Just now, Demons11 said:

Meh??? Yeah bring in our best forward and targeted off season recruit and we are definitely worse off. Mate please 

I said 'some'

Open your eyes ffs

18 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

 

Still I'm happy enough that we at least brought in Smith, as he looked alot like a goer in his first outing against Geeeelong.

you must have watched a different game then. not meaning to bag smithy but he had a stinker.

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

you must have watched a different game then. not meaning to bag smithy but he had a stinker.

Tim has got another chance to help give us forward structure when Watts rucks and Jesse might be up the ground a bit, or just to make the mids give first option, instead of chipping sideways and turning it over. 

That has killed us the last couple of games in addition to poor kicking. 

Smith should have been ahead of Weid last week.

Hogan and Hibberd are no brainers.

JKH is a surprise but it sounds like Kent had an ordinary game in the VFL so it looks like it was the right decision.

Does anybody know how many tackles JKH got last week in the VFL?

Bugg is unlucky but we can't fit them all in.

2 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

His replacement in JKH offers less. JKH is one of the slowest indigenous players I've ever seen. On top of his lack of speed he doesn't win much ball, doesn't hit the scoreboard much, doesn't lay a lot of tackles and isn't very damaging with ball in hand. He's a list clogger IMO and his inclusion in place of Kent is a poor one.

I actually thought JKH looked substantially pacier in the JLT games and I suspect foot speed has been a focus as I'd agree with your assessment based on history.

He's not Kent quick, but I don't think he is slow anymore, and he's always had some evasiveness similar to Jetta who is also not quick.

This year has already seen several "surprising" omissions or non-selections if you look at stats sheet or reputation alone. I think this is a great sign as it means if you're not doing the critical things asked if you, you're not safe no matter the number of disposals, goals or past record.

That's really healthy and I can only imagine JKH has done lots right in the eyes of the coaches, and Kent hasn't.

1 minute ago, WERRIDEE said:

Smith should have been ahead of Weid last week.

Hogan and Hibberd are no brainers.

JKH is a surprise but it sounds like Kent had an ordinary game in the VFL so it looks like it was the right decision.

Does anybody know how many tackles JKH got last week in the VFL?

Bugg is unlucky but we can't fit them all in.

3

Edited April 22, 20178 yr by dazzledavey36

I just don't get it. How can Melksham keep his spot in the side. It makes me suspicious.

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

you must have watched a different game then. not meaning to bag smithy but he had a stinker.

Maybe Balls meant J Smith?

2 minutes ago, dl4e said:

I just don't get it. How can Melksham keep his spot in the side. It makes me suspicious.

If he has another poor game I think he'll make way for Lewis.

19 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

you must have watched a different game then. not meaning to bag smithy but he had a stinker.

No, I did mean T Smith and just looking back on his stats for that night, you are correct, they alone don't paint a pretty picture.  But I did like his attack on the footy, the man and the intent that Tim showed and if he had a sinker that night, then it bodes well for when he plays an average/typical game.

Edited April 22, 20178 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

5 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Maybe Balls meant J Smith?

maybe

6 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Maybe Balls meant J Smith?

No, but J Smith also certainly shows potential... Just needs to improve his kicking and decision making, from what I saw JLT and Rd 1, he was a little untidy in these regards, but certainly looks like a keeper though.

So god damn happy Bull is back in the team!! Yeah he had a quiet second half in his debut but the bloke has worked so hard for his opportunities it's satisfying to see that getting rewarded.

Genuinely happy with two ins and one of the outs. Hogan and Hibberd make us a better team. Weidemann out is a no brainer on form. However I think there are still quite a few NQRs in the team this week and I I'm not sure the balance is ideal.

Good on Tim Smith for working his bum off to get into the team but I'll be genuinely stunned if he ends up playing more than 20 games for us in his career. I hope I'm wrong but I don't see enough AFL attributes in him.

JKH has teased his whole career but never delivered yet. And on top of that, hasn't played much footy since his injury. He is talented so I hope he comes good but I'm not sure he's ready for selection just yet. Maybe he'll get a role as a small defender in the Jetta mould? Although he lacks a bit of pace so not sure how he'd cope with Richmond's smalls. But he is usually pretty smart with the footy so hopefully he can get his hands on it more than he has in the past.

Our forward half looks a lot slower without Kent and Hannan in the side so Hogan, Watts and Smith will need to bring plenty of pressure to compliment Garlett and ANB.

Just on ANB, his start to the year has been promising, but there is still a query on his decision making under pressure. Same with Harmes who is hard at the footy and great overhead but a horrible user of the footy. Melksham should consider himself the luckiest bloke in the 22. If his form continues he'll be swapped out for Lewis next week. Tyson is also lucky. I don't think there is a player on the list with a bigger gap between his best and worst... he is nowhere near top gear and needs to use the footy well to justify a spot as he is a defensive liability due to his pace. Bugg should consider himself stiff on last week's effort.

Overall, I think we are probably fielding a slightly better side this week for the inclusions of Hogan and Hibberd but I'm not sure the other two changes improve our structure or the quality of the personnel on the field. I think we've made too many changes and are making a bit of a habit of rushing blokes back a touch early. 

Had Bugg in my top 6 last week. Surely Bugg was a decent run with option (part time) for Dusty and another competitive beast around the mid field where we have been off a little so far this year? Shows you how much I know.

