Melksham got the Lumumba vibe going on already it seems, no matter how bad he is, he'll always have his defenders. 

This may just be a 4 game sample size with us, but this is exactly how he was at Essendon. 

If turning the ball over, not tackling and not going hard is playing a role and meeting requirements, sign me up, I'll play for free. 

I'm sure there are KPIs we don't know about that players like Smith and JKH are meeting and Kent and Pedersen are not meeting.

But when there are repeated instances in the first 5 selections of a season where large portions of the fanbase are taken by surprise and where decisions don't appear to align with the evidence available, it's wholly unsurprising that the result is a lot of critiquing.

IMO the balance is not yet right (not in terms of talls v smalls or inside v outside, but in terms of personnel).

3 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

Vince isn't a defenders bootlace, yet he's wasted a season and a bit down there. No reason why Bugg can't be put in Melksham's position to do it just as rubbish or better. 

By the way, you're having a go at old mate Satyricon (which I usually love), but your last few posts have sounded a lot like him. Footy department is king blah blah. 

Hang on. So just because WB doesn't agree with the mindbogglingly idiotic requests from supporters who have no idea about KPIs or any other internal expectations, he's an FD apologist? Come on, mate. There's some grey. 

12 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Why do you agree?  Was I turning up in threads getting stuck into posters and not offering a respectful point of view?

Most of the posters in here must sound like him too as they generally agree, in this case, with my sentiments.

Also on the topic of these "KPIs" no one knows about, surely Pedersen, in slimming down considerably over the off season and starting off at Casey winning an absolute stack of the ball must be working on at least two of the "KPIs" the club has set him?

Just now, A F said:

Hang on. So just because WB doesn't agree with the mindbogglingly idiotic requests from supporters who have no idea about KPIs or any other internal expectations, he's an FD apologist? Come on, mate. There's some grey. 

There are always idiotic requests and what not. Amongst them, some prove right in the end. It annoys me no end when people say I trust the footy department to etc etc.., Yeah, no [censored] the footy department runs the show, it should go without saying on here. What are you going to do if you don't trust them, go down there and tell them the right way?

We could change the name of this place to Agreemonland and just come and agree with the footy department each week. That'll be swell. 

 

As for what you were saying earlier about players that don't play Melksham's role, I skimmed a bit, but in Hibberd out Melksham seems pretty simple. 

2 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Also on the topic of these "KPIs" no one knows about, surely Pedersen, in slimming down considerably over the off season and starting off at Casey winning an absolute stack of the ball must be working on at least two of the "KPIs" the club has set him?

Do they think that, with the inclusion of Pedersen, we are going in too tall?  The Tigers have improved largely through the efforts of their small and mid size players and having Pedersen, Hogan and Watts in the same forward line may feel a little tall.  Smith can play the medium forward role and provide the defensive efforts we are after.

Not saying that's right, it's just a thought.

30 minutes ago, poita said:

Our balance was pretty good in the first game, even though Smith was injured early. We replaced Smith with a smaller player, then Hogan with another small. It cost us big time against Geelong when Gawn went down and we had nobody to spell Watts in the ruck. Another tall would have been handy against Freo as well. Now we have gone taller again this week, so the balance looks better.

The number of changes made each week suggests that we are still not getting selection right, or the players are not capable of following the coaches instructions. I would prefer a more settled side, rather than dropping blokes and selecting again the following week for no apparent reason. And why Melksham is still in the team is beyond me - there are ten better options at Casey.

I'd agree with this. 2017 was always going to see some teething and exploration of who could play what and how well they could play positions. I don't expect us to get this spot on until 2018ish.

Jake Melkshams biggest Kpi is that he is Goodwins mate, recruited to be a good kick off half back, only he's not a good kick so really we're paying him 450k a year to be goodys mate

19 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

... where large portions of the fanbase ...

Don't kid yourself.

A handful of malcontents on a footy forum is not a large portion of anything.

3 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

As for what you were saying earlier about players that don't play Melksham's role, I skimmed a bit, but in Hibberd out Melksham seems pretty simple. 

I think it's clear (going by JLT selections) that we want as much run off half back as possible. Hence, selections like Joel Smith, along with Hibberd and Melksham. So I don't think the FD were after a like for like. They want to maximise this, so we need both playing.

For the record, I've never rated Melksham and was gobsmacked when we went after him, but he's with us now and Goody clearly wants him playing a role. His game last week was incipid and he'll have to improve markedly, but he can play a role for us this week and was passable in his first three matches, unlike, say, Kent, who laid two tackles in two games, playing as a pressure half forward.

