Changes v Richmond

[Fat Tony 4,465]

4 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I've done a U-turn and agree.

As much as I hate first gamers getting dropped the reality is he'll get other chancers and be hungry now he's had a taste.  And having watched the replay again Brayshaw did some nice things.  He's not playing on the ball much, but that's what an apprenticeship is at a good club.

I'd drop Matt Jones.  He really is ordinary around a hot ball.  Whether it be a 2 foot handball to his namesake, who's already under pressure, running into Harmes as he's trying to clear from D50 (resulting in a goal) or collapsing like a house of cards as soon as he's tackled (Oliver is already hard to take to ground) he just doesn't have the class to play in a quality team.  He's OK and I've seen plenty worse, but his outside run isn't enough to be a regular in a good side.  Handy depth.

OUT: Hunt, M. Jones

In: Vince, Garlett

I agree with your overall opinion that Matt Jones lack class, but he has been playing well for two months now. I think he would be incredibly stiff to be dropped. I also think he helps bring balance to our midfield, which is stacked with inside ball winners and lacks run and spread. This ability to get out in the open is particularly important this year given the new style of footy and rule changes. I see Billy Stretch as his most like-for-like replacement and I have Jones ahead at the moment.

[Gator 16,893]

8 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I agree with your overall opinion that Matt Jones lack class, but he has been playing well for two months now. I think he would be incredibly stiff to be dropped. I also think he helps bring balance to our midfield, which is stacked with inside ball winners and lacks run and spread. This ability to get out in the open is particularly important this year given the new style of footy and rule changes. I see Billy Stretch as his most like-for-like replacement and I have Jones ahead at the moment.

Yes, you're probably right.  I know why he's playing and what he brings to the table.  And I agree re Stretch.

Garlett brings an injection of pace and Lumumba has too.  Harmes, Viney, Kent and Oliver aren't slow, but we do lack outside speed/class.  Jones brings the speed and has used it far better this year.

But he's also just about the first I can't wait to get rid of.

Agree on Hunt.  He needs to be careful with his kicking, but he looks like he could be a player.

[stinga 475]

Vince and Garlett have to come in.  A small forward and a mid have to make way to keep the balance.  Kent (doesn't rack up many possessions when averaged over games and a spell at casey could give him an opportunity to run around in the midfield and rectify that)for Garlett (better forward pressure and more goals).  Vince for Oliver(various reasons as expressed by others here, even if it is only a week or 2).

[DeeSpencer 23,256]

24 minutes ago, stinga said:

Vince and Garlett have to come in.  A small forward and a mid have to make way to keep the balance.  Kent (doesn't rack up many possessions when averaged over games and a spell at casey could give him an opportunity to run around in the midfield and rectify that)for Garlett (better forward pressure and more goals).  Vince for Oliver(various reasons as expressed by others here, even if it is only a week or 2).

Take out his nightmare game against the Bombers and what is Kent's average disposals, and then compare to half forwards across the league (and in the same team).

Or just watch the replay and look at the coaches votes. He's not getting dropped this week.

[Generation dee 1,336]

Matt Jones 2016>2015

Some people saying that bugg gets dropped too, just wow. 

[Cheap Seats 3,303]

Im.just trying to predict outs. I cant find any clear candidates to drop...

Possible outs: Oliie (rest) Brayshaw (fitness) Hunt (stiff) Wagner (very stiff) M Jones (stiff) Frost/pederson  (stiff) Salem (form? I personally wouldnt drop him at this stage)

Ins: Vince & Garlett (givens if fit), Michie, & ANB (both have been solid in vfl both have to be close), Tracc & trengove (probs not yet). The been there befores - Grimes and Terlich (both also been solid)

Wowee i can't remeber the last time the dees had a problem like this. I can only see 1 change (Vince for oliver/hunt/wagner) Garlett will depend on fitness. 

I love that there is real pressure to perfom now to keep your spot. Young or old u wont be gifted a game.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Unleash Hell

[stuie 7,374]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

I'd drop Matt Jones.

What a surprise....

 

[Redleg 37,889]

If Garlett is fit, he comes in with Vince.

