binman

With the edit function just replace the times you have written replace with a suitable replacement . By the by talk of trading Sylvia is crazy talk. As i have just posted on another thread, col with a decent run with injuries could be our most important player next year. I've loved his last 8 or so games, his coach has praised his work ethic and leadership (and i don't think Neeld is one to gild the lily) and in an interview this week sounded focused and professional (noting that playing well last week is ok but he needs to back it up this week in Perth). He also noted he is dead keen to get back into pre season work.

Yep, spot on. You can throw Couch in for good measure. I think we will see Neelds emphasis on those elements very strongly in the upcoming drafting period. I have the feeling Sylvia has bought into the Neeld message and barring injury will be close to our most important player next year.

I've got no truck against Moloney. Would be happy form him to stay if he fired up but i can't see him doing so at the dees for what ever reason. Perhaps another club will be a good circuit breaker for him and allow him to get back to playing good footy. Good luck to him if that's the case. Fascinating to see the article on the MFC site about Sylvia who seems to have really embraced the current direction and seems to be pretty switched on. Instructive that in a recent presser Neeld, immediately after noting that Moloney has struggled to adapt to the changes in the game really sung the praises of Sylvia and noted his work ethic and leadership (on and off the field - something that i can't recall him being praised for before). No coincidence i don't think, i have no doubt Neeld was sending a pretty strong message. The other thing about Moloney that i wonder about is his choice in managers. His manager foolishly put him out for sale mid season at a time when we were really under the pump. A risky strategy for a range of reasons, not least of which getting noses out of joint but more pertinently putting pressure on Moloney to back it up with performance, which he has clearly failed to do. The other thing was his manager saying the other day that one reason Port would be an attractive option is that Moloney would love the opportunity to provide on and off field leadership to a team of young players. Huh? Didn't he have that opportunity this year? Is his manager having a shot at the dees (silly if he is) or is he just silly? I mean to me it highlights that in fact he hasn't shown great leadership qualities and he isn't such a good role model (as opposed to say Sylvia or Brad Green who took his demotion and being dropped though the season on the chin and still gave his all). Strange approach to selling his mans if you ask me.

This is flaky logic on a couple of levels. One we don't necessarily need the MD to allow us to take JV in the second round. My opinion is that neither GWS or GC are going to risk nominating JV for fear we'll call their bluff and they will miss their targets. Secondly lets say we do trade pick 3 with GWS for Viney and i'm wrong about GC's position on Viney. In that scenario GC could simply select Viney with their 2nd pick (unlikely i know but possible)

With the obvious exception of the classiest player on our list, the fella you think has about 20 odd players in front of him from his draft year (few of whom could hold a candle to Watts in terms of class, poise and skill)

John McEnroe's oft quoted verbal diatribe comes to mind.

RR i promise this will be my last bite at this spectacular troll thread. Why won't you say who you believe we should pick at 3 or 4? I mean you say we should pick the best available. No exceptions. Seriously are you for real? If so name who the best available is at 3 and 4 (using my hypothetical scenario of Viney going second round and Whitfield number 1). Can't do it? I'm not surprised as it is difficult to say with any confidence who would be the best selection at number 1, little lone 3 or 4. If i recall correctly the 'recruiting fraternity' were split on who should have been number 1 that year, so by your logic those that had Watts at number 1 were wrong. Perhaps the same experts had Scully as the universal pick at number 1 (and trenners at number 2 for that matter). Judd went number 3, Franklin number 5 etc etc. History would suggest the experts may (and i stress may) have got it wrong in those years - history may tell another tale. Indeed i would contend that of the 25 drafts held stretching back to 1986 the only number 1 pick that could be considered to have become the best player of his draft is Riewoldt - and even that is arguable. By that logic it is unlikely that Whitfield will be the best player of this draft, despite being the overwhelming favourite to be taken number 1. My point is the draft is a lottery and despite the enormous resources poured into recruiting, high draft picks give no guarantee that a promising teenager will turn out to be a good player. So whilst errors are easy to spot (though not until the end of careers) making a call between two gifted juniors is obviously near impossible so a hindsight argument about Natanui and Watts that is supposed to help inform who we take this year is just so stupid it borders on lunacy. Don't agree? Then i ask again RR who should we take with picks 3 and 4? Go on, put your money where your considerable virtual mouth is

