Not keen on bringing in Hogan?

Too excited, how did I forget the Hulkster?

Outs - Spencer Bail & Riley

In - Fitzpatrick Garland Hogan

Thanks guys.

thats better

I would tell Dawes to suck it up and second ruck. I agree that Darwin may require a smaller group. Who would ruck in that team is up in the air at the moment - none of Watts, Howe, Hogan, or Dawes are ideal.

He "can't" or he 'doesn't want to'? Gawn cannot ruck for two hours unassisted. Spencer is useful up to a point in the forward line. Hogan is best left as a forward and too valuable to leave in the ruck to be cut in half. Watts will be cut in half if left in there long enough, Howe the same.

The back-up ruck should be a 25 minute job for a capable forward to complete a few minutes at a time.

I don't think we have an ideal scenario but the sharing duties of Gawn and Spencer will create an issue, IMO, where we get sub-standard forward play out of Spencer because he needs the ruck to be effective and Gawn is more effective than him.

Surely a lot depends on whether WCE will play Sinclair. We create the same selection dilemma for them as they do for us, so it's a bit cat-and-mouse.

Gawn is a good counter for NicNat (if he breaks even, it will be a win for us), and neither of them have a huge tank, so they could well go on & off the ball together. Sinclair's competent not great, but if WC do play Sinclair and we use a part-timer, it's going to be very very difficult for our midfield at stoppages when Gawn & NicNat are resting. Spencer should smash Sinclair as second ruck, and even Fitzy would at least match him.

Another question is: if they don't play Sinclair, who do they use as back-up? They probably have even less options than us in this scenario. Will they risk Kennedy, or Darling? Or go with their one remaining key defender? I think they have more to lose by not picking Sinclair than we do by not picking Spencer or Fitz.

Have WCE gone into a game this year without a back-up for NicNat? Their mids are great offensively, especially when they get great service from their rucks, but are they any good defensively? If we pick both Gawn & Spencer, we have a great chance of putting real pressure on their front-running midfield, probably for the first time this year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very very anxious about ever going in too tall, even if the rucks do change off the bench (because it's Darwin) so that there's only one of them on the ground at any one time. But in this game, against this team, it may be the one chance we really have to give our mids an advantage at stoppages if we pick Spencer (who'd have thunk?).

It's marvelous how complex selection becomes after a good win and you feel anybody would be stiff to get dropped. However, a fit Hogan is a certain in. Two ruckmen to wear Nicnat down seems a good idea. Therefore move Howe back for Hogan and Bail or Pig dog to miss out.

I would much rather PIG DOG than BAIL ANYDAY!

I also cannot believe how many on this site want Fitzpatrick in the team! He is NQR as a forward, or defender, or ruck!

I think we are being too negative here. How about getting into wet toasts minds by thinking wow the Dees have Gawn, Spencer, Hogan and Dawes to contend with! Do we have the height to match them??

One other consideration our mids and in an under's were superb last week! Add the multidimensional talents of Howe, the outside run of Toumpas, Stretch and the x factor of Neal Bullen then as I suggested we only need to make 1 change HENCE HOGAN if fit for BAIL!

Pig Dog the spare in an under to keep. M Jones to sub!

Not too bad, but could be a bit too top heavy for Darwin.

I hear you Django, but my feelings are Fitzy if an upgrade on Spencer as 2nd ruck and a much better mover and can chase and compete below the knees. Garland plays short or tall and can run. Hogan well you make room for Hogan and he is worth much more to the team than Riley. I like 2 rucks.

Outs - Spencer Bail & Riley

In - Fitzpatrick Garland Hogan

I would much rather PIG DOG than BAIL ANYDAY!

I also cannot believe how many on this site want Fitzpatrick in the team! He is NQR as a forward, or defender, or ruck!

I think we are being too negative here. How about getting into wet toasts minds by thinking wow the Dees have Gawn, Spencer, Hogan and Dawes to contend with! Do we have the height to match them??

One other consideration our mids and in an under's were superb last week! Add the multidimensional talents of Howe, the outside run of Toumpas, Stretch and the x factor of Neal Bullen then as I suggested we only need to make 1 change HENCE HOGAN if fit for BAIL!

Pig Dog the spare in an under to keep. M Jones to sub!

Are you sure you mean Toumpas. Doesn't he just [censored] himself and make mistakes.

