TEAM SELECTION AND MATCH PREVIEW - ROUND 1

[brendan 3,418]

Saints into $1.67 dees out to $2.25 I'm glad I chucked the saints in a multi at $2.20 couple weeks back 

[Binmans PA 26,514]

3 hours ago, DubDee said:

JT not in the 25 even when Tyson, Avb, Jkh out. 

Would take an amazing effort to turn it around 

Watching the game in Sydney last year against the Swans, I knew Jack was finished then. Seems like a ripping bloke and I hope that's not the case, but he's simply too slow nowadays. 

3 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Tell you what, we've been left in no doubt about Goodwin's attacking game plan.

Jetta in makes me happy, Hannan is a surprise good luck to the kid, may he kick goals with his first three kicks. Joel Smith is in for a serious introduction, likely to be the desperate drop-back tall trying to cover when the midfield cracks.

And that's the game there - we've gone quite small in defence compared to the Saints forwards, just completely double-down on 'we will run and kill them all over the ground, and to hell with the occasional easy goal out the back'. Still mean's sometimes Jetta will be on Bruce, giving away a handy 17cm.

Good luck to Nibbler and Weed. And good luck to Garlett's leg muscles collectively.

Let's kick 25 goals and send the rest of the league into a cold sweat!

I hope you're right, Goff. I am more worried about this game than I have been for a while. I think they might just slice and dice our zone defence. I like that at least we've tried something. They just seem to match up very well on us, for a side that's pretty middle of the road.

[Binmans PA 26,514]

35 minutes ago, Macca said:

Well I never actually said Watts was incompetent in the ruck.  The reference to ruck incompetence was a 'general' comment and you've drawn your own conclusion.  Good ruck work = clearances = score involvements (obviously, not every time)  If we're doing the opposite of that then the result can be described as incompetent.

I'm not sure the team gets a lot of score involvements when either Pedersen or Watts are rucking and I do believe the opposition tends to outscore us when either player rucks (if we broke it all down)  Any tap-outs that Pedersen and Watts get for us are generally not to our advantage either.  But that's just the eye test. 

For the record Watts got 42 tap-outs in 22 games last year & Pedersen fared a little better with 33 hit-outs from 9 games.  We know that Gawn tends to ruck for a great majority of the games (is it 90%?) but our relief rucking is a weakness within the team all the same.  And Gawn should be rucking for about 75% - 80% of the games if we want to preserve the bloke.

Many others here tend to focus on individual errors and turnovers (of which there are often many) but from my point of view, as soon as Gawn isn't rucking, I'm concerned. 

So have you Macca.  I never said you'd said that either. Just that by your rule of having an incompetent ruck you risk losing the game. Watts was handy.

Watts more often than not broke even in the ruck. That doesn't mean he was winning lots of hit outs, just that he was able to neutralise his opponent and that's what we want, IMO. Our mids should be good enough to do the rest.

I remember a half dozen or so times last season where Gawn was being beaten and the ascendancy was with the opposition, and Watts started rucking and managed to impact more than Gawn had.

As for the concern when Gawn's not rucking, I held that view earlier last year until I realised Watts could actually neutralise the contest most times. I know don't hold that concern, although like most Melbourne supporters who watch every match, we'd certainly be strengthened by a B grade back up that could play well forward.

33 minutes ago, Farmer said:

If you are pumped to see this team you are easily pumped ! It is a very weak team, without Tyson, Kent, Hibberd, Frost, VdB.

Bugg and Harnes are needed in R1 rather than a new kid Hannan. Spencer has played all practice matches yet is dropped. Hannan has played none and is picked. . For some reason coaches have lost direction at the last minute. I predict a thrashing . Will be happy with 60 points loss. I'm not bullshitting, I think it's an awful team

I'm not saying it's our best team, but only Tyson, Kent, Hibberd and maybe Frost are best 22. Frost is debatable though. If we're serious, VDB isn't.

So I don't think you're going to be that pleased this year if this side is "awful".

[At the break of Gawn 3,697]

19 minutes ago, Farmer said:

If you are pumped to see this team you are easily pumped ! It is a very weak team, without Tyson, Kent, Hibberd, Frost, VdB.

Bugg and Harnes are needed in R1 rather than a new kid Hannan. Spencer has played all practice matches yet is dropped. Hannan has played none and is picked. . For some reason coaches have lost direction at the last minute. I predict a thrashing . Will be happy with 60 points loss. I'm not bullshitting, I think it's an awful team

Frost, VdB and Harmes are not in our best 22. VdB couldn't hit the side of a barn. He lacks the finshing skills of an AFL player but good enough to be a very good VFL player. Harmes is also in that category. Terrific endeavour but lacks the necessary skills of an AFL player. The first thing Goodwin said at the WCE post match was "skill execution and turn overs hurt us". I think Roos/Goodwin have got them all as competitors now so the attention has got to be on our skill execution. I'm a fan of Bugg though as I think he's a terrific runner, but with the rise of our young midfield and the inclusion of Lewis, he's probably just outside. 

