Slartibartfast

Love your contributions Graz. The premiership clock. It's a great topic and one that was raised elsewhere and got me thinking. I'm still thinking! but at the moment I'm a firm believer. Where people go wrong is to think the clock will do the work for them, a little like kicking with the wind. People also think that if you get to 12.00 o'clock you win. That's clearly wrong. There is nothing to say 4 or 5 clubs can't be at 12.00 o'clock at once, but there is only one flag. Who wins will depend on a whole range of factors including culture, injuries, luck, leadership and most importantly the inherant strength of your list. But a list definately has a cycle, or at least should be designed to have a cycle. If you manage your playing list so it doesn't have this cycle you'll never win a flag. Winning a flag is all about having a core group of players that reach their peak together. The bigger and stronger that core group the better placed you are. And IMO that's the primary goal of list management. The severity of the "list management" cycle, the downside, will be based on the success and skill of recruiters/traders and the intangibles of the club. But I'm sure the clock is a useful tool to help with decision making. Hawthorn have used it to build a list. Everett, Thompson and Hay have been discarded for early picks. I've not analysed their list, but in 3 or 4 years I suspect they will have a list that is bunched and talented, a very good position to be. Other teams will be past 12.00 on a list management basis, the Saints perhaps the best example with Harvey, Gehrig, Hamill and a few other oldies gone. The clock is not for measuring success, it is a tool to help understand your list and make appropriate decisions.

Do we have a likely focal point at CHF or are we going to continue to enter the forward line via the wing/flank? We don't have a Brown, Tredrea or Reiwoldt so I don't anticipate much change to the way we go forward. Both Dunn and Miller are mobile talls so I'm hoping for movement and options. How did you see our "run+carry+hit target" from half back and through the centre? I understand it has been a focus this preseason but there was no "wow" factor with the change of gameplan. I think it will take a while to impliment. I understand Whitey played forward - will Jamar or PJ play 1st ruck releasing JW forward? Very much doubt it. White will be No1 ruckman but is being protected in practice matches. Ironic he got hurt. Jamar was ok today. PJ and Neaves didn't do much and as Scoop says we will be laid bare if White and Jamar go down. How did Neaves go? See above. I think Neaves shows something but is definately a work in progress. He'll never be an elite ruckman, but he kicks quite well and he is sure with his marking. In time he may make it to be competitive. Do you think we will stay as tall ahead of centre this year? Neitz Dunn and Miller will be tall forwards. Robbo is also tall I guess, not that he is, he just plays that way. I don't know the answer and I really think it will depend on form. I'm still in Millers corner but it wasn't a good game from him today. How did you assess Miller? See above. Kev I think you'll find that Garland definately played on Rivers in the first half. I missed Brown on Green. Both got plenty of the ball but Green was significantly more effective.

I was also at the ground today and had the following impressions. First of all to those that were there and expressed disappointment at the standard I can only say it was lucky you did not see the match simulations on the previous two Mondays at Moorabbin. Today was a clear step up in intensity and skills, due in part I'm sure to the still conditions at TD this morning. I won't run through all the players. Brock, Sylvia, Travis, Bartram, Moloney, Wheatley and Davey didn't play. I think its wishful thinking to speculate Moloney was rested when all the senior players played. He's injured IMO. One of my main disappointments was Newton. Bell pansed him today and when Newton did have opportunities he missed them. Newton should have really done well against Bell particularly in the air, but he didn't. Bell was good today but I reckon he is going to be one of those players who never completely eradicates the "silly error" from his game. But he is taking the first option more often and this will help. He was good today. Steady, sure and kicked well to position. Bruce was tagged by Godders and it was not good for Godders. Bruce was on fire and did what he liked. He and Green, who was also excellent, waxed the ball and really looked classy. I thought Jones was fair to good but not outstanding. Bate was the class "youth" on display but was rested for much of the game. I thought Robbo gave Frawley a bit of a lesson. Frawley seemed to lose Robbo a bit. Having said that Frawley is a likely looking player and I'm very pleased to have him, but his form today was not as good as the previous two hit outs. One thing I really like about Frawley is the way he keeps his feet in the contest. He's very agile for a big bloke and has clean hands. I love Ricky Petterd. He's just a class act IMO and I'll call him early as a 200 game player for us. I also liked Garlands game. He made Rivers really accountable in the first half and had the better of him. His kicking needs a bit of work, but that will come. Weetra is a WIP but moves well in traffic and played on Whelan. A tough gig for pick 62. I also liked CJ game. His kicking is great, he keeps his feet well and I'm sure will have a chance in the NAB cup to stake a claim. Dunn was very impressive. I thought he might struggle to continue his improvement this year but I reckon he's just improving nicely. Not a quantum leap that puts him in the "definite" selection category yet, but moving steadily towards that status. Staked a much stronger claim for CHF than Miller today. I also really liked Brown Dogs game. Full of run. Must confess I don't know who he was on so he might have got hurt defensively a bit. Happy to answer questions.

