Macca

Hawthorn had/have a team full of gun footballers who keep the youngsters out .. we don't have that luxury. It could be argued that our youngsters are replacing failed senior players who never really showed much. Unless one truly believes that Grimes, Dawes, Dunn, Terlich, Garland, Matt Jones, Pedersen and a few others were or are "good" footballers and have had excellent career's. In my opinion, we haven't had many good footballers in the last 9 years so we're not losing much by replacing them with promising youth. Previous regimes drew a line through players who consistently won games and took us to finals. Comparing what we're doing now to what happened then has vast dissimilarities.

You're right about Jones' 2nd year - I got my years mixed up. However, his 3rd and 4th years weren't as good (outside of the top ten in '08) Like most good players, he started to hit his straps in a consistent way after he had a good amount of games under his belt. Players generally start to hit their peak at age 21-23 or even later. Some start reaching their peak earlier but that's the minority. We have any number of players who are in a similar category - young, raw, developing and needing senior experience. I'll argue for opportunity because without opportunity, how will the MC ever find out whether a player can play or not? We've won 5 of 10 with a predominantly young side so we're tracking quite well, all things considered. New players playing in defence are nearly always going to attract more attention and heat but we have a need to play new players in the backline whether we like it not ... that is based on the new game plan which demands players playing various roles, the zone defence & the MC not wanting to play Grimes, Dunn and Garland (earlier in the season) back there. Melksham and Salem not being available hasn't helped either. Frost hasn't shown a great deal although I'd argue for opportunity in Frost's case too. Wagner & Oscar and other new players playing in defence therefore became a somewhat default position.

Young players need game time and any given player often needs 60-70 games under his belt before there is a sense of belonging and a feeling of being firmly established. We have a numerous amount of players who need to get to that mark so we'll all need to be patient. My reading of the selected teams is that the Match Committee are searching more for a cohesive unit with the players who are chosen in the side being those who can work within that cohesive unit. These same players are perhaps being asked to play in a foreign way to how they have traditionally played and if they can't adapt, they don't play. It's possibly a form of 'Total football' which has been adapted to footy. Simply minding your man is only a part of how a footballer goes about it with this game plan. Anyway, my expectations for tomorrow is that we give a excellent account of ourselves with every player doing his absolute best ... if the effort, energy, application and a will-to-win is there, we may run them close. Edit: Incorrectly thought that Nathan Jones did not finish 2nd in his 2nd season - got that wrong but the rest of my post stands. His 3rd & 4th years weren't great but he hit his straps later on (as we have witnessed) And that was the point of my post highlighted in the above 2nd paragraph,

The idea has merit for a number of reasons TD ... one being that the smaller nations could be introduced into the lower division and help grow the game. Teams like Ireland & Afghanistan could cut their teeth against the lesser performed Test nations if we had 2 divisions. If the ICC added 2 nations I'd favour an 8 & 4 set-up as an initial launch (perhaps 7 & 5) Teams from the different divisions could still play each other but for lesser or greater points. One other reason is the promotion & relegation scenario where certain teams would suddenly have a lot more to play for ... the only issue I have with that is do test cricketers need any more incentive other than knowing what is expected and required upon selection? But the biggie for me would be the proper recognition for the best performed team in the top division - the no.1 test ranking isn't really celebrated as it should be or could be. A yearly trophy presented at the end of the New Year* tests could work (assuming South Africa, Australia & New Zealand were all in the top division) Current rankings ... Rank Team Matches Points Rating 1 Australia 32 3765 118 2 India 20 2238 112 3 Pakistan 20 2227 111 4 England 32 3370 105 5 New Zealand 25 2449 98 6 South Africa 22 2015 92 7 Sri Lanka 24 2113 88 8 West Indies 21 1374 65 9 Bangladesh 12 687 57 10 Zimbabwe 4 48 12 *We often have 3 tests all played in the first week of January in 3 different countries (Aus, S Afr & NZ) ... those tests are often the final tests of those particular series' ... if New Zealand weren't in the top division then maybe only 2 series would be the deciding factor (to arrive at the best performed test team of the season) Or perhaps a series could be held in Dubai, Abu Dhabi & Sharjah over the Xmas/New Year period. We could, in theory, have 4 series all played concurrently over the Xmas/New Year to decide things.

