Lucifers Hero

There is an interesting 'tension' between two game styles: 'possession' vs 'pressure' football. In the first camp is WCE, Hawks and to some extent Geelong. The second includes (2016 Bulldogs), Rich, Pies and Demons. The finals have shown that on any given day either style will win. imv it is the new rules in 2019 that will have the biggest impact on game styles: With the 6x6x6 at centre bounces the ball will go forward very fast. Imagine - no players behind the square and no +1 in defence. The ball will come out so fast that defenders will be disadvantaged as their will be no time for a +1 to drop back. With the longer goal square when the ball is kicked in it will reach the 'fat' part of the ground, probably at its widest point. Much harder to defend the width of the ground. So, I can forsee Max patrolling one side of the ground and Preuss patrolling while keeping our forward structures in place ie not dragging Tom Mc or Weideman up the ground to help defend the 'fat' part. Defending those situations, imv is what is driving our interest in Preuss and May. At the other end of the ground the rule changes help our fast and furious, bomb it long to forwards as initially there is no +1 to intercept. Imagine all those i50's that won't ricochet back out again! Most of our medium forwards (Melksham, Petracca, Fristch) are very good marks. These factors could be why we are willing to let Jessie go. It will be interesting to watch how game styles evolve in 2019. There will be a fair bit of experimenting by coaches but I think they will stick to their underlying 'possession' vs 'pressure' game styles.

As I recall it Roos switched Frawley fwd, to settle a new defence, as soon as he realised Frawley wasn't putting in the effort (see 2014, round 2 vs WCE) much like Clarkson did with Buddy(played him up the ground). I don't recall discussion of an mfc offer. I recall he went to WA to talk to Freo.

The last 3 premierships have been won by a Clarkson protege. The previous 3 by Clarkson himself. Not only is Clarkson a master coach he is a master at training coaches. Reckon he wore a wry smile on the siren.

Jones talked about Hogan and a "fresh start" and doing what "is best for family, friends and his own performance". Anyone else get the sense from Jones' comments there may be more to it than just the go home factor? Enough respected posters on here have virtually said he is gone. That little dialogue from Jones confirms it for mine. While the club isn't saying anything, giving Lever and Jones the ok to say things like they "will support Jesse's decision, whatever he decides" is the club's way of preparing supporters for the departure of a fan favourite, as it is bound to upset many.

Feel a bit for Dunne. He did the hard yards with us, didn't choose to leave and didn't mess us around when it was time to go. Found a niche for himself and has performed well. Missing out on a career long dream is tough especially has he may not get many more chances. Not barracking for the Pies tho'...

All that is true why are GCS happy to let him go? They need as much experience/talent as they can get. If they aren't offering him a contract he will be delisted and he can anywhere he likes with no pick back of any sort. It doesn't compute...

Interesting that in the last few years we have let go two 'gorilla' type defenders and an intercept defender in Frawley, Dunne and Howe. We are now replacing them with the likes of Lever and maybe May. In the meantime our 'rejects' have gone on to win a premiership, play in a grand final and if Dunne wasn't injured he would also be playing tomorrow. Not at all suggesting we should have kept the 3. They all needed a fresh start and we got fair value. Just reflecting on how ironic the AFL trade merry-go-round can be...

Post it in the 'Rumour' thread - no need to spill the beans, just a few clues will do... Include a few red herrings if necessary; even a riddle or two... ?

It works the same way as the 17 yo pre-list GWS had. It is how we got Hogan.

Carlton/GCS must pick 'mature age' players (no picks involved). The player is then tradeable for a pick or player.

We are ok for picks and vacancies - 6 of each excluding Kent trade. Assuming we get a pick for him and then have 7 picks for 7 vacancies (or if we get a player (unlikely) it will still be 6 for 6). But the last two picks are 84 and 106, picks that aren't generally taken tp the draft. But we can use them to upgrade two of our Rookies (eg Keilty, Maynard or T Smith). If we do those upgrades we have a reasonable draft hand with 5 picks (32, 43, 46, 56 + Kent pick), and 5 vacancies. So no problems at this stage.

Yes, of course it has value. But I was suggesting the value of a given pick is assessed differently by clubs than by fans. Clubs focus on the value of what it can buy. Fans focus on some mythical value intrinsic to the number. I'll leave it at that - I was just amused about the pre-occupation fans have with a specific pick.

Oops! My meaning wasn't very clear. I may have chosen the wrong thread to make the point. I was trying to say that mfc (and reasonable clubs) don't focus on 'We must receive pick x' type of negotiations. It is more like a 'mid-first round' discussion etc. Hypothetically, if GCS said pick 5-10 was acceptable for May the specific pick isn't so critical just that it satisfy's GCS. Clubs often don't have the exact pick required and they negotiate around the fringes to get the deal done. So the specific pick #, per se isn't so critical as getting a deal done. So the hand wringing over pick # on fan forums is somewhat futile but amusing.

People are forgetting how mfc does business these days. The pick # per se, isn't as critical as whether it will satisfy another club for or draft a player we want. Sometimes we will go all out to get the picks we need eg Oliver/Weideman. Sometimes we let the cards fall where they do eg Hibberd, Melksham, Watts ie 'that is the best we can offer/receive' type of deal. It is only fans that get hung up on the actual pick # and impute a trade value to it. mfc is much more pragmatic.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-09-27/may-wants-longterm-deal-with-suns-or-elsewhere GCS want a long term contract. May wants a long term contract, wherever he ends up: "I want a long-term deal, so I just want to do the due diligence and speak to the necessary parties and then sit down with the club and make a decision." May is also singing the praises of GCS youth and Dew. It may all be blah, blah, blah by May but it does sound like he is leaning towards staying and the 'assessing all options' is a ploy to eke out the max from GCS. After all, GCS have buckets of Lynch money to spend and no-one to spend it on. May is most unlikely to get a better deal ($ or terms) anywhere else. He isn't out the GCS door yet. Watch this space.

