2000 Preliminary Final

From what I understand... We are going to have plenty of spots to fill on our list. Pearce can get plenty of the ball (in an average team) and generally has great skills and uses the ball well. He can also kick a few goals. I'm not sure we are in a position to be so choosy. I wouldn't be comPlaining if we got him. Would improve the skills of our team. Not sure there is any argument against that. We struggle with a lot of things, and each player we look at will not solve all of those problems. But if a player can help us in one or two key areas and is available, we need to get him. The question is firstly, does he make us a better team? My answer is yes. The second question is what we will need to do to whet him? I'm not going to pretend to have any idea what the answer to that question is

The ones worth a mention are (in number order) Jones, Trengove, Clarke, Sylvia, Grimes, Garland, McDonald, Rivers, Howe. That's just me rattling off players that come to mind as having a decent season. Obviously it's voted on after each game, so consistency throughout the year is what really counts. Remember it's relative to the performances of the players not included in the above list. Not sure how the voting system works, but if it's a long list each game, eg 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1, then someone like Trengove or Jordy could do well, having played consistently "ok" compared to the rubbish served up by many others. If it were brownllow style (which most club b&fs are not) then Clarke & Sylvia could do well with a few best one and that's it. But whichever way you slice & dice it, I'll predict this top 5 finish: 1. Jones 2. Grimes 3. Howe 4. Trengove 5. Rivers/McDonald

Not in a "I don't care what you are offering, I won't even look at it" kind of way. I'm not in any way in favour of getting rid of Jones, but there is a difference between that and being completely "untouchable".

From an objective point of view, there weren't many I agonised over. Jetta, Nicholson and Bail can all do some really good things and look to be handy players when they're on form. But they just can't seem to string it together for more than a few moments in each game or over any extended period of time. Most players (at any level) will look better in a superior team with more high quality players around them. That is certainly the case for all of the players I thought are "good enough". So we can say that about Jetta, Nicholson and Bail, but I just don't think event he very best I have seen of them will get us very far. Jamar took a long time to develop and put a good season together. I appreciate that can be the case with any ruckman. But Jamar had one really good season (when he was an All Australian). Outside of that I reckon he has been serviceable but not much more than that. Davey is the one I was thinking of when I said "previous form many years ago means little. I love Davey. About three or four years ago I wished we had three of him (one to pick out pin-point passes out of the back line; one to run off the back of our inside midfielder and work the ball forward; and another to hit targets inside forward fifty) such was his amazing foot skills and movement around the field. When Green was announced captain I actually wanted it to be Davey. But since then he's been nothing but heart-ache and has gone downhill much faster than many would like to admit to. Dunn makes a great VFL player, but we have plenty of those on our list. Happy for him to plug gaps until we have more who are "good enough", but that's it.

It can be hard to take, but a look through the full list and you pretty quickly realise we are a long way off being any "good". But we may as well attack this next "re-build" with vigour!

No unrealistic expectations on young players improving out of site. The draft pick a particular player was taken at, or their previous form many years ago means little. I am interested in what each player on our list can do now and in the future. I have put all players in four categories: Good enough to be part of a really good AFL team (that can play and compete well in finals) Might soon be good enough... but need to develop Not Good enough ... Not sure if they're good enough ... because I haven't seen enough of them I do not have a 5th category of genuine guns/stars because we don't have any. Mitch Clarke was playing like a gun/star until his season-ending injury, but would need to do that for close to a full season in 2013 for me to categorise him as a "gun". Good enough to be part of a really good AFL team (that can play and compete well in finals) 2. Jones 4. Watts 8. Frawley 9. Trengove 11. Clarke 12. Sylvia 13. McKenzie 16. Grimes 18. Green (retiring) 20. Garland 22. Moloney 24. Jurrah 27. Rivers 38. Howe Might soon be good enough... but need to develop 5. Gysberts 17. Blease 19. Strauss 25. McDonald 34. Martin 35. Tapscott 37. Gawn 42. Spencer Not Good enough ... 3. Bartram 6. Bate 7. Bennell 10. Morton 14. Dunn 15. Petterd 26. Nicholson 28. MacDonald 30. Sellar 36. Davey 39. Jetta 40. Jamar 44. Bail 49. Magner Not sure if they're good enough ... because I haven't seen enough of them 21. Cook 32. Evans 41. Davis 43. Taggart 45. Lawrence 46. Tynan 47. Couch 48. Fitzpatrick 50. Sheehan 51. Williams Not sure of the way to get or develop more guns or players who are good enough, but that's what we need a hell of a lot more of. I'd say you need about 25-30 who are a gun or "good enough" players, and we probably have 14 (and none of them guns)... Of those 14, Green is retiring, Jurrah's playing future is very uncertain. Clarke is potentially a genuine star. The rest are of a good enough standard, but we have no one "above" them to rely upon, week in week out, to perform at a consistent level. If we had another 10 players better than these, we'd be fine. But we don't, and we need them... Trades / Contracts / De-Listings Of the players who are "good enough", I would be happy to offer most of them new contracts or extensions. No idea what their current contract status is though. However, all would be "on the trade table" so to speak other than Frawley, Trengove, Clarke and Grimes. If we got the right offer,that is... If we receive even a semi-decent offer for one of the players who "might be good enough", I'd probably take it. Our list I understand our list will take time to evolve to the point I would like it to be at, and in the mean time we need to have players of lesser quality to help us get to where we want to be. So we need to carefully manage the type of players we keep who are "not good enough" so that we provide the players who "might be good enough" an environment in which they can develop. What do you think?