57 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

I think it's most likely that Garland was dropped because he failed to implement the zone defence required and as a leader more is expected of him.  I also agree with other posters that it is likely that he needs to take the game on more and the example of him running through the middle is a good one despite how "free" Oliver may have been, the example is about his intent to attack in a way he has been unprepared to do previously.

Dunn was dropped for the failing to implement the zone properly against St.Kilda.  I'm not sure how much of a line can be drawn through his high possession game for Casey.  It's about transitioning to play a new style for him.  

Quite frankly, one or both may be traded at the end of the year and they would have some market value for the right customer.

Interesting. I had assumed Dunn was dropped for struggling to transition to a zone defense as well. But as to my earlier post, and not having thought about it before, Dunn is another defender who really hasn't been taking the game on this year. This was especially noticeable against North I think (or Collingwood?) when we were attacking hell for leather and he was holding it up a lot. I wasn't critical at the time (beside being disappointed in the slowing of momentum) as I thought he may have been directed to play a steadying role and his disposal was clean - but perhaps his lack of derring-do has seen him dropped. It's as if Roos has given up entirely on the notion of old fashioned KPDs and just wants an entire defensive unit of dashing half-backs.

29 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Interesting. I had assumed Dunn was dropped for struggling to transition to a zone defense as well. But as to my earlier post, and not having thought about it before, Dunn is another defender who really hasn't been taking the game on this year. This was especially noticeable against North I think (or Collingwood?) when we were attacking hell for leather and he was holding it up a lot. I wasn't critical at the time (beside being disappointed in the slowing of momentum) as I thought he may have been directed to play a steadying role and his disposal was clean - but perhaps his lack of derring-do has seen him dropped. It's as if Roos has given up entirely on the notion of old fashioned KPDs and just wants an entire defensive unit of dashing half-backs.

Yes quite possible too.

Here's a hint - it's not Roos.

44 minutes ago, P-man said:

Are they not allowed some time for adjustment like the others? Yes they are seasoned defenders but a new way of defending/protecting space would be a learning curve for everyone would it not?

I'd be hugely hesitant to trade two senior, key position players in one hit considering how young and inexperienced we are as it stands. Pending on who they were being replaced with.

I'm not sure what Garlo did that was so poor on the weekend for the record, other than the bizarrely errant handball. Wright was reasonably well held.

I wasn't down on Garland for this week's work, and he's clearly trying to attack more.

Tom McDonald has obviously struggled at times too - although those who criticising him for "bad decision making" when he attacks but misses his target through a skill error are completely missing the point. He's trying hard to do what has been asked of him.

I think it seems like they need to get with the new plan quickly.  If they refuse or can't get into the spots needed for the plan then they have to go - a la Colin Sylvia.

51 minutes ago, P-man said:

I'm not sure what Garlo did that was so poor on the weekend for the record, other than the bizarrely errant handball. Wright was reasonably well held.

I thought Garland did alright too. But one bad handball is equal to the other 14 OK possessions, apparently.

6 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Yes quite possible too.

Here's a hint - it's not Roos.

Well, casting back to Goodwin's premiership years, it could be said that the Crows ushered in an era of drive off half back. Himself, McLeod, Bickley, Hart . . .

8 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

 

I think it seems like they need to get with the new plan quickly.  If they refuse or can't get into the spots needed for the plan then they have to go - a la Colin Sylvia.

The spot that Colin Sylvia couldn't get to was called "preseason training" - the spot that he did get to regularly was called tramp.

2 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Who knows what he was thinking to be honest. Could have easily been that he simply didn't even have the confidence to hit Oliver and decided bombing it forward was the better option.

Obviously there are times to go sideways and times not to. 

But in that passage of play, if you have a look at how clear Oliver was you'll see that it was the right option given the amount of time and space Clayton would then have to kick to the advantage of a leading forward rather than sitting it on the head of one.

Im nitpicking. But these things are still noticeable and frustrate me.

Agree it was a bad decision. But Ben Kennedy's right foot goal should've been a handball inside to Kent. Then I think Harmes burns Ben Kennedy moments later. Bugg went back in to traffic on multiple occassions.  There's plenty of non perfect decision making floating around. 

