1 minute ago, Tom Dyson said:

Do you accept though that if we don't try we won't know either way, the result of moving him. 

If we move him and he doesn't help the forward line and the backline leaks goals, then i'll put my hand up to say i was wrong.

however if the converse is true and he benefits the forward line without detracting from the defence, is that not a gamble worth taking at least for half a game just to see how it pans out?

If we had the luxury of another solid key defender playing well, then I'd be for it, but to move him forward will leave us horribly exposed.

5 minutes ago, Tom Dyson said:

Do you accept though that if we don't try we won't know either way, the result of moving him. 

If we move him and he doesn't help the forward line and the backline leaks goals, then i'll put my hand up to say i was wrong.

however if the converse is true and he benefits the forward line without detracting from the defence, is that not a gamble worth taking at least for half a game just to see how it pans out?

Not in my view.

By that logic we should try Oliver at FB, Melksham in the ruck and Salem at FF. Because we just won't know whether it works until we try.

There are a number of things we're struggling with. One of them is the chemistry between our players. Lever and May have still only played a handful of games together, even fewer with Smith, fewer again with Hibberd. They are, finally, starting to as a unit develop some consistency and are able to defend the width of the MCG. Now is not the time to disrupt the progress we're making there just for the sake of seeing if May can kick some goals.

10 hours ago, joshua said:

Chuck lever in the forward line too for a laugh

I went to sleep thinking this last night.

I don't like Lever and Smith together in the backline.   I prefer Smith back, who I think is good spoiling, and has a healthy body with speed.

Lever is suposed to be a great intercept mark, so he can take that judgement forward with him.

And supposed to be a natural leader.   Again he can advise the forwards where to go.

5 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

May is doing well down back.  The Smith experiment is one to question.  Lever is generally good.  If we look deeper the problem is the lack of pressure between the arcs.  By the time it gets to May, it is all or nothing.  There have been half a dozen lazy actions that have led to that pressure.

dont take May from the backline.  Just give Weid or brown a go in the forward line, and give the midfielders who cough it up like a COVID carrier at a trump rally a rocket (or drop them).  Omac is probably better than Smith, don’t know what the FD want?  A racehorse rebounder?

Which mids are you referring to bucky,  coughing it up.?

5 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

And defence could turn in to a problem by taking our best key defender and sticking him at CHF.

We need to see how the tall forwards we have go before we start making these sort of drastic changes.  

Yeah, I agree Wb.  I don't want to move our key position players.  I don't see Lever as a key posi player.

However,  I would like to see Lever inside F50,  a) to get him away from Smith because I think they are too similar, and imv Smith is better body on body than lever these days, with healthier/better legs.

b) Lever is smarter, and imv our forwards are not smart at all.  They could do with some leadership to organise them. And Lever can work as hard to restrict the oppositions exit from our F50.

Worth a look i reckon,  to see what Lever can do in there with his smarts.

Edited July 6, 20204 yr by MyFavouriteMartian

11 minutes ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

Which mids are you referring to bucky,  coughing it up.?

Take your pick. Clarry, Jack for starters....

Aside from an ordinary game against Carlton, May has been rock solid this year and earning his pay packet this year. I have great confidence when he's in a genuine 1 on 1 contest.

As much as I'd like our forward line to be shaken up, we shouldn't be moving our best key defender (and one of the better defenders in the league) up forward. Bring in Brown or Weideman or it's bust. 

6 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

So we have Jackson, Weideman and Brown waiting in the wings... and we want to swing May forward instead?  No thanks.

The three mentioned above deserve a crack first before we even look at moving May forward.  With some consistent games under his belt he is really beginning to show his worth to the side, and we want to change that up?  It doesn't make sense to me.

I'd leave the back six as it is.  They're doing a pretty good job right now.  As others have said above, it's our forward mix and how we deliver the ball in there that's the issue.  I'd be looking at trying a few things in that regard first before shifting anyone out of defence.

exactly, we have 3 big forwards to choose from and May is playing well down back, sometimes very well. Moving May forward smells of breaking one of the few things that's working and things falling apart completely. Omac has had endless opportunities to show he is good enough and came up short.

 

Keep May down back thank you.

15 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Not in my view.

By that logic we should try Oliver at FB, Melksham in the ruck and Salem at FF. Because we just won't know whether it works until we try.

