9 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I don't generally like to bag our players, but Mitchie is a spud at AFL level and a waste of a supplementry list spot.  In the numerous chances he has been given to play at AFL level, I haven't seen him play a half decent game yet.

 

I completely disagree. And clearly the coaching panel does (and Plapp for that matter). I am constantly amazed that a small minority of posters on DL seem to think their judgments on the relative skill of players is more accurate that that of the coaching panel, I mean come on.

A good user of the ball and works hard up and down the ground. With his stellar VFL form deserves his call up and will give all the grunt of Harmes and less damaging turnovers

26 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Michie is a surprise - not sure he can maintain AFL standard football across 4 quarters. I would have probably included Trenners over Michie but Michie has been very good in the VFL.  The Weideman inclusion is a huge statement from selectors about their preferences and direction. 

Disagree on first point but totally agree on second. I am very surprised they picked Weed over Pedo. Brave call and as you suggest a nod to the future. He will play out of the square with Hogan at CHF and Watts as a dangerous floating option. That will be our set up next year too i assume. 

Edited August 19, 20169 yr by binman

So Sue, if we win and the Swans win this week, are we looking at starting Round 23 with 16% chance then, when we beat the Cats, moving to 50%..?

i.e. 1/3 x 1/2 = 16% them 1/2 = 50%

Edited August 19, 20169 yr by PaulRB

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

you're very welcome, uncle

btotom line is  i think there will be no rain, or very light rain showers of little consequence

you being a country squire you should have a better "feel" for weather. what is your (or the lads) prediction?

Rained heavily all day in Central Victoria. Hoping that it has done its dash and will mostly fine up for Sunday. Geelong is the team i would prefer not to play in the wet.

Excited to see the Weed again.  

Just now, PaulRB said:

So Sue, if we win and the swans win this week are we looking at starting round 23 with 16% then when we beat the Cats moving to 50%..?

i.e. 1/3 x 1/2 = 16% them 1/2 = 50%

Well of course this is very crude and a bit silly, but if the results go our way this weekend (with necessary % changes), we'd have to re-assess.  But with what little we know now (especially me, since I don't know enough about the ladder to know if Geelong will have any desperate need to beat us), I'd say 1/3 for beating Geelong is optimistic, and sticking with 1/2 for North losing, so 16% sounds good. 

All a damn sight better odds than any year in recent history.   And better than the odds any of us would have given 6 weeks ago I suspect. 

Gotta say after 3 wins on the trot I'm surprised with 3 players being dropped. I'm not really against any of the inclusions, Michie and ANB have been in top form for Casey, and Weeds showed some great attributes against Hawthorn. 

I just usually expect Roos to fall on the side of minimal changes if it can be helped. 

Good opportunity to all 3 of them, and Garlett's form has been very up and down the second half of this year. 

Good changes - keeps the team fresh, Michie goes to half back, Nibbler to play through the middle and half forward while we get to see Weed and Hogan in the same forward line with Watts as the third tall. 

No complaints from me. 

The Weed has struggled this year for Casey playing wet weather footy. The forecast is looking miserable all weekend & Pederson's bigger body would be better suited to get through a 4 QTR slog. I also would've brought in Ben Kennedy to replace Garlett & one of Michie or ANB for Harmes.

29 minutes ago, sue said:

Is it not possible that players like Mitchie are being given a game to help work out whether they are worth keeping on next year.  Once again, assuming his selection won't make a big difference to the 6% chance of being in the finals.

BTW, I think 6% is about right.  While our chance of beating Carlton should be better than 50:50, our chance of beating Geelong is less, so that means we have a 1 in 4 chance of beating both.    And I'd but the same probability on North losing twice because there are so many difficult factors.   1/4*1/4=1/16 => 6%

All right, I can't resist.

Talking the roughest figures here. Let's say we have a 2/3 chance to beat Carlton. And a 1/3 chance to beat Geel. Sydney a 2/3 chance to beat North and GWS 50/50.

Then it's 4/54 chance or 7.5%

If you want to give GWS a 2/3 chance to win then it's 8/81 or 10%

Slim all the way round but you've got to be in it to win it. Someone wins Tattslotto nearly every week. (I should find that person and copy their numbers.)

Just for comparison, 4 heads in a row in a coin toss is 6%

1 hour ago, poita said:

Really dumb changes. Why mess with a winning side? The forward line works better with Pedersen there. Good luck to Sam, but I don't think he offers as much as Pedo presently.

I can't believe that Michie and Neal-Bullen are the next in line given their senior efforts so far this year. Play one maybe, but two is asking for trouble. Would much prefer Salem.

Could not agree more.

35 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Reckon Pedo is stiff.

It's possible that its because I haven't seen anything other than the highlights though.

Did he do something wrong, or are we just keen to see more of Weeds?

Pedo had added a big phyical presence around the ground that few if any of our other players this year have been able to produce.  Dawes certainly hasn't, whilst he has dramatically improved in this area, I don't think Watts has the size of Pedo to produce the same effect (similar for Weid) and I'm not sure that Hogan has provided it in past months either.  Over the past few games, Pederson had been our most effective big forward, so why mess with that?

I don't get the changes - but I haven't got them all year. 

I mostly been wrong. 

1 hour ago, poita said:

Really dumb changes. Why mess with a winning side? The forward line works better with Pedersen there. Good luck to Sam, but I don't think he offers as much as Pedo presently.

I can't believe that Michie and Neal-Bullen are the next in line given their senior efforts so far this year. Play one maybe, but two is asking for trouble. Would much prefer Salem.

