1 hour ago, fndee said:

I would be stoked if they went with three talls. Aside from the 2 Macs I would not try to match up on them, would just run off them all match

pretty hard to run off them all match if they mark the ball constantly ....

I'll ask again - once you send Tommy to Casboult and Oscar to Weitering, if they pick McKay at 200cm and 95kg - who do you send to him ?

I understand we use the diamond defence and help each other out. I understand we rotate players around but if they play all 3 talls forward we are in danger of being constantly outmarked.

I would like to Pedo as a third tall back and ruck relief option but I also think that Goodwin wants more attack so I suspect Tyson and Kent and Carlton will go tall. Goodwin will throw Watts down back for the times they play all 3 in the forward line. Then there is a real opportunity for Tommy and Watts to run off as both are more nimble than their opponents.

6 minutes ago, nutbean said:

pretty hard to run off them all match if they mark the ball constantly ....

I'll ask again - once you send Tommy to Casboult and Oscar to Weitering, if they pick McKay at 200cm and 95kg - who do you send to him ?

I understand we use the diamond defence and help each other out. I understand we rotate players around but if they play all 3 talls forward we are in danger of being constantly outmarked.

I would like to Pedo as a third tall back and ruck relief option but I also think that Goodwin wants more attack so I suspect Tyson and Kent and Carlton will go tall. Goodwin will throw Watts down back for the times they play all 3 in the forward line. Then there is a real opportunity for Tommy and Watts to run off as both are more nimble than their opponents.

I think Weitering played on Rance for a learning experiance. He may do the same again to learn off TMac but if they do bring in Mckay as you sugest, I would think Weitering is every chance to go back. Especially when you add in Silvagni who is also 191 and is capable of playing as a 3rd tall.

27 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I'll ask again - once you send Tommy to Casboult and Oscar to Weitering, if they pick McKay at 200cm and 95kg - who do you send to him ?

 

Who played on Bruce, Reiwoldt and Membrey last week when Smith was injured?  McKay hasn't played a game yet and looked totally lost at Casey.

They may play him but I reckon any player could spoil him.  I think you panic for no reason.  If they do play him I'll be pleased.  No defensive pressure, first game nerves and the McDonald brothers around to stop people marking. At best he'll mark a couple and may kick a couple of goals.  We'll get more from rebounds with Jones, Lewis, Hunt and others running out of the backline.  Like good teams, we'll just have to adjust.

What's your suggestion Nut?  Pedersen?

 

46 minutes ago, nutbean said:

pretty hard to run off them all match if they mark the ball constantly ....

I'll ask again - once you send Tommy to Casboult and Oscar to Weitering, if they pick McKay at 200cm and 95kg - who do you send to him ?

I understand we use the diamond defence and help each other out. I understand we rotate players around but if they play all 3 talls forward we are in danger of being constantly outmarked.

I would like to Pedo as a third tall back and ruck relief option but I also think that Goodwin wants more attack so I suspect Tyson and Kent and Carlton will go tall. Goodwin will throw Watts down back for the times they play all 3 in the forward line. Then there is a real opportunity for Tommy and Watts to run off as both are more nimble than their opponents.

So why did Bruce, Membrey and Riewoldt not give us any real problems last weekend?  Granted, Roo kicked a few but the bloke is a champion and has cut us up for a decade.  The other two barely got near it.

As VP says above, you're panicking about nothing.

One thing that last week showed is Goodwin is prepared to select a team for the opposition and the venue. Remember last year when we made selection mistakes relatively often?

Goody said against the Saints they wanted a fast forward line that could put pressure on the Saints rebounding defenders. He selected the team for that and had a lot of people questioning Hannan's inclusion. I suspect he will select this week's team for the opposition as well. And with players that are 100% fit. 

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

So why did Bruce, Membrey and Riewoldt not give us any real problems last weekend?  Granted, Roo kicked a few but the bloke is a champion and has cut us up for a decade.  The other two barely got near it.

As VP says above, you're panicking about nothing.