There are a number of things we're struggling with. One of them is the chemistry between our players. Lever and May have still only played a handful of games together, even fewer with Smith, fewer again with Hibberd. They are, finally, starting to as a unit develop some consistency and are able to defend the width of the MCG. Now is not the time to disrupt the progress we're making there just for the sake of seeing if May can kick some goals.

You raise a good point in your last paragraph but you're analogy is fallacious. 

Of course moving Melksham into the ruck wouldn't work and of course salem at FF wouldn't work, neither are tall enough to compete in those positions and that's also not what i proposed. You can manipulate the circumstances of your analogy to suit your argument but it doesn't help your case nor engage with the initial idea.  

All i wanted was to see how a 6 foot 2 95kg player who has a history of being a forward goes in the forward line for half a game. I'm not sure how you can be so confident that it won't work. 

In terms of your last paragraph, use either one or both of the macdonald brothers to cover the backline, and if it doesn't work then go back to how it was. I don't think moving one player will threaten the ability of the backline to function especially if you bring in a similar player (o'mac) to cover may momentarily, and if it does move him back.   

our forward line isn't working, we are not kicking goals, simple. 

2 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

Tomo can handle CHB Wise.  No-Mac takes the FB role.  Lever needs to finally  earn his coin and provide a regular chop out / intercept role, which i understand is what he was brought in for in the first place.  Lend a hand as required.  We need to put a score on the board and lock the ball inside 50 for decent game time.

Even if we give up a goal or two extra to kick 4 or 5 extra the other way.  Payoff is there by correcting the current putrid forward issues.

Roll the dice or die wondering?  I know which way i'd be going and at present, we are going nowhere.

May has been fantastic for us so far this year.  Why rob Peter to pay Paul?  I feel as though, in this current form, May can take any key forward in the competition and that is exactly why we got him.  I wouldn't feel that way if it was Tom Mac.

If May was out of form then I'd consider it, but I think it would be a very dangerous move for us right now.

I think we can roll the dice in other ways (re-jigging the forward line, adding another tall etc) before we would even need to consider moving May to the forward line.

4 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

May has been fantastic for us so far this year.  Why rob Peter to pay Paul?  I feel as though, in this current form, May can take any key forward in the competition and that is exactly why we got him.  I wouldn't feel that way if it was Tom Mac.

If May was out of form then I'd consider it, but I think it would be a very dangerous move for us right now.

I think we can roll the dice in other ways (re-jigging the forward line, adding another tall etc) before we would even need to consider moving May to the forward line.

In not adverse to trialling Brown and Weid there.  T-Mac plays deep forward for mine.  But should those two options fail us i reckon May at CHF is a must.

By Tommo i mean Tomlinson to CHB to free May up WB.  Not T-Mac.  T-Mac either performs at FF or he's a bust imv.

Edited July 6, 20204 yr by Rusty Nails

Imagine trading for  old man May, and now needing to move him forward when we could have just drafted young stud Ben KIng and had the next superstar key forward  for 15 years.

This club is amazing.  (In a really bad way).

Just now, Rusty Nails said:

In not adverse to trialling Brown and Weid there.  T-Mac plays deep forward for mine.  But should those two options fail us i reckon May at CHF is a must.

By Tommo i mean Tomlinson to CHB to free May WB.  Not T-Mac.  He either performs at FF or he's a bust imv.

Ah okay, sorry,  I didn't realise you meant Tomlinson.

If, as you say, the other talls fail then of course I'd be more open to trialling May there.  The club might look at it as well.  However, for the time being it makes more sense to allow May to continue his excellent form down back while we give some others a chance up forward.

27 minutes ago, Tom Dyson said:

You raise a good point in your last paragraph but you're analogy is fallacious. 

Of course moving Melksham into the ruck wouldn't work and of course salem at FF wouldn't work, neither are tall enough to compete in those positions and that's also not what i proposed. You can manipulate the circumstances of your analogy to suit your argument but it doesn't help your case nor engage with the initial idea.  

All i wanted was to see how a 6 foot 2 95kg player who has a history of being a forward goes in the forward line for half a game. I'm not sure how you can be so confident that it won't work. 

