Slartibartfast

Yes, I went. Only four Melbourne players played - Pickett, Neville, Newton and Neaves. Byron Pickett - stayed on the ground for the whole game (well, I left with about 5 minutes to go) and was the least impressive of the four. Didn't find a lot of the ball and wasn't all that impressive when he did. He got some exercise though and probably found it hard to get worked up playing against Sandy 1st and 2nds players. Heath Neville - had a close look at him for the first time really. He's pretty aggressive, likes to get involved and got a bit of dash. Played on Poyas and Valenti, so they gave him a job. Quite liked his game in a quiet sort of a way. Not outstanding but one of those players who might just progress. But nothing to get excited about. Shane Neaves - best ruckman on the ground in amongst the amateurs. Really did look good at this level. He's a good long kick, reads the play well and is quite good below his knees. Speed is the problem at the higher levels. Dominated his position as he should have. Michael Newton - started at FF, lovely lead, pass, goal in the first and got a little bit involved. But the more interesting thing was in the second half when he moved to a wing. He dominated. Picked up kicks at will, marked, kicked goals and showed beautiful disposal on each side of his body. And I'm talking really good disposal. Took the trademark hanger in the last half and cramped having run himself into the ground. He's not an inside player at all, but he found the ball and space really easily, was poised when he got it and at one stage ran half the length of the ground bouncing it 4 or 5 times. Having said that I'm not sure how he'd go if someone stood next to him as his opponent didn't go near him all half. Isaac Weetra was in the stand looking as was the Russian and Bucks.

I reckon it's time to get off Miller's case. It's been debated for longer than the Woey trade and in reality everyone has had their say. All that is happening now is "can so, cannot". But as evidence of Daniher's faith in Miller you need go no further than the fact he's played on Hall, Tredrea and Pavlich ahead of Rivers and he was in the leadership group. We all know he's struggling and has to earn his spot back, let's just see how he goes for a while.

I've tried to say away from this issue until I've been able to reconcile it. I'm getting closer. I sympathize with the AFL, I think they are in a no win situation here. 1. Recreational drug use should never be tested. It's an invasion of privacy. If a player is caught in the normal course of events by the police and is charged with recreational drug use then they are subject to whatever the law provides and whatever their employment contract provides. How the AFLPA could ever agree to have the drug police walk into a players house at anytime of day or night and ask them to urinate into a bottle is beyond me. It's akin to the police having the right to walk into anyone's house, without evidence, and search for stolen goods. 2. Performance enhancing drugs should be banned and you should be able to test for them at anytime. 3. No player should be allowed to bet on footy, nor should any club employee. It puts the integrity of the whole competition at risk. The recreational out of season drug users are being rightly protected by the AFL. It is not a matter of public importance. The players should never have been tested in the first place, it's a complete invasion of privacy. The AFL have it right.

A point I think you've missed. I'm talking about the type of game Bell plays and the sort of opponents the coach asks him to play on. In regards Carroll. I was talking about Sunday's game. Not his career. Each to their own. I see you're in the camp of "if Bell beats his man his man had a bad night, if Bell is beaten, he's no good". Hard to win on that basis.

See my Hawthorn thread comments and the timing, Snap!

I've seen the replay. Jones was good. In fact I think he was very good when you take into account that he is a second year player, he was one of our two inside mids on the night and he was against Hodge, Mitchell and Crawford. Franky I've seen your comments on Bell here and elsewhere. I've a mate who said before the game that he really wanted Belly to succeed. He'd canned him all last year. Bell kept Williams to one possession for no result in the first half. He canned Bell at halftime. Bell plays in the back line and will be beaten by opponents on occasions. He'll get tackled with the ball and he'll make mistakes. But he beat a very good opponent on Sunday. If you want to look at the negatives you'll never see his strengths because he does the hard things. He leaves his man to help team mates (this led to Williams second goal), he'll try and pick the best option. He'll go into a pack and fight for the ball. And when you do that you open yourself up for mistakes. You're probably more impressed with the "give it to me" tactics of Daniel Ward and Adem Yze. Ward won't make many mistakes because he'll never go where there is any pressure. He'll just leave his man, run up the ground, turn it over and hope to hell Belly holds the backline together as he sees his man running free. And lets not start on Yze. If you hated Belly's game you must have just about shot Carroll. Dropped chest marks, poor disposal and brainless free kicks given away. Belly will aways give you things to criticize, thank heavens.

Thanks for trying everyone.

