Selection Table

[rednblue 0]

Personally these are the changes I would like to see made, however I know that Dean will not make them.

1. Watts in for Petterd. I know this is controversial but I beleive Watts would be better off playing in the AFL despite not setting the world alight in the VFL. His body may not be ready but either is Scully's but he gets a game.

2. Gysberts in for Bennell. I thought Bennell went missing on Saturday and I am under the impression that Gysberts has been showing some real class for Casey since he started two or three weeks ago. If we do half as well out of this trade as we did out of the TJ trade then Gysberts will be quite good.

3. Strauss in for Joel MacDonald. Joel was a terrible user of the ball against North. I remember as we were going in to our 50 once he tried to chip a kick of a North player instead of handballing. It went straight into the North player and was a costly turnover. Strauss is the future and everyone knows his kicking has been outstanding at Casey, and will be in the AFL when he gains a bit of confidence. The other boys need to help him out though and actually MOVE when we are kicking out.

Obviously it is not quite fair to leave out Bail and Jordie but I am not sure of their injury status so I have left them out.

While my three changes are all youth focused I do not think that is a bad thing. We are highly unlikely to make finals this year so it is the perfect year to make changes to see who will make and who will not, this is best determined by the boys playing at AFL level rather than VFL level.

Edit: spelling

Edited May 4, 2010 by rednblue

[Dinosaur Rover 197]

Personally these are the changes I would like to see made, however I know that Dean will not make them.

1. Watts in for Petterd. I know this is controversial but I beleive Watts would be better off playing in the AFL despite not setting the world alight in the VFL. His body may not be ready but either is Scully's but he gets a game.

2. Gysberts in for Bennell. I thought Bennell went missing on Saturday and I am under the impression that Gysberts has been showing some real class for Casey since he started two or three weeks ago. If we do half as well out of this trade as we did out of the TJ trade then Gysberts will be quite good.

3. Strauss in for Joel MacDonald. Joel was a terrible user of the ball against North. I remember as we were going in to our 50 once he tried to chip a kick of a North player instead of handballing. It went straight into the North player and was a costly turnover. Strauss is the future and everyone knows his kicking has been outstanding at Casey, and will be in the AFL when he gains a bit of confidence. The other boys need to help him out though and actually MOVE when we are kicking out.

Obviously it is not quite fair to leave out Bail and Jordie but I am not sure of their injury status so I have left them out.

While my three changes are all youth focused I do not think that is a bad thing. We are highly unlikely to make finals this year so it is the perfect year to make changes to see who will make and who will not, this is best determined by the boys playing at AFL level rather than VFL level.

Edit: spelling

Based on the VFL player review at http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/93557/default.aspx you would look at Hughes and Johnson. Hughes replaces Petterd

"His work rate is extraordinary, and his marking ability is fantastic. He uses the ball well, and we’re really happy with his performances over the last few weeks." He comes in for Ricky.

If you reckon Martin shouldnt be perservered with then Johnson commends with this endorsement...

"His ability to do the ruck work, and then win some possessions around the ground, and take a mark and go up forward and kick a goal as well, were excellent."

I appreciate that he isnt too popular with some here but to have no back up for Jamar seems risky to me. I dont care that we dont have a power forward and CHF but to have one big guy is a worry for me. So Johnson for Martin.

[rednblue 0]

Based on the VFL player review at http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/93557/default.aspx you would look at Hughes and Johnson. Hughes replaces Petterd

"His work rate is extraordinary, and his marking ability is fantastic. He uses the ball well, and we’re really happy with his performances over the last few weeks." He comes in for Ricky.

If you reckon Martin shouldnt be perservered with then Johnson commends with this endorsement...

"His ability to do the ruck work, and then win some possessions around the ground, and take a mark and go up forward and kick a goal as well, were excellent."

I appreciate that he isnt too popular with some here but to have no back up for Jamar seems risky to me. I dont care that we dont have a power forward and CHF but to have one big guy is a worry for me. So Johnson for Martin.

I have always been a pretty big fan of PJs but I think we must persist with Martin for at least a few more games.

I was interested in the review of Hughes, but would honestly rather see 'The Messiah' prove his worth on the AFL field.

What are your thoughts on Gysberts and Strauss coming in?

[Guest Balls_Grinter_14]

Does anyone know if Bail is good to play or not? I wouldve thought he would come in for Ricky. Unless we pull one out of the bag and play JW! uNLIKELY

[burn in hell 0]

Johnson for Martin

McKenzie for Petterd

[Inner Demon 1]

Nobody sees Miller getting a recall based upon that glowing endorsement of a match-winning performance at both ends of the ground????

