There's a very strange sentiment coming through around here that games are somehow deserved for reasons other than being in the best 22 available that week. The concept that a player deserves another game just because he hasn't played many or because he wasn't bad the previous week despite clearly superior players being available is quite staggering really. It defies all logic.

There's a very strange sentiment coming through around here that games are somehow deserved for reasons other than being in the best 22 available that week. The concept that a player deserves another game just because he hasn't played many or because he wasn't bad the previous week despite clearly superior players being available is quite staggering really. It defies all logic.

I agree.

And it's very 'Demonland' logic.

Based on what Bails just said in his presser- it looks like JUnior will come in, i reckon scull might be given a break. If they drop PJ i think it's stiff, continuity would be good for him because he's getting some good touch. Maric is too harsh as he's just come in.

Why would Scully need a "break"? As a junior he was breaking records for endurance tests. He's already in the upper echelons of fitness at the club - this was proven against Essendon when he spent the whole last quarter on the ground even after the cue was put in the rack. He doesn't need a break.

I'm with Inner Demon. People seem to prefer "fair" over "best". I don't get that either.

My tip is for Warnock to come back in and play on Brown.

Beamer won't come up. Junior is an automatic inclusion. MacDonald and Bail are Queenslanders who played well last week. Unlikely to be dropped.

Maric played OK last week but I think he will be the unlucky one unless there is another injury we don't know about.

Go Junior!

I really can't fathom why some are advocating that Trengove play for Casey. The thought makes me want to puke. He's already one of the fittest at the club and missing two weeks won't be an impediment, if anything it will have served to freshen him up. Along with a couple of others, he's the best chance this club has had in decades of producing a star of the competition, but some want him running around with Casey, because it's too hard, or unfair to drop others after a good win. You can't be serious.

I want the best players running out for this club each week and already Trengove has shown that he's one of our most important players. I'll be astonished if he's not selected this afternoon.

H, I'm one of the guys advocating for this, and I apologise for making you feel ill. It's not that I think that's where he is at, I think he will benefit from having a run at Casey, as opposed to being rushed straight back in to the Seniors. It happened to our captain, who benefited from it, and the senior team didn't suffer from doing so.

Most champion racehorses have a trial before they start their spring assault. The owners don't get any prizemoney in trials, and often wont win, but it makes them cherry ripe for their first start.

Unless he was right to go last weekend, and he has put in a lot on the training track, give him a run in weaker grade, then attack the tigers.

That said, I think he is a big chance for a call up this weekend. I'll love watching him at the Gabba if he does, and will not rant and rave if he does play. I'm happy to see either outcome. Nb. That's not sitting on the fence, just justifying my opinion to play him (THIS WEEK ONLY) at Casey.

H, I'm one of the guys advocating for this, and I apologise for making you feel ill. It's not that I think that's where he is at, I think he will benefit from having a run at Casey, as opposed to being rushed straight back in to the Seniors. It happened to our captain, who benefited from it, and the senior team didn't suffer from doing so.

The difference is that Junior was out for longer, meaning he wasn't running for a greater amount of time, meaning his fitness will have degraded a lot more than Trengove's. Fitness wise there's a huge difference between 1-2 weeks out and 5+. If Trengove had been out that long I'd agree with you. Trengove's fitness levels should be fine and as he's clearly in our best 22 players, he should come straight back in.

I can't help but feel that if we had lost by 73 points rather than winning by 73 points, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I reckon people are just looking for any old justification not to make the hard calls.

Personally, I see no reason to change a side that beat he Swans by 73 points.

If players are coming back from injury, no matter who it is, I don't think it's unreasonable to have them find touch and fitness in the VFL.

I don't like the idea of dropping Maric after one game, especially as he took his chance and played well..

I really, really can't get my head around the idea that people really believe that Addam Maric deserves a spot in the side

There's a very strange sentiment coming through around here that games are somehow deserved for reasons other than being in the best 22 available that week. The concept that a player deserves another game just because he hasn't played many or because he wasn't bad the previous week despite clearly superior players being available is quite staggering really. It defies all logic.

I agree.

And it's very 'Demonland' logic.

I'm unsure who will be left out of the side. However, I agree with ID.

I think the likes of Junior & Trengove would be welcome inclusions. Whilst the team played well last week it is my opinion we'll need to call upon these guys. Perhaps two of PJ, Maric, Bail might make way. One will make the trip, perhaps PJ.

