Yeah Lockhart needs to go. You cannot be seen laughing when you have been pinged for a 3rd time holding the ball inside defensive 50. By the sounds of it goody won't bring back in Harley anytime soon. 

Out: Lockhart 

In: Jetta 

If we decide to bring in an extra tall it'll be at the expense of melk or Vandenberg doubt it though, think we are going to try and get some continuity with our forward line. 

11 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

ANB Round 2
2 goals, 9 disposals (8 effective), 1 tackle, 4 inside 50s, 5 score involvements.

vandenBerg Round 4
0 goals, 7 disposals (5 effective), 3 tackles, 1 inside 50, 0 score involvements.

ANB was dropped after that game. I'm interested to see how he justifies picking vandenBerg again next week (which he likely will) and not picking ANB. Particularly, if (as he has stated) we stick with a 1 key forward setup.

Goodwin clearly plays favourites. It's not just his tactical failures that are hurting us.

ANB was a beneficiary of his favouritism in previous years.

I'll reserve judgment until I see the team this week, but I suspect we will see vandenBerg hold his spot and ANB fail to retain his.

10 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Personally I just don't see the appeal of Tomlinson. Sure he's played a lot of footy on the wing but he's such a big lumbering galoof. Takes forever to wind up to kick and had 6 inside 50's for what result? Plus gets caught out by any kind of midfield speed and change of direction due to being such an oversized winger.

If we got lazy Jake Melksham out of the forward line especially early in a game before it opens up and up on a wing for could he not do that role? Would he not be able to run, kick and hold space on a wing?

That would then allow for a second tall to come in to the forward line without losing pressure (because the Melk don't chase) and in turn get Fritsch, Hannan and Hunt more of a mix up and deep.

Out: Tomlinson. In:Weid

Vanders or Bennell take your pick. Eventually want both but whilst they are both underdone it should be one or the other.

Keep the backline, would love Nev in but still think it's either Nev or Hibbo and for now I'm happy to give Hibbo another go.

IMO, we have few players who are more trustworthy delivering the ball inside 50 than him. I genuinely do not understand your attack on that aspect of his game. He's one of the few players who kicks to a forward's advantage. Did it yesterday on at least two of those inside 50s you mention, did it again vs Carlton.

He's also one of the few players who consistently, all day, runs both ways. 

I can't think of one example in three games where he's been obviously caught out for a lack of speed, either. Not every player has to have Hunt's foot speed.

From what I saw of yesterday's game he was probably in our 10 best players.

I see what others have said Goodwin said about the forward line but I'm convinced we need another tall forward. I'd rather it be Weideman or Jackson. (I would still have Tomlinson as the back-up ruckman, though). I know others feel Melksham is on thin ice, but I saw things differently yesterday. He's really being asked to do too much without a second KPF in the side. vandenBurg would be the one that goes out. I also think Bennell should come in for Hunt's position. I wouldn't drop Hunt but move him to the backline to replace Smith. I've never been convinced that Hunt's a forward and while I'm not yet ready to write Smith off, I just don't think he's needed against Sydney at the SCG. I'd rather see Hunt play on Heeney than any of our other defenders.

That said, I see zero chance of my suggestions being adopted. 

4 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

ANB was a beneficiary of his favouritism in previous years.

I'll reserve judgment until I see the team this week, but I suspect we will see vandenBerg hold his spot and ANB fail to retain his.

Not 100% sure I agree with that on ANB. In 2018 he was selected regularly because he was performing regularly. I'm not a big fan or anything like that, but if as you say we see ANB stay out and vandenBerg retain his spot then it's yet another clear illustration of Goodwin not picking the team based on form and gifting certain players more chances than others. It may be more subtle, but it's starting to appear where back to the days of a culture where your reputation or draft order gets you games.

 

In: Weid, ANB
Out: Melksham, Vanders 

I'd move Melksham into the midfield on a permanent basis.  Yes, he's out of form, but he is one player who can be creative with ball in hand and hit targets forward of centre.  He might take a few risks and turn it over, but at least he is trying something.

I would have Fritsch play anywhere but inside 50 for the time being.  He is terrific on the lead, but he is even better with ball in hand.  I'd have him leading up from 50-70 metres out, then wheeling around to deliver quickly inside 50 as often as possible.

For that reason, I'd also have Salem up the ground.  I know they like his disposal coming out of the back half, but I don't see that as an issue.  Get him up to a rotation on the wing and even on a forward flank.

That leaves what happens inside 50.  I'd have McDonald deep forward with Weideman/Brown up at CHF.  Pickett is given the freedom to do as he pleases inside 50 as long as he is chasing and harassing when the ball hits the deck.  From there, you could have one of Bennell/Bedford as a smaller type forward with better skills, while having someone else like Hannan as another medium forward who can hit a few targets as well.

