Dockett 32

'We are no certainty to win all three of those games. Richmond and Gold Coast will back themselves and Port Adelaide will be sending off a number of aging stars and will be keen for a big game. We will have a fight on our hands to win three games'. Maybe so, but the task of winning 10 games with our draw should be a walk in the park. I'm sure Dean understands his position as it couldn't be made much clearer. He and the players have other options as well,like winning the next few.

Monsterd in the midfield again in a pessure game.Exactly the same as the Bulldogs game, exactly the same physical effort,exactly the same result, exactly the same culprits. Next week Tapscott into the middle like a Chapman and big Max in the ruck please. McDonald and MacDonald down back please. Jurrah up forward please.

Haven't made a comment on the Tom Scully thread Hang On as I simply have no idea as to Tom's position other than what he has said. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. What I can tell you is that either the will stay group or the wont stay group will be proven correct in about 8 weeks. I am more interested how the AFL attempt to handle compensating clubs for loss of players however because it all looks very rubbery, particularly as no one knows the actual formula they will use, whether the basis of previous compensation precedent will come into the picture, whether the AFL will continue to make rules on the run (as per the third party arrangements),if compensation essentially ends up as a subjective assessment by some panel or perhaps if at some point the AFL will come totally clean and act a little differently than they have so far. I wonder for instance what sort of compensation Hawthorn might deem fair if Sam Mitchell was to be "hypothetically" appointed captain of GWS as he's probably 8 - 10 years older than say Tom Scully or Ward from the Bulldogs and would have a much better CV including a premiership medal amoungst other things? From the AFL noises probably not worth much.I imagine Hawthorn would be tickled pink about that should it occur. For the record I believe the MFC have done a very good job with the difficult situation they have been put in by all concerned.

hangon007, on 23 July 2011 - 12:10 PM, said: You are going down a very dangerous track with this one boys. Good luck & I wish you well. What makes it "dangerous"? It's the AFL's own idea and the only precedent available of what to do in these circumstances. Surely in the Scully scenario it would be difficult to find a more compelling argument for significant compensation with player age and contract value being the two key determinents "In the world according to Anderson". As stated by Whispering, there has been precedent with White, so ball clearly in the AFL's court to see what they come up with. Moving on however ( if the Scully transfer actually happens) one could assume there will be other clubs screaming for adequate compensation for lost players and we have already witnessed Eddy begin the posturing in a hypothetical Thomas case. I doubt if we are going to be the only club under fire here and it's possible we could do somewhat better than the rest. The next chapter in all of this should be an absolute corker!

"For me the next 4 weeks will tell alot about who our captain is next year." Hadn't thought about things in that way, but you're right I guess, we will see who has the leadership qualities over the next four.

I think team selection should be interesting this week. If we go into the match and think like we have in the recent past, if we pick a team like we have in the recent past we can probably expect similar results that we have had in the recent past. So essentially agree with Maldon Boy re the bigger bodies and attitude at the footy.( The Hawks take no prisoners and we are yet to show how to respond to this this against the top sides. Hope it comes this week.) I hope Jmac comes in to help out down back for say Tappscott who I would throw in the midfield with Sylvia & Beamer. Bit of a fan of the Gys but I feel he has struggled a bit over the past couple, looks a bit tired. Maybe Evans worth some thought too. He is really putting his hand up and in form at Casey. He hasn't disgraced at AFL level in the past and like Maric has demonstrated that he wants a crack. Whist Warnock doesn't have as much of a following on this site as some others do, he just might have some of what is required against this mob. His game against Adelaide was ok and he's no shirker. Scully is out but reckon they need to think about the positioning of the Gys and Morton. Maybe they get different more attacking roles up the ground and both are over 190.

"Acids on". Good stuff, at least we are still in it and it will tell us if we have improved or not. All as it should be and all the main players right in the frame.

I think I may have backed a few that ran like the one outlined in the Hippogriff photo. Congratulations on your win Redleg.

Did he get done for substance abuse at the same time? Maxwell to kick the first goal? Bloody serious this, now I have to bring Chippa into my supercoach side.

Enjoying a great season and a bloke who makes you want to go to the football.