I don't. I expect him to become a team player. I think Robbo is now doing an Yze. He's playing for hiimself. Neitz isn't a ground level player either, but he chased, tackled, crumbed a goal and looked interested when he didn't have the ball. I'm worried about Robbo. I think that there is a danger he may not be a regular this year. He's capable of winning you a game or two but he's got to be more. I think there could be a few challenging for his spot. Brocky I accept Robbo is no O'Keefee. But he needs to be a lot more than a one trick pony. It's a good trick but he doesn't play it often enough. I hope he comes good, but there are a few worrying signs.

Jumps for the ball and get in Neitz way all the time. Run into the space Neitz would lead into. Goes for the specie all the time, falls to ground and fails to apply any forward line pressure. Never runs up the ground "O'Keefee" style. The defensive side of his game is nothing short of pathetic. Adds nothing at ground level. Missed some easy goals he has to get if he wants to be a dangerous player Other than that I thought he was ok.....

Does anyone have a link to the stats from last nights game? Thanks to anyone who can help.

As I've said in another thread, and I'm surprised this point has only be made once; we didn't lose because of gameplan, we lost because of fitness. We actually thrashed them when we had the legs to play the "run and carry" game. I was pleased to see how successful it was when we were fit enough to play it. And we will get much better at it. And it gives us an extra string to our bow. These are practices matches for the good clubs and should be treated as such. And we did. Liked Buckley, Frawley, Dunn, CJ and Belly. Very disappointed with Robbo, Miller, Rivers, Carroll and Yze. Don't hold any hopes for Hughes and Warnock. Thought of the fringe players only Brown did himself any favours. Thought Jamar was the dominant ruckman against mediocre opposition. I think everyone has overrated Jones game, but I'll watch the replay and keep an open mind.

People who think that the "run and carry" play lost us the game really miss the point. This is the point. When we had the legs to implement the "run and carry" game, all be it pretty ordinarily at times, we pantsed them. It was only when we ran out of legs we got beaten. To summarize, it was not the gameplan that let us down, it was our fitness. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good [censored] session. Hawthorn are focusing on the NAB GF. We are focusing on the one in September. They are a month ahead of us in preparation. I liked most of what I saw last night.

I once thought that the success of a playing list depended on having depth to cover injuries. But I was put right by someone smart who said it's not your depth that makes you strong, but your top (say) six. I now believe that when talking premierships this is absolutely right and is the major weakness we have had for ages. We don't, and haven't for a while, had any stars (with respect to Neitz who I consider an absolute champ, but not a star). Without getting long-winded I reckon its pretty self evident that stars generally come from your early picks. Bartram is a great pick, Brock is much better. Both are CAC triumphs. Bartram will probably be a good longterm player. Brock could be a star. My theory works something like this. Good recruiters mean that clubs don't go through a pronounced cycle. They don't go as far down the ladder as others and don't get the very early picks. Their chance of picking up stars decline and their cycle will mean they oscillate between a narrower band than most, (say) 12th and 4th. That's not the object. It's particularly relevant to a club like Adelaide. They have a lot of stars. McLead, Goodwin, Ricciuto, Hart, Smart, Edwards (I know some of these players have left) were/have been around for decades and have limited how far Adelaide fall. If my theory holds up we will see a very weak Adelaide outfit in a few years. They are very much at 2.00 on the clock. Graz you would probably argue that this is one of the reasons the clock is a myth. I'd argue it's a distortion that needs to be understood when looking at the clock.

Do you think lists improve and/or decline? Do you think our list is improving or in decline? Do you think Adelaide's list is improving or in decline? Do you think lists have a "cycle"? Would you have called Brisbane's list young or old (improving or in decline) in 2005? Do you think it would have been reasonable for Melbourne to trade an early draft pick this year for a player who was (say) 27 or 28 and provided something we needed over the next 2 years? Was it appropriate to trade for Pickett? Would it be appropriate for every team to make such a trade? Should Carlton have traded for Akermanis? These are rhetorical questions.... I reckon the difference between us Graz is we expect the clock to do different things. At least there is no groupthink here!!

