Changes for Round 2

[Moneider96 1,045]

yes, thats true Everyone seems to think Vince will come right in but perhaps he does need one more full game at Casey.

Then in vs his old mob in Round 3

Yep, as long as he comes back for Adelaide, I'm happy.

[Ted Lasso 18,780]

Great chance to send a message to Dawes, you lose your spot because of a stupid act you have to earn it back.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,065]

Great chance to send a message to Dawes, you lose your spot because of a stupid act you have to earn it back.

Dawes will play! Melbourne are hardly in the position to ignore the chance of having two big pack busting, arse kicking mobile forwards in the same team. It's a dream come true!

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Great chance to send a message to Dawes, you lose your spot because of a stupid act you have to earn it back.

I can't believe how many people have said this

All we hear is whinge whinge about our players not going hard and making the enemy earn it, Dawes gets rubbed out (bc the MRP is a softc-ck POS) and we are calling it a 'stupid act' for which he effectively deserves to be dropped

Make up your minds

In case people haven't noticed, there is a total of ONE KPF who has a 100+ games experience on our list. He is also a recognised leader and a physical presence, with his positioning alone likely to rise the value of Hogan and Watts and our structure in general. How many reasons do you need?

Will be straight back in

[Dee-licious 1,947]

Watched the game again - we want to win games and we are a better team with those 2 in. Looking forward to the surprise drop - is it Kent? jKh? Frost? They all were great this week - and I have no idea!

[Whispering_Jack 29,189]

Dawes will play! Melbourne are hardly in the position to ignore the chance of having two big pack busting, arse kicking mobile forwards in the same team. It's a dream come true!

I don't think it's that simple BBO.

The forward set up worked well against the Suns but the introduction of Dawes could very well upset the balance and we need plenty of pace against the GWS midfield.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,065]

I don't think it's that simple BBO.

The forward set up worked well against the Suns but the introduction of Dawes could very well upset the balance and we need plenty of pace against the GWS midfield.

Yes true. Ive been pondering how we'll set up. Frost out is logical but unfair. While frost going back is logical it is also unreasonable as our backs did well. Maybe dawes in for toumpass and some clever rotations will solve the problem.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

I don't think it's that simple BBO.

The forward set up worked well against the Suns but the introduction of Dawes could very well upset the balance and we need plenty of pace against the GWS midfield.

mate what you are effectively saying is that bc we kicked a good score last week, Dawes' usefulness at the MFC is no longer applicable

[What 18,810]

Dawes is going crack some GWS heads and take the heat of Jesse and Watts

[Wiseblood 24,637]

mate what you are effectively saying is that bc we kicked a good score last week, Dawes' usefulness at the MFC is no longer applicable

That's a gross over-statement from you C&B, but we did happen to kick our largest score for almost 2 years without him.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

That's a gross over-statement from you C&B, but we did happen to kick our largest score for almost 2 years without him.

It's not MY statement, it's yours. You've been talking about 'upsetting the balance'.. well the logical next step from that statement is that our forward line is perfect without Dawes and he might as well not be there unless somebody gets injured

Our midfield was pretty good too, so why isn't it a case of Vince returning upsetting something

[Nasher 33,607]

I don't think it's that simple BBO

I think it is.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

It's not MY statement, it's yours. You've been talking about 'upsetting the balance'.. well the logical next step from that statement is that our forward line is perfect without Dawes and he might as well not be there unless somebody gets injured

Our midfield was pretty good too, so why isn't it a case of Vince returning upsetting something

Because Vince would come in for a similar player. If he came in for Toumpas it's more a like for like change than, say, bringing in Dawes for Kent or JKH.

On the weekend our forward line functioned as well as it has in years. I'm certainly not saying there isn't a spot for Dawes, far from it, but we need to make sure he comes in for the right player. If he comes in for a small then we run the risk of being too tall and we struggle with our forward pressure which was so important on the weekend.

[Deespicable 2,672]

I don't think it's that simple BBO.