"Firstly, the AFL has all but confirmed that Scully will be deemed to be the same level of compensation as Ablett if he signs, meaning 2 first round draft choices. Happy that we will get this if he leaves. What I'm thinkiing, and although I wouldn't like to deal with those GWS grubs, is trading those two picks for the first crack at the 17 yr olds, and grabbing O'Meara. If we were to do that, we may not have lost that much, will wait and see. Having said that I think Tom will stay. But the AFL are taking every opportunity to get him up there, tightening the screws on third part arrangements. But Juddy will still be allowed to keep his... Absolute disgrace... " Agree with most of that except don't know anything about the under 17's. Think I'm happy with MFC performance in all of this so far and I have a feeling they still may have left some powder dry. The MFC have supported Tom all the way, been civil in their conduct and can hold their head up whatever the outcome may be. I think they have learned a lot from the Ablett issue. I like the way for instance they have somewhat taken back the initiative (someone a long while back in another thread mentioned timing being important and I think they might be right) by putting the cards on the table and making the market. It's certainly flushing out a few now. The previously acceptable 'third party' party issue raised its head and was quashed in record time by the AFL. This action doesn't only have ramifications for us, it will have ramifications for all, including GWS and whilst it may level the playing field a little going forward it by no means satisfactorily addresses the fact that the AFL seem to be making rules on the run. This latest quashing casts a very great shadow over the integrity of the AFL in relation to its previous dealings in the Judd case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AFL action pretty much says direcetly to the MFC that on one hand the Judd issue of third party trading wasn't an issue, but the Scully one is? (Rather flippantly referring to a very recent rule change - funny about that and I wonder why the sudden change?) In other words to my eyes the AFL seem to have been complicit in deliberately disenfranchiing the MFC not once, but twice!Maybe the MFC wanted this to be out there for all to see. Next the the MFC action then automatically trips the compensation meter (Nice timing again by the MFC) and look who bobs up, Old Uncle Eddie, everybody's friend (after Anderson's compensation comments )and what's he worried about ( nothing to do with the macro or supporting another club who looks a chance to lose a bloke who hasn't played two years for them and the correctness or otherwise of this matter) no sir, he's now suddenly worried about the MFC being overcompensated. The rules on compensation (this week as I understand them) are based on several criteria including age and the future salary offer. Now hypothetically if a Collingwood player like Thomas were to go to GWS presumably he would be older and it would be hard to imagine he would get more than $1mio a year. So any chance UE might be concerned Scully might stay and "oh sh.t maybe when I really look at the compensation issue its not all that fair afterall!"

" I am surprised that no one else bought up Mark "Roo" (because I cant be bothered looking up how to spell his last name !) on "On the Couch" last night. He spoke about Trengove being an Adelaide boy and the MFC having to put a big offer on the table to keep him as Adelaide are already into him about when his contract ends next year. Did I imagine that ? Me thinks he will be asked about that. Interesting to hear what he says." In addition to his trial by fire with the very testing tribunal stuff he has had to endure this year, Jack's representation of our club and himself IMO simply cannot be challenged. Jack is calm under pressure,can handle himself with the media, shows maturity beyond his years has a good sense of humour. Oh and he can play footy a little bit. Roo might have just added the captaincy or vice captaincy to Jack's MFC CV next year. I hope so anyway.

Michael Tuck, Gary O'Donnell both All Australians both premiership players both played 50 odd reserves games before establishing themselves. Not saying that TMac is in that company, but I'm always wary of writing young blokes off prematurely. His graph seems to be going north at the moment and its sometimes about the 'size of the fight in the dog'.

Still time for young Tom. He's big and strong and is becomming effective. Like em like that. Reminds me of Hawthorn when they were mongrels. Good on ya Tom keep it up we've got plenty of smalls, a number of ( most of ) whom need to pull their finger out.

Been going along very nicely at Casey young Tom. Seen him play several times recently and what I like is his grunt and approach at the footy. Runs very straight. Seems to work well with McDonald and Davis.

Excellent Whispering. Very much enjoyed that read. I doubt if the issue of conflict for AFL administrators is likely to diminish short term and rightly so. Proposed compensation for TS, should it come into play, is just absurd and completely unreasonable. Accordingly I don't agree that clubs have to sit back and meekly accept that line of garbage provided by Anderson. Anyhow what you have said leads me to the view that the MFC have done over the past few years has been brave with a longer term view.I know we all get [censored] off with poor performances and smashings but Demonland is a wonderful avenue for therapy to help us with that. Maybe however when we look back we will be seen to have taken our medicine early. Ex maybe one or two uncontracted players who may walk, we still should be in pretty good shape due ongoing incremental improvement in the normal course of doing business. The graph may not be so pretty for other clubs with ageing lists. I'm not sure where they go, frankly don't care and wouldn't be placing much on the table for them to 'pick over'. In short after reading your article I'm hoping we don't have to do much trading other than the compulsory.