Not that you should practice mistakes but if there's a time to make them it's junk time in a blow out loss and Garland needs to practice quick ball movement, even if it's wrong at times. I think it's easier to refine quick ball movement than it is to go from slow ball movement to perfect smart efficient footy.

Positioning, effort to run both ways and then one on one spoiling/marking is what I want to see from Garland more than skill with the ball and I can't judge that without being at the game. I know Dunn's positioning and effort was a long way off, even if his one on one work is superior to Garland's.

I'm not sure why so many supporters argue about fringe players.  Before Garland it was Grimes.  Some were furious that he wasn't considered best 22.  Then Stuie goes spare when it's suggested Frost should be dropped.  Others get their knickers in a knot when Garland is criticised.

You do realise there's a reason these players are spending time at Casey ?  Long suffering supporters have been putting up with limited footballers for a decade, but they still have supporters who won't hear a bad word said about them. 

They're ordinary fringe players.  I can never understand why some seem so emotionally invested in them ?  

18 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I'm not sure why so many supporters argue about fringe players.  Before Garland it was Grimes.  Some were furious that he wasn't considered best 22.  Then Stuie goes spare when it's suggested Frost should be dropped.  Others get their knickers in a knot when Garland is criticised.

You do realise there's a reason these players are spending time at Casey ?  Long suffering supporters have been putting up with limited footballers for a decade, but they still have supporters who won't hear a bad word said about them. 

They're ordinary fringe players.  I can never understand why some seem so emotionally invested in them ?  

What ever their limitations players like Grimes and Garland gave everything they had at a time when the club was a basket case. Poor development and coaching combined with an unreasonable burden of responsibility probably has destroyed their careers. They deserve our respect and support. I think it is sad that they probably won't be around to enjoy our future success.

1 hour ago, chook fowler said:

What ever their limitations players like Grimes and Garland gave everything they had at a time when the club was a basket case. Poor development and coaching combined with an unreasonable burden of responsibility probably has destroyed their careers. They deserve our respect and support. I think it is sad that they probably won't be around to enjoy our future success.

Who says they haven't been "respected" ?

I'll continue to critique footballers based on output. 

And that will never ever change. 

13 hours ago, The Song Formerly Known As said:

I feel like we are very much still working out who is best 22

and our best 22 will vary depending on opposition and venues - it is never a static arrangement

13 hours ago, olisik said:

I would consider playing Hogan on Stringer. Would give him an absolute bath. We can win games without Hogan up forward.

interesting thought, though pretty unlikely I would imagine

Luke Beveridge isn't sounding very confident. He is worried about his defence and said if they don't win its not the end of the world. 

10 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

He really was horrible that day this decade

 

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Who says they haven't been "respected" ?

I'll continue to critique footballers based on output. 

And that will never ever change. 

Chook said they deserve our respect not that they haven't been and he is absolutely right. 

I've never bet on anything other than the Melbourne Cup... too scared i'll become hooked .

But gee I'm tempted...... 

Surely we are up for this 

Mind you if i did punt, id have put my first born on the Essendon game .... then my second and 3rd sons on the StKilda game 

thank God i didnt

But we will win this one

 

 

 

 

Not sure if mentioned but here is our team from the 100 point shellacking in Round 20 last year. The bolded are possible/probable/definite players missing this time around.

MELBOURNE

B - Colin Garland, Lynden Dunn, Neville Jetta

HB -  Daniel Cross, Tom McDonald, Jeremy Howe

C - Rohan Bail, Bernie Vince, Heritier Lumumba

HF - Matt Jones, Chris Dawes, James Harmes

F -  Jeff Garlett, Jesse Hogan, Jack Watts

FOL - Max Gawn, Nathan Jones, Jack Viney

I/C - Angus Brayshaw, Viv Michie, Alex Neal-Bullen

SUB - Jack Grimes

4 minutes ago, mrtwister said:

Not sure if mentioned but here is our team from the 100 point shellacking in Round 20 last year. The bolded are possible/probable/definite players missing this time around.

