1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

King would last 30 minutes at AFL pace and intensity against the mature AFL rucks he'll be up against.  Then he'll blow up and Watts will have to ruck 60+% of the game.  Even he blew up after 50% rucking in both games.

Yep, agree - it's the mature body that is key. Not so much an issue at centre bounces where you can jump, but at around the ground ball ups and boundary throw ins a young body will get rag-dolled, particularly late in games. Watts was serviceable at stoppages until the last quarter in the Geelong and Richmond games. He was out on his feet and he has done 8 or 9 pre-seasons!

I remember a game in 2013 when we beat the Bulldogs (1 of 2 wins for the year). A young Max Gawn (5th season on the list) rucked against Will Minson. Gawn played a really good game but was spent at 3/4 time and was rag-dolled by Minson in the last quarter. The Dogs came back from about 7 goals down and lost by 3 points.

We need a fit, strong, mature body and a second year player coming off an ACL and one game at Casey is not currently the answer.

I hope they sit down at selection with a blank sheet of paper and look at availability and how they want to play the game and then fill in the blanks.

Midfield and rotations:

Stretch, Salem - outside runners with Garlett and ANB/Bugg working through there at different times. 

Oliver, Viney, Jones, Tyson all spending time in the middle as required.

Lewis, Kent, Petracca,Vince and Hunt to be rotated in and out of the midfield.

Defence:

Frost, TMac, Jetta and Hibberd KDP

Hunt, Lewis, Jones and Vince all to be back there at times.

Forwards:

Hogan, Watts Petracca and Garlett. After his game last week I would like to fit Bugg in here.

Pedersen in Ruck and OMac on the bench

My team:

Backs: Jetta, Frost, Hibberd

HBacks: Hunt, TMac, Lewis

Cen: Salem, Oliver, Stretch

HF: Kent, Watts, Petracca

F: Bugg, Hogan, Garlett

IC: Tyson, Vince, ANB, OMac

The other I would consider would be Keilty. He had a decent game at Casey last week.

Our big problem is the ruck, of course. Pedersen, Watts, TMac, Frost and OMac could all be used there and I think should be used there depending on how the match ups are going and where in the ground the stoppages are. I would look at a tactic where we keep rotating the players in there to keep them as fresh as possible and to make sure that the opposition are kept off balance. This is where we can exploit the no more third man up. Imagine a stoppage in our defensive half just outside the 50. Two of the 5 above are around the stoppage. The opposition ruck raises a hand and the one of ours that is furtherest from him then nominates. What would happen then? The opposition ruck would then have to move to engage body on body or to allow our nominated ruck a run and jump at the ball.

I am sure the footy department will be looking at all tactics to combat our perceived weakness in the ruck.

 

23 hours ago, Nasher said:

Bloody Goodwin should have selected Pedersen - it was obvious Jake was going to do his shoulder in the first quarter.

Even if Spencer didn't cop an injury it was still the wrong decision.

15 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Even if Spencer didn't cop an injury it was still the wrong decision.

Don't know how you can be so sure.  Hogan first forward, Tim Smith second forward, Watts third forward/10% ruck seems like a reasonable setup to me.  

The alternative is Hogan first forward, Watts second forward, Pedersen third forward/10% ruck, but that is just urinating around the edges as far as the ruck goes, it only means 10% more Watts in the forward line, and I'd prefer we got a good look at Smith.  I don't see it as such a huge leap forward over what we picked to be able to use absolute words like wrong.

Not directing this at you specifically Gonzo but the "she'd have all been fine if we'd picked Pedersen" mentality is breaking my brain a bit.  Surely it is beyond question that the reason it went pear-shaped is because we lost two key pieces of the infrastructure, and that what would have happened had we not is unknown.

50 minutes ago, Radar Detector said:

Strongly of the opinion that we need to reset back to a more normal forward structure. And I certainly don't want to start pulling defenders in as part time rucks. That means three tall forwards spending most of their time forward and providing a chop out in the ruck if needs be.