[CaptainCol 0]

I find it hard to believe that Watts will get a game, selection should be based on form... and he doesn't have any... Conolly has said over the past week that the MFC will not rush him... nor should we... let him take his time, let him find some form in the VFL and bring him up to the majors when his confidence is high... because it wouldn't be at the moment... if you want to put more pressure on him to perform(than there already is), then yes bring him in to the side now... but if you want then you sir are an idiot!

Now for my selections

OUT Pettard, Bennell, Martin

Pettard - Injured, shame.

Bennell - Hasn't shown enough in his last two games to warrant another, as much as he breaks the lines and loves to run with the ball he doesn't get enough of it and on form, once again, should be dropped.

Martin - What the MFC needs is a key forward, i don't know if Martin can fill this role at the moment, but neither can Miller or Newton, so it's possible he may keep his spot.

IN Miller, Mckenzie, Bail

Miller - Yes a spud, i know, but Miller plays his best footy around the wing as a lead up forward where in can quickly give it off to someone who can use the ball, like a Davey. In saying this his decision making is somewhat questionable, to say the least.

McKenzie - Definately In, those who say otherwise are kidding themselves. What we lacked on the weekend was a certain hardness, North just wanted the ball that much more than us, their pressure was huge and that's where, in my opinion, lost the game. Bringing McKenzie back in will give us that much needed pressure against a team that could go all the way this year.

Bail - Good in his first couple of games this year, apparently tough as nails, but two weeks out may see him brought back through the VFL, in which case i wouldn't have a clue who will come in... possibly Hughes, but definately not Watts!

End Rant

[jnrmac 19,890]

Personally these are the changes I would like to see made, however I know that Dean will not make them.

1. Watts in for Petterd. I know this is controversial but I beleive Watts would be better off playing in the AFL despite not setting the world alight in the VFL. His body may not be ready but either is Scully's but he gets a game.

2. Gysberts in for Bennell. I thought Bennell went missing on Saturday and I am under the impression that Gysberts has been showing some real class for Casey since he started two or three weeks ago. If we do half as well out of this trade as we did out of the TJ trade then Gysberts will be quite good.

3. Strauss in for Joel MacDonald. Joel was a terrible user of the ball against North. I remember as we were going in to our 50 once he tried to chip a kick of a North player instead of handballing. It went straight into the North player and was a costly turnover. Strauss is the future and everyone knows his kicking has been outstanding at Casey, and will be in the AFL when he gains a bit of confidence. The other boys need to help him out though and actually MOVE when we are kicking out.

Obviously it is not quite fair to leave out Bail and Jordie but I am not sure of their injury status so I have left them out.

While my three changes are all youth focused I do not think that is a bad thing. We are highly unlikely to make finals this year so it is the perfect year to make changes to see who will make and who will not, this is best determined by the boys playing at AFL level rather than VFL level.

Edit: spelling

IMO they won't drop Joel MacD. He played a poor game but they need his solid body and experience against the Doggies. Should do well on Hahn I reckon. And for third man up against Bazza.

Gysberts for Bennell is more interesting. We wouldn't lose much and just might gain some cleaner disposal.

Edited May 4, 2010 by jnrmac

[Pates 9,625]

Nobody sees Miller getting a recall based upon that glowing endorsement of a match-winning performance at both ends of the ground????

It's harsh, but the fact is that he is certainly not our future. He will do this to us time and time again, play very good at VFL level then come in to the seniors and give us very little.

Hypothetically if he did come in, i'd see him basically taking Bate's role with Bate pushing closer to the goal square.

My selections are:

IN: Hughes, Bail

Out: Pettard, Martin

Depending on his fitness i'd also bring Jordie McKenzie in for Rivers.

[burn in hell 0]

Nobody sees Miller getting a recall based upon that glowing endorsement of a match-winning performance at both ends of the ground????

He is a senior bloke, needs to dominate a couple of games in the two's, his future is uncertain at MFC. Needs to really stamp authority or maybe he is off to the Goldies.

Johnson and Jamar swapping full forward/ ruck will do the trick. I reckon Johnson is a ripper.

our forward line is not bad.

ff- Sylvia Jamar Green

hf- Bennell Dunn Bate

We need Bennell up forward as an essential live-wire.

Dunn seems to read the play well, he gets lots of the ball

Bate is hot or cold

Sylvia and Green are able to rip the game appart.

Jamar might just be our permanent full forward.

