On 31/05/2010 at 00:03, Demons 32 said:

Why drop Wonaeamirri?

He was one of the very few guys who actually could tackle strongly against the Cats. No way will he be dropped for working hard.

Not fit enough as yet.....obviously Wonna is your fave.....he is a star no doubt but these two games (Blues/Pies) are going to be HUGE for the dees and our year as a whole....need fit players ready to go and IMO Wonna is not quite fit enough.

If he is fully fit...he is in the best side no doubt!

this week defensively is where most of the changes will be made in my opinion

what are our ideal match ups on the forward line of carlton,

IMO

O'halpin-Warnock

Henderson-Frawley

Betts-Grimes

Yarran-Bartram

Gartlett-Garland if fit is the best match up. Macdonald maybe(everyone is talking about him being slow but i disagree, and his rebound from defensive 50 was good this week, also disposal efficiency was the best of the team..i think)

if not then strauss or bennell maybe, cheney is too slow for a small defender to play this week.

Leaving bruce or rivers to patrol the backline, i hope rivers stays in this patrolling position, because as shown this week against geelong, his one on ones have dropped to a below average level.

it is hard to state who will be dropped considering it is midfielders we are likely to play.

outs: BRUCE JETTA/WONA MACDONALD GARLAND(if injured) OR RIVERS

ins: TRENGOVE, SCULLY, POSSIBLY STRAUSS/mckenzie

  On 31/05/2010 at 00:58, Mad_Melbourne said:

this week defensively is where most of the changes will be made in my opinion

what are our ideal match ups on the forward line of carlton,

IMO

O'halpin-Warnock

Henderson-Frawley

Betts-Grimes

Yarran-Bartram

Gartlett-Garland if fit is the best match up. Macdonald maybe(everyone is talking about him being slow but i disagree, and his rebound from defensive 50 was good this week, also disposal efficiency was the best of the team..i think)

if not then strauss or bennell maybe, cheney is too slow for a small defender to play this week.

Leaving bruce or rivers to patrol the backline, i hope rivers stays in this patrolling position, because as shown this week against geelong, his one on ones have dropped to a below average level.

it is hard to state who will be dropped considering it is midfielders we are likely to play.

outs: BRUCE JETTA/WONA MACDONALD OR RIVERS

ins: TRENGOVE, SCULLY, POSSIBLY STRAUSS

Good arguments for all here and Strauss is a possibility I would think.....Bate if fit has to come straight back though possibly a straight swap for one of the forwards - Watts/Miller/Aussie - IMO Aus needs a week or two to get fitness levels up.

agreed that bate if 100% fit is definately in the starting 22,

but who would you remove for him?

wona, jeta and bennell have all played quite well, and miller played the back up ruck role last week okay.

miller for mine would be replaced by bate, but it is hard situation, as players become 100% fit and our injury list decreases selection is going to be tough at the mfc.

great for our depth

  On 30/05/2010 at 16:21, DeesPower said:

I

I didn't suggest dropping Bennell - quite the opposite. I suggested putting him down back to mind the Blues small forwards: he is a better mark, is quick, and is a long penetrating accurate kick.

We need speedy small backs this week. Rivers and MacDonald would be too slow

  On 30/05/2010 at 17:37, DeesPower said:

Generally i'd agree with you about Benell, but I think Carlton are different. Meet fire with fire. Jetta may play there as well given their small forward line, and both Bennell and Jetta should give us good attacking options off our half back line. I don't think any of their small forwards are particularly strong defensively, and rely on their pace to match the bigger backs. Bennell in particualr is a strong mark for his size, and this could prove an advantage.

I agree Bennell is a good mark, but that is more suited forward. My concern is his lack of aggression at the ball carrier & to really stick the takle hard. I feel he could leak goals through a lack of intensity.

His good side is his attacking flair, run & carry etc. He needs to be Made to be more accountable though.

His lack of intensity concerns me about his future, if we don't teach it to him now, he may never learn it. He seems to enjoy the flair side of footy, but not get his hands dirty, if you will.

I want to see Melbourne sides with that touch of mongrel about them.

  On 31/05/2010 at 02:17, dee-luded said:

I agree Bennell is a good mark, but that is more suited forward. My concern is his lack of aggression at the ball carrier & to really stick the takle hard. I feel he could leak goals through a lack of intensity.

His good side is his attacking flair, run & carry etc. He needs to be Made to be more accountable though.

His lack of intensity concerns me about his future, if we don't teach it to him now, he may never learn it. He seems to enjoy the flair side of footy, but not get his hands dirty, if you will.

