deejammin'

This is at least partly about structure, Wellingham and Dawes do far more for our team structurally than one young underdeveloped midfielder. Dawes and Clark could be a good forward line, and my thoughts on Wellingham are well documented, pick 4 does not seem too bad to me, especially if Viney goes second round. That would mean we would have Pick 3, Pick 13, Dawes, Wellingham, Viney and Byrnes. I'd take that as a good effort given our circumstances, also it will significantly improve our team, add experience (which will take pressure off some of our younger guys) and with some improvement from our core from this year I see us winning quite a few more games this year if the team gels.

Fair enough, so good culture is playing Brownlow medalists?

Also P-Man, I am not calling the Swans inconsistant, I am asking that if strong culture is the defining feature of a winning club and the swans have possessed it since the Roos - Kelly era what happened in the years / games they lost? Clearly there are more important factors determining results and this 'culture' seems to be so intangible that no one can actually say categorically how it affects the results of football games. Maybe instead of debating how we can get the swans 'culture' we should look at their playing list, their recruitment strategies, their game day strategies, their training regime, their coaching structure and their finances for something to emulate.

I think you need to define culture. Also, no I don't think that is good practice for any sporting organisation. But Adam Goodes played several ordinary games in the second half of this year with quality players knocking down the door for Sydney, he held his spot by reputation and put in a stellar final series, I don't think the swans never play any of their players on reputation and always drop players if they are out of form. Also I never said all, I said most, if you are so intent on discrediting me go up a few posts and answer the questions I asked.

I have done quite a lot of reading, also of books by club champions in unsuccessful clubs. I have read most of what you just mentioned, and my conclusion is that its natural for players to want this to explain their success, all successful organisations want to believe they are special and better than everyone else. I think the reality is most AFL clubs have a good culture, its a combination of talented players, good facilities, smart planning, good coaching, making the most of small (sometimes not entirely legal) advantages and luck that makes their success. But for three straight kicks the swans would have no flags in the past 83 years. With all due respect, if wins = good culture, then surely losses = bad culture. I think setting standards is a football club norm accross the competition, Sydney's standards are incredibly similar to Geelongs, Hawthorns, Collingwoods, West Coasts, St Kilda's in fact almost every team in the comp, the reason they have been a successful team has far more to do with their playing groups football ability and the small advantages they are afforded by being in another state, having a home ground, being propped up by the AFL, having a larger cap and having great facilities. I'm not saying this 'culture' thing doesn't exist, I think every club and every workplace have their own unique feel, but I think the explanation that the swans have been a good club because of their culture is a bit of a smokescreen, or a buzzword, which ever you prefer.

Every team in the league does this, perhaps the players thrive as they are away from the media circus that is Melbourne, thats not culture driven thats location. All teams have non-negotiables, and team rules, the fact is having a better team of players who play together well can get you to a GF then anything can happen. In terms of culture Collingwood suspended D. Swan for three rounds for drinking and breaking team rules. Hawthorn hit Franklin with a small fine and no suspension in the wake of two speeding instances (one with a probated license). I think culturally Collingwood were far stronger. Still got pumped first week of the finals by Hawthorn though. You are defining culture as things all clubs do (some do better than others obviously 1 team has to win 17 have to lose) and as the way players set standards which can be great at losing clubs but ultimately do very little to affect results. Hardly a tangible, accessible, clear route to victory.

So culture is about having lost then winning? Almost every club has done that, how was our culture in 2000? Also does this mean Brisbane's culture is weak as after having won 3 premierships in a row they haven't got another one in 9 years?

And so as not to make the previous post too long (you're welcome BH) Who has the better 'culture' Sydney or Geelong? Did their strength of culture change from year to year netting them premierships? Eg Geelongs was better in 07, 09, 11 but the swans better in 12? Has Freo's culture surpassed Geelongs this year? It would seem to be Geelong is the best team of the past 5 years and Freo a team that has been associated with a terrible 'culture' of losing unlosable games. Freo must have done some incredible team bonding excercises in the lead up to the finals. What happened to Sydney's 'culture' in 06? Did West Coast go past them with their drug-overdosing, captain losing, drunk driving escaping fiasco? Seeing as '05 was decided by less than a kick maybe Leo Barry should tell the football world what culture has to do with taking one good mark. I know this is an extremely negative way of going about this but seriously, Sydney is constantly under-rated by the football world and then the media has to explain why this happened and uses the buzz word 'culture'. Club culture is far too indistinct to be defining success.

