On 24/05/2010 at 08:27, Parma said:

Id love to beat the cats too, however two hard games could flatten us for the following couple of weeks. You need to be realistic, the cats at the cattery is near impossible but Coll at the G wow how good will that be. That game is our Grand final. It will be in front of 70-80 thousand and on TV. Lets not cut off our nose to spite our face.

Maybe you and others are correct. But I am of the belief that you go into every game regardless of oposition and give evrything you can to try and win. I will expect it of the players this week, and the week after again. Maybe I am a fool, but I truly believe before every game that MFC play, that we can win.

Just think about how good we have been this year. (insert inspirational Braveheart speach here).

Go Dee's!!

This board (and general media)will go nuts if we beat the Cats this week. :lol:

Outs

- Moloney

- Garland

Give Bruce another weeks rest

Ins

- Bate

- Warnock

ps, Anyone who thinks Jetta should be dropped should pack up their bags and start following another code. maybe lawn bowls

  On 24/05/2010 at 01:25, Mad_Melbourne said:

i dont think we will tag their whole midfield and agree that head to head will be the best option with bartel and selwood.

i think that probably see bartram have a crack on ablett or even mckenzie, with jones lining up a head to head with chapman mainly due to body size.

then hopefully let our midfield take the one on one match ups, if we go into the match trying to control the damage of their midfield as opposed to try and run their midfield around we will get smashed. we need to back our midfielders into hopefully do a good enough job to compete against geelongs midfield.

i also think that we will attempt to have as many stoppages as possible as jamar can dominate blake in the ruck and id even back jake spencer (not that he will be played) to beat tom hawkins in the ruck.

ohh and wona although i love him should be dropped, clearly was not match fit and at times didnt even try to chase their defenders when running out of the backline, this leaves the spot for bate if fit, if not maybe maric will get a game, or dunn again, as dunn can even be used as a tagger if necessary.

Melbourne's DARWIN team

B: Clint Bartram, Joel Macdonald, Jared Rivers

HB: Jack Grimes, James Frawley, Colin Garland?

C: James McDonald, Jack Trengove, Aaron Davey

HF: Jamie Bennell, Brad Miller, Cale Morton

F: Nathan Jones, Brad Green, Jack Watts

Foll: Mark Jamar, Brent Moloney, Colin Sylvia

I/C: Tom Scully, Austin Wonaeamirri, Jordie McKenzie, Neville Jetta

Emg: Jake Spencer , James Strauss, Lynden Dunn

Cats v Dees

B: Josh Hunt, Matthew Scarlett, Andrew Mackie

F: Jamie Bennell, Brad Miller,,,,,, Jack Watts

HB: Corey Enright, Harry Taylor, Darren Milburn

HF: Brad Green,,, Matthew Bate, Colin Sylvia

C: James Kelly,,,,,, Cameron Ling,,, Jimmy Bartel

C: Brent Moloney?, Jack Trengove, Jack Grimes

HF: Steve Johnson, Cameron Mooney, Travis Varcoe

HB: James Frawley,,,, Jared Rivers ,,,, Joel Macdonald

F: Mathew Stokes, Tom Hawkins, Gary Ablett

B: Clint Bartram,, Matthew Warnock,, Colin Garland

Foll: Mark Blake, Joel Selwood, Paul Chapman

Foll: Mark Jamar, Jun' McDonald, Jordie McKenzie

I/C from: Shannon Byrnes, James Podsiadly, David Wojcinski, Tom Lonergan Simon Hogan, Mitch Duncan, Taylor Hunt

I/C from:Aaron Davey Nathan Jones Tom Scully Jake Spencer,, Cale Morton N Jetta James Strauss Lynden Dunn

*If Moloney doesn't make it, then move Trenners to the wing on kelly, sylvia into the guts, & morton onto the HFF against Milburn to run hard both ways to hurt.

Please only play Bate if he is fully fit because when he isn't it's not a pretty sight. THe short break after a tough game may force some changes but i'd prefer to see as little as possible, even if that means Bruce and Bate come back through the magoos

  On 23/05/2010 at 11:53, Scully_to_Watts said:

Who will tag G.ABLETT?