In the end we end up with the finalists that were the predicted long range finalists (Warriors vs Cavs) Great comeback by Golden State vs OKC and they might end up winning it all again ... should be a top series though. Hard to see the series not go at least 6 games but if it decided in 6 games then I reckon Golden State will prevail. LeBron is going to need some real help from Love & Irving if Cleveland hope to win ... 6 finals in a row for James too.

I remember '88 for the tremendous run we made which in turn gained a GF spot for the team ... we were lucky to even make the finals in fact. We needed to win our last H & A game against the 2nd team on the ladder (Carlton) just to secure 5th spot (the final 5 was in operation in those days) I'm always surprised as to why people seemed so disappointed in our GF showing ... we were never a realistic chance although we had beaten the Hawks during that season. We did exceedingly well to make the GF and that's how that year should be remembered. Coming 2nd was an achievement of sorts and only those who only value winning the GF would disagree. Our record during the H & A was 13 & 9 and teams with that sort of record are not supposed to reach the GF ... we defied the odds and shouldn't be condemned for ultimately losing out to a much superior team. Carlton were also a better team (at least on paper) but we defeated them twice within 3 weeks. From memory Sean Wight & Ricky Jackson featured in the goals in that preliminary final win (against Carlton) I'd take the '88 year again over any of our past 9 years ... in a nanosecond. During that Northey era we were a very good team but never a great team ... add 3 or 4 quality players and we would have won a flag or 2. 1990 remains more of a disappointment in my eyes.

Round 10 (vs Port) 3 - Robbie Gray 2 - J Pittard 1 - C Wingard MFC tally 9 - Gawn 8 - Viney 5 - Hogan 2 - T-Mac, Watts, N Jones, Stretch 1 - Harmes, Bugg

Maybe the Penguins for me but I'd really like to see San Jose win it just so we have a new team winning it all. I also like watching Crosby go about it so I don't really have a dog in the fight ... reckon it will go at least 6 games but a 7 game series wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Starts Tuesday in Oz (10am)

3 stages to go in the Giro ... tonight's stage and tomorrow night's stage will decide things ... Here are the classifications going into tonight's stage ... 1. KRUIJSWIJK Steven TLJ 73h 50’ 37” 2. CHAVES Esteban OGE 3’ 00” 3. VALVERDE Alejandro MOV 3’ 23” 4. NIBALI Vincenzo AST 4’ 43” 5. ZAKARIN Ilnur KAT 4’ 50” 6. MAJKA Rafal TNK 5’ 34” 7. JUNGELS Bob EQS 7’ 57” 8. AMADOR Andrey MOV 8’ 53” 9. POZZOVIVO Domenico ALM 10’ 05” 10. SIUTSOU Kanstantsin DDD 11’ 15” Stage 19 ... Stage 20 ... Cycling News Giro d'Italia - Official site SBS - Cycling Central

Managed to listen to some radio coverage ... will watch highlights later. So it's Pittsburgh & San Jose ... should be a cracker of a series.

Well, I'm never confident with these things but it's great to see a new team in the final (Sharks) ... and as you said, today's game could go either way. The game is in Pittsburgh so that might give the advantage to the Pens. I'll be tuning in whenever I get a chance

Maybe ... or the game might end up much as it was before the amount of rotations started changing the sport as a spectacle. I feel that tall forwards are always going to be a weapon regardless of the amount of rotations ... we now often have up to 3 or 4 in any given forward line despite all the rotations. I'd agree that tall forwards need to be far more mobile but that was already happening before the explosion of rotation numbers. As for flooding, it's always going to remain an issue unless they can find a way to rid the game of it. The game is much more watchable this season as compared to the recent past - for my satisfaction, the sport has to be fast, continuous and spectacular - that's what drew me to the sport in the first place (that's apart from when I'm at or watching our games - then it's all about winning and improving) Despite the above comments I'd probably keep the rotations at 90 for another year and then reassess. We need to find out where 90 rotations takes us. So it's either/or ... reduce the rotations further and I'd go with it and if they leave it at 90 I can live with it.

