Slartibartfast

I reckon this is the wrong way to analyze things. It's very easy to look at individual situations and extrapolate to a conclusion. But I reckon often it's the wrong conclusion. An example of your point is the option of Ward v Chris Johnson playing off a half back flank last year. Wardy is one of those medicore mature players. Chris Johnson had proven himself worthy of a run. I'd suggest that the team did better with Ward. First year players got 30 games. Bartram 22 and Jones 8. Neville and Buckley didn't get a game. Are you suggesting they should have? 2nd year players (there were only 3) got 25 games last year. Bate 14 and Dunn 11. Newton, didn't get a game. Of the 2002 recruits Bell 12, Smith 1, Rivers 22 and Ferguson 3. Hunter has been delisted. Of the 2003 recruits McLean 18, Sylvia 17, Johnson 9 and Davey 22. 159 total games awarded to 15 players still on the list recruited in this period. 10.6 games per player. Brown, Bizzell, Nicholson, Wheatley, Motlop and Read, as mediocre experienced players, spent long periods at Sandy. Not all "medicore" players got games and not all youth got games. There was a sensible mix. For the Western Bulldogs the following happened: 2002: B. Murphy 0, Wight 8, Faulkner 3, Walsh 0, Minson 13. Total: 24 for 5 players 2003: Cooney 24, Ray 21, Iszac Thompson delisted. Total: 45 total 3 players 2004: Griffen 24, Tiller 0, McCormack 4, Wells 0. Total: 28 for 4 players 2005: Higgens 5, Addison 2, Baird 3, West 0. Total: 8 for 4 players. I chose WB for comparison as they finished in about the same place as us on the ladder, they have a highly respected coach and they are mentioned in the initial article. Of the 105 games given to their (young) recruits of the last 4 years Cooney, Ray and Griffen got 69 of them. They also have 15 on their list recruited in this period. Average games per player - 7. Melbourne gave 51.4% more games to "youth" than the Bulldogs last year. Also you compared us to Swans. For most of the year the Swans were in a similar ladder postition to us. Yet they played little or no youth. I'd contend that the myth that Daniher doesn't play youth to be one of the commonly accepted misconceptions of supporters.

DD rather than make this blanket comment I'd invite you to do a comparison of the number of games granted to 1st, 2nd and 3rd year players at Melbourne since (say) 2002 and compare this number with that granted by other clubs to their youngsters. I did it sometime ago. It showed Danners does play the kids in comparison with other clubs. But feel free to do your own analysis. Don't underestimate the thought and research that goes into every decision. Footy departments of all clubs live and breath the list and all things footy most of their waking hours. Decisions come from a careful analysis of all the reasons a player has performed the way he has. It includes psychological profiles, medical reports, personal background, attitude, performance and heaven knows how much else. And much of the information is not available to the public. All of these things don't mean that footy departments always gets things right, they don't, but you can be sure that whatever decisions they make are carefully thought out and well reasoned.

I don't have to so it must be something in your settings...

I'm "on him" as you say as the "big improver". I'm not expecting him to have an impact at senior level this year. I saw him about half a dozen times last year. Like you I was under whelmed early but saw huge improvement as the year went on. His problem is actually "finding the ball". IMO it's not a good problem to have. But he started to find it towards the end of last season and I recalled CAC saying that in the TAC competition he had come on late and his last few games were the one's where he'd shone. And he has been good at training although I don't go along with the major preseason misconception of "he's bulked up". Quite how players "bulk up" noticeably in the 6 weeks they have off between seasons still troubles me! I'm also not predicting a stellar career for him, just that he'll play seniors at some point. That in itself for a player taken after pick 50 is an achievement. How much further he'll go is hard to tell. Mind you, I'd rather you were on my side! Your left field pick of smoky Nathan Jones last year puts you in the guru class!! I was on much safer ground with Lynden Dunn and unlike Nathan he's yet to establish himself even though he has played more games. :D

Be keen but don't expect to much. The kid is a WIP and is a long way behind Jamar and Johnson at this stage. I'm more interested to see Newton. Having seen him do some freaky things at Sandy it will be interesting to see what he can do at senior level. Buckley is my tip for big improver this year. Fast, clean hands and good on both sides of the body. Came on well last year and if he continues his improvement this year he may start to push for senior selection. And it would seem that Heath Neville is the forgotten man.

If you reckon Geelong have an issue, what about Richmond? http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/tig...7777218432.html

Are you suggesting they'd be a worse team with Ablett playing? The Hawthorn team of the middle 80's was as good as I've seen. Ablett, with those players around him, could have been even greater than he was.

You can sit on your high horse all you like, but Geelong will first work out what sort of value Steve Johnson is to them before deciding on a penalty. In the end the club (any club) is about winning games of footy and an evaluation will be made as to whether its in the clubs interest to wear the flack and keep the player or whether to cut him loose. It has taken some monumental transgretions for players to be finally cut free from clubs for bad behaviour. Cousins survives because he is a great player. Tarrant was traded for his faults, but only after a sustained period of mediocre performance. Aker had to publicly disgrace the club and Gardner.... enough said. If Geelong cut Johnson what they will be saying is they don't think he will add anything substantial to the teams performance and want to get rid of him because he is more trouble than he is worth. Their treatment of Gary Ablett (junior) for the same series of offences would be completely different.

