btdemon

If you look at the history of father/son selections, it is by no means a guarantee of success. There have bee some great success stories and many flops. It would seem that the more recent sections have had a better success rate, i.e.- Watson, Liberatore, Wallis, Daniher, Waite, Viney etc. If you look back at the history there are also some monumental duds. I don't see F/S as any more clear and indicator of ability than all of the other scrutiny employed by recruiters. It is not time in our development to get sentimental over a player with a marginal skill set. I say we should leave him alone unless he truly warrants selection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_players_drafted_to_the_Australian_Football_League_under_the_father–son_rule

He looks like a natural footballer. I'd take him for sure if he was available at pick 6

I agree completely. Yesterday he did a good job. He has done that many times with the Dees, except yesterday there was very little pressure on him because they were belting them. Every WC entry was a wild bomb into the forward 50. It was the opposite of the situation he faced at Melbourne most of the time. My family thought I was being churlish when I said that I hoped he got 12 goals kicked on him. They were probably right. He is no longer a Melbourne player and I would rather not think about him any more. For some reason I felt more charitable about Rivers and was able to wish the best for him. Maybe it was the fact that he didn't leave the Dees in the prime of his career but at in the last couple and was just seeking some success. I don't know. Maybe it was that rivers always gave us courage and leadership when he was a Demon. Frawley has shown that he is a follower and not a leader. That's ok, not everyone is born to lead. Given his lack of leadership, and the fact that we have Brayshaw in return, and that we have TMac, Dunne, Frost and possibly OMac, if he shapes up, I don't see Frawley as a great loss. Thus far, he hasn't proven to be so. It's just annoying when good players leave.

I, for one, hope that he stays. I acknowledge that he can appear lazy but he is not one-dimensional. He is the best high mark in the competition. His high marking is unsurpassed and his hands are the stickiest of any player at the club. He is obviously not going to outbody some of the bigger backs but he is a very good contested mark for his size. I called it a couple of years ago that he had become "the complete footballer". I was wrong. There are many things he needs to add to his game, but if you look a him as a forward flanker he stacks up pretty well. He has obvious marking skills and takes many that no other player can, from seemingly hopeless positions. He is as good a set shot at goal as we have in the team. His kicking is textbook and can slot them from very tight angles and reasonable distances. He has tremendous natural skill and mobility. On the other hand, he needs to work harder on his intensity and defensive pressure and look for ways to benefit the team with one-percenters. Like Watts, Howe is classy icing on the cake that could look way better in a good team. If he applied himself he could be as influential as Breust or Gunston.

I really want Bennell. Worth the risk in my opinion. We beat Gold Coast in a game a couple of years ago at a the G. I can't remember exactly but Ablett got something like 35 and Bennell got 38? I predicted at the time that he would soon be a Brownlow medalist. Well things haven't quite panned out that way but he still has the potential. He is a Ferrari in the same way as Judd is. He's possibly going to be very high maintenance but it's worth the risk to get our hands on this quality of talent. Every player carries risk. Dangerfield or Fyfe could have career-ending injuries but it wouldn't put you off getting them if you could.

Actually, my logic is flawed here. There could be worse toe injuries in other clubs. Doh!

By definition, his would be the worst toe injury in the history of football!

Love this bloke.

Do we have room for his and James Harmes' teeth in the one team?

This is very strange. What the hell has my original post got to do with "political correctness"? It would seem that some people in our society are so threatened by women achieving things that they jump up and down when women do something really good and are rightly lauded for it. It's just plain weird, and I don't get it. The thread has been railroaded by a twisted agenda that I can't respect. If you go back to the OP I was just really impressed by Daisy Pearce and you have managed to turn it in to some weird hangup about women. I'll say it again, it's WEIRD!!

This is a weird response to the OP???????

I ask the question, do we have room for both James Harmes and Jake Melksham's teeth in the same club?

I just watched Daisy Pearce's acceptance speech at the B&F awards. She was so articulate and knowledgeable and put together a fantastic, well-researched piece which demonstrated how important the MFC's support of women's football is. She was very aware of the historical significance of the women's games and it is easy to see why she is captain. As much as I loved seeing Bernie, Jack and TMac's speeches, and their 'knockabout' style, Daisy's was by contrast, outstanding.

Interesting that you see that as whining. I don't quite understand.

