse than the 2006 version". If you conclude that it is "about as good or better" then why the pessisism? Whatever your views this is a terrific discussion. I do however, like Demonophile, believe that injury is the most significant factor in a teams performance.

Out that day were McLean, Bate, Yze, Petterd, Bartram, Rivers, Bruce and Whelan. Don't know where I got my original list from but thanks for picking it up.

At Mark Riley's press conference after the game against Sydney last year he referred (not for the first time) to injuries, settled teams and confidence. Myth or reality I thought? So for nothing more than a point of interest these players didn't play in these weeks (with apologies for errors): Round 1 v Saints Loss 93 v 62: Frawley, Sylvia, Rivers, Wheatley, Pickett. McLean, Whelan injured first half, someone early second half. Round 2 v Hawks Loss 116 v 94: McLean, Frawley, Sylvia, Yze, Bartram, Pickett. Injured Neitz first half and Robbo last quarter. Round 3 v Geelong Loss 109 v 57: McLean, Frawley, Neitz, Sylvia, Bartram, Robbo, Rivers, Pickett Round 4 v Freo Loss 137 v 92: McLean, Neitz, Johnstone, Bartram, Moloney, Robbo, Rivers, Frawley. Round 5 v Swans Loss 109 v 60: Jones, McLean, Frawley, Neitz, Green, Bartram, Robbo, Wheatley, Whelan Round 6 v PA Loss 76 v 71: McLean, Frawley, Green, Bartram, Robbo, Wheatley, Whelan. Round 7 v Bullies Loss 112 v 106: McLean, Frawley, Green, Bartram, Robbo, Rivers, Wheatley, Pickett, Whelan Round 8 v WC Loss 137 v 60: McLean, Frawley, Bartram, Moloney, Robbo, Rivers, Wheatley, Pickett, Whelan Round 9 v Kangas Loss 79 v 78: Bate, Sylvia, Yze, Bartram, Moloney, Rivers, Wheatley, Pickett, Whelan Round 10: v Adelaide Win 89 v 72: Miller, Yze, Bartram, Moloney, Rivers, Pickett, Whelan Round 11 v Collingwood Win 94 v 81: Miller, Yze, Bartram, Moloney, Rivers, Pickett, Whelan Round 12 v Richmond Loss 124 v 75: MIller, Neitz, Johnstone, Bartram, Moloney, Rivers, Whelan Round 13 v Essendon Loss 125 v 123: Miller, Frawley, Yze, Bartram, Moloney, Pickett, Rivers, Whelan Round 14 v Carlton Win 124 v 101: Neitz, Yze, Johnstone, Green, Bartram, Bell, Moloney, Rivers, Bruce, Pickett, Whelan Round 15 v Lions Loss126 v 82: Neitz, Yze, Petterd, Johnstone, Green, Bartram, Bell, Moloney, Rivers, Bruce, Pickett, Whelan Round 16 v Kanga's Loss 126 v 62: Yze, Petterd, Johnstone, Bartram, Bell, Rivers, Pickett, Davey, Whelan Round 17 v PA Loss 163 v 74: Yze, Petterd, Johnstone, Bartram, Rivers, Pickett, Davey, Carroll, Whelan Round 18 v Swans Loss 112 v 64: Frawley, Sylvia, Yze, Petterd, Johnstone, Bartram, Robertson, Rivers, Bruce, Whelan Round 19 v Bulldogs Win 129 v 87: McLean, Bate, Yze, Petterd, Bartram, Rivers, Bruce, Whelan. Round 20 v Collingwood Loss 81 v 70 : Frawley, Yze, Petterd, Bartram, Moloney, Rivers, Bruce, Whelan Round 21 v Freo Loss 144 v 85 : Bate, Frawley, Yze, Petterd, Bartram, Bell, Moloney, Mc Donald, Rivers, Wheatley, Davey, Whelan Round 22 v Carlton Win 139 v 108: Frawley, Neitz, Sylvia, Yze, Petterd, Bartram, Bell, Moloney, Rivers, Wheatley, Davey, Whelan This listing is intended to give a “flavour” and not for a moment list players who would have played if uninjured or fit, or even players that were fundamental to the team. Nor does it attempt to list all unavailable players. I was prompted to do this summary as there is some genuine pessimism on both Demonland and Demonology when looking at 2008. There seems to be a belief that a top 8 finish will be a very good achievement. Then I read a thread on Demonology call "What happened in 2006" and gsmith responded by saying: "we were third after round 17 then lost to Carlton in (18) Sydney in (19) and Adelaide in (22) to finish 7th. A great win over the Saints in the EF before bowing out to the Dockers." Hmmm, here we are at the beginning of 2008 with a team that people believe will be lucky to make the 8 and that was 3rd after 17 rounds in 2006. Now 3rd is a bloody good effort. We'd have played every team