Mark McGough

[Buckethead]

With all this trade stuff going on I for one certainly hope they do not trade McGough. I havn't heard any specific rumors from the media but alot of people seem to think he may well be on his way. The guy is 188cm with strong hands, can find the ball, and wins clearances at 18-19. I hope the coaching staff give him time like they did with Licuria because I believe if he sorts his kicking out he'll be a very very very good player.

[Blanch]

I've made my feelings known on Stinky in another thread.

[David]

But this is the point, McGough has such a promising future (though maybe not with the pies) he should be used as valuable trade bait. I reckon McGough for Stevens would be a very fair swap.

[Rob8]

There is no way Port would accept mcGough 4 Stevens nor should they, however great we think mCg will be as he simply doesn't have the runs on the board the way Stevens does (150 games etc.).

I originally thought that Scotland + McGough would have been fair but understand why they wouldnt accept that.

[Tank36]

McGough for Stevens. Well well well!

[Rob8]

What is 'well,well,well' supposed to mean does that mean you reckon that is a fair deal, b-*^%hit, or do you just not have an opinion

[Tank36]

Sorry Rob I should have clearer. No disrespect to McGough but McGough for Stevens is absurd.

[Rob8]

Agreed sorry if it was harsh just needed some clarification - Cheers

[commonwombat]

He's trade material. OK, some of you will want to shoot me for saying it but let's look at the facts.

He's young, yes but so are a number of players on our list who have progressed further than him. These players are included in those competing for the same spots he'd be considered for, on-ball midfield etc.

As it stands at the moment, we have a number of good in and under ball getters (his strength) and he's a little down the list. He isn't quick and his disposal is less than brilliant, whereas others are stronger in these aspects.

McGough hit the headlines with a sensational debut game in 2002 but by the end of that season he was out of the senior side and honestly he's been only a fringe player at best since.

I realistically see him struggling to get senior game time if he stays, considering the current competion for his sort of positions. this competion is not going to lessen as others come through. Others have already passed him in the pecking order. He would be better served playing elsewhere. He is expendable and we are running a club not a creche.

[Blanch]

There are many good midfielders in the comp. Very few of these are match winners. The main reason I think we should give him 2 more years is because he is a match winner and I don't think you should throw them away.

His good is awesome, his bad is terrible. It's MM's job to narrow the gap between the two. I'll go on record to say that Stinky will be a 150-200 game player ......somewhere. I hope it's with us.

[Cam]

Young players usually have a bad second year. If you allow a list to mature then you will see the results. The dynasties of football all allowed their lists to mature over 5+ years. They all carried footballers that their followers considered inept at times, for seasons at times. I don't think McGough will go anywhere just yet, he will be given a couple more seasons to develop before we make a decision on him. After all Rhyce and Benny Kinnear have survived to MM culls of 2000 and 2001. Who'd have thought!?

Stability and improvement win more flags than quick chops or hiring mercenaries (in the 21st century anyway). As Mick said after the GF "if these blokes were 30..." Get rid of blokes when they can't improve any more - this is the philosophy they have employed with Molloy and Rupe. On this basis I think the guys on shaky ground would be 25+ and not showing any gains in their game.

Our team will be playing its best footy in a 3 to 6 year period starting at 2005. If we win next year, and i think we will, i think we will be only entering our best years with this lot of blokes.

[Buckethead]

You guys all seem to overlook the fact Scotty Burns is 30, Bucks 31, Woewodin 28 or round there, Scotland's about to be traded, O'bree would be mid twenties by now, same with Licca. Some of them are going to start dropping off very soon. Another thing, McGough has COURAGE, remember the H&A lions game we won in 2002. When McGough when straight for the ball with a head on collision with a lions player, in a situation not unlike the woewodin-mal michael incident, and he got taken off with what everyone thought was a broken leg. Malthouse also spoke about how he thought the lions were alot bigger than us, well McGough is a big boy. I'd just be really disappointed to see him leave

[natkingcole]

Basically it doesn't matter what we think, because I've heard on the grapevine that MM doesn't like him - too slow, can't hit targets etc. So expect that if McGough is still on our list next year he will just be treading water until such time that he is traded or gets delisted. Best bet would be to trade him now if we can get something for him. Geelong would be an obvious candidate or Essendon. Might even help McGough with his career if given oportunities at another club.

[tdesmaele]

I agree with you Buckethead. McGough needs another 2 years. He could turn into something special. Players who can get the ball from under the packs are definitely harder to find than receiving / link players.

However he needs to start working his ass off. His disposal needs work and he needs to become super fit in order to balance out for his lack of pace. He will be out of the league in a few years unless he improves in these 2 areas.

[Brown26]

mcgough is a ball magnet - you can teach a guy to kick, but you can't teach a guy to be in the right spot at the right time (as easily anyway!).

He'll be the next centreman when Bucks moves forward I reckon, he knows where to be when, ala tony fransis, but stronger. he's got guts, he just needs to be able to deliver teh ball better, well give him another preseason, then see what he can do.

- Ben