Here are three very compelling cases as to why this is an issue of racism http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/30/i-can-tell-you-how-adam-goodes-feels-every-indigenous-person-has-felt-it http://www.businessinsider.com.au/an-american-expat-explains-the-adam-goodes-controversy-and-australias-problem-with-racism-2015-7 https://www.facebook.com/theprojecttv/videos/vb.107787018440/10153048590433441/?type=2&theater

Bailey had a better list. More attacking instinct.

While we're on the topic of Jack Watts - In that horrible game last week against Brisbane, where we did our bet to let them back in by causing unnecessary stoppages and kicking down the line (I almost thought Mark Neeld was back!), it was Jack Watts who was able to open up the play with great vision and beautiful kicking to position. Every time he got it (admittedly not enough), I breathed a sigh of relief because I knew the ball would end up somewhere to the team's advantage. I think his role as a sweeper is probably his best and he is very valuable to the team.

I just watched a game from 2011. It was the Melb vs Ess game immediately after the "bruise free" game against Carlton. The Dees were being questioned and responded well. A couple of things stood out to me. Firstly, how good a player Trenners was at that time. He was smart tough and strong and played with a maturity beyond his years. Unlike some of our players, he didn't do dumb [censored]. He knew what to do and when. I am very enthusiastic about the thought of regaining him if he can recapture that form. BTW he didn't look as slow as he did a couple of years later. He wasn't quick but ok. The other thing to note was how well Jack Watts played. He seemed more free and more willing to back himself.

The worst game of footy I've witnessed in a long time. The stoppage game is okay when we are trying to match it with stronger sides but we caused stoppages when we didn't need to!! We almost let them back in to the game! All we needed to do was kick a couple more goals and bury them but instead we had stoppage after stoppage. Eventually they started to play with a bit more flair and all of a sudden they were within striking distance. The only thing that saved us is that we were more effective at constipating the game. Daniel Cross is a great judge of the ball in the air, a great pair of hands, courageous and determined. But i don't want him kicking the ball in the back 50! Dom Tyson is a lazy kick. On numerous occasions his casual up and unders caused turnovers. He needs to address this if he is to reach his potential. Today i wanted to drag him! Jack Watts was the only one I trusted with the ball in the back 50.

Probably just Angus Brayshaw. We better not do it just yet.

People may be forgetting that we have Frost. He is also a pretty dodgy kick for goal but better than TMac.

Did anyone post "relax we've got this"? I felt very uncomfortable about this game during the week. There was too much confidence on D'Land. It mirrored the attitude of the players. We are so good at losing the few games where we actually go in favourites. This has been a problem at Melbourne going back even before Dean Bailey's time. Sometimes I think our players believe the hype that is out there in football opinion world. Of course Essendon were going to put in a 'backs to the wall' performance its just that we were too pathetic to snuff it out early. PS why the f*** didn't TMac pass it off to someone who can kick????

Contrary to most opinions on here, I think he is a very gifted player who we should definitely keep. It is true that he needs to focus his game and learn to play defensively but he is supremely talented and could be a great part of a strong team in the future. His pressure goals from difficult angles indicate his true talent. This guy could be anything but does need to work out what it is.

This is a very realistic prediction. We played one out of the box on Sunday. We were all astonished. Our lineup was very NQR due to injuries, but we won. I don't expect us to perform consistently like this but would like to see the standards set in that game repeated more often. Having said that, I think we will still have the odd shocker and lose when we should win, and maybe even do the opposite and win when we aren't expected to. The important thing about the win against Geelong was our ferocity, the ability to stick to the plan and the consistency for four quarters. That is the Roos game plan and it reminds me of how confident I was when Northey was coaching and we were in a tight one. We knew how to tie up the opposition an win those games. That hasn't been there at MFC since. Balme's, ND's and Dean Bailey's game plans have all been attacking but very vulnerable when the momentum shifts. I much prefer the defensive approach. It gives me more confidence in the tight ones.

That is true. If the kicks are not well directed to leading forwards then the loose man can pick them off. It also points to the forwards not providing viable targets by strong leading. The fact that Oxley just happened to be there suggests that our kicking wasn't great. More than Oxley's field day, I blame the large number of unforced errors and turnover goals that we gave to Collingwood. The obvious ones were Dunn's kick out, Watts' botched mark, Toumpas's handpass to Gawn who kicks directly to the opposition which opened them up to goal, and Fitzy's tunnel ball. Remove those four instances alone and we would have been one point down at the final siren. (Correction, five points up because Watts would have probably goaled from that opportunity.) In the final analysis, we played ok (except for when we didn't )