The Great Dasher Milburn

[you pick one]

True. Bit like his 1st cousin, also a red, also very injury prone , and also an excellent ruck on his day,when he was asked to ruck. He would have made an excellent modern day versatile ruck, just what we need and hopefully Vardy will produce.

BARRY STONEHAM, by the way.

Gee thats a good get VEEDUBS I knew they were both big reds from Joey's didn't know they were related.
Lings another Joey's red I wonder were there more?
and Tim Bourke, im a bit slow this time of night.

 

[darren forssman]

True. Bit like his 1st cousin, also a red, also very injury prone , and also an excellent ruck on his day,when he was asked to ruck. He would have made an excellent modern day versatile ruck, just what we need and hopefully Vardy will produce.

BARRY STONEHAM, by the way.

geez, i thought his brother tim would get a mention.

 

[LifeSpan-Void]

geez, i thought his brother tim would get a mention.

hey lets talk up Tony Malakellis while we're at it

 

[Vdubs]

geez, i thought his brother tim would get a mention.

no, he's not a red

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Again, the stated desire of this thread was to appreciate the achievement of Darren Milburn and the exceptional value that a 300 gamer can have to a club and team. It is not saying in anyway shape of form that he should be nursed to this milestone. For the record, Dash certainly deserved his spot in the side last year and until i have seen a player worthy of replacing him on merit he stays in the team. Milburns considerable value to the team (as is the case with other veterans) however will most likely exceed his pure playing ability due to his vast experience and ability to cope with a changing game....This is not to say he should be selected on this experience, it is just a mere nod to the countless value that he has to both club and team, i think most can at least acknowledge this.

We will give youth games and we will continue to rotate players in through the team. We have done this all along through our successful period, Tom Hawkins, Travis Varcoe, Mitch Duncan, and Joel Selwood are probably the most prominent examples of consistent senior players who played right from the get-go....thats not even mentioning the Taylor Hunts, Daniel Menzels, Motlops etc etc who have been given a taste (you would probably rightfully argue that Mitch Brown and Motlop would have played consistent senior footy at some stage last year bar injury). We are actually very good at providing opportunites and for a premiership team to rotate their youth as heavily as we have is very pleasing to see. The trick is balance....we don't have to keep playing these guys at such a young age, as mentioned time and time again Jimmy Bartel, James Kelly, Steve Johnson and Gary Ablett were all in and out of the team over their first few years....but they were given opportunity. I have complete faith in our ability to develop players within the Geelong Football Club. Those who show the ability will be rewarded and we will transition players as seen fit.... However, for the moment to even mention names like Guthrie, Smedts and co is a bit premature as no-one has seen them play in a senior environment. Ditto Marcus Drum whom a lot of people seem convinced will be an adequate replacement for Dash. We just don't know yet...however what we do know is that Darren Milburn is a great player who will once again be representing our side with distinction in 2011!

Cool, I understand you on 'stated desire of thread'...no problems, and I think it's a worthy thread, and hopefully we keep Dasher around after he stops playing too.

While the bolded I agree with you on, but obviously you and I have different opinions on whether anyone is banging the door down for a defensive spot or not In any case you may still be right, as the Poodle may take someone else's spot other than Dasher's.

On the bit about providing opportunities to youth, you're right, I've never said we don't play youth (ST Kilda are worse on that than us). What I have said however, is that we treat our youth purely as backups, dropping them whenever a senior player returns from inj or susp, regardless of form. Cited example, THunt's games in rnds 21 and 22, and yet still being dropped when he was in better form than 3 or 4 guys who were in the side, and the same could be said for Menzel. I want to see that part of what we do change in 2010, because selection should be purely merit based (i.e. form), and this way that we've handled it, partticularly in 2010, undermines the credibility of selection itself. This is not to blame Dasher or to say he shouldn't be in, because it's the match committee's responsibility, it's just to say that I think that aspect of things should change. If Dasher's form is still worthy of a spot, then I'm happy to keep him in.