once and two twice so it's a pretty representative sample of opposition. So are we really as bad as people are making out? The listing above shows the seriousness of our injuries. In summary we lost Whelan, Rivers and Bartram for virtually the whole season. Bruce (16), Johnstone (15), Sylvia (16), Moloney (10), Wheatley (14), Yze (9), Robertson (15), Neitz (15) and Petterd (9) were others to miss sizable slabs of the season who would normally have played. Missing a couple of these players in normal circumstances is not so bad but when there are so many of them missing the team is severely weakened. So hence Mark Riley’s comments. And yet in 2007 we won 5 games, lost 4 by a kick or less and one by 11 points to Collingwood when we had 18 fit players for most of the last half. From the list of 2006: The following are gone: Neville, Ferguson, Brown, Godfrey, Travis, Pickett, Ward, Bizzell, Motlop, Nicholson, Read, Smith. The following have arrived: Petterd, Frawley, Garland, Weetra, Warnock, Meesen, Morton, Grimes, Maric, McNamara, Cheney, Martin, Bode. In the "gone" list those that matter are TJ whose skill we will not replace immediately and Pickett who many thought made a significant impact in 2006. No arrivals have "made it" other than Petterd who I would have thought was in our best 25 or so. Comparing 2006 and 2008: The following players will not be as good: Carroll (I doubt he'll produce a close to AA performance again), Neitz. The following will be the same: Bruce, Davey, McDonald, Rivers, Robertson, Whelan, Green, Yze, White, Wheatley, Holland The following will improve: Bartram, Bate, Jones, McLean, Sylvia, Bell, Dunn, Newton, Frawley, Meesen, Petterd The following will probably not make a significant difference this year: Bode, Buckley, Jamar, Johnson C, Johnson P, Miller, Moloney, Garland, Warnock, Weetra, Martin, Morton, Grimes, Maric, McNamara, Cheney Here is the team that played in round 17 against the Bullies in Yze's 250th game in 2006: Bartram, Bate, Brown, Bruce, Carroll, Davey, Godfrey, Holland, Jamar, Johnstone, Jones, McDonald, McLean, Neitz, Pickett, Rivers, Robertson, Sylvia, Ward, Whelan, White and Yze. Injured who would normally have played were Green and Bell. Gone from that team are Brown, Godfrey, Johnstone, Pickett, Ward. Suggested replacements: Bell, Dunn, Petterd, Green and Moloney. Frawley and Meesen can be slotted in the mix to make up for our two injured players in 2006. Now where is all this going? In my opinion TJ is a huge on field loss of talent that we haven't replaced. Neitz is not what he was and Carroll unlikely to reproduce. Pickett is a wildcard and probably unreplaceable which would worry some but not me. His output in 2006 was influential but erratic and unreliable. 11 players should improve under normal circumstances and of course there is a bunch of talent in the "insignificant difference" group that could impact; but any impact is a bonus and shouldn’t be relied upon. Does this make us a worse team now than that which was 3rd in 2006? You be the judge. One thing is interesting. If you conclude "no we are about as good" (which I think is quite reasonable) and you expect us to finish outside the 8 in 2008, Daniher must have been a very good coach. Further I think that this analysis presents a couple of points: o We clearly don’t have the experienced depth this year that we’ve had other years. A similar run of injuries this year will be even more disastrous than last year. o Injuries are significant, particularly when they are to key players and you have a lot of them. For example many would argue that Yze would not be in our best 22 and therefore his loss last year was not overly influential, but clearly with the number of other injuries we had his injury became important. o Whilst it is easy to quantify the players injured what can’t be quantified and can’t be ignored is the impact that these injuries have on confidence, motivation, cohesion, teamwork and enthusiasm.