So do I (re the rotations) but the AFL may decide to consolidate it at 90 for the time being ... I'm not against that as we need to see how the whole year plays out yet. So far, the footy has been great but we've still got a bit of a congestion problem (often in the first halves of games though) The players are still being asked to do an awful lot of running and that's why players are missing games purely because they need a spell ... we might end up with more fatigue injuries towards the end of the year too and that's why it's so important to manage the loads ... we as a club seem to up with it all too.

Within a relatively short space of time the selecting of teams has changed quite a bit ... it's getting like other sports where squads are more operative. Even just a year or 2 ago things were a lot more clear cut. I reckon even the absolute locks are possibly going to need a game or 2 off such is the nature of the sport ... the new rules that are in place are large factors (especially with the limited rotations)

Well Frost hasn't even been tried down back as yet but I hope all our players can do well to be perfectly honest. Interesting that the MC up until now has preferred to use Frost in the forward line (in the seniors) Right now, I'd rather see the positives. The club is finally back on track and we're starting to win games. Not all of our players are going to please all of our supporters all of the time but we're far from the finished product. Mistakes happen all over the field, from all sorts of players. Some get highlighted but many clangers/errors/mistakes fly under the radar. We're a work in progress and we need to be patient. I wrote the following earlier in the thread and it best describes my reasoning with T-Mac ... "Our smaller backs don't feed off T-Mac enough ... they should be either hovering around him for the quick handball or sprinting to position to create an easier transition out of defence. We're often too static. A fast moving target can eliminate slow decision making - all our players (not just T-Mac) need to make quicker decisions but they all need to have more options who are on the move. The best teams move the ball on instinctively at speed. When our midfield is outpointed, our defence is then often under siege." It's a credit to T-Mac that he so often creates a lot of time and space for himself but he often has seemingly too much time to think about what to do with the ball - that's where my possible solution (above) could help alleviate the issue of his turnovers. Anyway, if you want to trade Tom McDonald, so be it. I'd much prefer to keep him. Let's agree to disagree.

Louis van Gaal expected to be replaced by Jose Mourinho within the next 24-48 hours ... apparently the news broke from a "source" at Man Utd before the FA cup final. Winning the cup obviously wasn't going to change the decision by the looks of it. I suppose it's been the worst 'best kept secret' for an age but it will be good to have Jose involved again (for the villain factor?) ... the title race next year should be a beauty - especially if Chelsea, Man Utd & Liverpool can all feature. José Mourinho’s Manchester United task list as he prepares for Old Trafford

Round 9 3 - Hogan 2 - Stretch 1 - Bugg MFC tally 9 - Gawn 8 - Viney 5 - Hogan 2 - T-Mac, Watts, N Jones, Stretch 1 - Harmes, Bugg

I threw that bit in ... "Selection based on targeting winnable games whilst experimenting in the tougher games (or vice-versa)" because I reckon we went into 'experimental mode' in that block of 3 games last season (Freo, Syd & Hawks - rounds 5,6 & 7) but .... playing against those same 3* teams this season represent a real chance to see how good we are. More so the Sydney and Hawthorn encounters. Every game is now winnable in my eyes but some games are going to be tough and we're going to need a lot of things going in our favour to win those games ... however, that's miles better than believing we're no chance. The players should always believe that they can win any game - I'm more talking as a supporter. I like JR's idea of playing 2 ruckmen and seeing if we can obliterate them in the clearances. They might have a plan to rove to Gawn but if we mix and match it with Port and end up with 2 dominant ruckmen, it may prove to be an real advantage. Regardless, we won't be picking a poor team this week (at least on paper) *We play the Hawks twice