There is a 6 day break after the Richmond game to the Saints game. I think Oliver looks like he needs a rest and he also needs to be looked after in his first year. If he is rested, he comes in fresh against the Saints.

I don't think Roos will drop Hunt after one game, which was ok, so the unlucky one could be Matt Jones.

[bing181 8,176]

There has been talk that Matt Jones may have an injury concern - ribs? Apparently he only walked laps at training.

Could be a candidate.

I don't know that I'd be dropping Hunt quite yet. I feel that he's worth persevering with, as he has that real outside speed that not many (or even any) of our other players provide, especially coming off half-back or through the middle.

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 3,949]

(Sorry to do this here but I wanted to reply to the new 'Featured Article' but I don't know how to do it. Perhaps someone can advise?)

The bookies don't make the odds - creating, in this case, the even money for us and Ninthmond (will we be 9th if when we beat them?) - it's the relative volumes of people betting / amounts bet. Willing betters on Richmond - which I suspect is a larger number, out of their supporter base, which we can't match - haven't yet dropped off!

It was a different story for the earlier Essendon game when there wasn't enough exposed form versus perceived prospects (for either team) to narrow the odds.

[Binmans PA 26,283]

2 hours ago, AngryAtCasey said:

Don'tthink we'll drop M Jones & Hunt,we lack outside run as it is, so i expect at least one will be kept in the team.

I still think they'll rest Oliver. Roos mentioned he was nearly rested for Round 3, so with these selection headaches, it's as good a time to rest him as any.

They shouldn't rest him. I've done a bit of a u-turn myself and I reckon PD is spot on here. Brayshaw and Oliver stay. Hunt and Matt Jones are the unlucky ones for mine. Gus and Clarry have too much class to leave out, even if they are playing minimal game time. Gus regularly creates goals and Oliver could be really important if it becomes tight in the clearances. 

Ultimately, we're bringing in Vince and Garlett to make the team better. If we're leaving out Gus and Oliver or 'resting' them, we are not making the team better.

[Nasher 33,131]

I also suggested resting Oliver, but in hindsight I think I was just taking the soft option to avoid making the call on a player I don't want to drop.

I think it'll be Hunt and one of Brayshaw or Matt Jones. Tough though. Can't remember an the last time players in decent form were being forced out of the side.

[Roost It 1,434]

11 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Having a near full list to chose from is enormously advantageous. Especially given the number of injuries and underdone players Richmond have.

I also believe our list is ahead of theirs in terms of talent now and really we should win comfortably as long as we bring the same intensity as we did last weekend.

I would love nothing more than for this game to be a statement game for our club. 

I can't remember the last time we've beaten up on a big Melbourne based club at the G. We're pretty close to playing four quarters of hard-nosed and skilled football.

Always hard to feel confident with Melbourne, but at some point we'll see a switch flick with this group and we won't look back.

May this be the game.

Dees by 45 +

Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella,Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella, Big Fella, Big fella, big fella

[Moonshadow 16,315]

On 19 April 2016 at 6:48 PM, Vineytime said:

Vandenberg had surgery on his ankle this week - out for 8 weeks. 

M Jones in doubt for this weeks game (inj). 

Good get Vineytime.

Article on MFC site says 4 weeks, but that is usually Melbourne-speak for 8 weeks.

[stinga 475]

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Take out his nightmare game against the Bombers and what is Kent's average disposals, and then compare to half forwards across the league (and in the same team).

Or just watch the replay and look at the coaches votes. He's not getting dropped this week.

You are right in that he doesn't deserve to get dropped (no-one does), but the balance of the side seems we play best with only one small forward that doesn't go through the middle.  It's a bit like playing two good ruckmen in the same side.    I don't think you can disregard his bad game, otherwise you have to disregard his best.   Having said all that they probably will not drop him - I just think it would be better for balance.  