Food for thought Graz. It will be fascinating to see how it pans out. I fully agree that mental attitude is vital. As you probably know I've long been of the view that winning is not necessarily a players top priority. Identifing those with a passionate desire to win is vital. It's interesting to see how many 30+ players we'll have come the GF and highlights the amount of experience we will lose in the next few years. Thanks for taking the time to do the stats.

My contention is that with experience comes consistency. Clearly that consistency has to be at a satisfactory standard. Players like Matthew Bate, Clint Bartram, Chris Johnson or Daniel Bell over 22 games my provide better individual games than an experienced player but they will also provide more poor games. At least that's my contention. Hence the dilemma. When you're going for a flag do you rely on youth? It's easy for Richmond and Hawthorn, not so easy for us.

I think that's my point. Bell and CJ have NEVER performed consistently and we don't know if they can.

Youth v Experience

To RR: Rubbish. Brock has had several BOG in his career and has had a significant impact on many games he's played in. Bell and CJ have not. Bizzell has. To G: Agreed. It just depends on how good Bizzell was, and now is. I believe there is a good chance he is 90% of the player he was. If he isn't then I'm wrong.

Choko we lost both those games and he bet on a Melbourne win. He lost both times. How does that lead to game fixing?

Read into it what you like RR. He was a lot better than a lot of others who I would have thought would be good who weren't. Look, Biz is no certainty. I just think players who read the play as well as him and have such good skills survive in the game well beyond others who rely on different skills. I also think supporters get really excited by new talent regardless of how modest it is. When I was talking to someone about some of our new recruits a few years ago and singing their praises he said "get as excited as you like, I'll wait until they do something". For all Bell, CJ and a few others "excite", they haven't achieved anything compared to Bizzell. Anyway I'm on record and time will tell.

David Hale is the 4th. http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&...rticleid=315319

I well remember seeing Bizzell last year at Optus Oval in a practice match against North. He was back to close to his valuable 2003 form. It's now 3 years on. Like many have forgotten the input of Moloney and Wheatley because they have not played for some time, Bizzell has also been forgotten IMO. It's a question of how how good he is. If he is back to close to his 2003 form I doubt anyone would think he wasn't up to it. What we are all struggling with is where do Bell, Whelan, Ward, Brown, Bizzell, Wheatley and perhaps CJ fit into a backline that has Rivers and Carroll in it with perhaps Holland for a big tall. Whelan is a standout but the rest bunch together. Competition for these spots will be keen. Bizzell is well in the mix. His NAB cup form will tell and until then we just don't know. We live in exciting times!!

Why? I want them to play the best player, not the youngest. Many here rate youth over experience. If the ball was being swept forward in the final quarter of a GF who would you rather one out against their opponent. Bell, Bizzell or CJ? I think Bizzell will play a much greater role for us this year than many think.

White played mainly forward. Johnson and Jamar did the rucking. At ballups there was no "running and jumping", the ball is just thrown up and the ruckman basically stand underneath it and go body on body. Usual stuff I'd say. Jamar better in the ruck, PJ better around the ground. Belly's brainfade when he got caught was because he doesn't take the first option. There were no clear targets for him to kick to so he held it hoping for one. He then just ran into trouble. If there is a clear good option he always takes it. FWIW, I thought Brown was good as was Ward. But Ward plays a very outside game.