Smith ahead of Pedders after last week's performance? I'm a huge Bull fan but most attendees had Pedders in the top 4 players and Smith just a so so game.  Pedders also allows Watts to avoid the ruck (maybe a very brief cameo or two), surely this is the best option!? Having our best ball user and most accurate kick in front of goals, the opportunity to play more game time in the role he is most damaging? Pedders must be this year's Dunny. Wouldn't matter what level he performs at Casey, has probably been branded as a non-required 'senior' option by the Demon hierarchy already.

As I've said so many times and will continue to say, DONT BRAND ANYONE...PERMANENTLY.  Just play whoever the hell is in the best form for the role required and give them a decent 2 to 3 weeks to settle and show if they can bring that same form (or very close to it) at AFL level.

JKH? Wish him all the best but has so far failed to make the step up to AFL level. I hope he makes a difference though and is a much improved player than what we saw early on. He would want to be but again, the selection committee needs to grow some balls and back their judgment and, unlike their rediculous and gutless "in one week out the next, in the next" Smithy decision, give JKH at least a 2 to 3 week run at it to find the pace and his feet at AFL level.

I had Kent at about the same level as Harmes and in the top 10 players so far although it was only two matches and we saw a drop off last week against the Dockers and as some have said he hasn't really set the scoreboard alight. Would have thrown down the gauntlet and challenged him with one more week to show he can do better.  JKH to back up last week's reasonable game at Casey once more before before committing to a decent stint at senior level if Kent doesn't lift this week.

Hibberd in but Melk stays? Is that correct? Surely not. I rate O-Mac & Melk at a similar level in terms of what they add to the team so not sure how Melk stays when he hasn't really given us any significant improvement on O-Mac. Surely a direct swap with Hibberd?

If we have a big win I will happily shut my trap and just like Sarjent Schultz admit that when it comes to selections....

Edited April 22, 20178 yr by Rusty Nails

I'll add to the chorus of why the [censored] is Melksham still in. Bugg at his worst could play Melksham's role as well as he is. 

I get that Kent is frustrating, but this would be a good game for Kent and Garlett to get some "they're out here" gimme goals over the back when Richmond try their maniacal press. 

Kent I believe is leading the club in score involvements. It's an interesting decision. Seemed deflated at Casey. Doubt he expected to be playing tonight. 

Seems fairly straightforward. Every player has a role to play, and a way to play it - as do their team mates. Not playing to instructions will get you dropped, while toiling manfully at what you're supposed to be doing, even if it doesn't always come off, will get you the support of the coaches and presumably, team mates.

9 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Pardon my ignorance but do either of Hibberd or Smith provide relief rucking or is it still up to Jack?

thanks

Smith played second ruck for portions of the Geelong game.

6 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

All I can think of is that he must be doing something right, regardless of how Goodwin rates him.  I'd love to know the stats of the players he is playing on during a game.  Perhaps, defensively, he has been terrific, even if he hasn't given us a whole lot going the other way yet.

Melksham's game was ordinary last week, but he offers run off half back. Bugg is a slowish winger, come half forward.

6 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

You don't think the club have considered this, Trav?  Kent might be quick, but if he isn't doing the team things within the structure (which is why I assume he was dropped) then it's the right decision.  We have enough players to create the pressure we need across half forward.

Hopefully, his omission burns in him too and it inspires him to work hard on his deficiencies at Casey.

5 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

I'll add to the chorus of why the [censored] is Melksham still in. Bugg at his worst could play Melksham's role as well as he is. 

I get that Kent is frustrating, but this would be a good game for Kent and Garlett to get some "they're out here" gimme goals over the back when Richmond try their maniacal press. 

This.

Melksham was awful last week, and I thought he would make way, but against popular opinion, I thought he was solid the previous 3 weeks, so I can roll with him playing.

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Sorry for taking up your precious time, if it's such a hindrance to read then feel free to ignore my posts.

I did post my thoughts on selection before going back to read the thread. The defensive aspect to Kent makes sense however I dont see JKH as the answer and I would've thought Kent had earned at least another crack. He's the type of player who can bob up for 3 or 4 goals which is something we'll need on Monday. I think it's an error by the match committee, I hope to be proven wrong.

I wasn't aiming for it to be intended like that. Perhaps I should have used more of these  ??

9 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Sorry, but don't buy this.  Why would the MFC bother re-signing Pedersen at the end of last season if it was the case?

Still I'm happy enough that we at least brought in Smith, as he looked alot like a goer in his first outing against Geeeelong.

I can't see it any other way about Pedersen - and I actually quite like him. He does very well in marking contests, typically good defensive pressure, and I believe he has deserved a spot now before wiederman (considering his lithe frame)...clearly I am missing something -  perhaps thats why I'm a keyboard warrior and not on the selection panel eh...

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Someone will make way for him and if it's not Melksham its out of Stretch, ANB, Vince, Harmes and JKH 

Stretch (4th) ANB (8th) & Harmes (9th) are all tracking top 10 statistically on weighted averages so far this year Dr.  Would have to put in very ordinary games and be very unlucky to be dropped. Stranger things have happened at the MFC though eg, Kent, ranked 10th on averages. Last week's performance saw him drop to 18th (last week's results only).

Edited April 22, 20178 yr by Rusty Nails

Don't like the Kent dropping because JKH will never be able to replicate half of what he is capable of.