[Nasher 33,131]

Regarding Hunt,a demotion need not mean being a confidence sapper.  I reckon it'd be the easiest "you're dropped" speech Roos ever gave:

"Sit down Hunty.  Look, with Bernie back this week, we're going to have you back at Casey for the time being.  It's nothing you did wrong - we thought you acquitted yourself really well for your first game.  I know it's disappointing, but we hope you got some confidence out of it that you can take back to the VFL - keep working hard there and keep your form up, and you'll be in our minds again when opportunities come up as we were very happy with how you went."

He'll already be well aware that he was filling in for the club's best player and reigning B&F winner, so coming back out for Vince won't shock him.  If the conversation is done the right way, instead of being too bummed, he could walk out of the room ready to rip Williamstown a new one with his new "I can play AFL footy" confidence.

[DeeSpencer 23,256]

5 minutes ago, stinga said:

You are right in that he doesn't deserve to get dropped (no-one does), but the balance of the side seems we play best with only one small forward that doesn't go through the middle.  It's a bit like playing two good ruckmen in the same side.    I don't think you can disregard his bad game, otherwise you have to disregard his best.   Having said all that they probably will not drop him - I just think it would be better for balance.  

Kent's bad game was particularly bad though. Where as he's been above average in his other 3. I don't think Kent's been playing as a deep small forward either. Yes he hasn't gone through the middle with Garlett out, but he's been getting up the ground and back. And we've had Harmes, Brayshaw and even Frost doing similar. 

I'd suggest Frost is the unlucky one to come out unless someone (M Jones) is injured or needing a rest (Oliver). 

As far as midfield time, I suggest Kent spends some time on the wing. Harmes too (as he has been). Garlett can be used in either the centre or on a wing depending on match up. 

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,762]

3 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

I agree with your overall opinion that Matt Jones lack class, but he has been playing well for two months now. I think he would be incredibly stiff to be dropped. I also think he helps bring balance to our midfield, which is stacked with inside ball winners and lacks run and spread. This ability to get out in the open is particularly important this year given the new style of footy and rule changes. I see Billy Stretch as his most like-for-like replacement and I have Jones ahead at the moment.

This. One reason we've improved is because we're able to transfer our inside ball quicker and more efficiently to the outside creating meaningful clearances. That requires a good balance of toughness, speed, fitness and skill in-close. M.Jones brings two of those attributes (speed and fitness), with the former being particularly valuable to a side lacking a little in that area. He makes glaring mistakes on the odd occasion but for now, his ability to work hard both ways gives him more than enough credit to hold his spot.

[DeeSpencer 23,256]

1 hour ago, AdamFarr said:

They shouldn't rest him. I've done a bit of a u-turn myself and I reckon PD is spot on here. Brayshaw and Oliver stay. Hunt and Matt Jones are the unlucky ones for mine. Gus and Clarry have too much class to leave out, even if they are playing minimal game time. Gus regularly creates goals and Oliver could be really important if it becomes tight in the clearances. 

Ultimately, we're bringing in Vince and Garlett to make the team better. If we're leaving out Gus and Oliver or 'resting' them, we are not making the team better.

My question is who plays wing if Matt Jones goes out. Presuming Vince plays 7th defender/mid. Harmes then probably plays wing. Which means Garlett, Frost, Kennedy, Kent and Brayshaw, the 3 talls and a resting Oliver have to bring the defensive forward work.

Harmes might be our best pressure forward. His tackle numbers have been great the last two weeks. And I don't think he's as good on the wing. 

I get the feeling if Matt Jones goes out we'd be better served bringing in a lesser player (ie. Grimes or Stretch) to fill the wing roll, playing Harmes forward and making a tough call on which of the forwards miss out.

[Binmans PA 26,283]

34 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

My question is who plays wing if Matt Jones goes out. Presuming Vince plays 7th defender/mid. Harmes then probably plays wing. Which means Garlett, Frost, Kennedy, Kent and Brayshaw, the 3 talls and a resting Oliver have to bring the defensive forward work.

Harmes might be our best pressure forward. His tackle numbers have been great the last two weeks. And I don't think he's as good on the wing. 

I get the feeling if Matt Jones goes out we'd be better served bringing in a lesser player (ie. Grimes or Stretch) to fill the wing roll, playing Harmes forward and making a tough call on which of the forwards miss out.