Who will tag or play head to head with J.Bartel

Who will tag or play head to head with J.Selwood

Who will tag P.Chapman?

Ud expect jones to run with one

potentially bartrram may be a run with player

and then theres Mcdonald and McKenzie who love there tackles so may put up their hands

we need to be careful we don't tag all Geelong and forget to win. We have considerable strenghts ourselves and they need to be given fre reign to unleash the flame!

Not that I'm suggesting the FD would do anything else, but we shouldn't get too hung up with tagging all their team.

  On 24/05/2010 at 08:11, Parma said:

Hears a thought out of left field.

Lets wear a loss this week, and rest, the kids that have had such a heavy work load. And bring in a few fringe players to give them a chance to show something. Lets manage the players and be ready to give Carlton and Collingwood a real show the following two weeks.

I don't know whether you have looked at the ladder lately, but it is clear to me that if we have any hope of making the 8, percentage will be very important. A 100+ point loss to the cats could ruin our good percentage at the moment.

  On 23/05/2010 at 11:59, titan_uranus said:

Two contenders for worst post of the year.

Dropping Jetta is ludicrous. He was top 5. Bringing Strauss in is similarly unfounded.

And Green Machine obviously has it in for Morton but clearly has no idea about football.

Yep!

With the suspension of Moloney and Wonna spending some extra time up the top end I now see our changes looking more like.

IN: Bate (if fit), Bruce (if fit), Strauss, Warnock (if fit)

OUT: Moloney (susp), Wonna (rest), Bartram, MacDonald

FB: Frawley, Warnock, Strauss

HB: Garland, Rivers, Grimes

C:Morton, McKenzie, Davey

HF:Trengove, Bate, Bennell

FF: Watts, Miller, Jetta

FOLL: Jamar, Sylvia, McDonald

INT: Bruce, Green, Jones, Scully

Pending fitness, if Warnock doesn't get up I'd have MacDoanld hold his spot, if either Bate or Bruce don't get up I'd have Gysberts make his debut, and if they both miss then I'd have Cheney play also.

  On 25/05/2010 at 01:01, Tall Defence said:

With the suspension of Moloney and Wonna spending some extra time up the top end I now see our changes looking more like.

IN: Bate (if fit), Bruce (if fit), Strauss, Warnock (if fit)

OUT: Moloney (susp), Wonna (rest), Bartram, MacDonald

FB: Frawley, Warnock, Strauss

HB: Garland, Rivers, Grimes

C:Morton, McKenzie, Davey

HF:Trengove, Bate, Bennell

FF: Watts, Miller, Jetta

FOLL: Jamar, Sylvia, McDonald

INT: Bruce, Green, Jones, Scully

Pending fitness, if Warnock doesn't get up I'd have MacDoanld hold his spot, if either Bate or Bruce don't get up I'd have Gysberts make his debut, and if they both miss then I'd have Cheney play also.

I'm not keen on having Strauss return for this game as from all reports his form at Casey hasn't been good enough. On form, Cheney deserves a spot ahead of him and I would also prefer to see MacDonald retained ahead of Strauss.

The only inclusions I see this week are injury replacements, or in Wonna's case due to resting players.

In that case, unless there's a successful challenge at the tribunal, I see it this way:

Out: Moloney (suspension), Aussie (rest)

In: Bate, Warnock

Bate to play at CHF, Warnock at FB.

I'd hold Bruce out for one more week if he really did do his hamstring. No point rushing him back ahead of schedule.

However if Bruce is deemed as fit, i think we slot him in and make the changes:

Out: Moloney, Aussie, McKenzie (rest)

In: Bate, Bruce, Warnock

Why do people keep suggesting specific players for a rest??? It's one thing to engage in a bit of educated guesswork as to whether players might return from injury or miss due to injury, but what could anybody possibly be basing a guess upon in stating that any other player would be 'rested'?? Please don't say it's because they're young or because they 'looked tired' in last week's game, because that's just rubbish.

Garland may be injured. I don't want to make too many assumptions, but this is what happened on Saturday night.