[Inner Demon 1]

You want one of the top 3 tap ruckmen of the season so far to be our permanent full forward?????

Why?!?!?

[Keyser Söze 0]

You want one of the top 3 tap ruckmen of the season so far to be our permanent full forward?????

Why?!?!?

Ignorance?

An addiction to sel-flagellation?

Could be a multitude of reasons...

[Dee*ceiving 1,630]

In - Bail, McKenzie (pending fitness)

Out - Martin, Petterd.

Run, run, run...

Bruce to the forward line. Rivers/Garland should be tried forward for a qtr or so but not from the first bounce. Send one of them forward at about the 20 minute mark of the first and force the Doggies to modify their structure.

If it doesn't bear any fruit by half time we can re-consider at the break.

[buddha82 12]

My changes for this week (although as a disclaimer I haven't watched last weeks game)

Ins: McKenzie, Hughes, Miller

Outs: Petterd, Rivers, Martin

I agree with everyone regarding Miller being done, but hear out my logic. My plan would be to stick him in the goalsquare and take Lake out of the game. I don't care if he doesn't touch the ball for the whole game, at least that frees up Bate/Hughes/Green for their 2nd or 3rd defender. Lake is the only one big enough to take Miller so they have to play him on him, plus he will monster any of our other forward options. By taking him out of the play we increase our chances exponetially of getting a score. McKenzie is a no-brainer, he has to come in, and I agree with the posters in the Danny Hughes thread that if we ever going to give him a go then this is the game. Rivers misses out because our backline was too tall last week/Dogs don't have a tall forward line, and Martin misses out because I don't think he's needed this week - Dunn/Miller to pinch hit in the ruck if necessary.

Would love to include Bail but I think he's still recovering and may be better off having a hitout at Casey to run it off. Also Cheney very unlucky but 3 changes is more that enough I think, although you could make an argument for bringing him in for Hughes or Miller for team balance.

Thus my team looks like this:

B: Bartram Warnock Garland

HB: MacDonald Frawley Grimes

C: Trengove Moloney Bruce

HF: Sylvia Bate Davey

F: Dunn Miller Green

FOL: Jamar McKenzie McDonald

INT: Hughes Scully Bennell Jones

Edited May 5, 2010 by buddha82

[Allen Jakovich 516]

My changes for this week (although as a disclaimer I haven't watched last weeks game)

Ins: McKenzie, Hughes, Miller

Outs: Petterd, Rivers, Martin

I agree with everyone regarding Miller being done, but hear out my logic. My plan would be to stick him in the goalsquare and take Lake out of the game. I don't care if he doesn't touch the ball for the whole game, at least that frees up Bate/Hughes/Green for their 2nd or 3rd defender. Lake is the only one big enough to take Miller so they have to play him on him, plus he will monster any of our other forward options. By taking him out of the play we increase our chances exponetially of getting a score. McKenzie is a no-brainer, he has to come in, and I agree with the posters in the Danny Hughes thread that if we ever going to give him a go then this is the game. Rivers misses out because our backline was too tall last week/Dogs don't have a tall forward line, and Martin misses out because I don't think he's needed this week - Dunn/Miller to pinch hit in the ruck if necessary.

Would love to include Bail but I think he's still recovering and may be better off having a hitout at Casey to run it off. Also Cheney very unlucky but 3 changes is more that enough I think, although you could make an argument for bringing him in for Hughes or Miller for team balance.

Thus my team looks like this:

B: Bartram Warnock Garland

HB: MacDonald Frawley Grimes

C: Trengove Moloney Bruce

HF: Sylvia Bate Davey

F: Dunn Miller Green

FOL: Jamar McKenzie McDonald

INT: Hughes Scully Bennell Jones

I like your thinking Buddha.

[Felix 92]

Injury List

Injury list as at 4 May 2010

- Rohan Bail – Quad – Test

- Cale Morton – Knee – Test

- John Meesen – Ankle – 4 - 6

- Liam Jurrah - Shoulder – 8 weeks

-Ricky Petterd – Shoulder – 16 weeks

- Max Gawn – Knee – Indefinite

- Luke Tapscott – Hip – Indefinite

What is the likely hood of these two boys playing in either Casey or MFC this week?

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Jay... I've nothing against you, but you've lost the plot. Read these words...

- Grimes is one of the most encouraging youngsters at MFC. Arguably the MOST encouraging youngster.

- He played one "bad" game, in which he got 30+ touches, but didn't deliver to the coach's liking, which it's debatable if that was his fault (options downfield?).