I want to see Melbourne sides with that touch of mongrel about them.

To some extent I agree about Bennell, but given the Blues unique forward set up, it might be a good time to challenge him to show that side of his game against players more his type. If it works it might close down one or two of Carlton key strengths. The same applies to Jetta, although I think he is more aggressive at the ball, and is a good tackler. Also, if MacKenzie is fit, given his tackling prowess, it might make sense to be put in the backline this week, but I doubt that he will be fit given what I saw in Bendigo on Sunday.

  On 31/05/2010 at 01:50, Mad_Melbourne said:

agreed that bate if 100% fit is definately in the starting 22,

but who would you remove for him?

wona, jeta and bennell have all played quite well, and miller played the back up ruck role last week okay.

miller for mine would be replaced by bate, but it is hard situation, as players become 100% fit and our injury list decreases selection is going to be tough at the mfc.

great for our depth

The debate grows by the week......one thing we can all agree on...Depth is starting to look really good!

  On 31/05/2010 at 02:23, DeesPower said:

To some extent I agree about Bennell, but given the Blues unique forward set up, it might be a good time to challenge him to show that side of his game against players more his type. If it works it might close down one or two of Carlton key strengths. The same applies to Jetta, although I think he is more aggressive at the ball, and is a good tackler. Also, if MacKenzie is fit, given his tackling prowess, it might make sense to be put in the backline this week, but I doubt that he will be fit given what I saw in Bendigo on Sunday.

True, BUT we can hurt them forward with smalls as well. I think he'll soon be going back to Casey as we find more goal kickers.The backline while solid is still in transition, & I don't think bennell is earmarked as a defender per se'. Maybe a mid/half forward who can push back & bring the ball up. Not so much a stopper.

So, Maybe we should take this opportunity to bring in an 'earmarked' defender to have their chance? After all, what is this year ALL About?

Remember, we have to pick the side to suit the next 2 weeks. As well as further on, in other big games.

  On 29/05/2010 at 07:44, armstrong35 said:

mckenzie in the team i reckon

I agree

  On 31/05/2010 at 02:23, DeesPower said:

.... but given the Blues unique forward set up, it might be a good time to challenge him to show that side of his game against players more his type. If it works it might close down one or two of Carlton key strengths. The same applies to Jetta, although I think he is more aggressive at the ball, and is a good tackler. Also, if MacKenzie is fit, given his tackling prowess, it might make sense to be put in the backline this week, but I doubt that he will be fit given what I saw in Bendigo on Sunday.

I think you would play McKenzie in the guts but in this development year it might be a worthy test for Bennell to hone his defensive side on Garlett or Yarran.

The best way to stop the Carlton forwards is to cover their midfield....Gibbs with 40 plus possessions will hurt a side.

Heard on SEN that Garland has been cleared of any structural damage. They didn't go into much detail but said they had spoken to the melbourne medical team and it seems he may be right to go this weekend, pending a fitness test. Jarred knee was the prognosis.

Good news

I think it is worth noting that Garland has been poor since his return this year. Whilst he would probably maintain his spot on potential output, I don't think it is a great loss having him out this week. Though I do agree that in theory his pace combined with his height/aerial spoiling ability would be an asset this week against the speedy Carlton forwards, he is consistently being led to the ball this year and giving away frees trying to spoil. Also, his recovery in contests has been a touch behind what he is capable of. His form has been well down on his 2008 showings.

Rivers is a concern. I wish he wasn't playing so poorly at the moment because I love the guy, but his form does not warrant selection. Cheney, on the other hand, has consistently performed for Casey and really does deserve a go. He is not slow, as a couple of people have suggested. In fact he has a good turn of speed and is accountable in the backline. Considering we have Frawley and Warnock to play on Carlton's two tall forwards (Waite and O'Hailpin) as well as Joel Macdonald or Bruce as the versatile 3rd tall defender if needed, I'd be quite happy to see Cheney in defence this week. If Rivers isn't dropped, then I don't see the need to have Macdonald in the team as well against a small Carlton forward line.

I have no idea why Mckenzie was dropped and I think he deserves a spot in the team on a regular basis. Scully, Trengove and Bate (if fit) must return. If Bate does return, I see no need for Miller, who still can't kick as he showed on the weekend. Having a KPF who not only can't slot goals from 30 out on a regular basis kut also can't kick the journey from 50m out is embarrassing. And I would not be unhappy if we brought in a real ruckman.