Here we go again.... Every club will have a unique circumstance driven by their different location, the different people who make up the football club, the attitude of the playing group, the stereotype given to the supporters etc. The argument here is that these circumstances drive results, I would argue that if it contributes it is in a very small, hardly meaningful way. This "Bloods culture" as elaborated in Micky O's book and espoused by the media has far less to do with their results than having more talented players, good fitness as a result of an elite sports science division, great coaching and being able to keep all needed players, bid on NQR's and be active in Trade week due to the extra million in their salary cap. If you seriously think that this elusive 'culture' is anything but a buzzword for success then answer me this; What happened to the 'Bloods Culture' in 2009? Did it suddenly wane, maybe Roosy forgot about it? What about in rounds 20, 22 and 23? Did the culture suddenly get worse for three rounds resulting in some bad losses? Would Gunsten and Franklin kicking more accurately in the Grand Final have anything to do with culture? Were the Hawks not playing as a unified team? Did WC have a good culture in 2006? Collingwood in 2010? St Kilda in 09/10? These clubs seemingly did well in the face of off-field turmoil. Can you have a good culture and not be winning?

Sorry to take so long to reply to this, I've been busy. Anyway, I tried to respond to all of your arguments in this thread regarding A grader B grader, potential value, how other teams have built their lists and what our FD should do during this trade period regarding Wellingham. If you found it too long I'm sorry, I'll have to slowly eek out all that I think on any topic throughout the thread while insulting posters I disagree with like you do in future. Also you obviously missed my point in the second part of my post, which was statements like "B-grader" mean nothing as value is determined by different things at different clubs ( I gave you 4 examples). I was not attempting to "assess your point" but to assert my opinion in contrast to your numerous posts throughout this and other threads regarding Wellingham. If you feel I misrepresented you, how about responding to where I did rather than accusing me of pissing on myself. You make many good points on this forum, but your tendency to attack people who merely attempt to join in on a dialogue is counterproductive. If you don't want people to state their opinion in contrast or relation to yours why not go start a blog?

First off, I never said it was the only reason or that if MFC had extra cap room we would be the greatest ever. And yes 'woe is us' it sucks to be a dees supporter, particularly as yesterday I watched the game with my swan supporting mates and saw them get, for the second time in 7 years something I have waited my entire life for. I envy them too. Obviously salary cap room isn't the reason the swans tackle ferociously, or play hard, well drilled footy where all members of the team have an equal role to play. However it is the reason they have no problem keeping required players and it also allows them to take a punt on NQR players from other clubs without having as much concern for cap space. Damien Hardwick said recently in Richmonds fundraiser that without money a football club may as well pack up and quit. If this is the case surely having a million extra to give your players makes a hell of a difference, also I don't think my argument is weakened by the fact that both Brisbane and Sydney have won flags while being afforded this advantage. Its not the only reason, they are a great, well coached team that deserved a flag. It can be beaten (see Geelong and co.). And it won't change (Sydney must survive and must not bottom out for the good of the AFL). But it is worth pointing out and considering.

If this is a remote possibility we have to make it happen.

What do these teams have in common? Sydney Swans premiers Grand finalists 05, 06, Brisbane Lions Premiers 01, 02, 03, Grand Finalist 04, Sydney Swans finalists 09, 10, 11, Premiership '12. Extra room in the cap. Obviously the Brisbane extra funding was removed after Eddie cracked the sads, but in addition to having the luxury of living a more normal life outside the football media circus of Melbourne the players at this teams got more money and it kept them there. Maybe its a coincidence, but to me the fact that 5 premierships of the last 11 have been won with extra salary cap room means something....