The forward set up worked well against the Suns but the introduction of Dawes could very well upset the balance and we need plenty of pace against the GWS midfield.

Don't get worked up on upsetting the balance - Dawes, Hoges and Frosty played all three pre-season games together and Watts played one and a half, so there's nothing to unsettle.

As I said earlier, Manuka Oval is different to the MCG, slightly narrower, so that means outside players have a little less room to create real havoc and if I was a defender, I'd prefer to be tackled by JKH than Dawes.

So that's why Dawes will be in - not to mention he's in our leadership group, been fit all summer and has played every practice game and his form pre-season was overall pretty good.

The main reason that our forward line looked good against GC was because we attacked from defence - even Col Garland took them on - which is why he was in the best six for the first time since his breakout year.

GWS has a very classy midfield (they are tougher than Gold Coast around stoppages now with Griffen), but they aren't as quick as the Suns though.

Dawes will replace Toumpas and then it is very tricky to decide who the unlucky player is for Vince, but I'm hoping it's not Brayshaw because we'll probably need his hardness and tackling ability.

The key to winning will be again playing with a mix of adventure and control from defence and not being smashed in the middle.

Cross will go to Griffen (bit of Dog sniffing Dog) is always a winner, and based on last week Viney's next assignment may be Treloar rather than Ward. I'd love him to go to Scully though!

If our guys play with the confidence to take risks as they did last week, then we will win this one - not sure about the week after though.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

I'd love him to go to Scully though!

Why would we waste our best tagger on their shittiest midfielder :D

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Because Vince would come in for a similar player. If he came in for Toumpas it's more a like for like change than, say, bringing in Dawes for Kent or JKH.

On the weekend our forward line functioned as well as it has in years. I'm certainly not saying there isn't a spot for Dawes, far from it, but we need to make sure he comes in for the right player. If he comes in for a small then we run the risk of being too tall and we struggle with our forward pressure which was so important on the weekend.

Kent didn't do much, I would much rather have had Dawes there than him

[Bitter but optimistic 22,065]

Why would we waste our best tagger on their shittiest midfielder :D

To see the little turd get driven into the turf I'm guessing!

[Deespicable 2,672]

One more thing, if I was selecting I'd leave out either Kent or JKH for Vince, but whoever it is should be an almost certain inclusion the following week in Adelaide. Kent, given he had a minor concussion on Saturday, would be the easy way out without upsetting JKH.

As to Bernie, I'd play him as the sub, because that way he can have a bit of a taste before the really big game for him in Adelaide - where he will start bang smack in the middle.

The inclusion of Dawes will mean that Watts and vandenBerg should be able to present match up height problems on occasions and we should be trying to get a mismatch by having Wattsy drift to the goalsquare regularly.

And keeping Mr Versatile (Frosty) means we are pretty much covered whatever happens because he's as quick as anyone.

Having just watched the Hawks game, I have Frosty earmarked already for playing on the wing on Isaac Smith.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

How would Frosty go on a wing? We're not dropping him.. Don't want to upset team balance.. How about making Dawes or Frost the sub?

[Deespicable 2,672]

Why would we waste our best tagger on their shittiest midfielder :D

It was a malicious joke blossom. Obviously we wouldn't waste Viney on him, but if Sculls was having a day when his untrusty left boot actually was causing us problems, then I'd send Jack to him straight away.

Look, there are four guys in our line up who I'd be sh.t scared playing on - Viney, Dawesy, Frost and Brayshaw, because when they tackle they get ya.

I suspect Newton and vandenBerg are of the same tackling ilk as well and our skipper isn't bad at nailing players either.

That doesn't mean your whole side needs to be tackling freaks, but the balance has to be right and we look to be mastering it with a mix of class (Watts, Garlett, JKH), ballwinners (Jones and Tyson) and smart players (Cross, Salem).