Based on nothing but a hunch. And I wish the team well up at the gabba.

The difference is that Junior was out for longer, meaning he wasn't running for a greater amount of time, meaning his fitness will have degraded a lot more than Trengove's. Fitness wise there's a huge difference between 1-2 weeks out and 5+. If Trengove had been out that long I'd agree with you. Trengove's fitness levels should be fine and as he's clearly in our best 22 players, he should come straight back in.

I can't help but feel that if we had lost by 73 points rather than winning by 73 points, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I reckon people are just looking for any old justification not to make the hard calls.

If that is directed at me Nasher, I think it's a pretty poor comment.

*I'm suggesting leaving a first year player who hasn't played for 3 weeks to come back through the reserves for one week. Would Gysberts be automatic selection if he was fit?

*I'm suggesting we 'rest Moloney for one more week to get him 100%. He may be able to come straight back in the week after as he is a seasoned player.

*I'm suggesting we drop Paul Johnston to bring in Warnock

*I'd still rather Jnr miss this week. The Gabba is the hardest ground in the league (even though it has been wet all week), when you are at that age, hard grounds take there toll on the body. 1 more week at Casey should ensure he is right for the remainder of the year. BUT, if he's right this week, sadly I think Maric will make way for him. Why I say sadly is because I thought he played pretty well for his first game this season. Head-to-head, he doesn't stand a chance against Jnr, but still think based on last weeks effort he deserves another game.

Of course it would be easier if we lost by 73 points last week, players would obviously have not performed to the level they did, but, thanks for the newsflash there champ.

I'd say Moloney's form in being our best midfielder all season long should probably suffice. However he's been rated at 50-50 so perhaps Junior is more likely. I really, really can't get my head around the idea that people really believe that Addam Maric deserves a spot in the side more than our captain, but I suppose that's what they call the "cult of youth".

The absolute only way I could see Addam getting a game this week is another player coming out of the team injured.

Totally agree.

There's a very strange sentiment coming through around here that games are somehow deserved for reasons other than being in the best 22 available that week. The concept that a player deserves another game just because he hasn't played many or because he wasn't bad the previous week despite clearly superior players being available is quite staggering really. It defies all logic.

Quite the case indeed.

Or its applied when a fringe player is picked for his first game (ever or in a while) and that he should get 4 to 6 games in a row. The reason given is that "we can see if he is up to it". This is often said by posters who sometimes forget just how much the Footy Dept examine and review all list players.

I'll put a bib on you and speak slowly.

I never like the idea of giving a player just one game in the seniors if 1) it's a first gamer, or 2) a player that has battled hard to break into the side all year, got his chance and then performed well. Ergo, I don't like the idea of dropping Maric.

But you'll also note that I listed 3 players from the team on the weekend that would be the first to make way - Maric, Bail and Johnson. Without hesitation I'd drop any one of them to recall a fit Trengove, McDonald, or Moloney. I also stated that I doubted all 3 of them would come up.

I want the best players playing. And I don't believe in 'rests', unless it's really warranted.

Edited July 29, 201015 yr by Hannabal

Development has to be balanced with best at this point in our climb.

Watts wouldn't have played a game if it wasn't.

I'll put a bib on you and speak slowly.

I never like the idea of giving a player just one game in the seniors if 1) it's a first gamer, or 2) a player that has battled hard to break into the side all year, got his chance and then performed well. Ergo, I don't like the idea of dropping Maric.

But you'll also note that I listed 3 players from the team on the weekend that would be the first to make way - Maric, Bail and Johnson. Without hesitation I'd drop any one of them to recall a fit Trengove, McDonald, or Moloney. I also stated that I doubted all 3 of them would come up.

I want the best players playing. And I don't believe in 'rests', unless it's really warranted.

Thankyou H. Fwiw, I thought Maric did ok, however as you have said, he is quite often "disillusioned." If Bailey can get through to him on the mental development side of things he may prosper.

You can have your bib back.

Out Watts (inj) Scully (general sorness=rest), Maric

In Bate, Trenners, McDonald.

No changes!

Great performance by the whole side. No injuries. No change!

second that

There's a very strange sentiment coming through around here that games are somehow deserved for reasons other than being in the best 22 available that week. The concept that a player deserves another game just because he hasn't played many or because he wasn't bad the previous week despite clearly superior players being available is quite staggering really. It defies all logic.