I respect your opinion but I dissagree with you here. Clark was a big strong player who had a dissappointing season the year before we drafted him, came to Melbourne purely for the money and the fact we could make a trade happen. Had played an AA year in a position we weren't recruiting him for and was panned from several quarters as a bad move before he played a game, I'm glad we were right and it gives me great faith in the new coaching group, but we clearly overpaid in a risky way. Dom Tyson is potential, our list is full of it, we haven't done too well trading off it the last few years. Wellingham is a premiership player in a team which has played strongly every season he has played with them, has more finals experience than our entire list put together and is a valuable player in one of the leading mid-fields in the comp. I love Mitch Clark, but Wellingham has already acheived far more as a footballer than Mitch. All good sides have older players to lead and help young players realise their potential. Young Dom Tyson in our side as it currently stands would be learning from Nathan Jones as the best performing most experienced leader with not much experience backing him up, It takes an incredible person to get to elite standard with little to no example to follow, and we have seen average players become great simply by following a strong example. This is why we need players like Wellingham. As for value, you seem to argue that players have absolute values and absolute grades which determine them. The fact is in every market place multiple factors affect value. In this case the main things with Wellingham are: 1. Collingwood are hamstrung by a tight salary cap and having to overpay Cloke and a few other players to get them to stay. Who knows what they would offer Wellingham had Cloke and or Beams/Thomas left? My guess, enough to keep Wellingham. Melbourne has a loose salary cap becoming looser with the loss of 3-4 highly payed players, a front ended contract would have no-where near the impact on our cap as it would have on the pies (or several other contenders) we will not destroy our club or our culture by paying more than teams with tight caps, the fact we are a bad team means that the only way we can get players is to pay for them, we can't guarantee immediate success. 2. Teams must draft/trade to fill needs, Collingwood's current list has a multifaceted midfield which runs deep and has bright new talent coming through quickly to put pressure on current members. Wellingham's value to a team in this position is vastly different to Melbourne, who have one midfielder who proved himself this year and a bunch of potential, also our midfield is not multi-faceted, we have no quality players of Wellingham's type. 3. Collingwood has a strong experienced list with many leaders on every line who have played finals/premiership games. They will not be losing nearly as much in the way of experience and leadership as Melbourne would be gaining from a player like Wellingham. 4. Collingwood's players have every right to be arguing for more money, they have been consistantly successful both as a team and as individuals. The Pies have a Brownlow medalist, a Coleman medalist, a Norm Smith medalist and a team of premiership players, they can expect to be rewarded for their performance and it would put a dent in their team's morale if they felt underappreciated. Melbourne has been close to the worst team in the comp for 5 years, many of our players are already overpaid due to potential that is yet to be realised. Others have been overpaid as due to our dearth of experienced talent we have had to pay overs to keep them. Others are overpaid merely to meet the minimum cap! Melbourne's morale will gain more from having good players come to the club than it will from players feeling that we overpaid or that 'big contracts' are creating discontent, what have they done to earn that right? We can't flick a switch and undo our poor performance anymore than we can just put every player on our list on exactly what we think they are worth without risking losing all that we have. As for the players you mentioned, Sydney overpaid for Shaw, who was a wreck and far from a guaranteed commodity, McGlynn who has exceeded himself, and had to pay a fair amount at the trade table and in contract for Kennedy, the only reason you are arguing they didn't overpay is their team success, if Melbourne had drafted any one of these players for the price Sydney paid I have very little doubt there would be similar argument about their worth on here. Shaw certainly wasn't a premiership player playing in one of the leagues top 4 midfields like Wellingham so I don't really think this example is relevant. Also I think Sydney identified these players as filling needed roles, just as Wellingham/Clark/Brynes would fill important vacant roles at Melbourne. I tend to think that getting the right players to play these roles is more important than whether we pay them the same amount as they would have earned at their previous club. Also the swans have played in 12/14 finals series, were a popular choice as it afforded players less media scrutiny and a more comfortable lifestyle and was a matter of years from its last premiership, there were other elements in play in drafting all the Sydney players you mentioned and as a result they would have cost more to come to Melbourne/Victorian clubs. Leaving aside the fact Sydney pays their list over a million dollars more than every Victorian club as a result of 'living in Sydney allowance'........... I think you have too little faith in our new FD, I don't see them going after players for so much that we ruin our cap, or that our playing list is malcontent. Rather I see them using our currect circumstances involving FA and our salary cap situation to leverage getting the best available players filling our needs. I'll say it again, Wellingham to Melbourne is a great move, whether we pay him a signing bonus or not.