 

[AM]

It’s a question of having a selection philosophy. Collingwood adopted the position that youth, leg speed, physical presence and consistency of effort best suited todays game and the way they wanted to play. That’s why players such as Blair were preferred to Medhurst; Dawes to Anthony; Sidebottom to O’Bree; Goldsack to Presti; Brown to Fraser. There were plenty of Collingwood supporters early on who questioned some of those choices but the Collingwood brains trust adhered to their selection philosophy and it paid off. Seeing the bigger picture can pay off and do so in spades.

 

[you pick one]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_King

from the film based on a king book, the shining (you may loosely know the premise from the simpsons "the shinning"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CMmwVRAtaI

Watched it last night great show, thanks for the tip D.F

 

[Gaz_Brownlow]

Cool, I understand you on 'stated desire of thread'...no problems, and I think it's a worthy thread, and hopefully we keep Dasher around after he stops playing too.

While the bolded I agree with you on, but obviously you and I have different opinions on whether anyone is banging the door down for a defensive spot or not In any case you may still be right, as the Poodle may take someone else's spot other than Dasher's.

On the bit about providing opportunities to youth, you're right, I've never said we don't play youth (ST Kilda are worse on that than us). What I have said however, is that we treat our youth purely as backups, dropping them whenever a senior player returns from inj or susp, regardless of form. Cited example, THunt's games in rnds 21 and 22, and yet still being dropped when he was in better form than 3 or 4 guys who were in the side, and the same could be said for Menzel. I want to see that part of what we do change in 2010, because selection should be purely merit based (i.e. form), and this way that we've handled it, partticularly in 2010, undermines the credibility of selection itself. This is not to blame Dasher or to say he shouldn't be in, because it's the match committee's responsibility, it's just to say that I think that aspect of things should change. If Dasher's form is still worthy of a spot, then I'm happy to keep him in.

Completely agree on the Taylor Hunt situation last year...he did deserve his spot in the 22, however i also understand the coaches desires to keep others in the side. Hindsight is a beautiful thing, and i guess people are more readily suggesting that Corey should have been left out due to his fitness last year....However, Menzel's case is a bit different....i watched him against Carlton and whilst he was good and very promising (kicked 3 from memory) it kinda reminded me a bit of Nathan Abletts debut in which he made fantastic use of opportunity but had next to zero pressure or accountability on him...not to take anything away from Menzel, he performed exactly how you would expect a first year player too.

This year is completely different though....Hunt, Menzel, Duncan, Motlop, West, Simpson have got solid senior experience and will definitely command a spot if their form warrants....i would also include Mitch Brown in this list as he was cruelly cut by injury when it was apparent he would play 1st football. These players will figure in senior selection...but naturally you would expect them to be less consistent given their inexperience.

The collingwood example is fair, but still is not directly comparable to us....O'bree, Anthony and Medhurst are muppets not worthy of senior selection and Fraser and Presti were practically crippled and incapable of playing senior football....we are not like that especially in Darren Milburn's case - he has demonstrated very able playing ability and great fitness.

Again though, its about balance, i have every confidence that we will get it right this year and be a very dangerous side for years to come. Very much looking forward to 2011!

 

[Partridge]

The collingwood example is fair, but still is not directly comparable to us....O'bree, Anthony and Medhurst are muppets not worthy of senior selection and Fraser and Presti were practically crippled and incapable of playing senior football....we are not like that especially in Darren Milburn's case - he has demonstrated very able playing ability and great fitness.

That's the problem, some of our older guys could become like that very quickly. To assume they'll all keep maintaining the same output is insanity. The end can come very soon and we need to be prepared in case it occurs.

 

[AM]

That's the problem, some of our older guys could become like that very quickly. To assume they'll all keep maintaining the same output is insanity. The end can come very soon and we need to be prepared in case it occurs.

Spot on!

 

[Wish Wellingtons]

It’s a question of having a selection philosophy. Collingwood adopted the position that youth, leg speed, physical presence and consistency of effort best suited todays game and the way they wanted to play. That’s why players such as Blair were preferred to Medhurst; Dawes to Anthony; Sidebottom to O’Bree; Goldsack to Presti; Brown to Fraser. There were plenty of Collingwood supporters early on who questioned some of those choices but the Collingwood brains trust adhered to their selection philosophy and it paid off. Seeing the bigger picture can pay off and do so in spades.