So many factors go into picking a team on a week to week basis (these days) ... The 'rest' factor (especially with the younger players) Getting game time into the inexperienced players Needing more experienced players against certain teams. Do we work best with a tall forward line and/or a tall backline (as per the opposition team match-ups) With the zone that we're employing, do certain players suit more than others. Do we play a straight tagger if needed (Bugg can play that role but always?) Some in form decent player might miss out simply because we can't find a role for him or there simply isn't a spot. Selection based on targeting winnable games whilst experimenting in the tougher games (or vice-versa) Breeding confidence by giving certain players a block of games Making sure the team picked will gel together (same for the teams within the team - backline, forward line etc) Getting the structures right as per the opposition. Being more cautious with injuries and concussions Form (whether that form (or lack of form) is being displayed in the seniors or the reserves) Injuries or "the mystery illness/injury of the week" And there is often a selection based on a bit of x-factor As much as some players will miss out from time to time or for a time, they will all get their chance if their form warrants it ... and sometimes a player will get opportunities just to see how they might go or how they might fit in - the match committee occasionally promoting players on spec is something that most or many MC's will do. So, it's harder than it's ever been to pick a team from week to week (for us onlookers) ... I've got Tyson & Jetta in as the only absolutes but we might make up to 5 changes (from a team that won by 63 points) ... as for who goes out, I'll defer to the above criteria Footnote: years ago the odd 'enforcer' or 2 would warrant selection.

"First you win and then you get better" ... not sure who said that but it makes sense in our case. We're actually not a good* side yet but we're getting some wins ... on track for at least 10+ wins too. What we need to develop is a strong belief system in winning whilst developing as much talent as we can. That means we need to be patient and expect some inconsistent results whilst on that journey ... those who are frustrated with certain players need to realise that we're lumping a number of inexperienced players into the team at the same time (in terms of actual games played) From today's game Wagner, Hunt, Harmes, ANB, Stretch, Petracca, Oliver, O-Mac, Kennedy, Hogan, Kent, Newton & Michie have all played only a limited amount of senior footy and none of them are the finished product yet because of that lack of senior experience (whilst already a good player, Hogan will get better) Being too judgemental on any of the above players is premature ... our senior players or those players who have had enough time in the system can be judged in a more definitive way. Others such as Gawn, Bugg & Watts are still improving (or proving themselves/starting to stamp themselves on the game) So that's 16 of today's 22 who should or can get better (to varying degrees) Viney is trending upwards as well. Plus, we've got more inexperienced players not in the current side who have varying degrees of upside ... Frost, Salem, Brayshaw, White, Weideman, Hulett and even JKH. ... AVB has played only 17 games & Tyson has just 58 games under his belt. Whilst older, Spencer has only played 36 games. *A good side could be described as a near guaranteed finals team or a top 4 side.

I do watch the game - you're the one who is too blinkered. You're part of the group-thinking brigade

44 clangers across the team and only 2 clangers in total from the McDonald bros. Reading this thread you'd be inclined to believe otherwise - T-Mac has played very well and Oscar is well worth persevering with. If Dunn was as good as many think he is, he'd be in the team. The fact is that he can't get a game and Garland has been on notice as well. Time for the new breed

Stage 14 in the Giro (tonight) ... Cycling News Giro d'Italia - Official site SBS - Cycling Central

I have to barrack for Man Utd because I want my team (the Hammers) to get into the Europa league next season. However, in the end, I'll be almost certainly wanting a Palace win ... it's always terrific when a team outside of the big clubs can win the FA cup. Leicester vs Crystal Palace in the Community shield would certainly be different. Good luck.

The answer is a complex one - our smaller backs don't feed off T-Mac enough ... they should be either hovering around him for the quick handball or sprinting to position to create an easier transition out of defence. We're often too static. A fast moving target can eliminate slow decision making - all our players (not just T-Mac) need to make quicker decisions but they all need to have more options who are on the move. The best teams move the ball on instinctively at speed. Plus, as you intimated, when our midfield is outpointed, our defence is then often under siege.