How about:

Ins: Hogan, JKH

Outs: Bail, Riley

JKH could replace Riley as sub

Although we go in tall - Spencer, Dawes and Howe can perform the same role as last week - bring the ball to ground.

Spencers no real forward however surely he can use his weight and size to at least put the ball at the feet of Garrett and JKH.

Edited June 24, 201510 yr by Young Dee

Surely a lot depends on whether WCE will play Sinclair. We create the same selection dilemma for them as they do for us, so it's a bit cat-and-mouse.

Gawn is a good counter for NicNat (if he breaks even, it will be a win for us), and neither of them have a huge tank, so they could well go on & off the ball together. Sinclair's competent not great, but if WC do play Sinclair and we use a part-timer, it's going to be very very difficult for our midfield at stoppages when Gawn & NicNat are resting. Spencer should smash Sinclair as second ruck, and even Fitzy would at least match him.

Another question is: if they don't play Sinclair, who do they use as back-up? They probably have even less options than us in this scenario. Will they risk Kennedy, or Darling? Or go with their one remaining key defender? I think they have more to lose by not picking Sinclair than we do by not picking Spencer or Fitz.

Have WCE gone into a game this year without a back-up for NicNat? Their mids are great offensively, especially when they get great service from their rucks, but are they any good defensively? If we pick both Gawn & Spencer, we have a great chance of putting real pressure on their front-running midfield, probably for the first time this year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very very anxious about ever going in too tall, even if the rucks do change off the bench (because it's Darwin) so that there's only one of them on the ground at any one time. But in this game, against this team, it may be the one chance we really have to give our mids an advantage at stoppages if we pick Spencer (who'd have thunk?).

It's not the same dilemma 'Akum', they will pick Sinclair and I wouldn't undersell him.

Our dilemma is really more about having Dawes, Hogan and a resting ruck forward. They have a resting ruck, Kennedy and Darling who is more of a stronger version of Howe with more strings to his bow.

It's not the same dilemma 'Akum', they will pick Sinclair and I wouldn't undersell him.

Our dilemma is really more about having Dawes, Hogan and a resting ruck forward. They have a resting ruck, Kennedy and Darling who is more of a stronger version of Howe with more strings to his bow.

Fitzy plays man on man with Sinclair all day. Gawn rests forward, that will stretch them. If Nic Nat goes forward Tmac or Dunn can cover him, he can't mark anyway. When Gawn-NicNat resting Watts goes back.

I think we need to match their midfield run, their back 6 will stay at home and will not chase players up the ground and without looking at the stats my view on them is they are not as reliant on Will Schofield and Hurn for setting up their attacks from HB like last season. With Mckenzie and Brown going down their two KPD'S are now Mcgovern and Schofield. They have players like Wellingham, Duggan and Sheppherd now setting up from HB and finding a lot of the footy and their midfield runs very deep rotating with Sheed, Yeo, Gaff, Rosa, Selwood, Ellis, Priddis, Masten & Shuey all getting a run through there and HFF. For this reason we are going to need Bail and Matty Jones to stay in and Tyson, Vince, Viney, Toumpas, Watts, Nate Jones, and Brayshaw to all play. They put numbers behind the ball and they will do this against us so IMO Dawes stays as he is important to bring the ball to ground along with Hogan and the resting ruckman, ANB, Bail, Watts, Vince, Brayshaw all to have stints in the forward line and assisting with rotations when need be. Garlett to remain forward for the game. Dunn to Darling and Mcdonald to Kennedy, Jetta to Cripps and Garland to run with Lecras. This game will be won in the midfield and we really need to break even in this contest. I think Spencer has to stay in to give Gawny a chop out, Fitxzy is a possibility with Sinclair often moving forward but I think we can stratch their defence once we keep a few of our rotating mids in there to prevent the rebound, so i am giving Spencer the nod.