Weller I think missed 3 or 4 relatively shots that could have made quite a difference. 

Just now, jnrmac said:

Weller I think missed 3 or 4 relatively shots that could have made quite a difference. 

What does that have to do with it?  Weller isn't a tall forward.

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

Weller I think missed 3 or 4 relatively shots that could have made quite a difference. 

If would of and could of happen then the other could of and would of would not have been, there are many would  of and could of

59 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

What does that have to do with it?  Weller isn't a tall forward.

Fair enough, Thought you were talking fwds..

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

So why did Bruce, Membrey and Riewoldt not give us any real problems last weekend?  Granted, Roo kicked a few but the bloke is a champion and has cut us up for a decade.  The other two barely got near it.

As VP says above, you're panicking about nothing.

 

2 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Who played on Bruce, Reiwoldt and Membrey last week when Smith was injured?  McKay hasn't played a game yet and looked totally lost at Casey.

They may play him but I reckon any player could spoil him.  I think you panic for no reason.  If they do play him I'll be pleased.  No defensive pressure, first game nerves and the McDonald brothers around to stop people marking. At best he'll mark a couple and may kick a couple of goals.  We'll get more from rebounds with Jones, Lewis, Hunt and others running out of the backline.  Like good teams, we'll just have to adjust.

What's your suggestion Nut?  Pedersen?

 

Sigh...I'll have another go  - TALL forwards - why even discuss Membrey  ?He is 188 cm  - mid size and we had any number of players who could have gone to him. That is the reason why it did not have an impact when Smith went off. If StKilda had McCartin in the side Smith's injury may have caused a little extra concern for us.

McKay (200cm) was in the best last week , kicked 4 goals . Casboult (201cm) will get one of the Mac's . If Weitering  (195cm and plays tall) plays forward which I expect him to, he will get the other Mac. So McKay who is tall marking forward  -  who will you play on him ? To say anyone can play spoil him shows disrespect for the player - apart from the Macs - he is at least 10 cms and 10 kilos heavier than our next defender. Still haven't got an answer from anyone.

VP - How exactly will we adjust  ? My view is one of two - Tyson IMO is a lock - leaving Bugg or Kent as the other - if we go that way AND they select McKay AND they play three talls forward then we may start smaller but if they start marking the pill then Watts (preferred as he has played back) or The Weed may need to go back ( we have even sent Hogan back at times but it is obvious where his most use to us is). Or we select Pedo - but he is not seen as the future.

Either way - we are definitely one tall back short at the moment and at the start of the season we would have been thinking Frost/Smith - Garland as depth. 

I suspect this is where most of the discussion will be for match committee this week.

Edit - I'm not panicking as there are options but none of them are ideal IMO and I anxiously await the return of Smith and the availability of Frost. We need one more tall back

1 minute ago, nutbean said:

VP - How exactly will we adjust  ? My view is one of two - Tyson IMO is a lock - leaving Bugg or Kent as the other - if we go that way AND they select McKay AND they play three talls forward then we may start smaller but if they start marking the pill then Watts (preferred as he has played back) or The Weed may need to go back ( we have even sent Hogan back at times but it is obvious where his most use to us is). Or we select Pedo - but he is not seen as the future.
 

I agree, we are one tall short.  Frost is very important to us I think but will get a game at Casey I'd imagine.  He might come straight in but I doubt it.

And I also agree with pushing Watts back if they start marking it and I agree with bringing Tyson and another small in.  Hell, we could play a really small forward line and expose their tall defenders!

I guess I just don't see a first game 200cm tall who looks way off the pace being a problem. 

3 minutes ago, nutbean said:

McKay (200cm) was in the best last week , kicked 4 goals . Casboult (201cm) will get one of the Mac's . If Weitering  (195cm and plays tall) plays forward which I expect him to, he will get the other Mac. So McKay who is tall marking forward  -  who will you play on him ? To say anyone can play spoil him shows disrespect for the player - apart from the Macs - he is at least 10 cms and 10 kilos heavier than our next defender. Still haven't got an answer from anyone.