Reminds me of a great bit of graffiti i saw the other day. Fight apathy - or don't

Ok so finally the questions is answered as to why you stated this poll. The obvious follow up question is how does making a case that we were wrong to pick up Watts not Natanui help MFC ensure picks 3 and 4 are used on the 'best available' players, with 'no exceptions' and that we don't throw away 'high-daft pick gold'(sic)? Are you thinking that the club plans not to pick up the best available talent at picks 3 and 4? Is there a player in the draft you are fearing we will select instead of another player? If so who? Just as an exercise lets say Viney goes second round and Whitfield goes at 1. RR, who do you believe we should pick at numbers 3 and 4? I assume, given your grave concern we won't pick the best players at 3 and 4 you have a position on who the best players are at those numbers and who we should be selecting.

Were we wrong to pick Luke Molan not Richard Cole in 2001?

I was thinking about this in terms of a Hawthorn supporter site running a similar poll on whether they should have picked up Judd not Hodge. For a hawks fan the answer to that question might be depend on when it was asked. After his first couple of years Judd was clearly a star and many no doubt questioned taking Hodge instead and most perhaps would say they made an error. But like the query on Natanui going home there were queries on how his shoulder would cope in the AFL (they said at the time this was a big factor in not selecting him, as did the Saints). After his first Brownlow no doubt many would still still suggest they should have picked up Judd. But what about if you asked the question now, some 11 years later? Judd will perhaps be considered a better player over the journey but how many Hawks fans would say at this point in time they made a mistake picking up Hodge instead of Judd? He is their captain and has been their spiritual leader for almost a decade and it could be argued he is a much better leader than Judd. He is a one club player who hasn't sold himself to the highest bidder. He has had none of the strange on field brain fades that Judd has and is a complete warrior for his club (not that Judd isn't). My guess is that the overwhelming majority of Hawks fans if asked now if they had made a mistake picking Hodge not Judd would say no. But i could be wrong.

Again are you serious - are you trolling? My insecurity about Watts? What are you talking about? I haven't even voiced a view in this thread about the poll question. And i won't either as it is a ridiculous, waste of time arguing over whether 'we got it wrong'. The point isn't whether your 'ramblings would sway the vote one way or another' the point that those ramblings may have some impact on the outcome of the poll, which makes it a farce (can you imagine Roy Morgan asking people a question after giving diatribe with all the bells and whistles about how to respond) . What i asked you - and what you have yet to answer - is what are you trying to achieve with the poll, what is its purpose? You obviously believe we should have picked Natanui. I can only assume (in lie of any logical response from you) that your goal is to convince others of the correctness of your opinion using a facile poll. Which by the way shows, at the time of writing that only 38% of respondents believe we got it wrong.

Again RR i simply cannot comprehend why you would create a poll and then desperately try to influence the outcome. It is so silly its surreal. And then you randomly make comments such as 'If that's what a portion of the votes have been cast based then NicNat really has won this vote in a canter.' Really? And you discount the impact your rebuttals, graphs, photos and general NicNat love fest might have on the final result? I mean what are you trying to achieve? Surely not an objective poll that gives an accurate picture of how Demonlanders feel about this question? If that was the case then of course you wouldn't be constantly trying to convince people that one option is better than the other. Why not ask the question and shut up?

SAM LANDSBERGER’S FORECAST: ......Expect it to play out with a Dockers win, but not by much. What? We'll get close against a final bound team in Perth? Really?

I'm confused RR. You start a poll then periodically try to influence the outcome of said poll by pumping up the case for one of the options. Hardly likely to be a reliable result then is it. So what's the point of it (other than winding people up)? Why not start a thread called "Why i believe Natanui should have been selected by the MFC instead of Watts". It would be a lot more transparent. Edit: had to laugh, just looked at the photos you included in the initial post. Natanui taking a screamer and Watts being tackled and dragged to the ground. That's funny.