Fantastic news Josh, congratulations. Look forward to catching up. Cheers Tim

Jones, McLean, Bate, Miller, Sylvia, Dunn, CJ, Bartram, Bell, Moloney, Rivers, Jamar and Davey are all pretty much established players and are in their first 5 years of the game. I've not included Frawley, Petterd, Garland, Weetra, Buckley, Neville and Newton as these guys haven't played yet. But some of them will make it and Frawley and Petterd I'm very bullish about. As a group they will improve. I also think that McLean, Bate, Jones, Moloney and Bartram have the potential to be the best midfield we've had for as long as I can remember. Anyway we have between 11 - 13 players who, if they are not now, will become core players for us. And I guess I look at the strength of the core players, which I rate highly. That's a judgement, I agree. Of the old players Graz has listed only Neitz and perhaps White will be difficult to replace. Junior, while terrific, is by no means irreplaceable. Brown, Bizzell, Ward, Holland, etc are not core players and when they leave will not hurt the team unduly. Yze and Robbo are solid citizens but can be reasonably easily replaced. That's how I support the proposition. And note, I'm not suggesting we have the youngest, just that our list is improving. There is no doubt we need succession plans for Neitz and White. We have Dunn, Newton and Garland on our list as developing tall forwards. We need to address White longevity. If I know this you can bet your bottom dollar CAC does.

He's fantastic. So good in traffic, such good vision and great skills.

I understand everyones desire to know the injury status of players. I have it myself. But I also understand that players my want to keep their injuries private. Jarad Couch did last year and good on him. There are lots of reasons not to give out details of injuries and IMO privacy is the main one. I don't like it but I understand it.

And when Pratt puts money into Carlton do you expect them to do what he said? People paying the bills have a right to be involved in decision making. North's choice seems quite simple. Become financially independent or move.

From my post on 21st Feb at 9.58: "I stress again, the clock doesn't mean when you get to 12.00 you win. It doesn't mean it's impossible to win when you're not at 12.00. It's just a tool to show you were your list is." Hope this helps.

Many would contend that Neitz, White and Robertson are amongst our most valuable players. Rivers and Carroll also. It doesn't surprise me at all that when 5 of our most important players play badly we lose. This supports rather than refutes my proposition.

Just because Neale Daniher misjudged where the Swans were on the clock doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On the contrary. The clock has successfully predicted the rise and fall of many clubs. What's the saying? "The exception that proves the rule". Frawley and Schwab also completely misjudged their situation. And that was with knowledge of their own lists, not someone elses. As you are clearly able to understand the sphere I'd suggest you use that as your tool. I'll use the clock. It's a useful tool. It doesn't pretend to be the single defining mechanism for judgeing a clubs prospects and strengths but it forms part of the mosiac. If it doesn't work for you, don't use it. But it works for me.

Not useful? Agreed, it isn't for detail, but it is for strategy. Where do you think Carlton are on the clock? Where do you think Adelaide are on the clock? Where do you think Melbourne are on the clock? I think there is a good argument that if Carlton had any 28 or 29 yo good players that were valuable to other clubs they should have traded them for early picks. Why? They are not in GF contention and should stockpile good young players who in time will become a force. Hawthorn did this. So IMO they are at about 6.00 on the clock. Adelaide are an ageing list with some good support young players and they have a show. I'd place them at 1-2 o'clock. They may have a show if their good old players have good seasons. Without them they are shot. But there list has seen it's best days. Melbourne are at about 11 on the clock. Why? Because if the list hadn't changed from 2006 to 2007 I'd have expected our team to be better. Hence we are between 6.00 and 12.00. And the majority of our important youth is gaining experience and can be relied on to perform more consistently so we are approaching 12.00. If the clock doesn't exist why have just about all premiership teams gone through a weak stage. Essendon, Brisbane, PA and WC have all had periods at the bottom. Some declines are greater than others but they all come. Sydney is a bit of an exception. But I think their time will come i n the next year or so.

No problems from my point of view. It's like the third umpire in cricket to the extent that it's an effort to get umpires to make better decisions. I'm glad I'll be there to see how it goes. Nothing ventured nothing gained Brocky!!

I'll state upfront that I've not read all of this thread but I do feel the comments I've seen on Newton are premature and extreme. Many here will know that I am excited about this kid but have always seen him as a longterm speculative investment. He has loads of talent but he also has trouble stringing games together. Application is a problem. Now he played poorly on Tuesday, but he hasn't been that bad in the first two match simulations. He hasn't shone either. He's entering his third season with us. He was taken as one of the youngest players in the 2004 draft. He's not yet 20. Yes, be disappointed, but also be realistic. He'll take time. He won't be ready this year. He contracted and he's got this year at minimum to show what's he's got. And Finks, don't lose the passion, but try and keep some perspective. <_<