In terms of your last paragraph, use either one or both of the macdonald brothers to cover the backline, and if it doesn't work then go back to how it was. I don't think moving one player will threaten the ability of the backline to function especially if you bring in a similar player (o'mac) to cover may momentarily, and if it does move him back.   

our forward line isn't working, we are not kicking goals, simple. 

It's not that I'm confident May as a forward won't work (although I don't think he's as good forward as he is in defence).

It's that I'm against the process of moving players around just to see what happens, particularly when you're proposing moving a player who is playing well, in the only part of our team that is playing at a reasonable AFL level, and which is starting to suggest that consistency and playing together is helping.

Why disturb the one area of the ground that is even close to working when we have players on the list we're ignoring to fill that role (Brown and Weideman)? At the very least, let's see Brown and Weideman up there before we resort to ripping our backline up.

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

Ah okay, sorry,  I didn't realise you meant Tomlinson.

If, as you say, the other talls fail then of course I'd be more open to trialling May there.  The club might look at it as well.  However, for the time being it makes more sense to allow May to continue his excellent form down back while we give some others a chance up forward.

As long as those two are trialled at some point WB.  Preferrably starting this weekend.

The current set up, May playing back and neither of Brown or Weid up forward, isn't working.

Happy to see the two role playing forwards given a go but confidence in those two isn't high.

The trouble with all this talk is, it's just talk.  I'm sure Brown and / or Weid will find their way into the 22 at some point.  But should they fail does Goody roll the dice and send May forward as a last resort?  Can't see him being that daring but hopefully i'll be proven wrong if the former two fail.

Edited July 6, 20204 yr by Rusty Nails

2 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

As long as all those two are trialled at some point WB.  Preferrably starting this weekend.

The current set up, May playing back and neither of Brown or Weid up forward, isn't working.

Happy to see the two role playing forwards given a go but confidence in those two isn't high.

The trouble with all this talk is, it's just talk.  I'm sure Brown and / or Weid will find their way into the 22 at some point.  But should they fail does Goody roll the dice and send May forward as a last resort?  Can't see him being that daring but hopefully i'll be proven wrong if the former two fail.

I am not confident either Weideman or Brown will get a run any time soon.

What happens  for the next few Weeks while the reduced squad is in NSW how do the ones not picked for next weeks game get any practice ? I can just see it Goodwin will leave them both out the next two weeks then after no game time for two weeks and real game time for months he will put one or two of them in and surprise surprise they will struggle. 

May has been great down back this season and has been for his career. However I think he actually could make a really good full forward and would pair well with tmac, with tmac getting up and down the ground at CHF and may playing out of the goalsquare. Weideman or Brown should be given the first crack at the second tall forward but if they can't produce then this swing could save our season. It pretty much comes down to would you rather play weideman/brown or Omac/Smith? For mine I would rather have the talent in the forward half of the ground and I thought Omac at actually did a pretty good job in round 1 playing on darling. 

24 minutes ago, old dee said:

I am not confident either Weideman or Brown will get a run any time soon.

What happens  for the next few Weeks while the reduced squad is in NSW how do the ones not picked for next weeks game get any practice ? I can just see it Goodwin will leave them both out the next two weeks then after no game time for two weeks and real game time for months he will put one or two of them in and surprise surprise they will struggle. 

Why the he'll did we recruit Brown??? Just to play preseason?

1 minute ago, Rednblueriseing said:

Why the he'll did we recruit Brown??? Just to play preseason?

And why the hell did we give Weideman a new contract last year. He has hardly played since.

This FD beggars belief, if either aren’t good why did we bother?

why do we continue to play players out of position?

 

25 minutes ago, old dee said:

I am not confident either Weideman or Brown will get a run any time soon.

What happens  for the next few Weeks while the reduced squad is in NSW how do the ones not picked for next weeks game get any practice ? I can just see it Goodwin will leave them both out the next two weeks then after no game time for two weeks and real game time for months he will put one or two of them in and surprise surprise they will struggle. 

No access to the McGoos would be effecting many clubs i would think OD.

The topsy turvy season continues unebated and for many players it's either sink or swim.  Our horrid form certainly isn't helping our cause one iota.

Lead by a coach who gives the impression of a rabbit frozen in the headlights at times and very stubborn when it comes to adjusting / adapting and trialling new things.  He better make some significant moves / changes soon or he might become another road kill on the bloodied road that is the MFC .