So my changes would be:

In: Bate, Trengove, Scully, McKenzie, Cheney, Martin/Johnson

Out: Miller (not good enough), Bartram (stiff but still needs to work on disposal), Rivers(or Macdonald for lack of match-up), Garland (injured/poor form), Jetta (stiff) + 1 other who would also be stiff.

I know that 6 changes is a lot, but if you consider that the 3 young midfielders were in the Darwin line-up and Bate is basically an automatic selection up forward, only really Cheney and the extra ruckman are additions to our line-up from a few weeks ago (eg. vs Dogs).

  On 31/05/2010 at 04:33, pringle said:

I think it is worth noting that Garland has been poor since his return this year. Whilst he would probably maintain his spot on potential output, I don't think it is a great loss having him out this week. Though I do agree that in theory his pace combined with his height/aerial spoiling ability would be an asset this week against the speedy Carlton forwards, he is consistently being led to the ball this year and giving away frees trying to spoil. Also, his recovery in contests has been a touch behind what he is capable of. His form has been well down on his 2008 showings.

Agree with all that. I must add that he has been out for quite sometime. That's not an excuse. However, it is fact.

  On 31/05/2010 at 04:33, pringle said:

I think it is worth noting that Garland has been poor since his return this year. Whilst he would probably maintain his spot on potential output, I don't think it is a great loss having him out this week. Though I do agree that in theory his pace combined with his height/aerial spoiling ability would be an asset this week against the speedy Carlton forwards, he is consistently being led to the ball this year and giving away frees trying to spoil. Also, his recovery in contests has been a touch behind what he is capable of. His form has been well down on his 2008 showings.

Rivers is a concern. I wish he wasn't playing so poorly at the moment because I love the guy, but his form does not warrant selection. Cheney, on the other hand, has consistently performed for Casey and really does deserve a go. He is not slow, as a couple of people have suggested. In fact he has a good turn of speed and is accountable in the backline. Considering we have Frawley and Warnock to play on Carlton's two tall forwards (Waite and O'Hailpin) as well as Joel Macdonald or Bruce as the versatile 3rd tall defender if needed, I'd be quite happy to see Cheney in defence this week. If Rivers isn't dropped, then I don't see the need to have Macdonald in the team as well against a small Carlton forward line.

I have no idea why Mckenzie was dropped and I think he deserves a spot in the team on a regular basis. Scully, Trengove and Bate (if fit) must return. If Bate does return, I see no need for Miller, who still can't kick as he showed on the weekend. Having a KPF who not only can't slot goals from 30 out on a regular basis kut also can't kick the journey from 50m out is embarrassing. And I would not be unhappy if we brought in a real ruckman.

So my changes would be:

In: Bate, Trengove, Scully, McKenzie, Cheney, Martin/Johnson

Out: Miller (not good enough), Bartram (stiff but still needs to work on disposal), Rivers(or Macdonald for lack of match-up), Garland (injured/poor form), Jetta (stiff) + 1 other who would also be stiff.

I know that 6 changes is a lot, but if you consider that the 3 young midfielders were in the Darwin line-up and Bate is basically an automatic selection up forward, only really Cheney and the extra ruckman are additions to our line-up from a few weeks ago (eg. vs Dogs).

Not a whole lot that I would disagree with here except for the sting towards Brad Miller (not that the points are far off the mark) but to then bring Johnson up as an inclusion? No way.....he has had his chance and should not be seen again unless there is no option. Miller would be stiff to be dropped after a good effort in Darwin and IMO the best forward on Saturday even without the conversion rate...but yes Bate has to come straight back as do Skull and JT and I hope McKenzie.....Can anyone say why he was dropped???? I can handle the rest of of the other two but this one is still bugging me!

Col Garland is a ripper though.....not many return to their peak straight after 12mths out of the game....Hille at Essendon has taken time, Aussie looks short of a run.....well put but reckon that Col deserves more time yet

Out - McLean

In - Gysberts

  On 31/05/2010 at 04:42, Bates Mate said:

Out - McLean

In - Gysberts

Nice and simple Bates Mate!! Would like to see that simple statement on the team banner this week!!!

  On 31/05/2010 at 04:39, Demon Jack 16 said:

Not a whole lot that I would disagree with here except for the sting towards Brad Miller (not that the points are far off the mark) but to then bring Johnson up as an inclusion? No way.....he has had his chance and should not be seen again unless there is no option. Miller would be stiff to be dropped after a good effort in Darwin and IMO the best forward on Saturday even without the conversion rate...but yes Bate has to come straight back as do Skull and JT and I hope McKenzie.....Can anyone say why he was dropped???? I can handle the rest of of the other two but this one is still bugging me!

