You are all a bunch of jokers!

You have no right to speculate on who gets dropped and who gets picked because none of you (like me) know nothing about how the team really functions.

Lets leave this to the coaching staff who actually know what there talking about

You are all a bunch of jokers!

You have no right to speculate on who gets dropped and who gets picked because none of you (like me) know nothing about how the team really functions.

Lets leave this to the coaching staff who actually know what there talking about

Oh c'mon! Of course we do. It is not like the selection committee checks Demonland before it makes its final call. Will the next thing you advocate is that all non-football personal be banned from Super Coach because we don't know the full extent of Gumbleton's preseason, or that this site be shut down because we we offered a supporters opinion on a player?

Get over yourself. This is just all mindless giggles and has no bearing on the real world.

You are all a bunch of jokers!

You have no right to speculate on who gets dropped and who gets picked because none of you (like me) know nothing about how the team really functions.

Lets leave this to the coaching staff who actually know what there talking about

Yeah, but if we speculate correctly, regardless of the actual basis of our speculation, one could argue that for all intents and purposes, our reasoning for the ins and outs is as solid as the reasoning that the selectors use.

For example, I say "let's drop Newton because his breath stinks and let's bring in Sylvia because he knows how to use a mint." If Newton is actually dropped and Sylvia is brought in to replace him, then despite the fact that my assertion that "bad breath = get dropped" is totally bunk and not the reasoning that Dean Bailey would use, the fact that it resulted in the same ins and outs means that when it comes down to the results (Newton out and Sylvia in), my reasoning is as good as anyone's, if you follow me.

1 change to the lineup. Sylvia In, Bartram out. The team that played so well this week should not be altered too much.

You play poorly you get dropped. Miller did, so why not Bruce?

I never get that one. I really don't.

Different sport of course, but the Australian cricket team are the masters of perseverance. Their philosophy is that once you're happy with who you selected, you continue with that side until you're left with absolutely no choice, and it has paid off nearly every time (Shane Watson success story is the best example of this). In cricket it's a bit different because you've only got 11 spots, however the same principle can apply to a football team. In order to get a team to play well together, you've got to keep them together. That means senior players who are still undoubtedly part of the best side (that applies to Bruce and not Miller, that's why there's a difference) then you allow them some 'poor form' credits. While it means that some talented individuals (Phil Hughes for Australia) remain on the fringe, the idea is that the team itself gets set in concrete.

For more relevant examples, see Brisbane or Geelong dynasty sides last decade. Both teams had two things in common: gun players and team selection that rarely changed. An even better example would be Sydney in their flag year. No real gun players, but a side that was consistent in both results and selection.

In short, "you played poorly" is not and should not be an automatic ticket for being dropped.

There's also got to be some upwards pressure from the players playing in the grade below, which doesn't appear to be the case with us at the moment.

Mine:

Out: Bartram

In: Sylvia

This fits in with my reasoning above -- the fringe player comes out and the automatic best 22 player comes in. It's that simple.

You have no right to speculate on who gets dropped and who gets picked because none of you (like me) know nothing about how the team really functions.

Lets leave this to the coaching staff who actually know what there talking about

lol. You've taken the argument many have used on assessing coaches ("how could you possibly know") and applied it in a completely arse backwards way to team selection. Well done. I've had my good laugh for the day.

If we can't discuss team selection on a fan forum, what can we discuss, Your Majesty?

Despite the better form on Saturday, there is a chance that 1/2 that side could be playing for Casey by the last few rounds of the season.

Over the next 6 weeks we may have to add the following players:

This weekend Sylvia and Rivers (if fit) will return to the list, plus a second ruckman to support Jamar (either Martin or Spencer).

Gysberts,Maric and Cheney are fit and available; they just need to show some form with the scorpions. The first VFL match is this saturday at 7pm.

Garland and Watts have had recent gametime with Casey and will push for senior selection within 2-4 weeks.

Wonna is 1-2 weeks away from playing and will push for selection if he can get a few games at Casey.

Reports indicate PJ played 1/2 a game last thursday in a practice match. He's off the injury list and so is Blease. I'd love to see both of them play for Casey seniors this weekend.

PJ has had a poor pre-season with injury and may take a few weeks to get fit. There's a spot in the side for a big forward/ruckman to support Jamar...if he wants it.

As for Blease...dunno! he hasn't played for a year. We can afford to wait, but i'd promote him if he shows some form at Casey. We need some extra pace in the MFC.

Jetta and Bell may not be automatic selections but they are set to return in 3-4 weeks and can put pressure on other players in the 22.

Morton comes back in 6 weeks. I hope he does a week at casey before returning to the seniors.

Our 3 'indefinites' - Gawn, Tapscott and Meeson - none are automatic inclusions when fit and will probably not make the senior side this year.