I think if they bring McKay in, which is quite likely, then they will probably drop Casboult who was a liability for them last week.

If the rumour is true that Bolton has been instructed to play kids and build for the future, I don't see a future for Casboult.

You are worrying about something that will probably not happen.

Just now, rjay said:

I think if they bring McKay in, which is quite likely, then they will probably drop Casboult who was a liability for them last week.

If the rumour is true that Bolton has been instructed to play kids and build for the future, I don't see a future for Casboult.

You are worrying about something that will probably not happen.

Casboult is spectacular for about 5 minutes a game and it would not surprise me if he is dropped.

As a general comment - would you not agree that a full strength Melbourne team would have one more tall either in the team or on the bench  - aka  - Frost or Smith ?

As I said above - not panicked or worrying - we have options but they are all not perfect with our injuries and my belief is that our team need three talls that play in the back half

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

pretty hard to run off them all match if they mark the ball constantly ....

I'll ask again - once you send Tommy to Casboult and Oscar to Weitering, if they pick McKay at 200cm and 95kg - who do you send to him ?

I understand we use the diamond defence and help each other out. I understand we rotate players around but if they play all 3 talls forward we are in danger of being constantly outmarked.

I would like to Pedo as a third tall back and ruck relief option but I also think that Goodwin wants more attack so I suspect Tyson and Kent and Carlton will go tall. Goodwin will throw Watts down back for the times they play all 3 in the forward line. Then there is a real opportunity for Tommy and Watts to run off as both are more nimble than their opponents.

This is such a common fallacy and it keeps cropping up - that playing three talls in the forward line gives you massive marking power and a huge advantage. It simply doesn't.

Say, for the sake of argument, they do pick McKay in addition to the other two, and we put Jayden Hunt on him. They'll only have a marking advantage is if they can isolate Hunt one-on-one against McKay. This means their highly-skilled (cough cough) mids would have to move the ball fast and precise, with neither of the Macs within range, and pinpoint that final pass low & hard to McKay's advantage in the contest. Extremely unlikely. Especially= if McKay in his first game turns out not to be as good a contested mark as Hogan.

It's far more likely they'd bomb it high, thinking that would exploit their height advantage. But it won't. It makes it far easier for the Macs to get to the fall of the ball, and if there's more than 2 from each side flying for the ball, it will just about always hit the ground.

Even if McKay against Hunt does work for them once or twice, then Hunt will spend the whole game running unopposed out of defence setting up scoring chains.

I learnt my lesson in the drawn QB game against the PIes, in about 2010 or 2011, when they were one of the best teams in the comp. They went in with Cloke & Leigh Brown in hot form in the forward line, and also picked Josh Fraser. We had Frawley, and one other defender, and I think because of injuries our third tall was Joel McDonald. I thought we'd get killed in the air, but the threat didn't materialise, and we nearly beat them because we played an extra small and ran them off their feet.

We've had a number of games since where we've lost because we went in too tall. I can't remember a game where we've lost because we went in too small.

If Carlton play three tall forwards, they'll be handing us the game on a silver platter.

5 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Casboult is spectacular for about 5 minutes a game and it would not surprise me if he is dropped.

As a general comment - would you not agree that a full strength Melbourne team would have one more tall either in the team or on the bench  - aka  - Frost or Smith ?

As I said above - not panicked or worrying - we have options but they are all not perfect with our injuries and my belief is that our team need three talls that play in the back half

Would love to see Smith in, he started so well last week and would really give us something else in defence. Pity about the injury, looked like we'd found another one there.

I'm not as convinced with Frosty...just seems to run around like a headless chook at times. If only we could harness his athletic ability, a real test for Macca and the development boys.

Pedo is not an option as a 3rd tall in defence I don't think, he could be coverage for one of the Mac boys but not with them. Doesn't give us enough run and carry.

10 minutes ago, Akum said:

This is such a common fallacy and it keeps cropping up - that playing three talls in the forward line gives you massive marking power and a huge advantage. It simply doesn't.

