Yes odd selection this week. Hunt and Wagner are okay in Casey yet ANB starred in the last 2 weeks. Not sure Wagner and Hunt knocked the door down to get in.  

Need Hogan to play. 

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

I wonder why they upgraded him then?

To scare us into playing Pedersen and Frost?

I joke, but it isn't so far fetched.

I wrote last week that they'd lost the plot and I reckon I wasn't 100% right but wasn't exactly wrong either.

These changes make absolutely no sense, but after last week I'm willing to suspend disbelief until I see the outcome.

But they do make absolutely no sense.

8 hours ago, binman said:

Thanks for that. 

Link is here http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-late-mail-round-4-melbourne-livewire-jeff-garlett-in-doubt-for-sundays-clash-against-collingwood/news-story/12811d6af8f4f1fd5c26266827ab356e

I think Watts has had that leg strapped since rnd 1 for the corky - during training and during the week (saw it strapped in a Twitter photo mid week at some social event). Don't think it's anything to worry about.

On 4/14/2016 at 5:31 PM, DeeSpencer said:

Well we wanted more pace and attacking footy. 

Now we've got it. 

Hunt, Lumumba, Salem and Wagner maybe all off the same half back line. Young midfielders. Speed to burn up forward. 

Interesting times. 

A pretty clear sign of intentions, isn't it? It's a bit different too. It's exciting.

On 4/14/2016 at 5:33 PM, PaulRB said:

With our high attacking zone i.e all in forward half pressuring a score, having backs with pace also stops teams breaking out and beating us on the outside (like GWS tried to do)... It's smart.

Great post, mate. Agreed.

I suppose if you consider them as like for like changes, they kind of add up. Pedersen can play Vanders role of big, marking flanker; Brayshaw replaces Vince as a genuine mid; Hunt can play as the low game time, junior running mid that Stretch was. The balance might be okay.

I'm really just trying to convince myself. I still think this is not a strong team on paper.

15 hours ago, Vineytime said:

Team looks a bit top heavy to me, 1 to many talls. Where do Pedo & Frost play???

Bottom line , is there any truth that Watts is under an injury cloud!??

In addition, if Moore goes out, as is a possibility then we will most definately go in too tall!

I don't like it!

Edited April 15, 20169 yr by picket fence

Buckley has no doubt see the replay of our last two games, and where we failed badly, besides the usual poor disposal, it was the height of Danniher as well as all of the tall Kangaroos, I wonder if he will bring in Cox who is an emergency and play him out of the goal square. Keep cloak as CHF and give Moore a half forward flank.  

53 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Bottom line , is there any truth that Watts is under an injury cloud!??

In addition, if Moore goes out, as is a possibility then we will most definately go in too tall!

I don't like it!

If Moore goes out it's likely he will be replaced by Cox - who is taller again !

This game will be won or lost in 3 areas:

Which team can dominate around the contest and extract the most quality clearances (Gawn and our inside mids are pivotal)

Which team has the best best team defence (over the whole ground).  Which system best punishes turnovers and where are those turnovers created.  If you create turnovers too close to the opposition's goals and you're defending too far back it's too difficult to get run through the ground and penetrate the opposition's (full ground) defence, which means less inside 50's and scoreboard impact.

Talent.

In a nutshell: Contest/clearances; system; talent.

Who's on the bench (which rarely starts as it's named), or whether both Frost or Pedersen play has little to do with how this game is going to unfold.  Pedersen and Frost both in suggests they have matchups or structure they're keen to implement, but either way, if we're not winning around the stoppages or not defending well as a team it won't matter.

We must not let collingwood and ninth mind rebound on us. Time to be a hard fixture for a change. 

Garlett out absolutely sucks.

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Garlett out absolutely sucks.