I was sitting near the bench on Saturday, and I think it was late in the second quarter Garland took himself off (there was no one ready to go on, the coaches were unaware of him coming off), and said to the bloke with the headset "My foot" and pointed to his foot, he looked very disappointed, turned to the trainer/physio/doctor (unsure what he was), and said "My Foot", both Garland and the medic looked very worried, and they headed straight down to the change rooms, with Garland limping. Looked like he was heading down for an injection, came back a few minutes later, it did not look like he had any extra strapping, but no longer had a limp. He played the rest of the game with no apparent inconvenience.

I'm not sure what the injury was, or how bad,but it looked like he had a pain killer, and then played out the game. Hopefully not related to past problems.

  On 25/05/2010 at 02:41, Thomo said:

Garland may be injured. I don't want to make too many assumptions, but this is what happened on Saturday night.

I was sitting near the bench on Saturday, and I think it was late in the second quarter Garland took himself off (there was no one ready to go on, the coaches were unaware of him coming off), and said to the bloke with the headset "My foot" and pointed to his foot, he looked very disappointed, turned to the trainer/physio/doctor (unsure what he was), and said "My Foot", both Garland and the medic looked very worried, and they headed straight down to the change rooms, with Garland limping. Looked like he was heading down for an injection, came back a few minutes later, it did not look like he had any extra strapping, but no longer had a limp. He played the rest of the game with no apparent inconvenience.

I'm not sure what the injury was, or how bad,but it looked like he had a pain killer, and then played out the game. Hopefully not related to past problems.

Let's hope it's not related. I didn't notice any limping or apparent pain in the second half, but if he did get an injection I guess this wouldn't be obvious. Wait and see I guess.

I would be flabbergasted if Garland in any way re-injured the foot we held him out for a year rehabbing and they jabbed him and sent him back out there. That would threaten his career.

  On 25/05/2010 at 02:41, Thomo said:

Garland may be injured. I don't want to make too many assumptions, but this is what happened on Saturday night.

I was sitting near the bench on Saturday, and I think it was late in the second quarter Garland took himself off (there was no one ready to go on, the coaches were unaware of him coming off), and said to the bloke with the headset "My foot" and pointed to his foot, he looked very disappointed, turned to the trainer/physio/doctor (unsure what he was), and said "My Foot", both Garland and the medic looked very worried, and they headed straight down to the change rooms, with Garland limping. Looked like he was heading down for an injection, came back a few minutes later, it did not look like he had any extra strapping, but no longer had a limp. He played the rest of the game with no apparent inconvenience.

I'm not sure what the injury was, or how bad,but it looked like he had a pain killer, and then played out the game. Hopefully not related to past problems.

Fingers crossed that it is nothing too serious. You've got me thinking now, because he looked to be disappointed at the end of the game when Grimes approached him to celebrate. Hopefully that was just a sign of him absolutely buggered, but I did think at the time that Garland looked "cheesed off" at something or other.

Sounds like a new hotspot.

Sounds like it could be a degenerative injury just like Egan's.

Sounds like his career is over.

Honestly, this is how vicious incorrect rumours get started.

He went off and went back in again. Maybe he had a stone in his shoe. Who knows.

Ridiculous conjecture.

  On 25/05/2010 at 01:01, Tall Defence said:

Wonna spending some extra time up the top end

Wonaeamirri came back on the flight that left 6pm Sunday.

  On 25/05/2010 at 02:58, Keyser Söze said:

Sounds like a new hotspot.

Sounds like it could be a degenerative injury just like Egan's.

Sounds like his career is over.

Honestly, this is how vicious incorrect rumours get started.

He went off and went back in again. Maybe he had a stone in his shoe. Who knows.

Ridiculous conjecture.

No vicious incorrect rumours reported, just the facts from two metres away. If you can offer facts that dispute these please let me know.

Why do some people get angry when anything other than a positive report is posted. Do you seriously want to come on here and get involved in some sort of circle-jerk? What I offered will probably be of interest to many, what you offered will not.

  On 25/05/2010 at 03:04, maurie said:

Wonaeamirri came back on the flight that left 6pm Sunday.

Cheers Maurie, I was under the impression he was spending some extra time up there, glad to hear he's back and in that case up for selection for the coming week.

  On 25/05/2010 at 03:04, maurie said:

Wonaeamirri came back on the flight that left 6pm Sunday.