I am hopeful that we will look back and say that our draft/trade period of 2014 was the best we've ever had. We've picked up six new players (Hoges doesn't count) that played Rd 1 which is unprecedented in the modern age and four of our five fastest players now on our list are newbies - that's phenomenal recruiting.

I haven't been as excited about our chances since the day that Sean Charles took a helicopter and made up a forward line that included Schwarter and Lyon.

And if I recall rightly, that side included a really broad mix of players including Todd Viney, Andrew Obst, Glenn Lovett and Andrew Lovett and a loveable couple of Irishmen.

Watching the Hawks you saw what a fantastic blend they have with pace (Hill, Smith, Anderson, Rioli, Breust), smarts (Hodge and Burgoyne), tacklers (Lewis) and the ultimate extractor in Mitchell.

I reckon this year we've made ground on them and I'm looking forward to Round 7. I'm sure they'll beat us because they have more experience, but they won't blow us away for pace this time and our game plan is now pretty much the same as them.

[Deespicable 2,672]

How would Frosty go on a wing? We're not dropping him.. Don't want to upset team balance.. How about making Dawes or Frost the sub?

Neither will be the sub and Frost will be playing as the second ruckman this week.

I was talking about when we play Hawthorn and my dream is for Frosty to play on Smith on the wing and chase him down and see if he can cope with a taller, faster version than him.

When we play Hawthorn, Frosty won't be the second ruck anyway, because they play two big mothers. That will be a game for Gawn.

[mo64 5,484]

We need to pick a team that will give us the best opportunity to win as opposed to the best 22 players. It's clear that Frost is the preferred 2nd ruck, so he's playing.

I've always felt that our best forward line structure is 2 talls (Hogan and Dawes), a 3rd tall (Watts) and 3 smalls (JKH, Kent, Garlett). But now I feel that Frost may offer more than Dawes with his forward pressure.

Alternatively, I also believe that our backline is susceptible to be hurt by small forwards, and worry with a structure of Dunn, T.Mac, Garland and Howe. That's one too many to match up on Cameron and McCarthy. Dunn and T.Mac are locks, which leaves Howe and Garland.

If conditions are fine and dry with little wind:

In: Vince

Out: Toumpas

Or

In: Vince, Dawes

Out: Toumpas, Garland (Very unlucky)

I'd prefer option 1, because I like the idea of having 4 mids or small forwards on the bench as opposed to an average 2nd ruckman or a key position player.

[Deespicable 2,672]

We need to pick a team that will give us the best opportunity to win as opposed to the best 22 players. It's clear that Frost is the preferred 2nd ruck, so he's playing.

I've always felt that our best forward line structure is 2 talls (Hogan and Dawes), a 3rd tall (Watts) and 3 smalls (JKH, Kent, Garlett). But now I feel that Frost may offer more than Dawes with his forward pressure.

Alternatively, I also believe that our backline is susceptible to be hurt by small forwards, and worry with a structure of Dunn, T.Mac, Garland and Howe. That's one too many to match up on Cameron and McCarthy. Dunn and T.Mac are locks, which leaves Howe and Garland.

If conditions are fine and dry with little wind:

In: Vince

Out: Toumpas

Or

In: Vince, Dawes

Out: Toumpas, Garland (Very unlucky)

I'd prefer option 1, because I like the idea of having 4 mids or small forwards on the bench as opposed to an average 2nd ruckman or a key position player.

So which midfielder are you sending back to replace Garland - who as I said earlier, is coming off his best game for more than a year. He actually attacked and played with confidence!

What you have to realise is that Jetta and Salem will play on the smalls and Howe and Garland are versatile enough to play on smalls or bigs and we also have Harry O to throw back there when we need to and he is quicker than any player they have got.

Tom Mc will get Tomlinson, Dunny will have Cameron and Garland and Howe will swing on McCarthy and whoever is the high forward they choose and then be the third man up to spoil when they can.

Have a look at the Hawks - they have Lake, Frawley, Stratton and that leaves Gibson free to spoil. That's four bigs - it's not a problem if they are versatile.

