The Albino Warrior

Clark this year thrived, I think, in part because he stepped out of the Jonathan Brown shadow. He relished being the number one attacking player. Unless he suddenly goes backwards, we now have our A-grade forward. This trade/draft period should be centred on finding at least one A-grade midfielder (one more if you think Jones now deserves that title). A solid B-grade big bloke to complement, but not get in the way of Clark would be ideal.

I'll put up my hand and say I thought we should have given Maric another year. Delisted after one year at Richmond suggests he's not up to it. I was wrong.

Unless Dawes' confidence is irretrievably shot, I can think of worse things than Melbourne snapping him up if Collingwood find a replacement.

I think that could be right. Can't think of a Premier in my time watching footy (I'm 30) whose high-profile traded players were anything much more than "role-players" (some of them very good role players, admittedly). North Melbourne in the 70s seemed to win Flags with nigh-on half the team having played excellent football with other clubs - Barry Davis, Alves, Wade, Crosswell, Rantall, Keenan, etc.

Hear hear. Who was the last team to win a Flag with a team built around poached players? I think the time for poaching from the expansion clubs will come when and if these numerous high draft picks start realising their potential at the same time. That's when Scully/Cloke types (not vaguely interested in the team) force other good footballers to decide whether they want to make a disproportionate sacrifice to keep the group together or whether they look for greener pastures. My suspicion is that the projected unbeatable GWS or GC 2016-2020 teams will never eventuate.

Came on as sub against GWS.

This will likely sound ridiculous and invite ridicule but when Toby Greene beat Watts in the square at Canberra couple of weeks ago, my first reaction was embarrassment, but my second was relief. It may well be that the apparent consensus on this thread - that Watts doesn't have the desire to ever fulfil his talent – ultimately holds true. I'm still confident, though, that once the new FD (including the fitness people) have had a year or two to mould him, he’ll start to be a lot better than “just good”. Perhaps the failure in the contest against Greene demonstrates his lack of mental toughness. To me, though, it demonstrates startlingly poor core strength and a lack of understanding of where to position yourself in a pretty standard contest. Unless Watts is dumb, stubborn or lazy, a good coaching and sports science team while turn this around quickly. In short, I’m still not writing him off as a wasted Pick 1.

Totally agree. For a few weeks in 2005 I was convinced I was watching the best Melbourne team I had seen and might ever see.

You're right, Chook. The draft penalties were a bastard. And - no - he wasn't blessed with particularly good luck generally (although in comparison to poor Balmey, he got a decent run). At the same time, though, he got and still gets an amazing run reputation-wise with the "6 finals berths in a decade" stat. True - 1998, 2000 and 2002 were genuinely exciting. But do 2004 and 2005 elimination finals losses really count? And was 2006 much better than a pass, even if you take into account the flow-on effect of the salary cap sanctions?

At what point did the list stop being primarily a product of past decisions (list changes completely outside Daniher's control) and become his list? I always find it difficult to digest the argument that Daniher got the most out of an ordinary list. It makes it sound like he was totally removed from any decisions on cutting, retaining, recruiting and trading players. I would argue that after 2002 the list was more or less his. From there, he had nearly 5 years to turn it into a serious Premiership contender. He didn't get close.

I've followed the Demons for more than 20 years and Jones is the most improved player I've known in that time. Russell Robertson improved massively in the middle of his career, but Jones is in a different league. The best thing is he's improved in every area: his kicking; his decision-making, his speed and more importantly use of acceleration, etc, etc. It's probably unfair, but it's hard not to consider a player's value in reference to their draft pick.Jones was taken at 12; for a long time I thought he was more like a Pick 25 (and, for a short while, lower than that). Now I think 12 was an absolute bargain.

Me too. Conveniently no mention of what an appalling disappointment McLean was or continues to be as a footballer, and how perfunctory the Demons' attempts to keep him were.

Disagree on both counts. The fact he won the B&F last year was indictment on the previous FD, who seemed to think very good performances against very ordinary sides and mediocre or poor performances against everyone else was worthy of the highest club honour. Neeld can't change the fact he is incredibly slow. Whichever club decides to pick him up, if he leaves and if anyone takes him, will be disappointed. A once decent player unable to keep up with the speed of the modern game.

Moloney is an absolute liability as soon as the ball is in anything other than a really congested contest. I thought he lurched between good and very poor last year and was shocked that he won the B&F. I think he's been significantly worse this year. Completely understand the "bleeds red and blue" argument, but this isn't the kind of player you can rest in a forward pocket or give a defensive job to. He can only play in the middle, and for me he is currently our fifth or sixth best midfielder. Jones, Grimes, McKenzie, Trengove and Sylvia are already well ahead of him. Gysberts and Blease soon will be.

If you're a tweeter, get on and use the hashtag #ScullyGame.

I love Mitch Clark. And when I grow up, I'm going to marry him.

I am. Unashamedly. The game can't be umpired "by the book" - it's impossible. So why not umpire with as much common sense as possible. If the player has an eternity to dispose of the ball, gets tackled and scrapes the ball with his foot, ping him. If the player is making the play, doing what players have done for a 150 years and an opponent drags the ball into him and keeps it there, don't penalise the ball-player.

By the way, there is room for the theatrical. If, for instance, a player has five seconds to dispose of the ball, dithers and gets run down from behind, everyone wants to see the ditherer penalised, as long as the tackle is fair. So don't worry about where the got a toe to it, or whether they might have dribbled a two metres handball forward. There's little worse in the game than seeing a brilliant rundown go unrewarded on a technicality.

I could not be less impressed with the umpires' current holding the ball interpretation. For A long time I’ve believed it to be by far the worst part of the modern game. It was brought in in an attempt to reduce congestion and keep the game flowing. It hasn’t worked at all. I agree that if there’s a three on one contest for a loose ball and the one dives on the ball and holds it in to turn an almost certain loss of possession into a 50-50 (contest with a ball up), they should be penalised when tackled. But there is a clear difference between this kind of cynical (and unfair) action, and the circumstances in which hard, committed ball players are penalised these days. If it’s one on one contest and one player decides they want it more (and goes hard and low), while the other hangs off and then makes sure the ball then can’t be jarred loose in the tackle, who’s being cynical? And yet the umpires have an almost erotic obsession with penalising the bloke making the play in this circumstance. For that reason, I’m not sure I like the idea of going back to the old interpretation where if you make the play, get tackled and happen not to get a clean kick or handball away you’re gone. Anything’s better than the current interpretation, but I do think the concept of prior opportunity should be retained. I reckon it’s as simple as umpires ignoring the possible sexual arousal they might elicit from giving a theatrical “Get it out! Get it out! Didn’t get it out!” holding the ball call and looking instead at the intent of the player. If they’re obviously trying to make the play, don’t penalise them. If they’re obviously being cynical, pay a free kick against. If it’s inconclusive, DON’T BLOODY GUESS!

What a clown. The Australian is like the Herald Sun with 'nicer' typeface. No idea why anyone still pretends the Emperor is fully clothed.

In a week where the decision-makers have shown themselves to be nigh-on geniuses, this strikes me as silly stubborness. Just get it done.

Yep. Like it.

I reckon 12 and a high second rounder/equivalent player might get it done. Two low first rounders seems mediocre for such a highly-talented footballer. I just think at that stage of the draft, 4 picks is a really big gap.

Let's be honest: 16 and 20 for Mitch Clark is rubbish. Brisbane have every right to knock that back.

I reckon I'd prefer to be associated with the organisation that "stands for nothing" than the one brimming with megalomaniacs, shriekers and quasi-intellectual posers.