I think the biggest gift of an inclusion has been Weiderman. Theres's been lots of speculation about Watts selection yet I felt he showed more in his first half against WCE than Weids showed the entire JLT. 

I can't see a thrashing and am hopeful of a win but won't be surprised if the Etihad/Saints curse continues. 

[Dr. Gonzo 22,637]

4 hours ago, waynewussell said:

Just want to remind a few folk about Hannan's career to date and his value for us. 2015, BOG in Ammos' A-Grade GF for Premiers, St Bernard's. 2016, BOG for Footscray in GF v Casey. I have a very good friend who is an insider at the Dogs who reckons he's  the leap of Howe with X factor.

I'm a bit bemused by Hannans selection but then I was bemused when Hunt was selected against the Pies last year as well.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

Hang on a sec, wasn't I told by 'the people' on here that Jetta was done?

Perhaps they just meant that he was no longer underdone and ready to play.

[Macca 16,174]

20 minutes ago, A F said:

So have you Macca.  I never said you'd said that either. Just that by your rule of having an incompetent ruck you risk losing the game. Watts was handy.

Watts more often than not broke even in the ruck. That doesn't mean he was winning lots of hit outs, just that he was able to neutralise his opponent and that's what we want, IMO. Our mids should be good enough to do the rest.

I remember a half dozen or so times last season where Gawn was being beaten and the ascendancy was with the opposition, and Watts started rucking and managed to impact more than Gawn had.

As for the concern when Gawn's not rucking, I held that view earlier last year until I realised Watts could actually neutralise the contest most times. I know don't hold that concern, although like most Melbourne supporters who watch every match, we'd certainly be strengthened by a B grade back up that could play well forward.

We all see the games differently and how dull would it be if we didn't all see things differently?  I don't share your view AF but that doesn't mean you're right and it doesn't mean I'm wrong. 

If Spencer wasn't going to play in round 1 then why on earth didn't our other relief ruckmen get some work in any of the 3 practice games?  And it's very important that a weak area (in my opinion) at least gets some meaningful practice.  

In an ideal world we'd have a strong 2nd ruck playing (and that 2nd ruck doesn't have to be Spencer) ... breaking even or neutralising sounds a bit 'meh' to me.  Why can't we have a distinct advantage?

One could draw a conclusion that Spencer was earmarked to play in round 1 and the MC baulked at it at the last moment.  Don't be thinking I'm a Spencer fan either - it's all about the team in my eyes.

Here's a thought ... if Gawn stitches up Hickey, it probably won't matter.  But if he doesn't ...

 

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Macca

[bandicoot 1,395]

5 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

Think the panel is quite worried about the Saints ability to spread. Tyson probably the most vulnerable here of all the mids. Searching for additional closing speed with that selection. I don't know a thing about Hannan so the FD must be seeing something on the training track....including speed over first 10 meters or so.

Yep.. picked smith as at 190cm can easily match up against Bruce, membrey or mcartin. Hannan is also 190cm and is quick. Can match it with saints outside mids

[Akum 2,660]

24 minutes ago, Macca said:

We all see the games differently and how dull would it be if we didn't all see things differently?  I don't share your view AF but that doesn't mean you're right and it doesn't mean I'm wrong. 

If Spencer wasn't going to play in round 1 then why on earth didn't our other relief ruckmen get some work in any of the 3 practice games?  And it's very important that a weak area (in my opinion) at least gets some meaningful practice.  

In an ideal world we'd have a strong 2nd ruck playing (and that 2nd ruck doesn't have to be Spencer) ... breaking even or neutralising sounds a bit 'meh' to me.  Why can't we have a distinct advantage?

One could draw a conclusion that Spencer was earmarked to play in round 1 and the MC baulked at it at the last moment.  Don't be thinking I'm a Spencer fan either - it's all about the team in my eyes.

Here's a thought ... if Gawn stitches up Hickey, it probably won't matter.  But if he doesn't ...

 

 

Saints haven't picked Longer so they're going with a makeshift 2nd ruck too. Also interesting that they've gone with 2 tall forwards with one on the bench like we have. Saints know Etihad, and they pick their teams and play it to purpose, so we've probably done the right thing.

Though I do agree with the bolded bit. It's all very well 'experimenting' with Spencer in preseason, but doesn't make sense to give him 3 out of 3 games, while the back-up ruck doesn't contest a single hit-out in the preseason.