Presti, Anthony, O´Bree and Fraser are all absolute shit, Milburn is ten times the player of any of these, especially going by Dash´s form last year.

And Taylor Hunt is pretty over rated around here, lets be honest. He has only shown a few glimpses of form, hasnt really put together any standout games, a great prospect no doubt, but I think some people are sold on him a little too easily. Sure he has Tenace like speed, but really there is nothing else that i have been impressed by, especially his defensive game which is lacking.

Again, I am not saying that he won´t amount to anything, but i really dont think he did anywhere near enough to justify continued gametime (which he didn´t get), some are speaking of him as though he was one of our standouts, while really he did not consolidate the position when he was given a chance.

 

[Go Hoops]

Anyone who suggests Presti and O'Bree were shit is a lousy judge. Matthews rated O'Bree and was pissed when he was poached and he was rated at the Pies. Presti was one of the best defensive players going around. The fact that Anthony was grabbed by Freo suggests he's still rated.

Dasher has been fantastic for us but was exposed lots of times last year. At 34 he represents the past as many have said. I'd like to see Taylor Hunt and Hogan in the back half to add much needed pace and that means Dasher is there as back-up. With Taylor Hunt, Wojo and Hogan in the back half we would have some real run.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Completely agree on the Taylor Hunt situation last year...he did deserve his spot in the 22, however i also understand the coaches desires to keep others in the side. Hindsight is a beautiful thing, and i guess people are more readily suggesting that Corey should have been left out due to his fitness last year....However, Menzel's case is a bit different....i watched him against Carlton and whilst he was good and very promising (kicked 3 from memory) it kinda reminded me a bit of Nathan Abletts debut in which he made fantastic use of opportunity but had next to zero pressure or accountability on him...not to take anything away from Menzel, he performed exactly how you would expect a first year player too.

This year is completely different though....Hunt, Menzel, Duncan, Motlop, West, Simpson have got solid senior experience and will definitely command a spot if their form warrants....i would also include Mitch Brown in this list as he was cruelly cut by injury when it was apparent he would play 1st football. These players will figure in senior selection...but naturally you would expect them to be less consistent given their inexperience.

The collingwood example is fair, but still is not directly comparable to us....O'bree, Anthony and Medhurst are muppets not worthy of senior selection and Fraser and Presti were practically crippled and incapable of playing senior football....we are not like that especially in Darren Milburn's case - he has demonstrated very able playing ability and great fitness.

Again though, its about balance, i have every confidence that we will get it right this year and be a very dangerous side for years to come. Very much looking forward to 2011!

Description of Menzel's games is fair, albeit that he has some real talent I believe. What was so impressive about THunt was at times he was put under pressure, but he was willing to back himself to get out of it, and did, showing not just pace but good disposal and decision making, has come along way from 2009. Certainly should have been in the side in the finals and the fact that he wasn't was an indictment upon (mainly) Thompson as well as the MC as a whole.

It's a good example of what I have been debating in this thread, I'm not as worried about Milburn right now as I am some of our other older players, but I certainly hope he's going on under the understanding that he could finish his career out of the side, and that's his risk he's taking, and I hope Scott has made that clear to all the older players. As Partridge points out, the end can indeed come quickly, and certainly we do have to make changes. Whether or not Milburn will be one of them should be decided by form alone, and I'm probably more willing to accept Milburn continuing on under Scott where I believe that will be judged that way, whereas if he had continued on under Thompson I would know that he, and the others, would be in the side no matter what. Not interested in any sort of youth policy, but interested in the best 22 on form all the time, so if THunt is in it, bloody well pick him.

The Collingwood example people miss the point, whether those guys were muppets or not (personally I don't think they were but people are entitled to their opinions) isn't the point, because they weren't picked not because they were muppets (I seriously doubt Malthouse thought of Lockyer as a muppet, and yet he spent most of the year in the VFL), they were dropped when the form of someone below was better than them, and when the young bloke who came up showed good AFL form, he stayed. In fact the point isn't even that those guys who replaced the "muppets" were young, they could have all been in their mid 20's, and it all would still have been the right call...being prepared to make the hard calls and just pick the side on merit. We have to get out of our policy of picking the side based on seniority, and do the same.