I'd say that constitutes extra time.

Aussie's essentially got a 5 day turnaround for this weekend in recovery/rehab terms. I'd be quite amazed if he came up for the Geelong game.

  On 25/05/2010 at 02:41, Thomo said:

Garland may be injured. I don't want to make too many assumptions, but this is what happened on Saturday night.

I was sitting near the bench on Saturday, and I think it was late in the second quarter Garland took himself off (there was no one ready to go on, the coaches were unaware of him coming off), and said to the bloke with the headset "My foot" and pointed to his foot, he looked very disappointed, turned to the trainer/physio/doctor (unsure what he was), and said "My Foot", both Garland and the medic looked very worried, and they headed straight down to the change rooms, with Garland limping. Looked like he was heading down for an injection, came back a few minutes later, it did not look like he had any extra strapping, but no longer had a limp. He played the rest of the game with no apparent inconvenience.

I'm not sure what the injury was, or how bad,but it looked like he had a pain killer, and then played out the game. Hopefully not related to past problems.

Fingers crossed for Col, would be absolutely shattering if it has flared up again but the fact he came back on the ground you'd think suggests it must be something different considering how cautious they've been with his re-hab.

  On 25/05/2010 at 02:20, pm24 said:

I'm not keen on having Strauss return for this game as from all reports his form at Casey hasn't been good enough. On form, Cheney deserves a spot ahead of him and I would also prefer to see MacDonald retained ahead of Strauss.

The only inclusions I see this week are injury replacements, or in Wonna's case due to resting players.

In that case, unless there's a successful challenge at the tribunal, I see it this way:

Out: Moloney (suspension), Aussie (rest)

In: Bate, Warnock

Bate to play at CHF, Warnock at FB.

I'd hold Bruce out for one more week if he really did do his hamstring. No point rushing him back ahead of schedule.

However if Bruce is deemed as fit, i think we slot him in and make the changes:

Out: Moloney, Aussie, McKenzie (rest)

In: Bate, Bruce, Warnock

Strauss is an interesting one. I thought he was stiff to get dropped initially as I though his game against Collingwood in round 2 was quite good and Davis (who he was playing on) didn't have much of an influence (apart from the last goal of course). True Strauss didn't get a lot of the ball and hasn't at Casey since but I don't think he's the type of player who will be likely to get a lot of the ball. I see him as a shut down defender with a beautiful kick, nicely suited to kick ins, but that's just my take on him. I see Strauss as a direct replacment for Bartram, not MacDonald or anyone else, but Bartram as I see that as Strauss's best role to play in the team. Cheney will be battling for this spot also, Cheney's plus side is he gets more of the ball but doesn't use it as well.

Thought it was worth noting that on the Injury List that's been posted in another thread there's been no mention of Garland missing time which is great. There is also no listing of Warnock on the IL which you'd think would mean he slots straight back into the team. The list also shows that Bate and Bruce will be subject to tests however i don't think it's likely we'll see both of them back. I'd say Bate would be more likely to return than Bruce given their age difference (which I believe usuall effects the healing process).

Either way, whoever comes in at this point, I think we can all be confident that this team is now in the fortunate position of being able to bring players in from Casey without weakening the team (except for guys likes PJ and Juice).

With Moloney able to play now, they might only make one change in bringing back Warnock while giving Bate and Bruce an extra week to heal. I don't know if having them back would change the result either. I'd like to believe that we could beat Geelong, but I can't see anyone beating them for the premiership this year.

  On 23/05/2010 at 12:50, Harrisonrules said:

I believe Morton will be better for the run. Skills were a bit off this week in the greasy condition but for first up he did extremely well. He has that great skill of running to the play or one step ahead to be a new target. I reckon he is a must for every game he is fit. He is just as important as the usual list of young guns, s..t..w...g...f.. + m....

I tend to agree that Morton needs more time. I think he will be an A grader eventually, but for mine in Darwin got cought far too often and missed far too many targets. I'd put him down at Casey to t his form back for another two weeks or so. We hav replacements ready tuned and fit, which we wilol certainly need for the toughest challenge in football this week

Apparently,

IN: Bruce

MelbourneFC Website Link