I'm a firm believer that players mature at different rates and at different times. And there are two parts to the maturity, mental and physical. Newton clearly has the physical talent. He looks like he'll mature physically a bit later than many who are drafted and the impression I get is that he's yet to mentally mature. Newton was drafted as a bottom end player. This, compounded with the fact that he's probably maturing later than many means the risks are magnified. I'm confident the club knows this. Newton's a speculative investment. We will have to invest more into Newton than Smith (who was much more physically and mentally mature than Newton when drafted) and it may not work. But the upside is substantial. It's the substantial upside that has people excited and justify the investment. I'd be very disappointed if the club invested 3 years into Newton and discard him before they were sure one way or the other whether he'd make it and what the finished product looked like.

I said initially that "Newton, if he is to succeed will rely on his speed, agility and spring." I don't see him as a pack marking strength forward, particular early in his career. Hence I'm not worried about supposed skinny legs. BTW, is it possible to have weak legs and be able to stand on peoples shoulders when you take marks?

Thanks for that, I didn't realise. I don't think Nick Reiwoldt has bigs legs either.

How about Michael Tuck? I'm not worried about his lack of muscle development. Some players are strong without looking it. Newton, if he is to succeed will rely on his speed, agility and spring. I don't want those compromised by some "hulk" like physical development.

I don't agree. I agree with your observation that we have fallen off for a number of reasons towards the end of seasons, but not that we were as soft as butter. Injury, the draw and fitness have been our weaknesses in past years. We can control one of those and I hope BB makes a significant difference here. Soft as butter? Rubbish. You don't achieve what we achieved by being as soft as butter. On the other hand, we were hardly as hard as nails!

I agree DD. Our club has worked very hard to be where it is today and I agree we deserve that respect. But in one article written by one reporter we haven't got it. I think it's fair to say I've just stopped worrying about things I can't control. I can't stop the fairweather supporter jumping on and off. I can't stop the well healed MCC member not putting money into our club, I can't help the fact we don't have a big supporter base with the benefits that go with it and I can't help the fact we don't put bums on seats in sufficient numbers when we play to demand 18 games at the G. But like you I take pride in the efforts of the club in achieving what we have and I do what I can to help. But hardnuts like Hannabal always remind me that there is only one prize, and ultimatley they are right. But it doesn't mean you can't admire effort and events along the journey. RR I reckon you're a hard man. Wasn't it 2004 that after 18 rounds we were top? Where have we been when we've played 15 rounds in the last three years, when we've played everyone once? I reckon it's top 4. Soft teams don't achieve that. But we were harder last year and gained a bit of respect for that I reckon.

Win games that matter. There is only one prize in this competition and where others rate us for the rest is of no importance to me.

Thanks for the report DD.

I like Old55 team except I'd have Miller ahead of Dunn at this stage. I really like the idea of Bruce on a HBF, particularly if the likes of Sylvia, Moloney, Bate and Jones step up in the midfield. I haven't written of Brown, Wheatley or Bizzell either. This year we have a show. I don't expect any "development" games to be granted unlike other years. People will be calling for youth to be played this year but it won't be unless is earned. And fans, unlike the FD, always over rate the games of youth and under rate the games of established players. The team will change depending on where we play. Brown is a very good "run and carry" player and was one of our best against Freo in the final. I still have hopes for Bizzell. I know I'm one of few. I expect the big mover this year to be Simon Buckley. Fast, great hands and good by foot. Won't be a regular but will play some games. I expect the big slider to be Robbo. I don't think he works hard enough when he doesn't have the ball. If that doesn't change he'll play games at Sandy.

My favourite goal? It wasn't great in the absolute sense of the word. But in 2002, versus Adelaide in the final, Peter Walsh takes the ball infront of the MCC members in the third quarter. He's all on his own on the 50 metre line on the boundary. He turns, runs in and kicks. It's gun barrell straight. At that moment I thought we could win the flag that year. Sadly I was wrong. But I'll never forget the goal. Peter Walsh. One of my favourite ever players.

Thank heavens for small mercies.

Year........ADS......ADF.....AGS......AGF....SHD.....SHG 2004........9.5.........10........1.5......0.......14.........5 2005........12.1.......10........1.3.......1.......18........4 2006........14.8.......11.5.....1.6.......1.......23........4 ADY.. Average Disposals per game for the Season ADF... Average Disposals per Finals game for the Season AGY....Average Goals per game for the season AGF.. .Average Goals per game for the finals SHD...Season high disposals SHG.. Season high goals Whilst there is a clear drop off in finals it's not huge when measured against the average of his performances for the year. He's clearly not produced a "game influencing game" in finals yet, but he's only played four and that's an unrepresentive sample size when taken against his 64 games If you go with this type of player inconsistency is part of the deal. A HFF is also very hard to play and Davey now draws the oppositions top small defender which indirectly helps other small forwards. I agree Old, he needs to produce in big games. But he's far from written off.

What? I thought we are supporters but I may have misread you.

I must have missed one.

Billy Barrot was pretty handy. Drop kicks are hard to do. They therefore have a high chance of error. They are not used now for a reason. Todays game is all about possession. It also takes longer to kick a drop as the ball has further to travel. In todays high pressure tackling environment this is a huge disadvantage. The drop kick is dead.

Rod I've expressed concern before at the lack of opportunity that Newton has received as a result of the Sandy seniors having players like Sautner, Lamb and Crowe taking spots from people like Newton. That's Sandy's right, but it's nevertheless an issue for the MFC. IMO Newton has great potential (I'll hold judgement as to whether he's the same skills as Flower and Hird) but he needs to play footy at VFL senior level to develop it. At present he isn't. Newton has the option of putting himself into the draft in the hope of getting more opportunities elsewhere. I just hope he picks us. I'm pretty confident he will, and I've no indication to the contrary. But it is, I believe, an issue.

I think the question is whether Newton will pick us, not the other way round.