One other point from the Collingwood thing that comes to mind too is don't damn well pick players that aren't fit (although admittedly it was Presti that picked himself). If Ling and Corey were even half fit, you might have had a case to keep them in over Hunt (although even then as I pointed out, there were guys whose form he was better than), but to pick them in a half fit state of crippleness ahead of those other options was just ludicrous. Hopefully it's not repeated. The tougher pre season should help with that.

Prepared to keep an open mind about Dasher's inclusion so long as the side is picked within that policy. Just like I keep backing Wojo because his form warrants a spot, I'm willing to do it with Milburn if his does also.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Presti, Anthony, O´Bree and Fraser are all absolute shit, Milburn is ten times the player of any of these, especially going by Dash´s form last year.

And Taylor Hunt is pretty over rated around here, lets be honest. He has only shown a few glimpses of form, hasnt really put together any standout games, a great prospect no doubt, but I think some people are sold on him a little too easily. Sure he has Tenace like speed, but really there is nothing else that i have been impressed by, especially his defensive game which is lacking.

Again, I am not saying that he won´t amount to anything, but i really dont think he did anywhere near enough to justify continued gametime (which he didn´t get), some are speaking of him as though he was one of our standouts, while really he did not consolidate the position when he was given a chance.

Then I suggest you watch more tapes of his play.

Start with the fact that unlike Tenace, he can actually kick. You'll notice some other very good traits about him too while you're at it.

While I agree his defensive game could improve, you could say that about most of the first year players we've ever had, and in the AFL in general. Other than Joel Selwood, which is why he's such a beauty, most first year players have to improve their defensive game as they transition from VFL to AFL level, and over time the good ones do. So long as THunt improves upon his in 2011 and 2012 that's the curve you look for.

As a side point, in relation to consolidation of position, it's a bit rich to say someone hasn't consolidated their position when they aren't given the chance to do so, which didn't happen, since has been pointed out before in this thread, all of our new players (other than Pods) were used purely as injury/suspension replacements and that's it. I'm looking forward to a few actually being given an extended run this year, and then you may well see them consolidate said position.

 

[AM]

Description of Menzel's games is fair, albeit that he has some real talent I believe. What was so impressive about THunt was at times he was put under pressure, but he was willing to back himself to get out of it, and did, showing not just pace but good disposal and decision making, has come along way from 2009. Certainly should have been in the side in the finals and the fact that he wasn't was an indictment upon (mainly) Thompson as well as the MC as a whole.

It's a good example of what I have been debating in this thread, I'm not as worried about Milburn right now as I am some of our other older players, but I certainly hope he's going on under the understanding that he could finish his career out of the side, and that's his risk he's taking, and I hope Scott has made that clear to all the older players. As Partridge points out, the end can indeed come quickly, and certainly we do have to make changes. Whether or not Milburn will be one of them should be decided by form alone, and I'm probably more willing to accept Milburn continuing on under Scott where I believe that will be judged that way, whereas if he had continued on under Thompson I would know that he, and the others, would be in the side no matter what. Not interested in any sort of youth policy, but interested in the best 22 on form all the time, so if THunt is in it, bloody well pick him.

The Collingwood example people miss the point, whether those guys were muppets or not (personally I don't think they were but people are entitled to their opinions) isn't the point, because they weren't picked not because they were muppets (I seriously doubt Malthouse thought of Lockyer as a muppet, and yet he spent most of the year in the VFL), they were dropped when the form of someone below was better than them, and when the young bloke who came up showed good AFL form, he stayed. In fact the point isn't even that those guys who replaced the "muppets" were young, they could have all been in their mid 20's, and it all would still have been the right call...being prepared to make the hard calls and just pick the side on merit. We have to get out of our policy of picking the side based on seniority, and do the same.

One other point from the Collingwood thing that comes to mind too is don't damn well pick players that aren't fit (although admittedly it was Presti that picked himself). If Ling and Corey were even half fit, you might have had a case to keep them in over Hunt (although even then as I pointed out, there were guys whose form he was better than), but to pick them in a half fit state of crippleness ahead of those other options was just ludicrous. Hopefully it's not repeated. The tougher pre season should help with that.