11 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

There are always idiotic requests and what not. Amongst them, some prove right in the end.

Coincidence, regression to the mean, etc. etc. A broken clock is right twice a day.

20 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Why do you agree?  Was I turning up in threads getting stuck into posters and not offering a respectful point of view?

Most of the posters in here must sound like him too as they generally agree, in this case, with my sentiments.

Wrong, the coach makes the decisions, if you haven't played AFL football who are you to comment on it?

Very surprised at a couple of things also this year.

The JKH selection after watching the game last weekend. Thought he was very underwhelming. If they wanted a similar role player I would have given it to Ben K who looked a lot more agressive and dangerous.

Also, if im picking a Tim Smith or Bugg I'd be giving them at least two weeks to show there worth unless one came in for a b/22 players who was out for one week.

Its so important for continuity in your game and these 'week in week out' scenarios are ordinary imo

 

2 minutes ago, deeko said:

Very surprised at a couple of things also this year.

The JKH selection after watching the game last weekend. Thought he was very underwhelming. If they wanted a similar role player I would have given it to Ben K who looked a lot more agressive and dangerous.

Also, if im picking a Tim Smith or Bugg I'd be giving them at least two weeks to show there worth unless one came in for a b/22 players who was out for one week.

Its so important for continuity in your game and these 'week in week out' scenarios are ordinary imo

 

Fair point deeko.  In the past I've been a fan of allowing players to have a fortnight to see how they go in the senior side, but for some it seems that they aren't being afforded this luxury this year.

On the flip side you could argue that players are being told to come in and play their role straight away, otherwise they are out of the side.  It's harsh, but at the same time we're at a different point in our journey than we were 2-3 years ago.  We need to be a little more ruthless to get to where we want to go.

1 hour ago, Deestroy All said:

There are always idiotic requests and what not. Amongst them, some prove right in the end.

Such as with the collective decisions by only half of the footy departments every weekend. The selection panel may know better than us, but then our opposition selection panel thinks it knows better than them, so it's right for us to question the whole goddamned universe and whether or not there can ever be such a thing as ontological certainty. 

5 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Would take Buggy in the team any day ahead of Melk, and I bet he could play the same role much better.

If Melksham has another poor game and isnt dropped, serious questions will have to be asked.  We will see tomorrow night.

 

 

Have you seen Bugg kick at AFL level? There is a reason when he gets there he has 6 kicks and 16 handballs. I have also never seen him play in the defensive 6. 

 

3 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Thanks, Saty.

That's below the belt.

6 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well in the case of neeld it ultimately did turn out that we were the experts - lol

Well we did give him slightly more time to [censored] things up.....

6 hours ago, Stretch Johnson said:

JKH did well in the JLT games that he played.

He's obviously highly rated and part of our plans.  Not surprised to see him included.

JKH, i think we will find, is in there for a good reason.

4 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

Melksham got the Lumumba vibe going on already it seems, no matter how bad he is, he'll always have his defenders. 

This may just be a 4 game sample size with us, but this is exactly how he was at Essendon. 

If turning the ball over, not tackling and not going hard is playing a role and meeting requirements, sign me up, I'll play for free. 

Yep, Agree and also think him a protected species! BIG game coming up for him. If he plays poorly tommorrow the Demonland faithful will shout the place down!

Including meek and mild me!

I see the logic in not changing the back 6 too much as they need to gel. Maybe that why melsham should is still in. Goody would have expected a slow start from melksham. 

Goody I reckon is a system coach. He will pick poorer players that play the system /structure better then other players getting more disposals for example. Eg kent out. 

Lets see how we go tomorrow before we call for the sack ?

5 hours ago, Biffen said:

Agree that Goodwin should have free reign.

His job ,his team and duty to get the four points each week.

Agree,

To get back to the OP as well. There is no harm critiquing selection but at 2 & 2 it's a bit premature.

Maybe if we are 2 - 6 it's the time to start asking serious questons

I know how frowned upon evidence is on this site, but Melksham is going at 76% efficiency this year. 11th best in the team and ahead of names such as Watts, Jones, Petracca, Vince, Hunt, Garlett, Hogan, Tyson....... 

8 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Pedersen is proven at AFL level. 

He is far from a proven AFL level player.

A 2 club player who hasn't established himself as a regular at either club by the age of 30...

Not knocking him, he is a good depth player who somehow seems to become a better AFL player the more games he doesn't play.

8 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Bring back then Selection Panel with an Independent Chairman  who can overrule the coach when he makes dumb decisions.

An outdated concept from when the game was a part time affair and the players had a few snags and a beer after training on Thursday night.