Caro said on FC last night that our Marketing Manager, Ryan Larkin rang her and the reason he gave for the ban was her Saturday article. I need to look at FC again but I'm pretty sure he referred to her comment on lack of due diligence on the Pert appointment. No-one from the club has come out and said otherwise, which I would expect if anything she said was inaccurate.

Please explain ?

I don't have much evidence, rfpc. But it seemed a reasonable thought at about 7.00 this morning when I was still on my first espresso ? . To take your question a bit more seriously - he has been 'good' in the sense he has stayed largely in the background (or some would say that is where Jackson has kept him) which has enabled Jackson and co to get on with their jobs. However, if Bartlett plans a higher public profile he needs to do a lot of work on his PR and media presence. Curtailing his defensiveness will help and as much as some on here don't like it, to 'play the game with media' folk, especially influential ones. As yet I haven't seen many signs that he has much media savvy. Whether he continues to stay in the background is yet to be seen and I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. But yes, I share your broader concerns.

WOW. That is a bit of a surprise. My bad for saying 2021 earlier in this thread that may have misled other posters. So Jesse is an FA at the end of 2020. That puts him in a tricky spot for contract renewal. He can't extend for just one year to 2020 - too obviously his FA year and shows lack of commitment. Can only imagine the club would (or has) asked for a long(er) term given our performance has clearly dispelled his prior doubts. He is a proud and private young man and genuinely appreciate of all MFC have done to support him. He will be very wealthy whatever he does. Can't imagine just $$ will take him to Freo. So it will be very Interesting watching this play out and see what Jessie really wants from football.

Thank you. Yep, it has taken 5 years to remove all players who for whatever reason didn't make the grade in the Roos/Goodwin era, some of whom were mature age players that came to fill list gaps and have since gone. 5 years - not very long really with a lot of hard-ache decisions along the way. The only players pre 2014 are Jones, Jetta, McDonald, Viney and Hogan (??). An unbelievable turnaround. The fab thing is, of the senior players OOC in 2019 everyone of them would be a starting 22 at an AFL club if not with mfc. That means we will have few to delist next year and more than likely will be trades (this year or next). So not only have we totally rebuilt our list we have also positioned ourselves to get good value draft picks in for the players we lose.

Weird that Saints delist Freeman who had finally got his body right but was given only two games to show his wares and they trade in Kent whose body is no more reliable! Even if they do get Kent on the cheap it still seems not much improvement. Saints have done almost as bad a job as we did and Carlton are doing with their top 10 picks and their development. They will be in a world of pain for some time to come, especially as they have little trade currency this year. Not the best place for Kent to go to but he probably had little choice and little interest from others. Wish him all the best at Moorrabbin.

Updates for Delistings, Reitrees, Trades and 'B' Rookies. We now have 7 senior + 1 'A' Rookie vacancy. My guess is we will use pick #104 and maybe #86 to upgrade Keilty and/or T Smith as both have been rumoured to have contracts in the offering. Nothing to lose using those very late picks for them. That would leave 4 live draft picks with at least 5 senior list and 3 'A' Rookie list vacanies. Vand rumoured to have a contract soon to be announced. This leaves JKH and Dion. Given the changes already there is a very good chance they will have new contracts. JKH has done enough to warrant one and Dion has done a fair bit of work in defence with Jetta so their might be role there going forward. Worth a one year contract to find out. After that are no more 2018 OOC to be decided. That leaves contracted player' futures: namely, Tyson, Garlett, Hogan. Still lots of water to go under this bridge!!

She has been attending/co-hosting the function with other journo's for nigh on 20 years. You don't think her absence would have been noticed and questions asked? What do you expect her to do - leave it for another journo to 'break the news' with their own spin or for her to own the situation and speak to it directly?

Caro acknowledged that Barlett was not happy with an earlier article. They discussed it last week and he said. ‘I’m bigger than that, no big deal.’ You can raise all the questions you like but the facts we know: Caro has been co-hosting this function for the club for 20 years. She wrote an article over the weekend. Bartlett withdrew the invitation a few days ago and did so thru our media department (who according to Caro cited the reference in the latest article, to diligence around the Pert appointment, as the reason). As I've said in earlier posts, to me the ban is churlish and the communication thru the media dep't lacks courtesy by Barlett. Other people on here might have different values to mine but my views on this do not equate to 'passing full judgement on Bartlett' in general. He is an excellent President.

Here is an intricatre trade between Port, Freo and Brisbane. (https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-trade-news-threeway-trade-discussions-begin-to-send-lachie-neale-to-brisbane-picks-to-port-adelaide-and-fremantle/news-story/50aa9995716b2deb3cc588af146fcce2 Not shown but Port gets pick #10 from North for Polec. Later pick trades also involved. In this Freo keeps their current pick #5. Pretty good deal for Freo to have picks 5, 9 and 10. Question is what do they do with them? Morris hints at Freo usng #9 and #10 for a Hogan trade (or to stock pile young talent). Nothing definitive but should start tongues wagging and excite quite a few on here. If Jesse can't/won't commit now, then it best he is traded as MFC have answered his past doubts on where we are going. Also, I'm sure he would want to avoid the personal toll of the media harassing him about a new contract throughout 2019. Its a big burden if he stays for 2019 without a contract renewal. We would also want to avoid the distraction that media attention would cause. If that Freo deal was offered and Jesse wanted to go we couldn't turn it down. We lose a great asset but at the end of the day all parties are better off and we can concentrate of football.