Prepared to keep an open mind about Dasher's inclusion so long as the side is picked within that policy. Just like I keep backing Wojo because his form warrants a spot, I'm willing to do it with Milburn if his does also.

Many of the points in bold are valid. However there was more to the Collingwood approach than that. Half way through the year they changed their selection philosophy. In order to fit their game plan and maximise their chances of a premiership they chose to go for youth, more leg speed, greater physical presence and consistency of effort. They didn’t divert from that philosophy even in the face of older slower players showing form in the twos.


I still believe that if we go into our games against Collingwood this year with the same player set-up as we did in the last two games against them last year we will get a similar result.

 

[Go Hoops]

Many of the points in bold are valid. However there was more to the Collingwood approach than that. Half way through the year they changed their selection philosophy. In order to fit their game plan and maximise their chances of a premiership they chose to go for youth, more leg speed, greater physical presence and consistency of effort. They didn’t divert from that philosophy even in the face of older slower players showing form in the twos.


I still believe that if we go into our games against Collingwood this year with the same player set-up as we did in the last two games against them last year we will get a similar result.

Agree with this. I think there is a divide between those who think that with some tinkering we can still win the flag in 2011 and those who think we need to make more radical changes to our game plan and structure and another flag is a few years off. Having sat through the two games in which the Pies took us apart I reckon it's the latter. Still reckon we are capable of doing some damage this year.

 

[Turbocat]

Rather than pace being the main criteria for selection I'd look at discipline . Dasher has never been lightning but he is an outstanding footballer who has used he nous for most of his career. The thing that can not be accepted is his little , loose brain dummy spit when things don't go his way. Not only is it unacceptable , its a bad example.

Generally , I feel he has that bit mongrel that I like to see it a footballer. The odd free kick or suspension , I'll wear but dummy spits over umpire decisions are not acceptable. Do it once and its "seeyalater".

 

[AM]

Disagree Turbo. One of the key reasons for the Collingwood turnaround last year was the deliberate choice of players with leg speed. Blair, Sidebottom, Wellingham, Beams and so on. Sure Dasher is loose at times but that isn't the main factor for our back half being exposed against Collingwood. It was because Collingwood spread our back line. That's when slow back halves get exposed and our back half last year really only had one player with reasonable leg speed. Of course Collingwoods unremitting frontal pressure was a key factor too.

Every club coach or recruiting manager I've heard in recent times has said one of their key considerations was improving leg speed. Eade said it on radio on Friday night and I wouldn't say the Bulldogs were a slow team.

My money is on Chris Scott adding youth and pace to the side this year and he'd be spot on in doing it IMHO.

 

[Wish Wellingtons]

Then I suggest you watch more tapes of his play.

Start with the fact that unlike Tenace, he can actually kick. You'll notice some other very good traits about him too while you're at it.

While I agree his defensive game could improve, you could say that about most of the first year players we've ever had, and in the AFL in general. Other than Joel Selwood, which is why he's such a beauty, most first year players have to improve their defensive game as they transition from VFL to AFL level, and over time the good ones do. So long as THunt improves upon his in 2011 and 2012 that's the curve you look for.

As a side point, in relation to consolidation of position, it's a bit rich to say someone hasn't consolidated their position when they aren't given the chance to do so, which didn't happen, since has been pointed out before in this thread, all of our new players (other than Pods) were used purely as injury/suspension replacements and that's it. I'm looking forward to a few actually being given an extended run this year, and then you may well see them consolidate said position.

Ok, the comparison to Tenace was facetious, and i understand that his disposal is infinitely better (mine probably is), but i dont think shozed that he is the guaranteed gun that many around here seem to think he is. Especially not in defense, and not in the same side as Wojac.