[chook fowler 19,249]

We need to pick a team that will give us the best opportunity to win as opposed to the best 22 players. It's clear that Frost is the preferred 2nd ruck, so he's playing.

I've always felt that our best forward line structure is 2 talls (Hogan and Dawes), a 3rd tall (Watts) and 3 smalls (JKH, Kent, Garlett). But now I feel that Frost may offer more than Dawes with his forward pressure.

Alternatively, I also believe that our backline is susceptible to be hurt by small forwards, and worry with a structure of Dunn, T.Mac, Garland and Howe. That's one too many to match up on Cameron and McCarthy. Dunn and T.Mac are locks, which leaves Howe and Garland.

If conditions are fine and dry with little wind:

In: Vince

Out: Toumpas

Or

In: Vince, Dawes

Out: Toumpas, Garland (Very unlucky)

I'd prefer option 1, because I like the idea of having 4 mids or small forwards on the bench as opposed to an average 2nd ruckman or a key position player.

Drop Garland - he was very influential, especially in the first half. Great contribution and would be one of the last dropped surely

Not to mention the blow to his confidence.

I need a Valium.

[DeeSpencer 24,727]

We need to pick a team that will give us the best opportunity to win as opposed to the best 22 players. It's clear that Frost is the preferred 2nd ruck, so he's playing.

I've always felt that our best forward line structure is 2 talls (Hogan and Dawes), a 3rd tall (Watts) and 3 smalls (JKH, Kent, Garlett). But now I feel that Frost may offer more than Dawes with his forward pressure.

Alternatively, I also believe that our backline is susceptible to be hurt by small forwards, and worry with a structure of Dunn, T.Mac, Garland and Howe. That's one too many to match up on Cameron and McCarthy. Dunn and T.Mac are locks, which leaves Howe and Garland.

If conditions are fine and dry with little wind:

In: Vince

Out: Toumpas

Or

In: Vince, Dawes

Out: Toumpas, Garland (Very unlucky)

I'd prefer option 1, because I like the idea of having 4 mids or small forwards on the bench as opposed to an average 2nd ruckman or a key position player.

Garland's not getting dropped. Didn't you noticed he went to Ablett when he was forward and besides a 5 minute period when Ablett hit unstoppable level Garland had him held. GWS also have Tomlinson as well as McCarthy and Cameron, so we need Garland for another taller option.

The back 6 stay the same. Injuries aside nothing is surer.

Dawes comes in and I'm not worried at all about him combining with Frost and Hogan as well as Watts and Garlett.

Vince comes in, he's an important part of the best midfield mix along with Jones, Tyson, Viney, Lumumba, Newton and Cross. With Lumuba taking some time at half back and all players needing to rest (forward, back or on the bench) 7 is the right number to slot in to the midfield. That way you can rotate a wingman and centre square player through the bench/forward at all times.

So now we've picked our 2 key forwards, 2 rucks (Jamar obviously), goal kicking forwards, back 6 and the core midfielders.

From there it's picking the sub and asking who gives us more and in what role out in 3 of the 4 from Brayshaw, Kent, vandenBerg and JKH.

Brayshaw is a natural in the midfield. Great tackler, covers the ground, goes in at the contest, but Vince probably takes his midfield minutes meaning he'll play more half forward where he might not be as suited, the positive is keeping him in does give us more flexibility in rotations though, allowing Lumumba back, Jones forward etc. Kent has the most speed, a left foot (always handy) and some grunt at half forward or on the wing. JKH has good endurance and pops up in clever places to get the ball and is creative with it. vandenBerg is a beast, the best mark of the 4 (although there might be less forward target marking to be had with Dawes back) and can hold his own with contested ball wins, tackles, bumps etc. Endurance has to be a factor. Defensive work has to be a factor. And also deciding who will give us more as the sub in terms of impact, although when discussing the sub and young players you have to think work load (both too much or too little). It's a tough decision, I'm glad I'm not making it.