Say, for the sake of argument, they do pick McKay in addition to the other two, and we put Jayden Hunt on him. They'll only have a marking advantage is if they can isolate Hunt one-on-one against McKay. This means their highly-skilled (cough cough) mids would have to move the ball fast and precise, with neither of the Macs within range, and pinpoint that final pass low & hard to McKay's advantage in the contest. Extremely unlikely. Especially= if McKay in his first game turns out not to be as good a contested mark as Hogan.

It's far more likely they'd bomb it high, thinking that would exploit their height advantage. But it won't. It makes it far easier for the Macs to get to the fall of the ball, and if there's more than 2 from each side flying for the ball, it will just about always hit the ground.

Even if McKay against Hunt does work for them once or twice, then Hunt will spend the whole game running unopposed out of defence setting up scoring chains.

I learnt my lesson in the drawn QB game against the PIes, in about 2010 or 2011, when they were one of the best teams in the comp. They went in with Cloke & Leigh Brown in hot form in the forward line, and also picked Josh Fraser. We had Frawley, and one other defender, and I think because of injuries our third tall was Joel McDonald. I thought we'd get killed in the air, but the threat didn't materialise, and we nearly beat them because we played an extra small and ran them off their feet.

We've had a number of games since where we've lost because we went in too tall. I can't remember a game where we've lost because we went in too small.

If Carlton play three tall forwards, they'll be handing us the game on a silver platter.

I never suggested it was a massive advantage but by the same token I have watched Neville Jetta get caught out in the diamond defense a number of times manning up against someone twice his height and that was when we did play 3 talls back. 3 talls forwards fallacy is not always a fallacy  - the Bulldogs won the grand final with 3 talls up forward - Boyd, Roberts and Stringer and Hawks during all their glory days played three talls up forward. (no - I am not saying that the quality of Carltons talls are anywhere near the above). We play with three tall forwards don't we ? (and they took 16 marks between them last week)

With Smith out we are either going to pick Pedo ( which I doubt), pick Frost  ( which I also doubt he is ready fitness wise - maybe a few games at Casey), or an out of left field option  - or go smaller in the backline. That is the simple facts.

If I was sitting at match committee i would look at our forwards and say - yup - happy . Look at our mids and say - got them covered. Then look at their forwards against our backs  - again not great concern but all I am suggesting is that without Smith we, in all likelyhood will be one tall down in the back half. If I was Carlton I would be selecting all 3 and see if it can be an advantage. Try and stretch our defense with height.

That is all I am saying. No panic- no worrying - just something to think about.

31 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

I'm not as convinced with Frosty...just seems to run around like a headless chook at times. If only we could harness his athletic ability, a real test for Macca and the development boys.

 

Agree - except I saw a few games last year when he play in defense ( he will never be a forward) where he ran like a chook with his head on and played really well - so it is a matter if that can be harnessed on a consistent basis. ( a massive "if")

We could play Watts back if we need a match up on a taller/medium player in defence...

Dare I say it - but it might be a good game to 'blood' someone as we are only playing the lowly Demons...er, Blues.

I reckon Frost and Tyson

Frost can mark and has rebound and is hard at the contest / tackle

Given smith and other injuries they will want him up and about quick

Hasn't got the jlt prep but is very fit.

He can do the job.

17 hours ago, DubDee said:

Ha, I agree. He had a poor game. Him and goody were at pains to say he played well but zero tackles/pressure acts. No intensity or aggression especially in the first half. 

He better improve this week

JW made a good contribution, both pinch hitting in the ruck as we were getting on top, contesting in the forward line, and showing a cool head under pressure several times.  He certainly didnt have a poor game.  Still our most reliable disposer of the ball and glaringly well above others mentioned in this thread....

Out: Slow tentative starts

In: Guns blazing from first bounce for four quarters.