Why would a club want to keep a player that you believe is worthless? There was one club at least who wanted him. Clearly you are both (RR and MB) out of step with at least two clubs. It doesn't mean you're wrong, but perhaps it's not as black and white as you think.

I disagree. Learning the game (and gaining experience) is a progression like most things, you don't need to play on the best player to learn. Frawley's played a handful of games and you want to play him on one of the best forwards in the comp. It doesn't make sense. Surely Rivers and Carroll have the responsibility to have first/second goes. If they fail give Frawley a go, but you put your best on the oppositions best first up.

Happy NY RR, I see your NY resolution was to keep putting the boots into Miller at every opportunity. Personally while I have my reservations I haven't written him off. I also won't put that view in a post every time Millers name is mentioned. I think most of us know what your view on Miller is by now, perhaps it's time to let the season unfold and see if your right. Rivers killed Franklin when we played the Hawks in R2 last year. I'm not so sure he can't play on him. Franklin doesn't hurt teams in the air so perhaps you could play someone smaller and agile on him. Wheatley or Bruce? I agree Frawley has all the attributes to play on him except experience.

What? You've not antagonised anyone that I can see. You've presented a view and done so very well. Personally I wish there were more like you. The fact that you chose an indefensible topic did put you behind the eight ball!!

Travis has been replaced by a draftee who's payment is in the order of $50,000 per annum. When you add the $200,000 we are paying for Travis the total payment to have that player on the books is $250,000. Travis was on significantly more than this so the club has saved money. I'll let the auditors argue over the accounting treatment, it means diddly squat. If the profit goes down by $200,000 this year it will go up by $200,000 next year. Do you really care?

Chess requires a sharp brain and a desire to analyze. I'm not surprised you don't like it.

You're pulling my leg about Robbo. How many FP have kicked 70 goals in a season? In his 11 games last year Robbo averaged over 3 goals a game. He's a very effective goal kicker. He's also a genuine pack marking forward. How many of them exist? Robbo is not exceptional but he is miles better than "very ordinary". Take away his "weaknesses" and you have an exceptional footballer. Not many 29 yo "very ordinary" footballers are chased by other clubs and offered 3 year contracts. And the Bullies were prepared to pay a pretty good price to us. Bassett was a fantastic footballer and AA I think. Much better than very ordinary. Woewodin won a Brownlow. He was better than "very ordinary" although I didn't rate him. What you seem to be doing is rating these players against absolutes whereas when judging CAC as a recruiter we should judge them against their position in the draft. On that basis they are all exceptional picks. CAC along with all the FD are responsible for our on field performance. But the best recruiters don't necessarily win flags. They do not fight on a level playing field. Apart from the resources they have available they have different picks in a draft so have differing opportunities. Also years differ. If we'd have had pick 3 in 2001 instead of 2003 we'd have had Judd not Sylvia and a Brownlow Medalist instead of an OP riddled player. Take away Geelongs father/sons and they may not have won a flag (Ablett, Ablett, Hawkins, Scarlett and Blake). In that lot alone they have 3 additional early first rounders and perhaps one or two others. So flags is no basis for rating recruiting officers and to suggest they are the silver bullet in your favour is just missing the point. Fatty you've no idea how "hard" I am on the club. These forums are full of people willing to criticise the club and that's fair enough where it's warranted. But in many cases it isn't. What I try and do on these forums is add balance. The "cheerleaders" are the ones who want to join the pack on these sites and vent their spleen and beat their hairy chest. I won't do that. I'll argue my points and present positives as there are enough prepared to say the "hard" things. And I'll state my negatives, but I'll not do it in public. I suspect I'm just as hard as you, I just don't let emotion effect my judgements. Have a beer with me one day and find out. You have very "Hannabal" type views, characteristics and style. I'm not suggesting you're Hannabal but you could almost be related!!