We need our best forwards (Hogan and Watts) mostly forward - capitalising on entries has been a problem as our structure has been compromised. Whatever benefit we get from Watts around the ball is somewhat offset by having limited targets inside 50.

And we need our tall defenders playing back and in form - Daniher and Hooker are dangerous and need respect. So I would suggest the following:

In: King, Peterson/Weid, Lewis

Out: Spencer, Smith, JKH

if Petracca or Viney don't get up in a short week then Bugg and Kent could be considered.

This. With Watts out of the forward line we lose the opportunity for Hogan or Watts to roam up the wings as a tall outlet as well.

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

He's 20 and in his third year.

He's on the list for a reason.  And it's situations like this.

 

It's his second year and his first was spent on the sidelines from his second acl. He was on the long term injury list just a few months ago yeah?

And don't get me started on why a beanpole ruckman is even on our primary list. Should have been rookied at best. There are better ruckmen delisted each year. Not sure why we bother giving the Spencer's and kings of the world 6-8 years on the primary list.

Just now, Watts Jurrah Dunn? said:

It's his second year and his first was spent on the sidelines from his second acl. He was on the long term injury list just a few months ago yeah?

And don't get me started on why a beanpole ruckman is even on our primary list. Should have been rookied at best. There are better ruckmen delisted each year. Not sure why we bother giving the Spencer's and kings of the world 6-8 years on the primary list.

Should have waited until the rookie draft to get Max Gawn too I suppose.

11 hours ago, Macca said:

Pedersen has gone from being the chief whipping-boy to the saviour yet his actual output is still negligible.  Goodwin will pick him now but previously, he's not done that.  He is not a ruckman in the sense that he's below average at the art of rucking.  The stats and our eyes bear that out.

Here's how I see things playing out if we use Pedersen & Watts in tandem in the ruck ...

• Leuenberger gets 60 tap-outs with at least 20 of those taps to advantage
• Pedersen & Watts get about 20 taps between them with very few to advantage
• The Bombers win the clearances especially so in the 2nd half
• They win the game.

So King is coming off an ACL - big deal.  Gawn did 2 of those as a youngster.  Mitch is back playing footy in a position that is very physical ... and he got 26 tap-outs on the weekend.  I'd admit that he's not be the ideal choice but what alternatives do we have? (see above) 

And if someone wants to paint a better picture, go right ahead.

Here's how I see things playing out if we don't use Pedersen & Watts in tandem . . .

The Dons kick a point or get the ball deep into attack. Leuenberger sets up on one flank and Daniher on the other. We are either forced into the corridor, out-marked, or too many of our smaller players have to fly, leaving Essendon with numbers on the ground to clear and launch again. Our defenders in a tight situation receive the ball, begin hesitating for a split second when seeing our outlets blocked, and are set upon by Essendon's attacking small forwards. We attempt to remedy this by sending our key forwards up the ground. If they capture the ball or provide an avenue out, we have no tall forwards to kick it to and turn it over or hold up the play while they get defenders back.

We lose the game in an ugly fashion.

Note: Richmond pulled Nankervis out of the forward-rucking in the last quarter to set up behind play at the break-downs - as they knew if Watts was committed we had no-one to compete the outlet kick. When we did break free, Garlett was our only 'tall' forward at home.

Edited April 25, 20178 yr by Skuit

Just now, Nasher said:

Should have waited until the rookie draft to get Max Gawn too I suppose.

Different if they are 208cm and can mark like gawn could. Spencer's years on the primary list are an unmitigated disaster. List clogging at its best. 

1 minute ago, Skuit said:

Here's how I see things playing out if we don't use Pedersen & Watts in tandem . . .

 

I think I get the picture ... worse?

Just now, Watts Jurrah Dunn? said:

Different if they are 208cm and can mark like gawn could. Spencer's years on the primary list are an unmitigated disaster. List clogging at its best. 

You've forgotten: Gawn had all the marking power of a man with watermelons for hands until the last few years.  As recently as 2015, Gawn was kicking around in the twos, with Spencer the lead ruck(!), with Roos and co going "hrmm, this guy is a bit of a worry". He was textbook "bean-pole ruckman".   