- He's within his first 50 games, yet you're marking him harsher than Bruce. ie, drop him after one game of "bad" disposal.

- He's first 5 rounds were exemplary.

- Who do we replace him with that's better? Now OR in the future?

Fair dinkum. If he plays 6 rounds in a row like this... I'd still keep him on. I'd just move him to a different spot, get him to play a different role. When a player is down on decision making (not effort or workrate) the solution is NOT to drop him. That's a wholly amateurish way of going about it. You say some odd things, even some clever things. But mate, this is so far off any kind of reality I have serious concerns about your mental health. And I'm not over-stating it. Grimes stays. There is zero chance he's gone this round.

Back on topic, my major concern this week is not replacing injured players, or getting players who deserve a game in, it's selecting for your opposition. My GREATEST concern this week is... wait for it... Griffin (Griffen?). He's having an outstanding year and is as damaging as any Bulldog at the moment. Who goes to him? Dunn?

[Dee*ceiving 1,630]

I agree with everyone regarding Miller being done, but hear out my logic. My plan would be to stick him in the goalsquare and take Lake out of the game.

If you think doing that will take Lake out of the game you're dreaming. Lake will consistently leave Miller to assist the other defenders and create offense. That will lead to possessions for Brad but we know from expereince how likely he is to hurt them on the scoreboard. Highly unlikely.

A better option for Lake would be to have him track a smaller more agile forward that will take him up the ground and follow the ball. You want Lake where the kick starts, not where it ends. If he is where it ends he'll mark and spoil all night against our flea brigade.

[e25 5]

Yep, the solution with Lake is to run him ragged, just like Brown did earlier this year.

I'd say Morris or Williams are mobile enough to cover Bate and Dunn if he's up forward.

We need to continue the theme of a running forward line and make their defenders accountable.

Lake is too smart to have a player like Miller just going on long 75m leadsto draw him out of the play.

We need a player who is going to go on multiple leads, over and over again. Someone he'll need to stay with.

Not sure we have that player at the moment.

We could be better off using a fast small and making them top heavy in the forward line.

I imagine he'll then just zone off and it's up to our boys to find & make use of the open man.

Edit: fwiw I think we'll bring in Newton again and settle for him creating a contest & bringing it to ground.

He did the trick against the crows.

The best option would be Morton if he was fit, but i think he needs a few weeks at Casey first.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Enforcer25

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Yep, the solution with Lake is to run him ragged, just like Brown did earlier this year.

We need to continue the theme of a running forward line and make their defenders accountable.

Lake is too smart to have a player like Miller just going on long 75m leadsto draw him out of the play.

We need a player who is going to go on multiple leads, over and over again. Someone he'll need to stay with.

........

Edit: fwiw I think we'll bring in Newton again and settle for him creating a contest & bringing it to ground.

He did the trick against the crows.

If Miller is allegedly not smart enough then Newton sure isnt. If creating a contest and bring the ball to ground then Miller has Newton done all over. The only way Newton seems to achieve that is by dropping marks when we have clean control of the ball.

And given the theme of a "of a running forward line and make their defenders accountable", Newton does not cut it at all.

[e25 5]

If Miller is allegedly not smart enough then Newton sure isnt. If creating a contest and bring the ball to ground then Miller has Newton done all over. The only way Newton seems to achieve that is by dropping marks when we have clean control of the ball.

And given the theme of a "of a running forward line and make their defenders accountable", Newton does not cut it at all.

Selective reading, Rhino.

Lake is too smart for a player to just go on long leads.

Irrelevant who it is.

Edit: "too smart" is perhaps the wrong term; he is too good at reading the play & will zone off.

Newton and Miller I see as basically on par these days.

It might be an indictment on Miller, but if it's a choice between the two, at this stage I'd choose Newton.

I don't think we have the players fit to go the route of a mobile forward line, or at least not with sufficient height.

I've conceded that we need another tall option, my choice being Newton.

He's just killing time until Watts is ready, but I don't think Watts is a factor in this discussion.

Since round 1 I've been saying he won't play until round 8 or 9.

Nothing has changed.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Enforcer25

[jayceebee31 697]

Jay... I've nothing against you, but you've lost the plot. Read these words...

- Grimes is one of the most encouraging youngsters at MFC. Arguably the MOST encouraging youngster.

- He played one "bad" game, in which he got 30+ touches, but didn't deliver to the coach's liking, which it's debatable if that was his fault (options downfield?).

- He's within his first 50 games, yet you're marking him harsher than Bruce. ie, drop him after one game of "bad" disposal.

- He's first 5 rounds were exemplary.