Fatty I did misunderstand your point re Bruce, Whelan and Bartram, thanks for pointing that out. But when evaluating CAC's late picks wouldn't you also add McDonald, Robertson, Rigoni, Woewodin, Bassett, Davey and even perhaps Carroll to that list? All are late picks or rookies that have forged solid AFL careers, including Brownlows, AA and Club B&F's. It's about one a year in his tenure and we haven't really had a chance to see how Garland (who I hold high hopes for), Weetra, McNamara or Cheney turn out. And then of course there's Newton at 43, but you consider him an early pick! Jolly and Simmonds must be included in an analysis of recruiting. The fact they are now playing for other clubs is a list management question. Jarka I'm interested in your comments on the Simmonds trade. Certainly the AFL Guide supports you but I could have sworn there were picks attached to the trade. But your point is valid. If there were no picks he wasn't a first rounder. Nonetheless he has turned out to be a good footballer, one that pushed for AA selection and he was recruited by CAC. Again the fact he is not on our list or what we traded him for is not relevant to the discussion. I'm as guilty as anyone for not doing the comparative research but the main criticism of CAC is his lack of stars and his early round failures. So I went through the draft records and looked at the first 20 picks in each draft of CAC's tenure and put in my "failures". It's totally subjective but it gives a flavour: Sydney: Willoughby, Fitzgerald Richmond: Schulz, Meyer. WC: Crabb, Chambers, Hill, McDougall, T Gasper, Haynes. Geelong: McKay, Bray, Tenace St.Kilda: Walton, Beetham, Watts, McQualter Hawthorn: Obst, Collica, Elstone Carlton: Vance, Livingstone, Sporn Melbourne: Lamb, Molan, Smith Freo: Schell, Dunn Brisbane: Cupido, Spannderman Collingwood: Roach, Jason Cloke, Cole, Morrison PA: Koulouriotis, Brookes, Willits NM: Smith, Watson, Shore, Trotter Adelaide: Angwin, Watts, Meeson, Pfeiffer Essendon: Davies, Harvey, Bradley Footscray: Walsh, Faulkner. I've not looked at the number of picks each club has had which if you were to do it seriously should be done. I've not set a strict criteria but gone on "gut feel". We've missed on three talls who have a much higher "miss" rate than smalls. But what I reckon it shows is that CAC was not a bad recruiter of players early, but he had his missed along with everyone else. It would be interesting to go through players picked (say) 50 and above and see how many played (say) 50 games. Any takers?

You're kidding? Bruce Whelan and Bartram only getting a game due to early pick failures? Bruce and Whelan would play in any team in the league. Bartram was a first year player and played every game. He was injured all his second year and you judge him already. Name another recruiter that picks a higher percentage of late picks. You've missed the boat badly on this one I reckon. Newton was hardly an early pick? Rot. He was in the 40's. You're hard on Bate but I won't debate that and Dunn is still to establish himself. It's too early to call either way so you can't have it. He may be excellent or he maybe a miss. Either way CAC took him early and if he gets it right is a big plus. Jones has excellent leadership potential. So do Morton and Grimes. Unless McLean pulls his head in he won't captain Melbourne as Jones will go past him. I also believe Green has excellent leadership qualities but I know I'm in the minority on this one. Add Simmonds and Jolly. Both traded for first round picks and solid first rucks with one touted as AA. Name 3 others with better strike rates and relegate CAC to 4th. You're very good at the absolutes Fatty, have a go at the comparative and see if you can find someone better. I reckon that's too much work. At least if you're going to shoot CAC get some facts right. There are too many holes in your analysis above.

Holland, Ferguson and Bizzell were contracted. Nicholson was contracted and paid out. Holland and Ferguson got standard 2 year contracts and Bizzell was seeing out the last year of a three year contract which he shouldn't have got.

Premature, but on current indications I agree. If this list goes on and wins a flag then CAC can probably lay claim to "star" status, particularly if Newton, Buckley, Garland, Bartram, Bruce, Davey, Miller, Petterd, Rivers, Whelan, McNamara and Cheney form a significant part of it. I've included Petterd as we rated him very highly when others didn't and Rivers because few if any other recruiters saw in him what Craig did. The others are genuinely late picks and this is where the wheat is sorted from the chaff. The "star" issue is a hard one. Who do I consider genuine "stars" of the game? Hird, Buckley, Carey, McLeod, Pavlich, Judd, Reiwoldt, Brown, Voss, Harvey R, Cornes C, B Johnson and I suppose Goodes. I will have missed a few but of that lot there are not many CAC had a chance to pick. Cornes and Goodes are the only ones. I'm not sure it's fair to mark him down on that score but each to their own.