Here's a question for you given your statement above ID. Is a "clearly superior player" still superior to a player who has performed decently in recent games (though not in our top 22) if that said "clearly superior player" is only about 80%-90% match fit?

At the start of the year people were strongly arguing that players like Bate and Aussie shouldn't have been playing until they were 100% match fit. Are you now suggesting that a player like Trengove or Moloney (who are easily top players at the club) who is just coming back from injury and hasn't played for a couple weeks (thus potentially reducing their match fitness) should be selected regardless of whether or not they are 100% match-fit, and purely because they are superior players to others???

Edited July 29, 201015 yr by pm24

Here's a question for you given your statement above ID. Is a "clearly superior player" still superior to a player who has performed decently in recent games (though not in our top 22) if that said "clearly superior player" is only about 80%-90% match fit?

At the start of the year people were strongly arguing that players like Bate and Aussie shouldn't have been playing until they were match fit. Are you now suggesting that a player like Trengove or Moloney (who are easily top players at the club) who is just coming back from injury and hasn't played for a couple weeks (thus potentially reducing their match fitness) should be selected regardless of whether or not they are match-fit, and purely because they are superior players to others???

Moloney won't play. He's 60-70% fit.

Trengove will be fine to play and his form before his injury suggests he's an automatic selection. He was only out for 2 weeks as well.

And Junior has 24 touches and a goal for Casey.

I know junior returned through the 2's which was done to help him get confidence back in the hamstring and probably for match-fitness as well.... but the fact that he came back through the 2's supports the theory that Trengove or Moloney should come back through the 2's.

I guess all i'm trying to point out is that the even though a player might be available it might not be best for the club for that player to return straight into the seniors in favour of a player who has been performing admirably, if that superior player is not 100% match fit in the minds of the trainers.

I don't think people are arguing that we shouldn't pick our best available 22, more that a player shouldn't be dropped just because a superior player has returned from an injury layoff, particularly if that returning player is not 100% match fit.

It's probably a moot point, but in my mind selection should always come down to what is the best team for us to put on the ground each week giving consideration to the opposition and matchups, but most importantly structure. If Trengove and Jnr are available and match fit, then by all means some of the lesser players need to make way for them. But we don't drop defenders like Bartram (and i know this wasn't necessarily suggested) or ruckment like PJ (and i'm not a fan of his either) just to fit in two midfielders and ruin the balance of the team structurely.

Melbourne

B: Colin Garland, Jared Rivers, Clint Bartram

HB: Cameron Bruce, James Frawley, Joel Macdonald

C: Rohan Bail, James McDonald, Brad Green

HF: Lynden Dunn, Jack Watts, Tom Scully

F: Jamie Bennell, Paul Johnson, Austin Wonaeamirri

Foll: Mark Jamar, Colin Sylvia, Aaron Davey

I/C: Jordie McKenzie, Cale Morton, Liam Jurrah, Nathan Jones

Emg: Addam Maric, Matthew Warnock, Jack Trengove

In: James McDonald

Out: Addam Maric

Melbourne

B: Colin Garland, Jared Rivers, Clint Bartram

HB: Cameron Bruce, James Frawley, Joel Macdonald

C: Rohan Bail, James McDonald, Brad Green

HF: Lynden Dunn, Jack Watts, Tom Scully

F: Jamie Bennell, Paul Johnson, Austin Wonaeamirri

Foll: Mark Jamar, Colin Sylvia, Aaron Davey

I/C: Jordie McKenzie, Cale Morton, Liam Jurrah, Nathan Jones

Emg: Addam Maric, Matthew Warnock, Jack Trengove

In: James McDonald

Out: Addam Maric

Well, that puts a full stop on "who is coming in this week".

Great to have you back Junior!!!

That change makes a lot of sense. Maric played well but Junior is both fit and superior.

That change makes a lot of sense. Maric played well but Junior is both fit and superior.

When the captain is fit and ready to play he must be selected. Don't think it really anything against Maric, someone had to go, he'll get more chances I would think, even if he has to wait till next year.

Yep, the skipper deserves and should be in our team.

Starting to wonder whether he will get the contract for 2011 though.

I'm still tipping a late change with Junior pulling out and Maric keeping his spot.