2 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Thanks for your service Grimes.. You were the face of a dark period for the club.

He'll pay this year Dazle, i have no doubt he will get to 100, i'm positive everyone on this board and at the club would like to see that happen

Feel for Grimes, in better form than quite a few and still no game.

The bottom line is that the team is now full of players deemed by the coaching staff to be the future of the Melbourne Football Club. I've got no problem with that. Also, bottom line, is that for the past 9 years there's been a rotation of players dropped and being replaced by stop gap players, too many to mention. In the end, I feel as sick as a dog looking at poor Jack Grimes because I know he's bled for us. I also know he's not the future of the footy club.

3 minutes ago, Je Roos Salem said:

I disagree. When Trengove was selected emotion would've played a part. Then there'd be some relationship issues and disciplinary issues affecting selections, and then the selection changes based on what's at stake

I believe Trengove got a game because he deserved it on form, i don't think Roos picks players on emotion, no farewell game for Jamar proved that.

14 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

I believe Trengove got a game because he deserved it on form, i don't think Roos picks players on emotion, no farewell game for Jamar proved that.

Interesting thought, although he did give Jamar a shot for the first 5 games. I don't believe Grimes stays our 23rd-25th best player regardless of what does in the VFL though. There has to be factors like age and reputation that is stopping the absolute best 22 from being picked. Grimes has had some very ordinary moments over the journey, but he's a much better player than one who doesn't even get a look all season in my book

My eyes seriously welled up when I saw the photo of Jack   .......   but the reality is that if we want to become a ruthless and hard-edged footy team, we will have to use that same ruthless hard-edge at selection.  It's a tough, tough business.

48 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

No you're right, he doesn't have to and he's showing that by his actions.  All Roos had to say on Jack is that it's difficult to fit him in with the competition for the spots he can play but he hopes he'll get a go soon.  Not this platitude of "I want him to be in really good form to give himself the best chance".  He's been "in really good form" and he hasn't been given an opportunity.

If he isn't in our thinking then that's fine but don't tell us one thing and do another.

Grimes couldn't get a game in the defence or attack, so the decision was made to get him to play on the wing at Casey and let him develop in that role, if you listen to Roos he has improved, but obviously not enough to displace the two or three players who will play that role on Sunday.

Last year according to some on here he was a player who was not part of the team going forward, now we have posters clamouring for him to be included

We are developing Terlich as a high half forward at Casey, because again there is no place in defence, his last couple of games in that role, according to Justin Plapp, have been really good, you want to bring him into the team as well, and if so to replace who

If there is no role, or the incumbent is playing well, then it doesn't matter how well you are playing you don't get in, this is what we have been crying out for

1 hour ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

They were 3 ordinary games Dazzle, take the emotion out of it, neither Grimes or Trengove in the team is a good thing. Roos is there every training session, he knows what they can and can't do, Roos is certainly not losing me, i like the changes, the ins have pace and we are in dire need of some

They were his first AFL games in two years, what on earth were people expecting?!

1 minute ago, Members' Wing said:

They were his first AFL games in two years, what on earth were people expecting?!

I had zero expectations on Jack after what he's been through, unfortunately there is no role for him on current form

1 hour ago, poita said:

Dumb selections all round. Why don't we just play 22 inconsistent small forwards and forget about the rest of our playing list? Laird and Smith will get 100 possessions between them playing on Kent, Garlett and co.

All year Roos bangs on about form, until it suits him to bring in players who are horribly out of form. What are the odds on Lumumba returning next week irrespective of his performance this week?

As for Grimes, I suppose he'll be 23rd man again this week, then Roos will come up with some lame excuse about lack of match fitness for not bringing him next week.

Not to Mention Oliver being dropped And major doubts on Viney?? Absurd!!!

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Unbelievable once again... Garlett brought in based on poor form ...

Based on? Plapp gave him a good wrap on the previous match, but then, it's about a lot more than that as well, much of which we don't see or can't be aware of.

In any case, it's not about "Garlett gets a game, but Grimes can't", they're completely different players, with completely different roles. Bringing Grimes in is not going to help our crumbing forward stocks. Grimes is now interchangeable with?? ... well, not sure who, which is part of the problem. He's no longer a half-back, but then not specialist enough to be either inside or outside mid.

A better comparison would be between Newton and Matt Jones, but Jones has gone up a notch this year, and has done better both at Casey and in the AFL, so hard to argue with that inclusion. Then, Harmes for Olivier is fair enough. Not sure who's supposed to be covering for Wagner: perhaps the unlucky player isn't Grimes or Trengove etc., but White.

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

All discussion around selections aside, I think we have picked a very strong team for this game.  While their forward line is very, very dangerous, I think we clearly have the edge on them in the midfield battle and this will help to support the back half in their efforts to stop Betts, Tex and Jenkins.

Our forward line looks good too and could cause them some real problems, although this will be down to how much pressure our small brigade can put on them when the ball hits the deck.  If they can hit the scoreboard and force turnovers then there is no reason why we can't win.