"Grandson of a gun, on 09 July 2011 - 02:16 PM, said: The small pacy crumbing forward with goal sense (a la Sidebottom, Milne, Stokes, Betts etc) is probably the next biggest hole in our list at the moment with Wonna an unknown quantity and no-one else stepping up into the role. I agree. We should be targetting a couple of crumbers. It is the biggest gap in our future 22." If thats your and the club's view then thats fine but I don't share it. The delisting process should however become a tad easier already having having 9 180cm or under players on the list. I would be happy with this. I see the area we need bolstering relating to being too small and too easily brushed aside. I would like several hard running types a long the lines of Cooney, Griffin, Birchall . All around 190+ .Looking at the top sides they look a lot bigger than us all over the ground.

Heard a rumor he's already been offerd 5 million rand a season for 10 years to switch codes by the Stormers

Couple of slow learners about! Nice refreshing initiative.

I don't reckon you're crazy at all mrtwister. People movement in footy is a reality.(Bit emotional at times, but still a reality) I think the footy club has done very well to arrange a squad of so many talented young kids, but as can be seen by all the hypothetical trade talk, maybe we won't be able to keep all of them. We don't seem to do player retention all that well. With 9 weeks to go there is still conjecture as to who should go and in reality we probably dont need that much, but a couple of high quality rifle shot targets to top us off, seems reasonable. However our recent record of undertaking such action hasn't been great. Guess we just have to go with what unfolds. If we have to lose a couple,seems we have a bit to go to the table with this time around.

'In my opinion Col is a must. Not surprised if GWS had a go at him. Big bodied, don't reckon he has peaked yet, his best is elite. In a good side he really would be a weapon. If we hope to be this, he is a non negotiable. Also like the point that someone raised, if we lose him and replace him with a 18 year old, our team loses a heap of experience and bulk. Keep him!' Wouldn't be getting too excited about this one just yet but somewhat surprised he is out of contract. Football department have had plenty of time to work this issue. You don't let one of our best if not the best senior bloke on the list walk out the door.

"If you were Matt Warnock would you want to stay on a list for depth or would you want to go to a club that you have a very good chance of playing weekly? Our depth for key tall defenders will be McDonald and Davis. Same goes with Maric, we need a small forward and he can't get a game, he will be looking at his options at years end. The club may have no choice to trade both Warnock and Maric or we me get the same as we got for Bruce." Yep fair enough. Particularly re Mc Donald Davis and I have to agree Maric at the crossroads although he's doing his best at Casey to get a crack which is commendable. With still 9 games to go (and finals?) a bit can still happen and the Wona business is still up in the air as well. The Morton issue is still far from clear for me however.

Unless we can be sure that what we receive for Dunn, Bate, Warnock and Morton is going to improve things for us on the field next year or is necessary in a financial sense in terms of keeping the overall list structure right ,I don't think I would be getting to hasty here. Both Bate & Dunn on their day have put in some respectful performances ( I'll acknowledge some may say not enough), but they both are a decent height and are both matured bodies. So at worst they add depth to a list somewhat short of the taller forward commodity and at best have previously shown some level of capability. As we are waiting for Cook, Fitzpatrick & Co to arrive, I wouldn't be leaving ourselves short and making it harder than it already is if those two young blokes get injured, don't come on or are slow to come on for some reason. Maybe a year to early to be considering trading these two. Matty Warnock is somewhat in the same boat in terms of adding depth. Being able to play on Gorillas up back is also a reasonably hard commodity to find. A couple of times this year in the absence of Garland,( Tippett comes to mind) I felt he stepped up to the plate, but he would seem to be in a stronger bargaining position than the other two if he is uncontracted unless of course he wants to end up at a club other than GWS. The Morton issue however is far more complex one for me. Considering p.ssing of a tall No.4 draft pick after such a short time is a big call and as a previous poster suggested, getting something like pick 40 in return is a real bend over. This would suggest a reasonable recruiting stuff up for mine if it were to happen. I notice there is also some suggestion about his brother at Richmond. Don't quite know what to make of all this. I wonder if there are games being played by several parties here but I suppose it's the time of the year this stuff all starts.

The sad part of all this is what will decide a suspension is not defined. It seems to be on "injury outcome" but who knows with certainty? To have the majority of the football world including a highly regarded peer say it was a "brilliant tackle" , to have the umpire reward the tackle with a free kick and then to have the umpires advisor come out and say it may be looked at by the MRP doesn't make sense. How on earth can players or umpires be expected to operate with the existing arrangement? Players have no idea what, if any "injury outcome" will be at time of tackle. I look forward to watching all the tackles a week or so before the finals.

Apologies my old aging eyes "without glasses" misread my KFC footy fixture which states (in print that gets smaller as time passes) Richmond play "Nth" Melbourne in the last round of the season, so hopefully we only have more game at that rotten joint.