 

 

 

 

Roil the Pies and we get Vince and Garlett back in after a win to face the Tiggers

Go Dees

 

time for the next generation to stand up

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

This game will be won or lost in 3 areas:

Which team can dominate around the contest and extract the most quality clearances (Gawn and our inside mids are pivotal)

Which team has the best best team defence (over the whole ground).  Which system best punishes turnovers and where are those turnovers created.  If you create turnovers too close to the opposition's goals and you're defending too far back it's too difficult to get run through the ground and penetrate the opposition's (full ground) defence, which means less inside 50's and scoreboard impact.

Talent.

In a nutshell: Contest/clearances; system; talent.

Who's on the bench (which rarely starts as it's named), or whether both Frost or Pedersen play has little to do with how this game is going to unfold.  Pedersen and Frost both in suggests they have matchups or structure they're keen to implement, but either way, if we're not winning around the stoppages or not defending well as a team it won't matter.

You're looking at it in a similar way to me.  I've been around AFL footy people enough to know that they have forgotten more than I know about the game and I assume they get things right.  They can make mistakes (Brayshaw) but in the main they get things right given their philosophy.  So the challenge is to look at what's happening and reverse engineer their philosophy.

Hunt and Wagner in the same team says a couple of things to me but the main thing is they are not intent on winning at all costs.  This is not a "win" year, this is a year where development of players, game style and attributes are also very important and will be weighted against the sole objective of winning.

Of course this is against the stated philosophy of winning as many games as possible but unlike many I've no problems with that.  I'm certainly not in the "members and fans deserve to know" group.

Tomorrow we have

• Wagner who played 63% game time (GT) last week
• Hunt who was far from our best last week and only performed against witches hats,
• Harmes  GT 64, 75, 71; 
• Oliver GT 58, 67, 65
• Brayshaw GT 58
• Tyson GT 76, 74, 68

That's six players who can't really play enought GY  which puts tremendous pressure on the rest of the team.  I'm not confident.  Playing all these youngsters seems to be placing a premium on development, not winning.  For supporters that's a hard pill to swallow given the last 10 years.

 

Any chance Garlett is a late call up, given articles earlier in the week suggested he'd have right up to game day to prove his fitness??

7 minutes ago, WAClark said:

Any chance Garlett is a late call up, given articles earlier in the week suggested he'd have right up to game day to prove his fitness??

If you watch that video of him at training, he appeared to favour the ankle. Hopefully he is ok for next week.

21 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

You're looking at it in a similar way to me.  I've been around AFL footy people enough to know that they have forgotten more than I know about the game and I assume they get things right.  They can make mistakes (Brayshaw) but in the main they get things right given their philosophy.  So the challenge is to look at what's happening and reverse engineer their philosophy.

Hunt and Wagner in the same team says a couple of things to me but the main thing is they are not intent on winning at all costs.  This is not a "win" year, this is a year where development of players, game style and attributes are also very important and will be weighted against the sole objective of winning.

Of course this is against the stated philosophy of winning as many games as possible but unlike many I've no problems with that.  I'm certainly not in the "members and fans deserve to know" group.

Tomorrow we have

• Wagner who played 63% game time (GT) last week
• Hunt who was far from our best last week and only performed against witches hats,
• Harmes  GT 64, 75, 71; 
• Oliver GT 58, 67, 65
• Brayshaw GT 58
• Tyson GT 76, 74, 68

That's six players who can't really play enought GY  which puts tremendous pressure on the rest of the team.  I'm not confident.  Playing all these youngsters seems to be placing a premium on development, not winning.  For supporters that's a hard pill to swallow given the last 10 years.

 

Problem with your "placing a premium on development, not winning." theory is it assumes we have better more experienced players which we're choosing to leave out. That doesn't appear to be the case. 

My theory is that we are committed to playing and developing players to play a certain game style, a game style that the FD believe will win us finals at the G when perfected. So players are being groomed and developed for roles in this game style, and the old school idea of VFL BOG being obvious player to be upgraded is throw out window if they're not right for the role required. 