Totally agree.

Pedo gives us a big body in the wet to crash packs and knock the ball to ground. Also a good 2nd ruck option. This as opposed to a lightly framed KPF 2nd gamer when we have a finals chance on the line.

I'm ok with ANB for Garlett as he should go ok in the wet. Agree that Michie is a bit left field as he offers very little imo. I would have stayed with Harmes in the wet.

If I were Carlton I would be pleased to see these changes.

1 minute ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Could not agree more.

Pedo had added a big phyical presence around the ground that few if any of our other players this year have been able to produce.  Dawes certainly hasn't, whilst he has dramatically improved in this area, I don't think Watts has the size of Pedo to produce the same effect (similar for Weid) and I'm not sure that Hogan has provided it in past months either.  Over the past few games, Pederson had been our most effective big forward, so why mess with that?

All of the games I have watched he has busted packs open, and shown a real presence. Quite surprised he was dropped, but what would I know.

4 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Over the past few games, Pederson had been our most effective big forward, so why mess with that?

 

4 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

I don't get the changes - but I haven't got them all year. 

I mostly been wrong. 

In spite of the prize on offer, the selectors have stuck to their guns and have done what they have done all season. Give blokes a go to see what they've got. We've had some very nice surprises. Who would have predicted Hunt, Frost, OMac as mainstays in defence?

Also to see who's worth persisting with. Or not.

Also this round to see what a Hogan/Weed forward setup looks like. (Pretty good is my guess.)

16 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

All right, I can't resist.

Talking the roughest figures here. Let's say we have a 2/3 chance to beat Carlton. And a 1/3 chance to beat Geel. Sydney a 2/3 chance to beat North and GWS 50/50.

Then it's 4/54 chance or 7.5%

If you want to give GWS a 2/3 chance to win then it's 8/81 or 10%

Slim all the way round but you've got to be in it to win it. Someone wins Tattslotto nearly every week. (I should find that person and copy their numbers.)

Just for comparison, 4 heads in a row in a coin toss is 6%

The coin isn't showing the passion for the contest that our boys have shown the past 2 weeks.

Nice work though. Interesting.

3 minutes ago, TheVoice said:

Totally agree.

Pedo gives us a big body in the wet to crash packs and knock the ball to ground. Also a good 2nd ruck option. This as opposed to a lightly framed KPF 2nd gamer when we have a finals chance on the line.

I'm ok with ANB for Garlett as he should go ok in the wet. Agree that Michie is a bit left field as he offers very little imo. I would have stayed with Harmes in the wet.

If I were Carlton I would be pleased to see these changes.

If I was Carlton is be playing like the end of the season can't come quick enough. I think that's what we'll see.

Peds may come back in as a late change yet.

I don't get the changes either but I guess it keeps the team fresh. Clearly the coaches don't think Kennedy or Salem are in form, as they seem the obvious replacements for those omitted.

8 minutes ago, TheVoice said:

Totally agree.

Pedo gives us a big body in the wet to crash packs and knock the ball to ground. Also a good 2nd ruck option. This as opposed to a lightly framed KPF 2nd gamer when we have a finals chance on the line.

I'm ok with ANB for Garlett as he should go ok in the wet. Agree that Michie is a bit left field as he offers very little imo. I would have stayed with Harmes in the wet.

If I were Carlton I would be pleased to see these changes.

Watts has played that role for the second half of the season.  I've rarely seen Pedo do it.

While the changes do raise an eyebrow, I'll back the club in again.  They know what they're doing.

1 hour ago, sue said:

Perhaps the club is looking more to the long term and figuring a small change won't make much difference to the 6% chance we have of making the finals.

I'll take the 6% chance over the 0% chance we have had at this point in the season any day of the week.

I was definitely surprised when they picked Weeds for his first game against Hawthorn but it worked out. I read that Hogan missed training this week because of illness but completed the session on Friday. Hopefully he's fine so we can finally see the Hogan/Watts/Weeds combo. 

The closer the game gets the more I feel the players will need to be fully switched on in the first half as Carlton could come out with some real hardness. 

Murray will think all his Christmas's have come at once if his G'son plays and kicks a few goals against two old teams of "repute" this year and gives them both a wack!! 

1 hour ago, binman said:

I completely disagree. And clearly the coaching panel does (and Plapp for that matter). I am constantly amazed that a small minority of posters on DL seem to think their judgments on the relative skill of players is more accurate that that of the coaching panel, I mean come on.

A good user of the ball and works hard up and down the ground. With his stellar VFL form deserves his call up and will give all the grunt of Harmes and less damaging turnovers

Happy to be proven wrong.

However every time Mitchie comes into the senior side, it is on the back of great disposal numbers at Casey, but I can hardly recall a game at AFL level where he has shown any promise.

Mitchie has nothing of the competitiveness and combativeness to win contested possessions and physical battles that Harmes has.  Nearly every match report I read from Casey states: Mitchie 30 possessions, 2 contested possessions, 1 tackle.

Harmes is also quite a good user of the ball, although I think this applies more so to when he plays forward of centre.

On paper, Weidemann would get Wietering, and Hogan would get Plowman.  I like Hogan at CHF, and Weid at FF.

nibbler as small forward??

line by line we look better.  We have to dominate the clearances to win this one.  If we are soft at the contest we will give them a sniff.  

2 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

hmm, thats a lot of inside mids.  A real lot.  

Maybe ANB plays fwd for Garlett. Has good goal sense