Col Garland is a ripper though.....not many return to their peak straight after 12mths out of the game....Hille at Essendon has taken time, Aussie looks short of a run.....well put but reckon that Col deserves more time yet

I do like Miller in the role he used to play as the hard-leading hit-up CHF. But Bate probably does this better nowadays and furthermore has the capacity to hurt the opposition with a couple of long goals or accurate foot-passes to leading forwards. I have long bemoaned Miller's lack of kicking penetration. It is a shame, because if he could roost a goal from outside 50 ala Cloke for Collingwood (or most KPF's in the league), then he would be a regular selection and 250 game player for the MFC.

Not 100% set on bringing in another ruckman, but if Miller is dropped then we may need to as I'd hate to see Sylvia in the ruck again. Maybe Rivers could be kept in the side and used as the 2nd ruck who floats back into defensive 50 as the third man up (left field, but might help him find form and he has no defensive match-up this week).

And as for Garland, I agree that he is a ripper and that the 12 months out has no doubt played a large part in his dip in form. Just pointing out that he hasn't been great. People are very quick to point out that Aussie has not set the world on fire in his couple of games, or Morton, but no-one seems willing to say the same about Col. So I felt like it should be said. But yes, he will be in our best 22 going forward.

  On 31/05/2010 at 04:55, pringle said:

I do like Miller in the role he used to play as the hard-leading hit-up CHF. But Bate probably does this better nowadays and furthermore has the capacity to hurt the opposition with a couple of long goals or accurate foot-passes to leading forwards. I have long bemoaned Miller's lack of kicking penetration. It is a shame, because if he could roost a goal from outside 50 ala Cloke for Collingwood (or most KPF's in the league), then he would be a regular selection and 250 game player for the MFC.

Not 100% set on bringing in another ruckman, but if Miller is dropped then we may need to as I'd hate to see Sylvia in the ruck again. Maybe Rivers could be kept in the side and used as the 2nd ruck who floats back into defensive 50 as the third man up (left field, but might help him find form and he has no defensive match-up this week).

And as for Garland, I agree that he is a ripper and that the 12 months out has no doubt played a large part in his dip in form. Just pointing out that he hasn't been great. People are very quick to point out that Aussie has not set the world on fire in his couple of games, or Morton, but no-one seems willing to say the same about Col. So I felt like it should be said. But yes, he will be in our best 22 going forward.

I agree 100% on Aussie and Morton.....they both look short of a run (Darwin has taken a lot out of the players....this cant be underestimated). IMO Aussie should definitely go back for a spell and some fitness....Cale probably adds more in that he can be used in a variety of spots so will stay.....Would be nice to see Cale use his height to more effect....he is a big guy.....he could be a ruck option but I'll counter my own argument with that I haven't really seen him get too high!?

Your point on Bate V Miller.....spot on and I cant argue that and Bate must return. Watts was quiet but surely would be kept for now and makes his way to a 2nd Queens Bday fixture!

  On 31/05/2010 at 04:33, pringle said:

I think it is worth noting that Garland has been poor since his return this year. Whilst he would probably maintain his spot on potential output, I don't think it is a great loss having him out this week. Though I do agree that in theory his pace combined with his height/aerial spoiling ability would be an asset this week against the speedy Carlton forwards, he is consistently being led to the ball this year and giving away frees trying to spoil. Also, his recovery in contests has been a touch behind what he is capable of. His form has been well down on his 2008 showings.

I disagree in that I don't think Garland has been as bad since his return as most others do. I saw some very promising signs in the Port Adelaide match, for instance. But yes, his form hasn't been stellar.

  On 31/05/2010 at 04:33, pringle said:

I have no idea why Mckenzie was dropped and I think he deserves a spot in the team on a regular basis. Scully, Trengove and Bate (if fit) must return. If Bate does return, I see no need for Miller, who still can't kick as he showed on the weekend. Having a KPF who not only can't slot goals from 30 out on a regular basis kut also can't kick the journey from 50m out is embarrassing. And I would not be unhappy if we brought in a real ruckman.

So my changes would be:

In: Bate, Trengove, Scully, McKenzie, Cheney, Martin/Johnson

Out: Miller (not good enough), Bartram (stiff but still needs to work on disposal), Rivers(or Macdonald for lack of match-up), Garland (injured/poor form), Jetta (stiff) + 1 other who would also be stiff.