Howey was good bringing the ball to ground but with Hogan coming back in and Dawes being needed the FD have to decide between Howe and Stretch for me on match ups against the opposition about who joins Riley as an out. Meth Coast defenders will back themselves and peel off their direct opponent to go third man up to the contest so being predictable is something we can't afford to do, Dawes and Hogan to keep Mcgovern and Schofield busy. Priddis is going to pick up possessions he just does every week and he is in red hot form, Gaff is going to have to be shut down as he has been damaging in the last month, Masten wont hurt you but like Selwood can be vital in the chain moving the ball from the clearances inside 50. Their structures are working really well and this is a very difficult assignment, if we dont bring the same attitude as last week it will be a 6-8 goal defeat but we can back up from last week and make a real game of this, not sure on the dimensions of TIO in Darwin but I am hoping it is a good bit wider than Subaico which is a long but narrow ground. A nice bit of width could allow us to isolate Mcgovern and preventing him floating across packs similar to what Oxley did on QB

Cmon Dees back up from last week and don't rest on our laurels

MFC vs Meth Coast

B: Garland,McDonald, Jetta

HB: Cross, Dunn, Lumumba
C: Toumpas,Tyson, Viney
HF: Watts,Dawes Brayshaw

F: Garlett, Hogan, Spencer
FOLL: Gawn, N Jones, Vince
I/C: Stretch/Howe, M Jones, Bail, Neal-Bullen

Out: Riley and either Stretch or Howe

Fitzpatrick bagged more goals in his single game in the Top End than Dawes has managed so far this year and Spencer has for his entire career (and I still blame Dawes for losing us that same match against the Bears by getting outmuscled and dropping a couple sitters in the last). But if we want to use Dawes to crash the packs, which Hogan will provide as well – freeing Howe from that second role from last week – then we need the same level of crumb and Spencer misses out.

Fitzy in for back-up ruck duties while Gawn rests forward and Howe covers in defence (with the possibility of switching with Fitz down back depending on the conditions/opposition).

Garland in for Bail.

One of the Glenelg besties back down to sub.

In: Hogan, Fitzpatrick, Garland

Out: Spencer, Bail, Riley

Howey was good bringing the ball to ground but with Hogan coming back in and Dawes being needed the FD have to decide between Howe and Stretch for me on match ups against the opposition about who joins Riley as an out. Meth Coast defenders will back themselves and peel off their direct opponent to go third man up to the contest so being predictable is something we can't afford to do, Dawes and Hogan to keep Mcgovern and Schofield busy. Priddis is going to pick up possessions he just does every week and he is in red hot form, Gaff is going to have to be shut down as he has been damaging in the last month, Masten wont hurt you but like Selwood can be vital in the chain moving the ball from the clearances inside 50. Their structures are working really well and this is a very difficult assignment, if we dont bring the same attitude as last week it will be a 6-8 goal defeat but we can back up from last week and make a real game of this, not sure on the dimensions of TIO in Darwin but I am hoping it is a good bit wider than Subaico which is a long but narrow ground. A nice bit of width could allow us to isolate Mcgovern and preventing him floating across packs similar to what Oxley did on QB

Cross will go to Gaff; Roos tends to like using him to stop the opposition running link up players who can be damaging and despite not being the quickest on the ground somehow he gets the job done.

It's not the same dilemma 'Akum', they will pick Sinclair and I wouldn't undersell him.

Our dilemma is really more about having Dawes, Hogan and a resting ruck forward. They have a resting ruck, Kennedy and Darling who is more of a stronger version of Howe with more strings to his bow.

Then if they pick Sinclair, we'll pick Spencer - end of story. Our only chance of winning this is to smash them in clearances & CPs, otherwise we'll lose & lose badly. This game will be won and lost at stoppages.

And in Darwin, all the rucks will change mostly off the bench and won't be in the forward line for long periods of time. So Dawes, Hogan & resting ruck in the forward line at the same time shouldn't ever happen. If Spencer's in the forward line, it will be to give Dawes or Hogan a break for a few minutes.

Another question: have WCE ever played in Darwin?

Then if they pick Sinclair, we'll pick Spencer - end of story. Our only chance of winning this is to smash them in clearances & CPs, otherwise we'll lose & lose badly. This game will be won and lost at stoppages.

And in Darwin, all the rucks will change mostly off the bench and won't be in the forward line for long periods of time. So Dawes, Hogan & resting ruck in the forward line at the same time shouldn't ever happen. If Spencer's in the forward line, it will be to give Dawes or Hogan a break for a few minutes.

Another question: have WCE ever played in Darwin?

They played in NT a couple of time in NAB cup over the last few years but not sure this current side would have played much up there

Watts v NicNat competing in the ruck. It's a pundit's wet dream.

sorry to ask ...but what is a pundit?

sorry to ask ...but what is a pundit?

An expert. Every public mouthpiece seems to have an opinion on Watts v NicNat. What better way to settle the debate than to match them up on one another?

Tongue in cheek, for those of you playing at home.