- Who do we replace him with that's better? Now OR in the future?

Fair dinkum. If he plays 6 rounds in a row like this... I'd still keep him on. I'd just move him to a different spot, get him to play a different role. When a player is down on decision making (not effort or workrate) the solution is NOT to drop him. That's a wholly amateurish way of going about it. You say some odd things, even some clever things. But mate, this is so far off any kind of reality I have serious concerns about your mental health. And I'm not over-stating it. Grimes stays. There is zero chance he's gone this round.

Back on topic, my major concern this week is not replacing injured players, or getting players who deserve a game in, it's selecting for your opposition. My GREATEST concern this week is... wait for it... Griffin (Griffen?). He's having an outstanding year and is as damaging as any Bulldog at the moment. Who goes to him? Dunn?

Dan,I accept your points verbatim.However, I was saying or trying to say is- IF he continued kicking backwards and this was against the game plan - he should be moved forward(which I believe he would be better placed in the team - such as midfielder/ ruck rover-interchanging with McKenzie) or if he stayed in his current role and was again undisciplined then for disciplinary reasons- MAY need to go back to Casey to be seen as setting the example. This is my explanation- because the game against Brisbane we moved the ball through the guts with aplomb --against North we kicked backwards ,kicked into the man on the mark several times, didn't run through the centre, kicked backwards -many times because we could not cope with the pressure..We should have gone through the guts as per our game plan and placed pressure on North..All I have done is picked out Grimes as a player as an example of what I was saying.. and I stick to what I have said.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Selective reading, Rhino.

Lake is too smart for a player to just go on long leads.

Irrelevant who it is.

Edit: "too smart" is perhaps the wrong term; he is too good at reading the play & will zone off.

Newton and Miller I see as basically on par these days.

It might be an indictment on Miller, but if it's a choice between the two, at this stage I'd choose Newton.

I don't think we have the players fit to go the route of a mobile forward line, or at least not with sufficient height.

I've conceded that we need another tall option, my choice being Newton.

He's just killing time until Watts is ready, but I don't think Watts is a factor in this discussion.

Since round 1 I've been saying he won't play until round 8 or 9.

Nothing has changed.

Not at all. Millers work rate is far greater than Newton's and much more than your stereotyped 70 metre leads up the ground. He also works harder at the contest.

Height is not necessarily a requirement of a mobile forward line. I would not select Newton for a token tall. What a waste.

The best way to make Lake, Boyd and Williams accountable to ensure we win the midfield contests. There is zero chance that Lake will run off or zone off if the Bulldogs dont control the ball. And if we are using a mobile forward line like we did against Brisbane then he will find it hard to zone off if our players move up the ground when the ball is in the defensive area for MFC.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

IF he continued kicking backwards and this was against the game plan

The fact is it isnt and he is working to instruction. You havent worked out that we are able to attack through the corridor once the ball has crossed the centre by creating space in the opposition defence. And we create that space by redirecting the ball across the other side of the ground to spread their defence. We then use fast running and slick use of the ball by hand or foot to further open up those spaces from which our mobile forwards run into the space.

If Grimes just kicks forward he kicks to an area already with a cluster of opposition defenders that will close down movement of the ball and force a turnover through numbers at the contest. I would drop Grimes if he just kicked to a contest because it is a complete waste of the use of the ball. Our plan is more than just bombing down the guts. If we were just trying to do that then the opposition would just populate and drop numbers back in that centre corridor.

By playing Bailey's plan to stretch the defence across the ground and make them accountable for the MFC player with the ball, they are unable to drop numbers back in key zones.

Your tirade against Grimes is soooo misplaced its laughable. Did Bailey maintain a straight face when you ask him about disciplining Grimes?

[e25 5]

Not at all. Millers work rate is far greater than Newton's and much more than your stereotyped 70 metre leads up the ground. He also works harder at the contest.

Height is not necessarily a requirement of a mobile forward line. I would not select Newton for a token tall. What a waste.

The best way to make Lake, Boyd and Williams accountable to ensure we win the midfield contests. There is zero chance that Lake will run off or zone off if the Bulldogs dont control the ball. And if we are using a mobile forward line like we did against Brisbane then he will find it hard to zone off if our players move up the ground when the ball is in the defensive area for MFC.

So you'd include Miller in that case?

I'm not sure we'd win with a mobile forward line bereft of talls, save for Bate and maybe Dunn.

I understand the need to win the midfield, but we also need to capitalize on that by kicking goals.

Fwiw I think Newton performed that role admirably against the Crows.