 

[Turbocat]

Disagree Turbo. One of the key reasons for the Collingwood turnaround last year was the deliberate choice of players with leg speed. Blair, Sidebottom, Wellingham, Beams and so on. Sure Dasher is loose at times but that isn't the main factor for our back half being exposed against Collingwood. It was because Collingwood spread our back line. That's when slow back halves get exposed and our back half last year really only had one player with reasonable leg speed. Of course Collingwoods unremitting frontal pressure was a key factor too.

Every club coach or recruiting manager I've heard in recent times has said one of their key considerations was improving leg speed. Eade said it on radio on Friday night and I wouldn't say the Bulldogs were a slow team.

My money is on Chris Scott adding youth and pace to the side this year and he'd be spot on in doing it IMHO.

Ammo , I don't discount our need for additional speed. It was quite telling that the players with speed had the better chance of busting the box.

I like your tactical assessment. Do you believe that every Pie player has this factor , I don't. Ball for instance would be no quicker the slower players in our side. Is Maxwell that quick? I'm sure there are a few that seem quicker than they are. No doubt overall they seemed quicker than us but they were not a group of 22 Stawell Gifter's.

IMO , we had too many guys that are "one paced" in the side and its here that Scott has a challenge because so many are like Milburn , they are all fantastic footballers but perhaps a little lacking in outright pace. Not just in our backline but guys like Ling, Kelly and Bartel in the guts and SJ and Chappy up forward. That Wojo has been kept so long shows our deficiency. Too many like this makes most of the side slow , change a few and the the side will a lot quicker , fitter , fresher etc. Put 4 young quick guys in the side and I doubt Dasher or a few of the others would have looked as bad.

Milburn is probably the obvious candidate to be replaced due to age , we must get fresh kids in the side at someones expense but I don't think his pace would be that much worse than several others.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Disagree Turbo. One of the key reasons for the Collingwood turnaround last year was the deliberate choice of players with leg speed. Blair, Sidebottom, Wellingham, Beams and so on. Sure Dasher is loose at times but that isn't the main factor for our back half being exposed against Collingwood. It was because Collingwood spread our back line. That's when slow back halves get exposed and our back half last year really only had one player with reasonable leg speed. Of course Collingwoods unremitting frontal pressure was a key factor too.

Every club coach or recruiting manager I've heard in recent times has said one of their key considerations was improving leg speed. Eade said it on radio on Friday night and I wouldn't say the Bulldogs were a slow team.

My money is on Chris Scott adding youth and pace to the side this year and he'd be spot on in doing it IMHO.

Very good summary Ammo. You certainly see in the Dogs trade week what they're trying to improve upon.

With the Collingwood situation my point was that Malthouse didn't make a delibarate decision to favour youth over experience. What he did do however (as you point out) was preference players who could fulfil the phsyical requirements of the gameplan..in this case speed and ability to apply frontal pressure was what they identified, and they picked players who could provide it...ironically enough, despite what many have said in this thread, Fraser is not a muppet (maybe not a worthy #1 pick but definitely not a muppet) nor was OBree, but the bodies of both were in such a state that they could not provide this, and hence they were jettisoned. It wasn't so much a youth policy as picking the right side of fit.

It works the same in our case, and I agree with you that we will have to change the composition of our back half, both to ensure we can't get killed on the spread, and most importantly use a combination of legspeed and kicking skill to pierce the zone. Milburn is a real conundrum for Scott because he's actually still contributing reasonably well, and is probably in the best 22, but if those are the characteristics we will need, then he doesn't fit because he is slow, and his kicking is reasonable, but it's not a weapon.

One thing I do know, and I think you and I agree, is that personnel changes will be needed...we can argue the toss over whether Milburn should be on the chopping block, or whether someone else should be, but what is beyond dispute is that there will have to be personnel changes in the back 6, it's just a matter of who and when and why. Scott can change the gameplan all he likes but unless he changes personnel to fit with it, we won't win the flag, and it was pretty clear from the finals series what sort of change is needed.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

That's the problem, some of our older guys could become like that very quickly. To assume they'll all keep maintaining the same output is insanity. The end can come very soon and we need to be prepared in case it occurs.

