7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

possibly, but any omissions don't necessarily have to come from the extended bench. he could still be dropped but probably unlikely now

Yes they do... The 3 left out are ALWAYS from the extended bench. The only way a player from the starting 18 misses after the named sides is through injury 

Edited May 4, 20178 yr by JV7

Hogan and Wagner for ANB and Melksham feels about right, based on that bench.  Forward for forward (even if not direct like for like) and defender for defender.

Liking the look of this side.  Bring on Sunday.

Our back six really look solid now, I'm looking forward to what hogan does this week he will be playing on pure emotion and could have the weight of the world lifted off his shoulders don't be surprised if he kicks a bag 

Melksham has been eclipsed, so many on our list ahead of him now, we've made massive strides since he was recruited. Stoked to see Wagner hopefully get a crack, seriously composed for a young player. The only reason JKH is still playing is because Kent hasn't set the VFL on fire, hope Dean gets his bloody act together he is way too talented to be playing reserves.

Melksham is out is fair, but it makes others look silly for entertaining the thought that Goodwin would play favourites.

I reckon Tyson and Salem are the locks on the bench, while ANB and O Mac would be nervous.  I don't think Kent plays, so it's 2 of Wagner, Stretch, Oscar and ANB.  Who that ends up being is anybodies guess.

20 minutes ago, Danelska said:

Does this now finally debunk the bull[censored] myth that Goodwin plays favourites? Eff me dead that narrative was/is tedious.

The evidence supporting it was what we gave up to get him (which I maintain was massive overs), the pre-existing relationship (which on the surface is close for a coach and player). and the string of very ordinary games with Melksham remaining on the teamsheet the following week.

That said, It was mainly tongue in cheek discussion from what I saw. I didn't genuinely think Goodwin was playing him due to favouritism. I was however starting to suspect he rated him a lot higher than what I believe his actual worth is. His omission is several weeks late imo but better late than never.

3 good players won't be playing based on that bench. We really are building a strong young hard list. 

I'd have Waggers for milkshake and hogan for O Mac. Too tall IMO if we keep o Mac in 

stretch and kent stiff

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Melksham is out is fair, but it makes others look silly for entertaining the thought that Goodwin would play favourites.

I reckon Tyson and Salem are the locks on the bench, while ANB and O Mac would be nervous.  I don't think Kent plays, so it's 2 of Wagner, Stretch, Oscar and ANB.  Who that ends up being is anybodies guess.

Not really, I think P-man sums it up pretty well.

2 minutes ago, P-man said:

The evidence supporting it was what we gave up to get him (which I maintain was massive overs), the pre-existing relationship (which on the surface is close for a coach and player). and the string of very ordinary games with Melksham remaining on the teamsheet the following week.

That said, It was mainly tongue in cheek discussion from what I saw. I didn't genuinely think Goodwin was playing him due to favouritism. I was however starting to suspect he rated him a lot higher than what I believe his actual worth is. His omission is several weeks late imo but better late than never.

 

Harmes stiff as well! Not even on the extended bench. Same with JT

6 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Harmes stiff as well! Not even on the extended bench. Same with JT

Harmes is not up to it yet! ANB was extremely poor last week and should go! Milkshake is just that!

Oscar?? Well, a witches hat will only last so long in traffic!

Bench...  Tyson, Wagner, Stretch and Salem!

Edited May 4, 20178 yr by picket fence

That Hawthorn team looks strong on paper. It is amazing how poor they have been travelling.

Wagner might come in for Oscar I think. 

12 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Harmes stiff as well! Not even on the extended bench. Same with JT

Who do you dump for them? Don't see who you swap for JT. Bringing players in for the sake of it is silly. Only two players from last week aren't playing this week. Melksham, and someone to replace Hogan. Doubtful much else will change. Suspect JKH.

EDIT just noticed JKH on the ground. 

Edited May 4, 20178 yr by praha

3 minutes ago, praha said:

Who do you dump for them? Don't see who you swap for JT. Bringing players in for the sake of it is silly. Only two players from last week aren't playing this week. Melksham, and someone to replace Hogan. Doubtful much else will change. Suspect JKH.

I would like to see JT given a run in front of stretch. 

 

I think if he recieved four games to adjust to the speed of AFL he would produce some quality football 

46 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Not sure he'd be very stiff old ANB, he has played a role and ticked most of the boxes each week. In saying that,  as we have seen he is a limited player but can stick to the game plan and do it well, just not enough strings to his bow and think he will remain a fringe player. As with every player I hope he surprises me.

Particularly, off the back of last week's performance. Did a couple of nice things, but was too quiet for mine and will go out.

22 minutes ago, JV7 said:

Yes they do... The 3 left out are ALWAYS from the extended bench. The only way a player from the starting 18 misses after the named sides is through injury 

not true, there are precedents and it is not to my knowledge a mandatory afl rule. anyway, i agree it is most unlikely, though there are plenty of coaches who would like to play games.

will be interested to see casey team and whether any non-extended bench players are named. if not listed for vfl team then can't play, so if someone were dropped they could only be an emergency or rested.. 