I like that Hunt comes in before ANB despite ANB having a better game as with Brayshaw in and Oliver, Jones etc playing well around the ball we don't need him at the moment. But a fast line breaking defender we do... 

On 4/16/2016 at 11:57 AM, Baghdad Bob said:

You're looking at it in a similar way to me.  I've been around AFL footy people enough to know that they have forgotten more than I know about the game and I assume they get things right.  They can make mistakes (Brayshaw) but in the main they get things right given their philosophy.  So the challenge is to look at what's happening and reverse engineer their philosophy.

Hunt and Wagner in the same team says a couple of things to me but the main thing is they are not intent on winning at all costs.  This is not a "win" year, this is a year where development of players, game style and attributes are also very important and will be weighted against the sole objective of winning.

Of course this is against the stated philosophy of winning as many games as possible but unlike many I've no problems with that.  I'm certainly not in the "members and fans deserve to know" group.

Tomorrow we have

• Wagner who played 63% game time (GT) last week
• Hunt who was far from our best last week and only performed against witches hats,
• Harmes  GT 64, 75, 71; 
• Oliver GT 58, 67, 65
• Brayshaw GT 58
• Tyson GT 76, 74, 68

That's six players who can't really play enought GY  which puts tremendous pressure on the rest of the team.  I'm not confident.  Playing all these youngsters seems to be placing a premium on development, not winning.  For supporters that's a hard pill to swallow given the last 10 years.

 

Clayton oliver 65% game tome = 26 touches and 2 goals. 

when this kid is playing 85-90% he is going to be scary good

14 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Yes odd selection this week. Hunt and Wagner are okay in Casey yet ANB starred in the last 2 weeks. Not sure Wagner and Hunt knocked the door down to get in.  

Need Hogan to play. 

There's a lot more midfield competition than there is half back conpetition.

1 hour ago, Petraccattack said:

 

Roil the Pies and we get Vince and Garlett back in after a win to face the Tiggers

Go Dees

 

I thought Garlett was missing next week too? Read that somewhere on the pages of Demonland.

53 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Problem with your "placing a premium on development, not winning." theory is it assumes we have better more experienced players which we're choosing to leave out. That doesn't appear to be the case. 

It's moot of course but I'd say that Stretch, Grimes, ANB, Garland and even Petracca/Trengove (yes, I know) are ahead of Wagner and Hunt.

My view is that we'd have a greater chance of winning with a combination of these players than Wagner/Hunt.  

I know many will disagree, but if we were playing a GF tomorrow this team wouldn't have been picked.  We are therefore sacrificing wins for development.

I like the idea that there is competition for spots and that we are trying out youngsters to see what they're made of even in games that are important for us. (all games!)

Compare Hawks & Freo.  Hawks turning over gradually all the time but at Freo the same players are in every week until they retire from accumulated injuries or die of old age. Hawks stay up the top while Freo are falling down a hole.

Renewal is good, even in a young team like ours.

9 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

It's moot of course but I'd say that Stretch, Grimes, ANB, Garland and even Petracca/Trengove (yes, I know) are ahead of Wagner and Hunt.

My view is that we'd have a greater chance of winning with a combination of these players than Wagner/Hunt.  

I know many will disagree, but if we were playing a GF tomorrow this team wouldn't have been picked.  We are therefore sacrificing wins for development.

agreed

Whilst the changes kind of work on a like-for-like basis (Pedersen-VDB, Brayshaw-Vince, Hunt-Stretch), I'm certainly worried by the inclusion of Frost as well as Pedersen, and Hunt and Wagner's total lack of experience (and, to be perfectly honest, VFL form).

I'm not a huge Dawes fan but I'd 100% take Dawes at CHF over Frost right now. It's sad, but I feel like we play a man down with Frost.

I like giving games to Hunt and Wagner but I'd prefer them to be getting those games on the back of VFL form.