This is the critical point and provides a great example of what we need to implement. The same cattle can only get you so far.
Collingwood persisted with the aforementioned brigade for 2-3 years without success - I remember the look on Malthouses face in one of our routs of them a few years ago - I reckon the penny dropped and he knew he had to do something different and the rest is history.
We must be brave and select the right mix to suit our "Scott game Plan". We need to evolve and surely 2009 and certainly 2010 have reinforced this.
After all the defenition of insanity is doing the same things and expecting a different result.
Can't wait for 2011 to 2015 - might just be another golden era for the Catters !!

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Ok, the comparison to Tenace was facetious, and i understand that his disposal is infinitely better (mine probably is), but i dont think shozed that he is the guaranteed gun that many around here seem to think he is. Especially not in defense, and not in the same side as Wojac.

I never said that, and that's not even relevant. As soon as you start talking about 'gun' or similar, you're getting into the mindset of seniority, and that's the one we must get out of. I don't know what Hunt will or won't become, time will tell. The point I was making is that based on his form in rounds 21 and 22, he clearly should have been in the side, because his form was better than 3 or 4 blokes who were in the side, and that's true.

In regards to the other point, it's kinda crazy to say he shouldn't play because Wojac's there and he offers the same thing, if that's what you're saying? in modern footy you need all the speed you can get, and you shouldn't limit yourself to one or two quick players because then it's too easy for the opposition to shut you down. If you've got half a dozen good players with leg speed, pick them all.

 

[ninjacat]

Each year a club must draft a minimum of 3 players. Unless they redraft someone they had already cut loose that year, which occasionally happens, that is at least three new guys coming in each year. A club will generally discard at least player who is not up to it each year also, so let's say 4 guys get drafted each year, maybe some are rookie elevations too.

A player who makes it to 30 years has been at the club generally 12 years if he was drafted by the same club. So in that time approx. 48 players will come to the club (if we go by 4 x 12). If half of them turn out to be good (which is what you would hope for) then that's 24 guys - more than a whole team. Within a few years of them arriving at the club, a lot of them are going to be pressing their case for a seniors berth anyway, well Boy Wonder made his case straight away.

Any player who comes to the club should be told, you will play until you are 30 if you are good, any more than that is a bonus and you should be prepared to deal with getting dropped to the twos if a young guy is pushing his case for selection. Sentimentality should be left out of it. Unless the team is ordinary and especially if the young guys coming through are not up to it, then a good player should understand that he will probably not have much of a career past 30, unless he fills a specialist role, or is just plain awesome. I can't think of many guys we've had in the last 20 years who will still really good at 30. Riccardi maybe.

Wojcinski had a great year last year and he should be in the mix unless we have some serious leg speed that might threaten to defect to other clubs if they don't get played. Dasher has been an awesome servant and is still playing great football but he is stopping a young guy from getting a chance to learn in the seniors.

There will be some unhappy campers this year as you can't play your Duncans, Menzels and T Hunts without some other established player getting passed over. A new coach was what we needed to stop playing the same players, who, granted, had proven themselves in two flags, but some of those guys were taking it for granted or had deficiencies. Mackie, Blake.

I'm tipping Dasher will play a lot of his footy in the twos this year, also perhaps one Josh Hunt who again has proven to be somwhat of a liability in finals football. I think Mackie might pull his finger out with a new coach and stay in the backline. And if Brown starts to fire up, that will really stuff up the forward line. I don't even think we can have THawk, Mooney and Pods in the side together, let alone Mitch Brown. Mooney has signalled his intent to stay in the 1s by returning to training early, and I love the guy, but I just think him and Pods are competing for the one spot. With a three man bench I think the days of rotating a third tall forward on the bench are over. Unless Hawkins plays as a forward/ruck, Mooney or Pods mightnot play on the ground together.

 

[Partridge]

In regards to the other point, it's kinda crazy to say he shouldn't play because Wojac's there and he offers the same thing, if that's what you're saying? in modern footy you need all the speed you can get, and you shouldn't limit yourself to one or two quick players because then it's too easy for the opposition to shut you down. If you've got half a dozen good players with leg speed, pick them all.

Funny you say that, we played both of them in Round 20 against the Dogs, and enjoyed our best win of the season. Not entirely coincidentally (in terms of our speed that night), Lonergan didn't play.