Jurrah is 13 weeks away from returning. That puts him at a possible return by round 15 against Essendon on July 11. It's highly unlikely he'll go straight into the seniors, but i still want him to play some matches this year. There are 7 games left after the Essendon clash. I'd get Jurrah back in the side ASAP. He needs to build on his 9 games and get someting out of this year. Put him and Wonna in the same team and watch the fun.

So by the end of the year, the side could look something like:

B; Garland, Frawley, Cheney,

HB; Joelmac, Rivers, Grimes,

C;Davey, Moloney, Morton,

HF;Sylvia, Watts, Jurrah,

F;Petterd, Johnson, Green,

R;Jamar, Trengove, Scully.

IC;Wonna, Gysberts, Jetta, Blease.

Unlikely perhaps, but this is for round 22. We will be out of the 8 so we can pick a side to develop for next year.

I'm assuming that Junior retires after a big win against the Hawks in round 20.

Am I the only one that was appalled by Bate's performance the other day? It wasn't just poor disposal or a few mistakes, he just looked ordinary in every way and the kick to the contest in the dying seconds was the icing on the cake.

I'm a Bate fan, but he needs to go back to the VFL.

So having watched the game twice, I am happy to admit that I was wrong about Frawley's impact on helping us score more than Collingwood (which is ultimately the aim of the game).

A better answer without the preamble to dig a bigger hole.

INS: Sylvia, Garland (if fit), Martin

OUTS: Frawley, Newton, Dunn

Now hear me out.

Frawley had no influence on getting the ball out of defensive 50. Despite the fact that he really didn't cost us anything on the scoreboard, he wasn't nearly attacking enough to hurt the opposition at all.

Newton was also terrible. Again, he had no impact on the game for long periods of time and was the cause of some turnovers inside 50. We need players who are able to keep the ball in there so we can score. Newton didn't do this.

Dunn. Sure, he did some good things and scored a couple of goals, but he was also one of the biggest offenders when it came to turning the ball over in the forward 50. We do too much work on getting it in there to have it all undone by a couple of non-marks or poor kicks.

Scully also played poorly, but he's very much in our future, so I wouldn't drop him yet.

Your posts are not really selling the value of your analytical views are they? How about we ignore your stats and consider that Frawley influenced the game by pantsing Medhurst.

Am I the only one that was appalled by Bate's performance the other day? It wasn't just poor disposal or a few mistakes, he just looked ordinary in every way and the kick to the contest in the dying seconds was the icing on the cake.

I'm a Bate fan, but he needs to go back to the VFL.

Bate is a notorious slow starter however he improved significantly this week and will most likely be better again next week.

Rivers and Sylvia must come in because they are both best 22. It is unfortunate that a kid might miss, but it will happen over the course of the season. It is a better week to drop a kid as there is an actual VFL game that they can go back and be involved in. IMO neither Bartram or Newton are best 22 and neither will be on our list next year. However if Newton is dropped we need someone else to come in and pinch hit in the ruck. Having played ok for Casey last week Martin should get the nod.

In: Martin, Sylvia, Rivers

Out: Bartram, Newton, Strauss

Have just read through this thread.

First, the call for Frawley to go is imbecilic.

Ditto Scully.

Second, Bennell will be put to the sword by the replays; he showed spark, real spark on the forward line and should be in the side once more but on notice.

Bruce has been making bloopers with disposal for a couple of years now, but can play a very tight defensive game, which he did yesterday.

The only reason to drop Newton after a serviceable game backing up Jamar and getting hands to the ball on the forward line is to make way for a real tall like Spencer or Martin, or Rivers. Adelaide's rucks don't seem formidable so maybe Jamar can do it again and Spencer is not needed. But Newton, it must be said, while not doing a lot, did little wrong for a change. I liked the way he gave Ball (was it him?) a real shove when he was injured or cramped or whatever.

Bate was pretty awful.

Talk of picking Garland already is plain silly; the reasons are obvious.

They won't make big changes to a nearly-winning side. Yes, Sylvia must come in if ready. Rivers may be ready, and I suggest that if Newton is to be dropped Rivers get a go at CHF. But these two shouldn't be rushed in - the side is in building mode not maintenance mode; we don't have ladder points to defend a week from the finals.

The most likely drops are Bartram who only came in late, but was OK; Bate who is not fit and playing like a spud; Newton who may not be needed but will play if no other tall comes in to the forward line/ruck; maybe Strauss, but the 'play the kids' approach is clearly important to the match committee and Bailey, and he does move well.

To sum up:

I would bring in Sylvia and Rivers but only if absolutely fit to play.

To make way for them, Bate or Bartram (prefer Bate, and Bartram could fill Bennell's role in defence) for Sylvia, and Newton for Rivers.

If the perception is that Adelaide's rucks are weak and Jamar pulled up OK then neither Spencer nor Martin need to be selected.

In: Martin, Sylvia, Rivers

Out: Bartram, Newton, Strauss

On the right track. But I'd drop Bate before Strauss - see my previous post, above.

On the right track. But I'd drop Bate before Strauss - see my previous post, above.