I'd also look to have Trac be a midfielder for 90% of the time.  Give him a spell forward every now and then, especially to mix things up a bit, but he gives us a different dynamic (as Melksham would) to Oliver, Viney and Gus.

None of these things will probably happen, but interested in what other people think all the same.

Just now, Wiseblood said:

I'd move Melksham into the midfield on a permanent basis.  Yes, he's out of form, but he is one player who can be creative with ball in hand and hit targets forward of centre.  He might take a few risks and turn it over, but at least he is trying something.

I would have Fritsch play anywhere but inside 50 for the time being.  He is terrific on the lead, but he is even better with ball in hand.  I'd have him leading up from 50-70 metres out, then wheeling around to deliver quickly inside 50 as often as possible.

For that reason, I'd also have Salem up the ground.  I know they like his disposal coming out of the back half, but I don't see that as an issue.  Get him up to a rotation on the wing and even on a forward flank.

That leaves what happens inside 50.  I'd have McDonald deep forward with Weideman/Brown up at CHF.  Pickett is given the freedom to do as he pleases inside 50 as long as he is chasing and harassing when the ball hits the deck.  From there, you could have one of Bennell/Bedford as a smaller type forward with better skills, while having someone else like Hannan as another medium forward who can hit a few targets as well.

I'd also look to have Trac be a midfielder for 90% of the time.  Give him a spell forward every now and then, especially to mix things up a bit, but he gives us a different dynamic (as Melksham would) to Oliver, Viney and Gus.

None of these things will probably happen, but interested in what other people think all the same.

I like Salem up the ground for sure

AVB simply has to go, Can't be playing him anymore - he's hard at it but it's not enough. He looked lost and slow yesterday and Geelong aren't a quick side. Would hate to see him versus a Collingwood or St Kilida. 

I'd give Lockhart another go too. Also desperate for a fwd so in comes Weed 

OUT: AVB
IN: Weed 

1 minute ago, MF-C said:

I like Salem up the ground for sure

AVB simply has to go, Can't be playing him anymore - he's hard at it but it's not enough. He looked lost and slow yesterday and Geelong aren't a quick side. Would hate to see him versus a Collingwood or St Kilida. 

I'd give Lockhart another go too. Also desperate for a fwd so in comes Weed 

OUT: AVB
IN: Weed 

Vanders looked like a bloke who hasn't played AFL footy in 18 months.  He struggled with the pace of the game, but I kind of expected that.

I like Vanders, but I think they played him a little too soon.  I'd have left him in the twos playing scratch matches for a few more weeks before playing him.  It's why they dropped Bennell so it's kind of strange that they played him.

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I'd move Melksham into the midfield on a permanent basis.  Yes, he's out of form, but he is one player who can be creative with ball in hand and hit targets forward of centre.  He might take a few risks and turn it over, but at least he is trying something.

I would have Fritsch play anywhere but inside 50 for the time being.  He is terrific on the lead, but he is even better with ball in hand.  I'd have him leading up from 50-70 metres out, then wheeling around to deliver quickly inside 50 as often as possible.

For that reason, I'd also have Salem up the ground.  I know they like his disposal coming out of the back half, but I don't see that as an issue.  Get him up to a rotation on the wing and even on a forward flank.

That leaves what happens inside 50.  I'd have McDonald deep forward with Weideman/Brown up at CHF.  Pickett is given the freedom to do as he pleases inside 50 as long as he is chasing and harassing when the ball hits the deck.  From there, you could have one of Bennell/Bedford as a smaller type forward with better skills, while having someone else like Hannan as another medium forward who can hit a few targets as well.

I'd also look to have Trac be a midfielder for 90% of the time.  Give him a spell forward every now and then, especially to mix things up a bit, but he gives us a different dynamic (as Melksham would) to Oliver, Viney and Gus.

None of these things will probably happen, but interested in what other people think all the same.

This is exactly how I would line up. 

But as you say we'll never see this happen.

I'd rather we make no changes, or at most only 1 or 2 max.

We've had no continuity to both the personnel in our side, or our games in general.

If the coaches believe this is the best side we have out our disposal, let's back them in for the next few weeks and try to build some cohesion.

Changes inc actual structure, because to me both need fixing atm.

B: Jetta, May, Smith
HB: Salem, Lever, Hibberd
CEN: Langdon, Brayshaw, Tomlinson
HF: Melksham, Weid, Petracca
F: Pickett, TMac, Hunt

FOL: Gawn, Oliver, Viney

IC: ANB, Hannan, Harmes, Fritsch

Don't really mind whether it's Jetta or Rivers at the moment.

Not a massive ANB fan, but trying to take feelings out of it, and his forward use and score involvements were very good in round 2. Gives us more of what we need atm than vandenBerg does.