3 minutes ago, Wolfmother said:

I would like to see JT given a run in front of stretch. 

 

I think if he recieved four games to adjust to the speed of AFL he would produce some quality football 

You want to see a slow mid instead of a speedy young up and commer?? Paleeeeasee!!

43 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Melksham is out is fair, but it makes others look silly for entertaining the thought that Goodwin would play favourites.

Just as silly as saying the footy department knows best. They didn't know best for 6 weeks, or when they gave up pick 20 odd to get him. 

We all make mistakes. 

Just now, Deestroy All said:

Just as silly as saying the footy department knows best. They didn't know best for 6 weeks, or when they gave up pick 20 odd to get him. 

We all make mistakes. 

Calling him a dud pick after 6 games is a little short sighted, mate.  After a year out of the game he deserves a little time.  If that time has to spent at Casey then so be it, but to write him off already doesn't  make sense.

And yes, we all make mistakes.  No doubt about it.  But to say Goody was already playing favourites WAS a little silly.  Now that we have guys like Hibberd and Lewis both playing in the same side makes Melksham more expendable, not to mention that others like Wagner are fit again and putting pressure on him.  Over the past 6 weeks he didn't have many other options at his disposal and, now that he does, he made the right decision in dropping him.

I think it can confidently be said now that Goodwin has form on 'form' - not blind but willing to give players blocks to work into it before the axe (early forward reshuffles probably more structure). Some here will be very happy with that approach. I'm still annoyed with JKH retaining his spot - but more because I think it's a capability issue rather than a problem with form.

37 minutes ago, praha said:

Who do you dump for them? Don't see who you swap for JT. Bringing players in for the sake of it is silly. Only two players from last week aren't playing this week. Melksham, and someone to replace Hogan. Doubtful much else will change. Suspect JKH.

EDIT just noticed JKH on the ground. 

I wouldn't play harmes - I was trying to point out our new found depth. A decent player in pretty good form not in the 25

1 hour ago, DeeZee said:

Strange that Dom is on the extended bench, when the coaches even gave him votes last week.

Maybe the votes came from Worsfold.

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Calling him a dud pick after 6 games is a little short sighted, mate.  After a year out of the game he deserves a little time.  If that time has to spent at Casey then so be it, but to write him off already doesn't  make sense.

And yes, we all make mistakes.  No doubt about it.  But to say Goody was already playing favourites WAS a little silly.  Now that we have guys like Hibberd and Lewis both playing in the same side makes Melksham more expendable, not to mention that others like Wagner are fit again and putting pressure on him.  Over the past 6 weeks he didn't have many other options at his disposal and, now that he does, he made the right decision in dropping him.

It's not short sighted. I watched his whole career at Essendon and said exactly what he'd be like for us. He's still the same player. Sure, 6 games for us, 6 the same as every other he's played. He won't get better. 

I don't think Goodwin would play favourites, but I have no doubts that when you endorse and headhunt someone into your organisation, and give a sh1tload up to get them, you're going to give that person every chance in the world to prove themselves, otherwise you look like a clown for bringing them in. 

I didn't think JKH and ANB were too bad last week. With every other forward kicking 3+ I just want these guys to be clean with the ball and put the opposition under pressure. I thought they did that ok.

For mine it would be Hogan, Wagner and Stretch in for O McDonald, Melksham and Tyson. Couldn't give a toss how that deadbeat Worsfold voted in the coaches awards. 

Just now, Skuit said:

I think it can confidently be said now that Goodwin has form on 'form' - not blind but willing to give players blocks to work into it before the axe (early forward reshuffles probably more structure). Some here will be very happy with that approach. I'm still annoyed with JKH retaining his spot - but more because I think it's a capability issue rather than a problem with form.

Agreed Skuit, I'd have liked to see Kent for JKH. 

For me, Stretch for ANB (rested), wags for Melksham (can't bring myself to say Milkshake) and Hoges for OMac

i like the bench of Salem, Tyson, Stretch,Wagner

good team, looking forward to this one.

Go Dees

53 minutes ago, P-man said:

The evidence supporting it was what we gave up to get him (which I maintain was massive overs), the pre-existing relationship (which on the surface is close for a coach and player). and the string of very ordinary games with Melksham remaining on the teamsheet the following week.

That said, It was mainly tongue in cheek discussion from what I saw. I didn't genuinely think Goodwin was playing him due to favouritism. I was however starting to suspect he rated him a lot higher than what I believe his actual worth is. His omission is several weeks late imo but better late than never.

Think this nails it .. imho

I do see a trend where once in a player's given a fair shake ( or longer ) to deliver. If not, another's chance. 

There's reason in this most probably. I think some get a too ' reasonable' a time but i am happy to see changes are made.