I'd like Strauss to stay as well, but Bate is best 22 and he will be better again next week.

Were we at the same game? Bennell gave a lot of speed and off the ball chasing to the forward line. As did Newton who I thought was very serviceable. Both deserve another game. Strauss maybe not, but this kid needs games. Bate and Bruce and Bartram need to be looked at. Sylvia in!

Good post.......I would relace Newton with Miller as he has more upside. He presents better and is a consistently stronger mark - plus he has a cute WAG (lol)

Miller has no upside

He might be a great off field leader but I never want him in the team again

I repeat that he has no upside

1 change to the lineup. Sylvia In, Bartram out. The team that played so well this week should not be altered too much.

+1

Anyone saying Frawley should be dropped should be ashamed of themselves.

Also Rivers possibly in for Strauss if fit.

Garland, Watts, Cheney etc to get some more game time at Casey.

Bate is a notorious slow starter however he improved significantly this week and will most likely be better again next week.

Rivers and Sylvia must come in because they are both best 22. It is unfortunate that a kid might miss, but it will happen over the course of the season. It is a better week to drop a kid as there is an actual VFL game that they can go back and be involved in. IMO neither Bartram or Newton are best 22 and neither will be on our list next year. However if Newton is dropped we need someone else to come in and pinch hit in the ruck. Having played ok for Casey last week Martin should get the nod.

Agree with the gist of most of that, particularly re: Bate. For some reason he always takes a while to get back in to the swing when returning from breaks, be it injury or the pre-season (or in this case, both). Once the cobwebs blow out he'll be fine. I don't think he'll be able to blow them out properly in the VFL.

Is Rivers automatic 22? Point of contention for me. I haven't made up my mind.

I'd keep Newton in the side for this week.

Melbourne are as likely to drop Frawley as they are likely to drop Brad Green. Laughable suggestion.

Agree - Anyone that suggests dropping Frawley has NFI

He is the main muscle of the backline & destroyed Medhurst who was coming off a bag of goals against the Dogs

Think before you Post & maybe even get along to a few games to see what really happens on game day.

Agree.

Newton goes nowhere unless Martin or Spencer comes in.

That means senior players who are still undoubtedly part of the best side (that applies to Bruce and not Miller, that's why there's a difference) then you allow them some 'poor form' credits.

This is the contentious part of your post. You say Bruce is 'undoubtedly part of the best side'. I don't think that's necessarily true. Certainly not with the form he's shown over the first two weeks.

I know he'll stay, but if he keeps playing the way he is, I don't think it should be assumed that he keeps his spot.

Is Rivers automatic 22? Point of contention for me. I haven't made up my mind.

No doubt about it for mine. I think more experienced defenders like MacDonald and Rivers are essential in a developing backline which will have some down weeks. Rivers is a leader and has all the qualities we want in a senior player. He must play when available.

No doubt about it for mine. I think more experienced defenders like MacDonald and Rivers are essential in a developing backline which will have some down weeks. Rivers is a leader and has all the qualities we want in a senior player. He must play when available.

Do you think he gives enough run? Is he fast and mobile enough?

I'm thinking that maybe we are a little too tall with him in the side. If that is the case, who do you leave out - Warnock? Chip? (not likely)

Depends on the forward-line we are facing.

Horses for courses.

Worst.Post.Ever

Agreed. Kept Medhurst to one goal and under 10 touches. What type of message would the coaching staff be sending?

Were we at the same game? Bennell gave a lot of speed and off the ball chasing to the forward line. As did Newton who I thought was very serviceable. Both deserve another game. Strauss maybe not, but this kid needs games. Bate and Bruce and Bartram need to be looked at. Sylvia in!

Very sound comments. A game by Newton in which he did not disgrace himself is a rare thing. He did what he was asked without making us groan. He contested well in the ruck where his spring made up for height difference and even Jolly by no means towelled him. He supported Jamar's Herculean effort soundly and kicked a goal that he might normally have fluffed. He could be given another chance on the strength of it.

If Sylvia's really ready to go, then his selection is the only certainty. Rivers would be good, but he's not a certainty like Sylvia. Bate and Bartram are the most likely drops if you ask me. If confidence was shown after the drubbing in round 1, it's hardly likely that the selectors will go for the doctor after such a good team performance. They'll look on the positive side of players like Bruce, Bennell and Newton, who all gave something. Bate gave pretty close to nothing, but mistaking him for McKenzie didn't help much! His hair seems a lighter shade of red. Statements about how he's a slow starter are just plain crazy. Let him start slowly at Casey if it's true.

This is the contentious part of your post. You say Bruce is 'undoubtedly part of the best side'. I don't think that's necessarily true. Certainly not with the form he's shown over the first two weeks. eeps his spot.

Indeed, that's where my theory becomes grey, because it's debatable whether Bruce is best 22 or not. At this stage I'd say most definitely say yes. At year's end there's a chance he'll have been passed by quite a few.