Let's hope we stop trying to be cute and go with a structure players are more familiar with and can trust a bit more.

The problem with the one big and some mediums is that we are putting the wrong mediums up there.  Look at the Pies group - all are dangerous around the goals, can kick from 50 and put on heaps of pressure.  Suggest our group should be Petracca, Kozzie, Oliver, Hunt and Bennell With TMAC and maybe a second tall.  In fact, Mason Cox is just a big lump rather than a TMAC type who has mobility.  Fritter and Melk delivering in.

Our midfield could be Brayshaw, Viney, Salem, Harmes (not a bad unit, really) with the others rotating through.  These guys are where the defensive problem starts - lack of two way running.  They gun forward but one mistake (the usual dees outcome) and turnover means they are out of position.  The fact that the cats just chipped and possessed rather than kicking to a contest (over 100 times!) suggests the midfield did not close down the open players at all - just cruised back to cover grass.  Our zone hooked reasonably well from 50 out, but it needs to work from 80 out.  

Changes:  Not many, more positional and attitudinal.  Guys need to bust a gut to break opposition chains and need to bust a brain cell delivering inside 50.

Edited June 28, 20204 yr by buck_nekkid

Vanders looked slow and someone who had been out of the game for years.

I'd give him 4 weeks of just playing scratch matches and get some form up. He was so underdone.

Going by the Bennell theory then Vader's will be an out. It is simple as that. If he is not then it makes the Bennell omission even more confusing.

Ins: Weideman/ANB

Out: Vanders 

We have fit blokes there are there Goodein, [censored] pick them.

I know he is one of Goody's favourites, but Melksham plays one cameo role every few weeks and delivers nothing inbetween.

He is a perfect example of how inconsistent the effort is from this group. 

The more i think about it, I think Goodwin is overthinking gameplans and structure and the players just can't or won't do what he says. When we go on a run for a 5 minute period, I guarantee it has nothing to do with gameplan - One risky kick comes off or one handball clears congestion and they have space and freedom to operate and the game opens up. The exact opposite to how we set up and seem to want to play

In vs Richmond out vs Sydney

2 minutes ago, Bates Mate said:

In vs Richmond out vs Sydney

yep

most bizarre season ever

playing at the g i maintain you MUST have two actual key forwards

my ins / outs don't change, personally...but based upon seeing the second half again and lockhart's behaviour he really should be dropped...although i still struggle to justify why jetta was dropped in the first place

IN: weideman, bennell, jetta
OUT: melksham, avb, lockhart

While the opponent might make a big difference, and I loved his first game, I'd be leaving Rivers out this week. Having Rivers, Hibberd and Salem in the team was 1 player too many who are to similar. None are real lock down small defenders, more creators and I thought Hibberd took the game on a lot better.

Without knowing the opponent or having much info from the scratch match also makes it hard to give really good ins/out, but I'd be looking at:

In: Weid and either Bennell (if he's right and played well) or ANB (he was badly needed against Geelong)

Out: Rivers and AVB

Better get ready tochange the heading. 

We are likely to play Richmond next week as Qld gov't won't let Rich in due to the Victorian covid spike. richmond-west-coast-clash-in-doubt

While, I wouldn't mind a Thursday night FTA game the Rich vs WCE game was scheduled for Thur night.  Will be tough for us if we play that time slot on a 4 day break.  More likely the Syd vs WCE game gets that time slot and we keep the Sunday aft slot.

Edited June 29, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Just now, Red and Blue realist said:

While the opponent might make a big difference, and I loved his first game, I'd be leaving Rivers out this week. Having Rivers, Hibberd and Salem in the team was 1 player too many who are to similar. None are real lock down small defenders, more creators and I thought Hibberd took the game on a lot better.

 

Fair point, but if we're being honest, Hibberd and Salem are getting dropped before Rivers is.  He has been in better form than both of them.

Rivers made errors, but didn't drop his head and continued to take the game on.

He stays. He is someone who just have to get games into. Along with Pickett.

Good to see the masses finally wake up to how bad Melksham has been, he should never have played after his efforts in the Carlton game.

Completely inexcusable selection which cost us dearly on the weekend.

Why does our football department keep making these basic errors?

I can't believe how many people want ANB in it's shuffling the deck chairs he's not good enough and Hannan is a joke he's done nothing for 2 years 7 disposals the same as Vandenberg and everyone said he was underdone. He made 1 good tackle and that was it. Not good enough back in the 2's for Bennell.

This year is a write off. We have to blood more youngsters.

Thread title change from CHANGES: Rd 05 vs Sydney to CHANGES Rd 05 vs Richmond.

13 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Thread title change from CHANGES: Rd 05 vs Sydney to CHANGES Rd 05 vs Richmond.

Just a few months ago it would've been hard to believe a change like that would ever be necessary