Why are people worried about the possibility of a first gamer 3rd tall forward taking us to the cleaners ? Carlton should be worried IF we pick Mckay how can we stop this ballastic, fast paced Melbourne side... We will run them off their feet with or without their 3rd tall forward.. If they play one then it just plays into our hands even more

7 hours ago, Webber said:

All this Oscar bagging is odd to me. Considering how few games he's played, and how tall players always take longer to develop, I think Oscar's trajectory and early career form is actually really exciting. Particularly considering the clear simpatico he has with his brother. In a few years, we'll be talking about them as MFC legends in the vein of the Febey brothers. 

What will be much better than an Oscar McDonald who has played 18 games is an Oscar who has played 40 games at the end of this season, or 60 or so games at the end of 2018.

He has some good attributes, but he is a project player who needs to experience the pressure and speed of the highest level (AFL) to maximise his learning, not get stuck in the VFL where it may be all too easy for him.

52 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I never suggested it was a massive advantage but by the same token I have watched Neville Jetta get caught out in the diamond defense a number of times manning up against someone twice his height and that was when we did play 3 talls back. 3 talls forwards fallacy is not always a fallacy  - the Bulldogs won the grand final with 3 talls up forward - Boyd, Roberts and Stringer and Hawks during all their glory days played three talls up forward. (no - I am not saying that the quality of Carltons talls are anywhere near the above). We play with three tall forwards don't we ? (and they took 16 marks between them last week)

With Smith out we are either going to pick Pedo ( which I doubt), pick Frost  ( which I also doubt he is ready fitness wise - maybe a few games at Casey), or an out of left field option  - or go smaller in the backline. That is the simple facts.

If I was sitting at match committee i would look at our forwards and say - yup - happy . Look at our mids and say - got them covered. Then look at their forwards against our backs  - again not great concern but all I am suggesting is that without Smith we, in all likelyhood will be one tall down in the back half. If I was Carlton I would be selecting all 3 and see if it can be an advantage. Try and stretch our defense with height.

That is all I am saying. No panic- no worrying - just something to think about.

Yeah, fair enough, it's a reasonable point to consider. It's a matter of whether it works out to be more a weakness or more a strength for them. And that depends on a number of other things.

In my opinion it works only with rapid precise ball movement (Hawks & Dogs), pinpoint delivery into the f50 (Hawks) or a flotilla of smalls at the feet to gather the crumbs (Dogs).

For it to work for Carlton against us, a lot of other things would have to go badly wrong e.g. getting smashed in midfield + allowing them to move the ball like threepeat Hawks + multiple horrendous turnovers that catch us out of position + first-gamer tearing it up + our whole defence having a collective shocker. Or we just don't come to play with the same intensity. If so, it will be all those other things that do us in.

27 minutes ago, JV7 said:

Why are people worried about the possibility of a first gamer 3rd tall forward taking us to the cleaners ? Carlton should be worried IF we pick Mckay how can we stop this ballastic, fast paced Melbourne side... We will run them off their feet with or without their 3rd tall forward.. If they play one then it just plays into our hands even more

once last reply and then I am out....

I don't think anyone is worried about the possibility of a first gamer taking us to the cleaners. However, you if don't think that match committee and coaches do not look at match-ups and contingencies then think again. If I was Carlton I would not try to stop our pace out of the forward line by going small and hoping to keep up - I would go tall and try and isolate Oscar Mac as StKilda did in the first quarter, bypass Tommy Mac and outmark us.  

We have lost a player that plays tall from our backline and we do not an obvious suitable tall replacement unless Frost comes up. There is a distinct possibility that Carlton will go tall in the forward line. The match committee will be deciding who to bring in and if we go with two smaller players as replacements then they will also discuss who to play on Carltons 3rd tall. It may be someone undersized, it may be someone who played forward last week. 

There are very few decisions to be made at match committee this week on match ups. They don't have two rucks so i dont think Spencer will play. Although Tyson is not the same as Bernie ( playing HBF) we have enough obvious rotations that it is not a problem so I see his inclusion as a certainty . The only real discussions will be which Mac takes which key forward if both Weitering and Casboult play and who will take the new boy.