A F

Members
  • Content count

    9,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

A F last won the day on April 9

A F had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,681 Excellent

About A F

  • Rank
    Red and Blue
  • Birthday 06/23/1987

Previous Fields

  • Favourite Player(s)
    Oliver, Jetta, Hogan, Tyson, Brayshaw, Hunt, Petracca, Salem, Jones, Lewis and Viney

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Melbourne

Recent Profile Visitors

16,118 profile views
  1. Be pretty [censored] off. Shouldn't lose to Richmond. Fortunately, we won't.
  2. Yep, this is my biggest concern too. Especially, with the high possession game we play. We took quite a while to adjust to the wet conditions last year. Hawthorn are specialists at this. Just keep the ball moving forward. It puts the opposition under pressure, particularly their defence.
  3. He needs to improve his DE, but no way he goes to Casey on the back of his current form. The questions on his defensive capabilities are a bit of a fallacy too, but I'm sure that won't stop you two sprouting that every time he's mentioned. v Carlton (7 tackles - second most tackles on the ground); v Geelong (5 tackles - equal 4th most for the MFC); v Freo (5 tackles - equal 4th most on the ground).
  4. I reckon bottom of the table Hawthorn's win over West Coast says a fair bit about Richmond too, who should have lost to the hapless Eagles on the G and would have, if not for poor goalkicking.
  5. The question has to keep being asked: is St Kilda's game style sustainable for four quarters? They've got a young list, but if I was a St Kilda supporter, I'd be a little worried. They had Geelong dead to rights in the third and have just stopped. Unlike our game against Geelong when we played a player down all day. We've been far more impressive than St Kilda this year and I think it's safe to say we've passed them at this point. The other thing about St Kilda is a lot of their younger players aren't great decision makers. They're great if it's all run and gun, but as soon as they're faced with organised defence, they lack the Oliver, Petracca, Salem users.
  6. Instead of the fleet of foot McDonald and Frost, in an offensively-minded defence? I wouldn't think so.
  7. The continued want by some to play Pedersen reminds me of the wraps by some Demonlanders on Dawes. Both were ordinary depth players. I think with the 'system' we're looking to play, there won't be a need for Pedersen. We'll either go big and back in Weideman's development, which I'd agree with, or we'll go with a small, quicker forwardline. Obviously, Pedo fits into neither system.
  8. I think it's clear (going by JLT selections) that we want as much run off half back as possible. Hence, selections like Joel Smith, along with Hibberd and Melksham. So I don't think the FD were after a like for like. They want to maximise this, so we need both playing. For the record, I've never rated Melksham and was gobsmacked when we went after him, but he's with us now and Goody clearly wants him playing a role. His game last week was incipid and he'll have to improve markedly, but he can play a role for us this week and was passable in his first three matches, unlike, say, Kent, who laid two tackles in two games, playing as a pressure half forward.
  9. I'd agree with this. 2017 was always going to see some teething and exploration of who could play what and how well they could play positions. I don't expect us to get this spot on until 2018ish.
  10. Hang on. So just because WB doesn't agree with the mindbogglingly idiotic requests from supporters who have no idea about KPIs or any other internal expectations, he's an FD apologist? Come on, mate. There's some grey.
  11. Do you actually watch the game, mate? Bugg is slow. Different player. So no, he couldn't play the same role much better. What are you even basing this on?
  12. The biggest problem with a lot of the criticism directed at Round 5's changes are that, like this above post, they fail to understand the positional requirements of 1) modern day footy and 2) the 'system' Goody is trying to build. Lamenting that Melksham gets a chance after an ordinary game to rectify his poor form, but Kent doesn't, completely misses the point. Kent is a half forward and if people actually understood the importance of half forwards to the modern game and our game style, they wouldn't be discussing Melksham and Kent in the same sentence. Does Melksham play forward? No. His KPIs are completely different to Kent's. Melksham offers run and in our game style, we expect some turn overs. We'd like to minimise them, of course, but without Lewis to select from or GWS' Josh Kelly, Melksham is the best option for a speedy half back flanker at the moment. Kent's chance to meet one of his chief KPIs was last week, and he failed abysmally. If Melksham has another frankly pathetic game, they may look at trying someone like Harmes off half back. Until then, Melksham will aim to play his role. That is, shut down an opponent, provide run off half back and use his pace to work within our defensive zone. Round 5 is about JKH (who I don't particularly rate) and Smith bringing the forward half pressure that Kent and Hannan were unable to. If they both manage this, they'll keep Kent and Hannan out. Understand the difference between these roles and the basic KPIs, before labelling them 'woeful'.
  13. Smith played second ruck for portions of the Geelong game. Melksham's game was ordinary last week, but he offers run off half back. Bugg is a slowish winger, come half forward. Hopefully, his omission burns in him too and it inspires him to work hard on his deficiencies at Casey.
  14. I'm glad the MC have made a clear statement about the incipid tackle counts of our half forwards by dropping Kent and Hannan. Let's see if Smith and JKH can do any better. Bugg makes way for Hibberd and Weideman for Hogan. That's about right.
  15. Keays is class. A Brisbane academy selection.