 

[brendan 3,418]

Maybe goody playing games, suck us all in thinking ANB Is playing only to switch him with spencer at the last minute 

[Binmans PA 26,514]

48 minutes ago, Macca said:

We all see the games differently and how dull would it be if we didn't all see things differently?  I don't share your view AF but that doesn't mean you're right and it doesn't mean I'm wrong. 

If Spencer wasn't going to play in round 1 then why on earth didn't our other relief ruckmen get some work in any of the 3 practice games?  And it's very important that a weak area (in my opinion) at least gets some meaningful practice.  

Agreed and that all makes sense to me. 

Quote

In an ideal world we'd have a strong 2nd ruck playing (and that 2nd ruck doesn't have to be Spencer) ... breaking even or neutralising sounds a bit 'meh' to me.  Why can't we have a distinct advantage?

Because we had more pressing needs last off season. If there was a cheap ruck/forward option, I'm sure we would have taken him, but instead we looked to strengthen other frailties on our list.

Quote

One could draw a conclusion that Spencer was earmarked to play in round 1 and the MC baulked at it at the last moment.  Don't be thinking I'm a Spencer fan either - it's all about the team in my eyes.

This is quite a likely scenario, but I'd also proffer an equally likely scenario, and that's Watts needed to prove himself, and so without him and a fit Pedersen, Spencer was given the chance to prove himself. In the JLT it seemed to work. That gave the MC a 'good' head ache. But eventually, the speedy Saints on a fast deck at Etihad ruled out playing Spencer and by this point, Watts had ticked off his requirements.

Quote

Here's a thought ... if Gawn stitches up Hickey, it probably won't matter.  But if he doesn't ...

And you're right. If Gawn wins out, I think we win, but if it's close, I think we'll struggle. My feeling is we'll struggle.

Edited March 23, 2017 by A F

[Macca 16,174]

2 minutes ago, Akum said:

Saints haven't picked Longer so they're going with a makeshift 2nd ruck too. Also interesting that they've gone with 2 tall forwards with one on the bench like we have. Saints know Etihad, and they pick their teams and play it to purpose, so we've probably done the right thing.

Though I do agree with the bolded bit. It's all very well 'experimenting' with Spencer in preseason, but doesn't make sense to give him 3 out of 3 games, while the back-up ruck doesn't contest a single hit-out in the preseason.

 

In a closely fought game, I'd rather the team being advantaged in an area that we could be disadvantaged in.  It may not matter of course but with so much attention being paid to detail these days, it may well matter.

I'd have preferred to see the MC give Watts a decent amount of work in the practice games (if he was always going to play as the back-up ruckman in round 1)  I understand he had to sit out the first 2 games but he could have spent at least some time in the ruck in the 3rd game.

Rucking is hard work ... first of all the ruckman needs to know how to protect himself and in turn hurt the opposition ruckman.  Then he needs to possess the ability to win the tap-out and place that tap to the teams advantage.  So practicing the art of ruckwork is imperative.

 

 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

7 hours ago, A F said:

So have you Macca.  I never said you'd said that either. Just that by your rule of having an incompetent ruck you risk losing the game. Watts was handy.

Watts more often than not broke even in the ruck. That doesn't mean he was winning lots of hit outs, just that he was able to neutralise his opponent and that's what we want, IMO. Our mids should be good enough to do the rest.

I remember a half dozen or so times last season where Gawn was being beaten and the ascendancy was with the opposition, and Watts started rucking and managed to impact more than Gawn had.

As for the concern when Gawn's not rucking, I held that view earlier last year until I realised Watts could actually neutralise the contest most times. I know don't hold that concern, although like most Melbourne supporters who watch every match, we'd certainly be strengthened by a B grade back up that could play well forward.

I'm not saying it's our best team, but only Tyson, Kent, Hibberd and maybe Frost are best 22. Frost is debatable though. If we're serious, VDB isn't.

So I don't think you're going to be that pleased this year if this side is "awful".

Frost is best 22, he makes the McDonald's much better.

[Gator 16,921]

9 hours ago, rpfc said:

Hang on a sec, wasn't I told by 'the people' on here that Jetta was done?

This is one of those ill-considered Chinese whispers type posts.

I don't think anyone said he wouldn't get games, but some, like me, can see him having real pressure on his spot in 2017 due to a lack of run and offence to his game. 

[Dr. Gonzo 22,637]

7 hours ago, Akum said:

Saints haven't picked Longer so they're going with a makeshift 2nd ruck too. Also interesting that they've gone with 2 tall forwards with one on the bench like we have. Saints know Etihad, and they pick their teams and play it to purpose, so we've probably done the right thing.

Though I do agree with the bolded bit. It's all very well 'experimenting' with Spencer in preseason, but doesn't make sense to give him 3 out of 3 games, while the back-up ruck doesn't contest a single hit-out in the preseason.