MELBOURNE

B - Colin Garland, Lynden Dunn, Neville Jetta

HB -  Daniel Cross, Tom McDonald, Jeremy Howe

C - Rohan Bail, Bernie Vince, Heritier Lumumba

HF - Matt Jones, Chris Dawes, James Harmes

F -  Jeff Garlett, Jesse Hogan, Jack Watts

FOL - Max Gawn, Nathan Jones, Jack Viney

I/C - Angus Brayshaw, Viv Michie, Alex Neal-Bullen

SUB - Jack Grimes

Anyone keen to post the Bulldogs team from the same game?

I'm lazy

2 minutes ago, mrtwister said:

Not sure if mentioned but here is our team from the 100 point shellacking in Round 20 last year. The bolded are possible/probable/definite players missing this time around.

MELBOURNE

B - Colin Garland, Lynden Dunn, Neville Jetta

HB -  Daniel Cross, Tom McDonald, Jeremy Howe

C - Rohan Bail, Bernie Vince, Heritier Lumumba

HF - Matt Jones, Chris Dawes, James Harmes

F -  Jeff Garlett, Jesse Hogan, Jack Watts

FOL - Max Gawn, Nathan Jones, Jack Viney

I/C - Angus Brayshaw, Viv Michie, Alex Neal-Bullen

SUB - Jack Grimes

To be fair, here's the team that beat them in Round 8:

MELBOURNE

B Colin Garland, Tom McDonald, Jack Grimes

HB Jeremy Howe, Lynden Dunn, Heritier Lumumba

C Daniel Cross, Aaron Vandenberg, Matt Jones

HF Rohan Bail, Cameron Pedersen, Jack Watts

F Jeff Garlett, Jesse Hogan, Jack Fitzpatrick

FOL Jake Spencer, Nathan Jones, Bernie Vince

I/C Jimmy Toumpas, Angus Brayshaw, Ben Newton

SUB Aidan Riley

So even more players turned over from the win than from the loss.

WESTERN BULLDOGS (Round 20)

B - Dale Morris, Michael Talia, Matthew Boyd

HB - Robert Murphy, Joel Hamling, Easton Wood

C - Marcus Bontempelli, Jack Macrae, Shane Biggs

HF - Luke Dahlhaus, Tory Dickson, Stewart Crameri

F - Lachie Hunter, Jack Redpath, Jake Stringer

FOL - Tom Campbell, Mitch Wallis, Liam Picken

I/C - Jarrad Grant, Sam Darley, Lin Jong

SUB - Caleb Daniel

1 hour ago, mrtwister said:

Not sure if mentioned but here is our team from the 100 point shellacking in Round 20 last year. The bolded are possible/probable/definite players missing this time around.

MELBOURNE

B - Colin Garland, Lynden Dunn, Neville Jetta

HB -  Daniel Cross, Tom McDonald, Jeremy Howe

C - Rohan Bail, Bernie Vince, Heritier Lumumba

HF - Matt Jones, Chris Dawes, James Harmes

F -  Jeff Garlett, Jesse Hogan, Jack Watts

FOL - Max Gawn, Nathan Jones, Jack Viney

I/C - Angus Brayshaw, Viv Michie, Alex Neal-Bullen

SUB - Jack Grimes

IN: Bugg, Wagner, Petracca, Oliver, Tyson, Hunt, Kennedy, Stretch, Kent, Pedersen

Edited May 10, 20169 yr by Curry & Beer

We may not be a largely different team from that game last year but our team has a completely different mindset and a confidence borne out of form.

1 minute ago, Curry & Beer said:

IN: Bugg, Wagner, Petracca, Oliver, Tyson, Hunt, Kennedy, Stretch, Kent

and Cam Pedersen

1 minute ago, Petraccattack said:

and Cam Pedersen

ah yes and Lumumba another out. That's 10 changes

Maybe already mentioned but Marcus Adams is out for the Bulldogs. Their defence weakens.

40 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

IN: Bugg, Wagner, Petracca, Oliver, Tyson, Hunt, Kennedy, Stretch, Kent

IN: centre clearances, inside 50's

OUT: shockin football