Spencer took those marks last Sunday because he said to himself if Gawn can do it I'm gunna do it and he did!!!!

They should both be playing. Their groundwork was so solid as well. It was like seeing twins.

We won on Sunday because we had two ruckmen who gave the ball to our players, this is too big an advantage to hand over to running a second string shorter ruckman. Spencer and Gawn have to stay if they cannot rest them on the ground up forward then rest them on the bench.

Dawes was involved in half a dozen or more scoring opportunities, he did not do a huge amount but he influenced us keeping the ball down in our forward line and scoring. He has to stay.

Hogan has to come in, that's a given... That leaves Riley, Matt Jones, Bail and Toumpas as the most likely candidates to go.

If they need another tall down back then they may go with Fitzpatrick instead of Garland.

How can anyone think that Garland isn't an automtic in?!

Have you seen West Coast's forward line? Did you watch Bail struggle in defence?

You all cray!

Watch Bails job on Motlop second half. Would be very stiff.

Most peoples perception of Dawes is that he does not fit into the side, but this is wrong. He played a pivotal role in our win against Geelong and there is no reason he should be dropped for the next week and would be ridiculous to do it.

My perception of Dawes is that he is a competitive beast, not that he is a beast, but rather thrives on competition. He will bring the ball down on most occassions, and he will fight for the ball while it is on the ground. He may not have kicked many goals but he was involved in several score involvements as well as a 3 or so direct assists. Whilst I am sure he would have liked to hit the score board a bit more he was a major cog in the forward line that functioned so well.

His leading patterns and leadership are second to none in our forward half and the way our forward line was able to create space to isolate the one on ones was partially due to him. There were several times where he sacrificed his game to run to space and create space for team mates to move into, whilst drawing a defender.

What some people think - Brings ball to ground

Reality - Can't mark the bloody thing

What some people think - His leading patterns create space

Reality - He's a 700k a year decoy player

We are blessed aren't we. Suddenly everyone's a star again after a win. He holds his place for now but I'd rather Pedo, he's more versatile and actually marks the ball.

Edited June 24, 201510 yr by Al's Demons

Lucky for us, come years end the coaching panel will make the right call of a number of players. People throw around lines like leadership/clubman/plays his role, at what cost? They are normally thrown up when someone is struggling as if it's to defend them. There's a couple of first year players currently getting around that demonstrate those same qualities.

When is the last time we saw:
Melbourne: NO CHANGE
?

When is the last time we saw:

Melbourne: NO CHANGE

?

how many times this year have we not had at least one forced injury change?

I hate the bye

10 more days

Curry you are a desperado. Just sit back, relax and enjoy curry & beer this weekend.

I love the bye, I feel so much more relaxed coming into this weekend. I wish we could have bi-weekly games. This would avoid my weekly mood swings.

What some people think - Brings ball to ground

Reality - Can't mark the bloody thing

What some people think - His leading patterns create space

Reality - He's a 700k a year decoy player

We are blessed aren't we. Suddenly everyone's a star again after a win. He holds his place for now but I'd rather Pedo, he's more versatile and actually marks the ball.

Whilst I am sure he would like to clunk more pack marks, if he is able to bring the ball to ground and fight for it or create the contest to allow our smalls to crumb how is he doing the wrong thing? At the end of the day an average of 2 contested marks a game is elite and I would say his contested marking is poor, but he was never a great contested mark player. I would guarantee that if Melbourne were to play Collingwood again he would have made a lot more contests for Adam Oxley than what happened and that could well have changed the result.

Unrewarded running which sets up goals is vital for any team, whilst I agree if we are paying him 700,000 he is being paid overs, but clubs have to pay a certain amount of their salary cap so at the end of the day he is therfore deserving relative to what our list has been. The amount of times I have seen multiple Melbourne players spoil each other in other rounds in our forward half, yet this week our forwardline seemed alot more open with many more 1 v 1 contests and I personally think it is no coincidence that Dawes played and was able to help create but also instruct team mates on the proper moving patterns.

Ive never said he was a star, but the attributes he has make him more than handy as a forward, whilst I would like to see him get more reward for effort, if the team is scoring over 100 points how can we fault how the forward line set up.

I agree Pederson is more versatile, can play back and ruck, but I think a fit Chris Dawes is a much more important player to the side that Cameron Pederson.. Dawes is no superstar, but as our second KPF and a role player he is our best option