Yeah their forward line is very very dangerous But we have a Sensational defence to keep them at Bay!!! 

We have T Mac and O Mac 

Should be a piece of cake for our tried and true Dynamic Duo!!

1 minute ago, picket fence said:

Yeah their forward line is very very dangerous But we have a Sensational defence to keep them at Bay!!! 

We have T Mac and O Mac 

Should be a piece of cake for our tried and true Dynamic Duo!!

I used to think that SWYL was the only one that wore a hair shirt on here, but you seem to as well and suck lemons at the same time, can I ask why you support a team who has a coach with less understanding of the game than yourself and players that are rubbish.........latent masochistic tendencies perhaps?

42 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

I used to think that SWYL was the only one that wore a hair shirt on here, but you seem to as well and suck lemons at the same time, can I ask why you support a team who has a coach with less understanding of the game than yourself and players that are rubbish.........latent masochistic tendencies perhaps?

Settle down Saty. picket is most likely a lunatic but he clearly loves the Dees. We all see it a little differently.

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

Last year according to some on here he was a player who was not part of the team going forward, now we have posters clamouring for him to be included

 

I agree with you rarely Saty, but on this one I do.  For a long time many have, rightly, said that Grimes was not part of our team going forward.  He's been a great foot soldier and someone who put his hand up to captain a side that lacked serious leadership.

He isn't part of our future though and Roos is treating it as such.  He may get some games later in the year but I'd be surprised to see him on our list in 2017.

Just now, Wiseblood said:

He may get some games later in the year ...

This is now "later in the year".

Just now, bing181 said:

This is now "later in the year".

Later, later in the year then... ?

Pardon me for not reading all previous posts on this thread, but is it probable that Watts will continue as the relief ruckman? I don't have an issue with this, and it may even help develop his competitiveness. 

7 hours ago, billy2803 said:

 

Thanks Roosy.

If Viney doesn't get up because of his hammy, I'd imagine that Grimes will definitely play.  If Viney does play, I can see Matt Jones coming in for Wagner.

Listening to Roos' presser, I'd say it's more unlikely than likely that Jack get a run.

 

10 hours ago, billy2803 said:

Would be surprised if Grimes comes in for Wagner.  He has been playing more midfield/wing/half forward at Casey, so why would we bring him in to replace a half back?  Does that mean Michie gets another go?

That leaves the Clarry replacement.  Do we bring him (JG) in for that, or do we bring in Jeffy, which will then allow Petracca to play more midfield minutes.

Listening to Roos Views, he commented about bringing in players who have been playing well at Casey, even if it is at the expense of someone playing ok in the seniors.  You can argue that all of Harmes, Grimes, Michie and Jones tick that box.

I personally would bring back Jeffy.  Admittedly he hasn't starred at Casey (conditions didn't suit in his first week), but I think he would've learnt his lesson, and knows the consequences of not performing in the seniors.  He wouldn't be the first player that performs better in the higher level than what he does in lower levels.

PM me if you want tomorrow's lotto numbers...

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Thanks for your service Grimes.. You were the face of a dark period for the club.

Pitiful thing to say. Even if said without malice, he was drafted in at a bad time and worked his damn ass off. The "face" of the club during its dark times were others, a few who I dare not say here.

13 minutes ago, M_9 said:

Pardon me for not reading all previous posts on this thread, but is it probable that Watts will continue as the relief ruckman? I don't have an issue with this, and it may even help develop his competitiveness. 

Don't have an issue with it. Dictates different strategy from our mids and is a good challenge for them. He's no worse than Alastair Nicholson/Pederson/Dawes/PJ/Miller in the ruck o_O lol

Edited July 1, 20169 yr by praha

Just now, praha said:

Don't have an issue with it. Dictates different strategy from our mids and is a good challenge for them. He's no worse than Alastair Nicholson/Pederson/Dawes/PJ in the ruck .

I thought I heard Roos say a few weeks back that it wasn't seen as a long term move, Maybe it was envisaged that Pedo would strike form immediately on return. BTW who is the Crows second ruckman?

Just now, M_9 said:

I thought I heard Roos say a few weeks back that it wasn't seen as a long term move, Maybe it was envisaged that Pedo would strike form immediately on return. BTW who is the Crows second ruckman?

In all honesty I don't mind it, I was joking initially but yeah, adds something else to Watts' game, and I love the way he takes it on.

7 minutes ago, praha said:

Pitiful thing to say. Even if said without malice, he was drafted in at a bad time and worked his damn ass off. The "face" of the club during its dark times were others, a few who I dare not say here.

Cool..

I already knew all that, What i said was straight from the heart and to see him being treated like this makes me sad.

19 minutes ago, praha said:

In all honesty I don't mind it, I was joking initially but yeah, adds something else to Watts' game, and I love the way he takes it on.

When you think about it, contesting a ball-up (albeit as brief as it is) is the only contest that you can't compete half-hearted. That has to be good for Watts' psyche.