Scoop I thought Hughes played. No.38 light blue. If that wasn't Hughes, who was it? Perhaps you meant Hayes. He didn't play. Jones tagged Brock and beat him hands down. Brock got a few nice clearances from centre breaks but around the ground it was the Jones boy all the way. A really promising performance. I also really liked Moloney's game. He will be a valuable addition. Buckley played on Newton and did ok, but Newton, against an opponent not suited to him, did well. Belly was ok. Didn't dominate. He played on Dunn who also got a bit of it on the lead. Green played on Bruce who I thought won easily. Junior was good and Rivers was excellent. I really like Petterd, he's going to become a very accomplished footballer. Courage, clean, good vision, good delivery and knows how to get it. He played a wing against CJ, whose game I also like. In general training I was impressed by Miller. Really seems to have his agility back and showed strong hands. One of the more interesting features was the game was played under NAB Cup conditions. 20m kicks for marks, no marks kicking backwards but most importantly the "hands in the back" rule. The 20m rule makes flooding much easier as the players have to kick it further the opposition team can move further back. I think the rule will be counter productive. The hands in the back rule will frustrate everyone. I couldn't believe a couple of the frees given today. The game at Telstra next Tuesday is intra club and will be about 4 x 15 minute quarters.

I reckon he can probably multitask better than you Rhino. <_< Jaded I share your support of Miller and think the angst aimed at him is unjustified. But those of that view will clearly not change it until Brad performs on the field. That's his challenge. You'll get RSI responding everytime someone criticizes him. You're on "record", as am I. The next part of this story is up to Brad.

I'd settle down about the Davey "ankle". At training he did a minor twist, came off and didn't even receive medical treatment on the day. He was walking quite happily when he left training. When GOTO and I asked him if it would keep him out of the Darwin match he said "no way". The All Stars love playing in that game. I believe Roos when he said Goodes and O'Laughlin were very upset about missing out. Ankles can happen anytime. Coughlin did his knee in a shower. Flash will receive the appropriate medical care when he gets back. I reckon people are getting their knickers in a knot.

Just for fun I looked at my best Melbourne team. Whelan, Carroll, Bell, Rivers, Green, McLean, TJ, Pickett, MIller, Davey Neitz, Yze, Robbo, White, Junior, Jones, Bate, Sylvia, Bartram, Moloney, Bruce and Jamar. Average age is 25. But: Developing: defined as less than 24. Peak: defined as 24 to 28 Declining: defined as older than 28. Our mix: Developing: 11 Peak: 5 Declining: 6 This is indicative of our young list and why we have so much inner improvement. It is an interesting comparison to Adelaide. Bassett, Biglands, Bode, Burton, Doughty, Edwards, Goodwin, Hudson, Johncock, Mattner, McGregor, McLeod, Perrie, Porplyzia, Reilly, Ricciuto, Rutten, Shirley, Stevens, Thompson, Tourney, Welsh. Average age: 27 Developing: 4 Peak: 9 Declining: 9 We are on the way up, they are on the way down. They are not giving any of their youth games. Not only that, their stars are old. Rucciuto, McLeod, Edwards and Goodwin all over 30. And that's their runners. This year or bust for the Crows I'd reckon. In "clock" speak, we are at 10.00 to 11.00, they are at 1.30.

To many focus on Miller's negatives and don't see the positives. Last year Miller was held back by two things. The first is that he was played out of position. This has been acknowledged by Daniher. The second is he played with a reasonably severe dose of OP which limited his usual strength which is his endurance. Miller played an exceptionally good game in R20 v Kanga's and was easily our best against Freo. He played CHF in both games. I've no doubt that he'll play good footy for us this year and CHF will be his to lose. In my opinion Robertson and Yze have more to worry about. Both have to increase their work rate. As for Dunny he will certainly make life interesting for selectors if he continues to improve. IMO he will challenge for Robbo's spot as much as Miller's.

I had a heated debate, perhaps with TimD, sometime ago on exactly this topic backing Neita (apologies TimD if it was't you). The arguments have been put very well here. Richo is perhaps the more talented footballer, Neita the better player. To me the answer is pretty simple. Who would you rather captain the team you played for, and why? Neita by the length of the straight for me. It's my opinion that David Neitz is still very undervalued by many Melbourne supporters and is almost ignored by opposition supporters. To tap into another thread, Neitz is a champion; by my definition anyway.

No, I've never been able to find them on the net. Sorry to bore you with the post H. I'll not do it again. Cheers Fanbag.

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