 

It's insurance - if the worst possible happens and Gawn goes down he can step in

[Demon Jack 6,388]

With the inclusions of Smith and Hannan, this is easily the quickest team we've named in quite a few years.

I like it.

[titan_uranus 22,828]

I couldn't have been more surprised to see Hannan get picked after being nowhere during the pre-season, but so be it. As some have pointed out, Hunt came from nowhere when he got selected last year.

I think we've done the right thing by leaving Spencer, Kent and Tyson out and by playing Watts and Weideman. 

There is still plenty of talent missing from the side (Kent, Tyson, Hibberd, Frost, VDB) so pressure is on the fringe players to perform. ANB typically doesn't take these chances so I'll be keen to watch how he goes in a likely Kent/VDB-style half-forward/mid role.

[inanunda 327]

The way things are beeing written on here it is like the season is finished if we don't get over the line tomorrow.

Based on that theory we should have finished top 4 in 2016 after beating GWS in Round One last year.

Need to get a reality check everyone.  

[jackaub 1,402]

14 hours ago, Mickey said:

Don't particularly like the inclusion of ANB as a forward

All he has to do is tackle and stop their rebound surely he can do that

[Deestar9 1,427]

8 hours ago, Macca said:

In a closely fought game, I'd rather the team being advantaged in an area that we could be disadvantaged in.  It may not matter of course but with so much attention being paid to detail these days, it may well matter.

I'd have preferred to see the MC give Watts a decent amount of work in the practice games (if he was always going to play as the back-up ruckman in round 1)  I understand he had to sit out the first 2 games but he could have spent at least some time in the ruck in the 3rd game.

Rucking is hard work ... first of all the ruckman needs to know how to protect himself and in turn hurt the opposition ruckman.  Then he needs to possess the ability to win the tap-out and place that tap to the teams advantage.  So practicing the art of ruckwork is imperative.

 

 

Watts played back up ruck last year & no third man up will play into his hands as well . Spencer deserved his time in the JLT & every week his selection or non selection will be determined on who our opposition is.  We are building a flexible team with a lot of depth....you have to look at the bulldogs who lost so many of their "best" 22 & got to a grand final. I am all for fielding a team of best & fit 22 rather than 22 with some not match fit.  

[Gator 16,921]

44 minutes ago, inanunda said:

The way things are beeing written on here it is like the season is finished if we don't get over the line tomorrow.

Based on that theory we should have finished top 4 in 2016 after beating GWS in Round One last year.

Need to get a reality check everyone.  

Agreed. 

Losing didn't set GWS back on their heels.  In all likelihood if Stevie J plays they beat the Dogs in the prelim and are in the GF.

[jnrmac 19,328]

How quick are Hannan and Smith?

 

[Macca 16,174]

3 minutes ago, Deestar9 said:

Watts played back up ruck last year & no third man up will play into his hands as well . Spencer deserved his time in the JLT & every week his selection or non selection will be determined on who our opposition is.  We are building a flexible team with a lot of depth....you have to look at the bulldogs who lost so many of their "best" 22 & got to a grand final. I am all for fielding a team of best & fit 22 rather than 22 with some not match fit.  

I'm fully aware of the role that Watts played last year Deestar ... and I'm happy for the MC to persevere with Watts as the 2nd ruck (we don't have a lot of other choices unless we play a pure ruck like Spencer) 

My concern is that Watts has had zero practice in the practice matches (ruckwork) and on top of that, he's not a seasoned 2nd ruck anyway.  As previously stated, it may not matter but it might.  

When you can cross all the t's & dot all the i's you do so.  The other concern is the heavy workload on Max.  Can Watts ruck and be effective for 20% of the games?  I hope he can because he might have to. 

[drdrake 3,057]

Looks to me we have gone with skill and speed, happy with the team.  Interested to see how the forward 6 go together Petracca, Watts, Hogan, Weiderman, Garlett and the floating mid through there

[poita 3,710]

For all our supposed depth, that is a fairly ordinary side for round 1. No way Weideman & Neal-Bullen should be playing - Neal Bullen is a VFL player only, and Weideman is at least 12 months off being a decent player. I don't know Hannan at all but it is asking a lot for a bloke who wasn't even played a JLT game.

I love the logic that says that Hannan, Jetta and Garlett can play off one game at Casey, but Tyson and Kent (who both finished top ten in the B&F last year) can not.

I'm worried by our lack of height in the back line, and our lack of cover for any of our key position players. Pedersen at even 50% at least gives us some flexibility that we don't currently have. Frost is a massive out, as he is a good match up for any of St Kilda's tall forwards. I'm glad Spencer wasn't named, but not sure he was given such a prominent role in the pre season if he wasn't part of our plans going forward.