Actually thats not true, Bruest missed 2 shots from 35 metres out directly in front, Roughhead dropped two marks, one of which was at the top of the goalsquare, the other was 25metres out on a slight angle, he also miss a shot around the corner he would kick 9/10 and two set shots which are kickable for him. Adelaide did remarkably well but the largest part of it was that Hawthorn didn't put them away. Buddy also missed at least 3 very kickable ones. Yes, you have to kick the goals and the Hawks nearly choked, but don't get carried away 10/10 Hawthorn win that game, this was Adelaides best possible effort, play it again on the weekend and the Hawks win by 10 goals.

Where have all the Lloyd sympathisers gone?

I would argue that several clubs lower on the ladder have to overpay players by virtue of minimum cap payments. For mine very few MFC players earned their money this year, their performance was terrible and yet they got payed almost the same total payments as Hawthorn and Sydney. This is not the MFC being irresponsible, or negligent, or failing to manage our list properly, it is MFC following the rules. These rules will continue to exist next year and Melbourne will have to continue to pay the minimum amount of the cap regardless of performance, I would prefer we do so by enlisting good, proven, successful players who fill a need. How do you suggest we do it?

Many people in the football community (including highly respected media members) suggested that Mitch Clark was a B grade and we paid overs. What Wellingham would mean to MFC next year might make him worth more than what he would be worth elsewhere, I'd be happy just to get him here. Front load the contract, make sure we are safe in the long run, and get players that will make a difference. Thats what good clubs do.

I am flabbergasted at the negativity on here at the moment. There is constant talk on here about improving our 'culture', having soft senior players and having a dearth of onfield and offfield leadership in our playing group. Yet when the club targets a two time premiership player who is still playing good footy, has a good attitude and strong training habits and is being kept out of a team who played finals by very good players all of a sudden we shouldn't obtain him for nothing? Who should we get? Untried kids? So far Wellingham and Byrnes have been posited strongly on this site and both have been met with an astounding negativity. Our club needs leaders who can play well and do a role. Both players are light-years ahead of our list in terms of what they have experienced and what they can bring to the team. How many members of our list have played finals let alone won premierships. If we get Byrnes it would be great, if we get him and Wellingham it will be brilliant. How people can be so negative about players who have acheived more than our entire list put together astounds me. If not these guys then who?

Clearly Fashion sense and haircut are the sole determining factors in whether or not you can be a good AFL footballer. Dermie, Platten, Tex Walker, Kouta ...

The reversal that nearly cost the hawks the game was the softest thing I have ever seen, Hale had his head ripped off, after marking the ball, had to be 50 metres yet was only payed a free kick, then schoenmakers barely touches the porpoise with his knee and the whole thing is overturned! Ridiculous umpiring with no feel for the game. The free to Franklin against Rutten was dumb, but resulted in a point so it hardly changed the game, the advantage call was ridiculous.

This is true, also in the run through to the finals they start to put together the teams of experienced umps who will be umpiring the finals and naturally there are teams of leftover rejects who usually do our games.

Hawthorn kick straight and Hale, Roughhead and Breust keep their nerves better in check when marking and kicking for goal and they would have won by 10 goals. Adelaide gave as much as they possibly could, and still lost. Nothing to see here, the real stuff starts next week.

The fact you are against makes me want him to join our team even more. Good luck in FA Brent

Wellingham is a premiership player, knows the work ethic and game-plan compliance to play in a team that has made the prelim/grand final in every season he has played with them. He would be well known to our coach and has all the skills we currently need for our midfield balance. He is quick, a good overhead mark, has great skills, gets outside possessions, breaks lines and can get his own ball. If Jones, Grimes, Trengove, Magner, Mckensie all have years like this one or improve Wellingham would be the ideal component to make up for the deficiencies of this group. For those discussing his low possession average it is very difficult to get high posessions in a midfield with 3 or 4 other guys getting 30+ possies. Often Wellingham plays roles, on a half forward flank, or on occasion has tagged, these skills make him a more balanced player, but in our midfield I have no doubt he would be getting more possies than our current midfield. Also, in games where Pendelbury, Swan and Ball have been absent Wellingham has stepped up his possession and relished the new role. Anyone remember QB 2011? "He put himself in the spotlight with a career-best 37 possessions in the 2011 Queen's Birthday game against Melbourne, where he stood up in the absence of a number of star team-mates to lead Collingwood to a dominant 88 point win". He hasn't had many chances to be the main man, but this was one and he killed it. Wellingham is a street ahead of our current mids and fills the deficiencies our mid balance currently has, get him!