One of the main criticisms of the club atm is the weakness of the playing list - particularly the lack of depth when compared to other clubs.

Given the apparent lack of depth on the list, how is it that the bullants manage to dominate the VFL? One explanation might be that we have the best VFL listed players in the comp - however that arguement doesnt seem to stack up when you consider the best players list every week (dominated by carlton listed players) and how we faded from the VFL finals last season when the 12:10 rule became enforced.

Wouldnt it make more sense for VFL clubs aligned to AFL teams with stronger lists to be performing better than the bullants?

It certainly would make sense (what you're saying in your last para). Maybe it is an indication of Mitchell's quality as a coach?

Confidence would have a lot to do with it. The pressure would be far less at VFL level. And maybe Mitchell gives his players realistic and achievable tasks to perform which they generally do perform.

_________________
There's so much I could say...

There is a chasm between standards.

Our firsts are a good qualiuty VFL side.

_________________
This might sound extreme in the context of alleged sexual assault, drunken violence and a drug trafficking charge...

The Bullants team circa 2005 and 2006 is very different with the Bullants listed players. They have specifically recruited to win despite the 12 / 10 rule.

You must remember that the Carlton players at the Bullants fill the keypositions. Livo full back, Teague effectively CHB, (Morrell FF) and Prenders most CHF, add Harford to the centre and our young Carlton listed players can take flanks or pinch hit and still develop. The great sign is that they're still winning despite a fair spread of injuries. With Carlton players taking the key spots, the Bullants team is strong down the spine and a very good VFL level. The above listed players are just not up to AFL, or in the least, are limited in the roles they play.

Our bottom 10 are just as solid as the top 12 each week. There are no weak links in the 22 that run out.

Young
Crow
Vansittart
Morrell
Franchina
Fallu
Houlihan
Harford
Hickey
Frank Raso

All these guys are mature, stong bodies who have played plenty of VFL footy.

Our AFL players who are just off the 'pace' in pace and decision making in the AFL are spot on the pace in the VFL with their superior fitness and body size. They have more time to kick better and rectify any mistake they may make.

Add all this to Mitch's coaching and you can see why they are on top.

Regards Cazzesman

_________________
Ricky Gervais - “Everyone has the right to hold whatever beliefs they want. And everyone else has the right to find those beliefs f***ing ridiculous.”

Barry Mitchell is the difference. Been a big fan of the way he goes about his coaching for a few years now.

Honestly believe he will be coaching an AFL side very soon - I just hope that it's Carlton.

_________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit"
- Aristotle

cazzessman/molsey - fair points however the bullants listed players were a lot weaker in 05 than in 06 (morell/hartford/franchina werent bullants listed? - also houlahan and hickey? werent there) - I remember comments floating in the media (ABC/SEN - which doesnt equate to being inside i know) querying our lack of VFL depth and how it would hurt us in the finals (and it did).

In terms of 'good' AFL lists, how do we stack up against say the casey scorpians (saints) or werribee (dogs?) in terms of structure provided from the AFL listed players and depth of VFL players?

From a very simplistic viewpoint - it would appear (based on performances over the past 2 seasons) that our list players from 23-35ish arent actually as bad or weak as many pundits seem to imply? (lack of depth arguement)

edit: fallu - he was on the 05 bullants list but dont think he played many senior games until the finals because of enforcement of the 12:10 rule? Is that correct?

When does DP's contract expire?!!?

And will Barry be able to mix it at the (bottom of the) top?

_________________
[Sam Jacobs] looks like a 7' Lance Whitnall, and [Mitch Robinson] looks like a 4' Lance Whitnall
(The SEN team during the Carlton v Cats 2009 pre-season match)

Contracted till the end of 2008.

Mitch would be fantastic. The modern day players really seem to respect him and his ways. I constantly read the words 'tough but fair' related to Mitch. Seems to get the best out of players and is not afraid to try things either.

_________________
There's so much I could say...