I think Garlett, Frost, Kennedy, Kent and Brayshaw have to bring the pressure as you say. The reason Matt Jones is the unlucky is because Kent, Kennedy and Harmes have all been bringing the defensive pressure. We know Jeffy brings that too and Frost is being developed as a speedy defensive forward too. I reckon we'll be alright without a pure wingman, because even Jones doesn't bring an extraordinary amount. He's a role player. That's all we need from Harmes.

[Macca 16,173]

Out ... Matt Jones, Pedersen, Hunt

In ... Vince, Garlett, Petracca

Matt Jones might be injured anyway, Petracca can play Pedersen's role (apart from the rucking) and Hunt just has to make way (unfortunately)  Frost can pinch hit in the ruck whilst T-Mac & Hogan can help out for the odd ruck contest (if needed)  All 3 outs would be very unlucky but that's footy. 

I just believe the Match committee will pull the trigger on Petracca and Vince & Garlett are automatic selections.  More so Vince but Garlett would have most likely cleaned up last week if he'd played.

So 2 inclusions that will make us much stronger and another chance to blood another youngster ... if we're going to get better as a team we need to take calculate risks in order for that to happen.  There's no sense being conservative if the need to be conservative isn't there. 

B .....  Jetta  McDonald  Dunn

HB ..  Wagner  Lumumba  Salem

C ....  Vince  Tyson  Oliver

HF ..  Watts  Frost  Petracca

F ..... Garlett  Hogan  Brayshaw

R ....  Gawn  N Jones  Viney

Int ..  Bugg  Kennedy  Kent  Harmes

 

The wing position isn't really the position it once was ... it's not like there's loads of space like there was back in the day.  In fact, it's where a lot of the congestion has been in the recent past.

All sorts of players can be rotated from half back through to half forward in any case ... anyway, the above team has a touch of class splattered through every line and lots of hardnuts.

[DeeSpencer 23,256]

25 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

I think Garlett, Frost, Kennedy, Kent and Brayshaw have to bring the pressure as you say. The reason Matt Jones is the unlucky is because Kent, Kennedy and Harmes have all been bringing the defensive pressure. We know Jeffy brings that too and Frost is being developed as a speedy defensive forward too. I reckon we'll be alright without a pure wingman, because even Jones doesn't bring an extraordinary amount. He's a role player. That's all we need from Harmes.

Jones hasn't got forward much at all, and doesn't offer much when caught around the ball, but he's been nearly impeccable with his defensive work rate and very reliable as the outlet kick for defenders. Plus he's yet to be torched the other way by a top wingman I think - Scully's first quarter seemed to be more on Bugg's wing. We probably will be ok, I just think Matt Jones' (and Bugg's) hard running on the wings has been crucial to allowing us to play more attacking football. 

So the question is what is better? Giving Harmes the chance to take up the role which he should be able to do or switching in Grimes who's trained all summer to do the role and is doing it at Casey. Time will tell. Neither is ideal. Ideal is Hawthorn bringing Billy Hartung up from the 2's. But neither should be fatal.

[DeeSpencer 23,256]

One thing we should be aware of is Salem and Kent's hamstrings if it's a cold night. I wonder if they were on restricted duties today at training with that in mind.

[bjDee 1,247]

8 hours ago, DubDee said:

In.  Vince, Garlett

Out, Oliver and Brayshaw

 

Oliver to be dropped/rested, only 11 touches.  still did ok but the two coming in are better.

Brayshaw - dont mess around with concussion with a young mid - bound to get hit a lot 

So, that means sit a week totally on the sidelines, yeah?  Not having a go at you, but let's be clear - if head injury is an issue, we wouldn't want anyone to play at any level for the next week, AFL, VFL, or suburban 5ths at Packenham Upper. Right?

[Binmans PA 26,283]

Reading between the lines a little bit with Misson's MelbourneTV injury report, I don't think Garlett will play this week. So it'll be a matter of fitting in Vince and maybe Petracca. If the latter comes in, I reckon Pedo may miss.

Edited April 20, 2016 by AdamFarr