I guess RR would have picked Natanui. Perhaps that should be the question - Who do you think RR would have preferred MFC have picked: a) Natanui or B) Watts Myself i'd ask: Is there any point in having poll on who we should have picked? a) yes; it is endlessly fascinating to dissect previous drafting decisions, particularly those of almost completely different football department and playing the 'we should have picked (insert flavor of the month player) instead of (insert maligned MFC player) or B) no; unless i'm mistaken there is no such thing as a time machine that means a different decision can be made now

Yes, was my immediate thought. He'll be in his element with all those youngsters to yell at and deride (whilst kissing the feet of Ablett and partying with Brown). But GC do need some bigger bodies in the mid field though so pretty good fit for them i suppose. I can't see Essendon wanting him. The demons have the worst midfield in the league. Can't see how a mid who can't command a place in our side is going to help improve Essendon's poor midfield. He'd love the weapon though - think of all those bench presses and squats he could do!

Could not agree more. He has been average at best all season, but last night he was terrible. Being caught in the center with the ball (which cost us yet another goal) was one example of many where he was too slow and seemed not to have an awareness of what is around him. In the 3rd quarter he let Walker mark in the forward half without putting any body on him. Walker was in the best position so would have tough to stop him but the least he could have done was make him earn it by smashing him (fairly). Soft Silly i know but as i left the g i wondered what trade currency he might have. I've settled since then but geez he was poor

If you do say so yourself. You're not American are you?

Spot on. Also i reckon these 3 players represent what Neeld is after. Hard working, gut busters who are prepared to take on board advice and are looking to improve. He has taken every opportunity to pump these boys up. Instructive that Nicholson is straight back into the side this week after a few weeks out with a broken jaw. Neeld is making a statement on what will earn a spot in his teams. Talent isn't the key criteria - work ethic is. Which is why Sellar and MacDonald are walk up starts. King Cutherbston i also reckon you're spot on about McDonald. Yes his disposal is sometimes not great but he has clearly been encouraged to go for it and take risks. For a young fella he shows an amazing confidence in his own ability and i love his preparedness to take the game on and run and carry. He has cemented his spot and is one of the first picked. Not one Demonlander would argue with that - which was not the case at the beginning of the year. Think of the players he has been asked to mark this year - arguably he has been a more influential defender than Frawley (an AA no less) For my money his development is the biggest positive for the dees this year and Neeld should get cudos for his role in that development

A non believer! Avert the eyes! Robbie could do anything (including spotting up players he didn't play with)

For mine i'm happy with Jamar and Sylvia. I reckon Sylvia had a bad start to the year with a pretty serious injury but has responded to Neeld. He'll always be a ltitte bit up and down but talent wise close to our best player and tough. No way he will be let go. Jamar did the club a a big solid by resigning at a time when we needed the filip, showing faith in the direction of the club and putting paid to rumours he was off to GWS. Davey the jury is out but he too had a terrible year for injury and i have a feeling Neeld (and Misson) will turn him around so he can be one of the crumbing options we so sorely need. Maloney? I think he is the one who has said good riddance, but who knows perhaps its not too late.

I'm not sure if i saw the same thing but i went to an intra club scratch match before the start of last year and he absolutely barreled a young fella (who i think wasn't even on the list - a Casey player there to make up the numbers). Tackled him hard to the ground (which is ok obviously, though it was pretty fierce and it and was an intra club game), then shoved him in to the turf as he was getting up and then game him an almighty verbal spray, with lots of pointing and gesticulating. He was giving lots of verbal sprays throughout the match, but only to young players - never to a senior player, with his trademark pointing etc I had always been a big Moloney but I have to say i thought it looked pretty bloody poor for a someone who was part of the leadership group (which, unsurprisingly, he was dropped from only a few weeks later). The thing that makes me wonder about his thinking this year is that he gives his manager authorization to shop him via the media but then never delivers a half decent performance from that point on. Even if he hasn't bought in to the Neeld regime you'd reckon self interest would at least motivate him to perform at a higher level than he has - after all he has been given the game time. He may well get picked up by another club but i doubt he will be on the sort of coin he might have been if he had been traded before this season. Poor attitude and performance is not an attractive combination, and the poor attitude part will make clubs like GWS and GC very wary as they are no doubt super keen on building a disciplined culture (and with GC they had some bad experiences with Brown and some other senior players).

He had Ingerson, Icke, Hardeman, Biffen, Mark Jackson, Moir, Templeton, Bennet, The Whiz, Lyon, Neitz and Williams to go to.

This thread has veered off in the strangest direction! There is occasional talk the club sometimes check the site to get a feel for what supporters are thinking. This thread (or at least the amazing number of posts about the TPP etc etc) will sort that out. I doubt they'll bother from now on.