King was taken where he was because that's where the recruiting team ranked him. 

Just now, Nasher said:

You've forgotten: Gawn had all the marking power of a man with watermelons for hands until the last few years.  As recently as 2015, Gawn was kicking around in the twos, with Spencer the lead ruck(!), with Roos and co going "hrmm, this guy is a bit of a worry". He was textbook "bean-pole ruckman".   

King was taken where he was because that's where the recruiting team ranked him. 

Mate Gawn was touted as a possible first round pick. He was 208cm, and his bottom age highlights were clunking marks at full forward. Mitch King is 200cm, hardly a rare size for a ruckman, and wasn't in a single phantom draft. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Using spots on the primary list for King and Spencer is terrible, terrible list management. Every year a better ruckman is delisted from another club and could be picked up for nothing.

 

5 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Gawn had all the marking power of a man with watermelons for hands until the last few years.

I watched friends playing at Ormond many times while he was there, he has always been a very good mark

1 minute ago, Rafiki said:

I watched friends playing at Ormond many times while he was there, he has always been a very good mark

Fair enough.  He took a long time to show it at AFL level.

There is no win-win here, whatever we do is just shuffling the deck chairs. Without an AFL-quality ruck, we're going to be playing without an AFL-quality ruck, and everything that goes with it.

The one advantage of Watts/Frost is that they become an extra mid once the ball hits the ground. But if opposition rucks are directing the ball where they want (and they will), then even this becomes moot.

The football gods giveth, and the football gods taketh away, and in this case, we'll just have to suck it up.

On 4/24/2017 at 10:34 PM, Clint Bizkit said:

I'm not sure we have the depth but Tyson must be on thin ice, he's almost as slow and ineffective as Trengove these days.

I'm just gonna keep pulling you up on this in almost every thread, CB. 

Tyson is averaging practically 24.8 disposals, 5 tackles and has improved his DE to 65%. He's still got some more work to do on his ball use. He should be aiming to get it up around 70%. 

Dom can play a lot better footy than he's showing now though, which tells me he's capable of A grade status. Improve his efficiency (particularly by foot) and start to hit the scoreboard a bit more and he'll be our second best mid again behind Oliver.

He's working himself into the season after another injury interrupted pre-season at 23 years of age. Might be time to lay off him for a bit.

On 4/24/2017 at 11:32 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

Well of course he was the obvious in. It showed that he was coming in off good form.

But JKH and Smith? Nah we failed there.

JKH brought exactly what the MC wanted. Forward half pressure. Laid more tackles himself than our entire forwardline managed the previous week. Open your eyes, mate.

And anyone else popping JKH into the outbox for this week, you're not actually thinking about why a player like Jay is in the side. I'm not saying he would have met all his KPIs, but I reckon one of his major ones was tackle count. The FD would be delighted with his first game in that respect. It's something to build on, because ball in hand, he was often lost and made some really dumb and immature decisions.

Edited April 25, 20178 yr by A F

3 hours ago, A F said:

JKH brought exactly what the MC wanted. Forward half pressure. Laid more tackles himself than our entire forwardline managed the previous week. Open your eyes, mate.

And anyone else popping JKH into the outbox for this week, you're not actually thinking about why a player like Jay is in the side. I'm not saying he would have met all his KPIs, but I reckon one of his major ones was tackle count. The FD would be delighted with his first game in that respect. It's something to build on, because ball in hand, he was often lost and made some really dumb and immature decisions.

JKH's tackling stats were pleasing, and they contribute to untold stats elsewhere. But the rest was damning. Visually, and by the numbers. Indeed, his contribution of 11 disposals (3 contested) at 54% d/e with 4 clangers and 1 i50 in 89 minutes of game-time were a statistical improvement on his averages. And I'd argue that some of the 'clean' stats contributed to untold negative stats elsewhere. The kid is out of his depth and has no discernible weapons to overcome his limitations now or into the future.