I know that 6 changes is a lot, but if you consider that the 3 young midfielders were in the Darwin line-up and Bate is basically an automatic selection up forward, only really Cheney and the extra ruckman are additions to our line-up from a few weeks ago (eg. vs Dogs).

Very stiff on most of the outs. You miss Bartram's other benefits: he's been doing a good job as a small defender regardless of his bad kicking, which yes, is a problem, but he's not in the team to be getting a heap of quality disposals, and we'll definitely need his pace against Carlton. Miller's playing a lot better than you've given him credit for, and your memory obviously doesn't extend past 7 days as he kicked 5 straight in Darwin. Bringing in a second ruckman to remove Jetta is ridiculous. I can only agree with dropping MacDonald/Rivers.

I don't know who will go out...

But Scully, Trengove and Bate are certain inclusions. All 3 are in our best 15 players, probably in our best 10.

McKenzie imo is our in starting 18. not sure why he's out of favour.

Cheney would have to be considered with Carlton's small forwards

Its worth noting that from the commentary from the Casey game in Bendigo that Jordie came off with a bad corkie, had the area taped up and eventually returned.

McKenzie was also not listed amongst the best afield for the game. If this club is going to stick by the mantra that players have to earn their recall, McKenzie does not return this week. If the corky is in fact a decent one, he might also not return to ensure that it heals up.

This may seem like a request that is out-of-line and I acknowledge that i'm new to the forum, but from what i've read it would be nice to hear people suggest players that actually deserve a call up to the Seniors based on form or for the benefit of the team structure, not because they happen to be their favourite type of players.

Specifically i refer to those calling for Strauss to return despite the fact that yet again he wasn't listed in the best performers at casey. Some could apply for Mckenzie this week.

From the reports it would seems that only Maric and Cheney have played consistent high quality footy to warrant a call up from Casey.

In: Bate, Scully, Trengove

Out: Garland (inj.), Rivers, ???

I honestly have no idea who else we leave out this week. One would assume the 3 ins are automatic while Garland will apparently be missing a few weeks with the knee. Riv, who I haven't viewed as harshly as many so far this year, had a bad game on Saturday and really has no matchup against Carlton, you'd think he'll make way. Beyond those two I cannot pick anybody who glaringly doesn't deserve their spot in next week's team. This makes it even harder to get Jordie McK back in the side.

Another interesting week at the selection table, it seems that like Jordie last week, somebody is going to be stiff to lose their place in this week's team.

  On 31/05/2010 at 05:11, titan_uranus said:

I disagree in that I don't think Garland has been as bad since his return as most others do. I saw some very promising signs in the Port Adelaide match, for instance. But yes, his form hasn't been stellar.

Very stiff on most of the outs. You miss Bartram's other benefits: he's been doing a good job as a small defender regardless of his bad kicking, which yes, is a problem, but he's not in the team to be getting a heap of quality disposals, and we'll definitely need his pace against Carlton. Miller's playing a lot better than you've given him credit for, and your memory obviously doesn't extend past 7 days as he kicked 5 straight in Darwin. Bringing in a second ruckman to remove Jetta is ridiculous. I can only agree with dropping MacDonald/Rivers.

Yes Bartram is stiff in my outs. Was desperately looking around the team to try to find an out for my ins. He does do a job and does it well. Just would love his kicking and decision making to improve.

And I do remember Miller's 5 vs Port. I was there in Darwin. That game was the exception rather than the rule with Miller and I have compared it to my memory bank of the rest of his career. I think he's had a fair amount of time to address his goal-kicking and apart from the Port game he has been consistently poor in this area. I saw him at Casey earlier this year as well and he fluffed a few gettable shots... just like he did vs Geelong.

As for the 2nd ruck, I didn't remove Jetta for that. I had 3 mids coming into the team (Scully, Trengove and McKenzie). But I agree that neither ruck REALLY deserves a game. But I do feel we need another ruckman to support Jamar. Just wish we had a quality player to bring in.

  On 31/05/2010 at 06:09, pm24 said:

McKenzie was also not listed amongst the best afield for the game. If this club is going to stick by the mantra that players have to earn their recall, McKenzie does not return this week.

From the reports it would seems that only Maric and Cheney have played consistent high quality footy to warrant a call up from Casey.

The reports I read had only Newton and Dunn (remember them?) in the best for Casey. And either of them could help Jamar out in the ruck!!!!

Can't see what the agitation for Maric is all about. Cheney maybe particularly to mark a speedy smaller forward. But what would Maric add to the side?