I don't tend to hang [censored] on players - in the recent past, maybe Garland, Grimes, Dawes and Lumumba in total, but I believe we have erred in picking him up. There was a reason he slid in the draft - not a small forward and serious physical limitations as a HFF/mid - and I think we're clearly witnessing why. I will eat my hat if he stays in the team, and then a massive but happy slice of humble pie if he ever cements a spot. But we've been given no evidence that he has or will improve. 

The main argument though, in terms of using tackle stats as a excuse to keep him in the seniors, is that I'm pretty sure Kent could deliver the same if we told him that's all he had to concentrate on and contribute - and probably Kennedy moreso - and still, they couldn't help but find themselves with a shot on goals here and there even if they tried. 

Rant over.

 

Edited April 25, 20178 yr by Skuit

Pederson to come in and rotate ruck with Frost and Watts. Plain and simple.

Out. Spencer, Smith, Melksham maybe JKH

In. Lewis, King, Pedo maybe Kent/Kennedy/Bugg

In this scenario, Milkshake is unlucky because I thought he played an improving/reasonable game. Jkh is lucky because despite laying some tackles he didn't look like hurting the opposition offensively.

Pedo must come in to provide another target up forward and do some ruckwork.

Lewis must come in simply because we need him.

King. His role will be to not allow the Essendon ruck to dominate. There are grave concerns about his match fitness but to rely on a stop gap ruck set up that involves  tying up our currently most versatile and dangerous forward in Watts for large parts of the game would be crazy.

This week delivers the most interesting and crucial selection dilemma in years.

13 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

Hogan needs to start leading, not trying to outbody one defender whilst a chop out defender floats across in front.  Lead towards the footy!  Stop sooking!  Look at how Riewoldt gets back into the contest!  This is a big change for next week.

also, bombing the ball into 50 is stupid, and played directly into Tigers gameplan.  We can win 50 contests, get 30 inside 50s and  10 goals kicked against us unless we fix this.  We are simply not getting bang for our buck.  Thats the other change.

 

 

Hogan is not a deep leader.  He is a CHF. We need both Watts and Hogan in the forward line for as long as possible. 

6 hours ago, A F said:

I'm just gonna keep pulling you up on this in almost every thread, CB. 

Tyson is averaging practically 24.8 disposals, 5 tackles and has improved his DE to 65%. He's still got some more work to do on his ball use. He should be aiming to get it up around 70%.

That's great, but his decision making is cactus, he's slow and not damaging at all.

He's got all the hallmarks of being another Trengove (whose demise I could see and noted on here in 2011 well before his injuries).

Edited April 25, 20178 yr by Clint Bizkit

Can't believe we are still banging on about King coming in.

He is coming back from major surgery and needs to get confidence in his body and match fit.  Refer below "... going to take a bit of time to build him back into full match time".

It would be irresponsible to play him this week or next for that matter. Kings career and well being needs to be considered.  Don't want him to have another knee problem. 

Positive news is he seems to have had a good game in his return.  Few more weeks of that and he might be a chance

http://m.melbournefc.com.au/news/2017-04-25/vfl-player-review-round-two

Edited April 25, 20178 yr by Demons1858

Melksham has to go out this week, I really hope the coach isn't playing favorites as there are guys like Mitch White who havent a put a foot wrong and aren't getting a run.

6 hours ago, A F said:

JKH brought exactly what the MC wanted. Forward half pressure. Laid more tackles himself than our entire forwardline managed the previous week. Open your eyes, mate.

And anyone else popping JKH into the outbox for this week, you're not actually thinking about why a player like Jay is in the side. I'm not saying he would have met all his KPIs, but I reckon one of his major ones was tackle count. The FD would be delighted with his first game in that respect. It's something to build on, because ball in hand, he was often lost and made some really dumb and immature decisions.

Jkh was poor at best but was slightly better in the 2nd half. 1 kpi isn't enough. Would give him another chance given he is adjusting back to afl level. Tyson needs to go back to Casey and sharpen his ball use, movement and speed around stoppages. Often flat footed when he gets it which might also suggest fitness issues