19 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

It was noted in the most recent scratch match thread Pruess played and "dominated" the ruck but it he was back from injury. Not sure he has the miles in the legs as yet. 

Grundy around the ground is the worry against a TMac or Jackson, if we can break even it goes a long way for us.

 

2 minutes ago, Vagg said:

Pretty sure Egan also said he is "super fit", or words to that effect..  So, who knows??

 

Maybe just get Pruess in? He can share the ruck with Jacko 50-50, 60-40 until he builds up. Think this is a better option than TMac. Assuming Gawn needs a few weeks off. 

31 minutes ago, chookrat said:

I think it offers an advantage. We can plan according to our internal knowledge on whether Gawn will play while Collingwood has to plan contingencies. This game is massive in the context of our season, with Collingwood going only ok, and if we can keep improving each week could win our final 8 matches and finish top 4.

@chookrat - im not trying to be flippant... so collingwood plan for contingencies. Then an hour prior, the confirm Gawn is or is not playing... they then go through there list of what they need to do in 'said' situation.

I'd argue there is no competitive advantage...it's not particularly effortful for them.

It's as straightforward as, is it raining yes/no  - long stops or short ones?

BUT, help me understand what the competitive advantage is from your perspective.

If there is small doubt as to his fitness then he must be rested. What happens if we lose and he pulls up lame, or we go in with him and he does not come back post half time, it would be laughable. 

Play the percentages here, rest him, go with the same set up against teh inform ruckman in Goldstein last week. They wony have Treloar or Pendles.. and Gundy may be rested anyway. 

With Tommy in good form they won't risk Gawn

In : Viney and Lockhart

out: Vandenberg and Jones

23 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

@chookrat - im not trying to be flippant... so collingwood plan for contingencies. Then an hour prior, the confirm Gawn is or is not playing... they then go through there list of what they need to do in 'said' situation.

I'd argue there is no competitive advantage...it's not particularly effortful for them.

It's as straightforward as, is it raining yes/no  - long stops or short ones?

BUT, help me understand what the competitive advantage is from your perspective.

You are assuming it takes no effort to plan a strategy.   Planning two is harder than one.    While the decision on the day may be as simple as long stops vs short, the work needed to develop and manufacture different types of stops is the relevant analogy.

So Darren Burgess calls all over the world and gets clearance for Max to play with his Lat injury and then he hurts his knee late in the game in a completely unrelated incident and he shouldn’t have played?

I’m all for resting players on short breaks and not aggravating existing injuries, but it’s footy, injuries will happen.

Max might be fine, if not we’ll give Preuss a run or carry on with the Jackson and T Mc combination 

44 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

Am I being overly cynical thinking that the reason Gawn wasn’t rested against Adelaide, was due to Goodwin being scared witless of losing that match and having his coaching career thrown into certain doubt? 

not overly cynical at all

1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

So Darren Burgess calls all over the world and gets clearance for Max to play with his Lat injury and then he hurts his knee late in the game in a completely unrelated incident and he shouldn’t have played?

I’m all for resting players on short breaks and not aggravating existing injuries, but it’s footy, injuries will happen.

Max might be fine, if not we’ll give Preuss a run or carry on with the Jackson and T Mc combination 

Went into the game with an already sore knee and then a lat injury that should have been a 2 game sit down.

Gets targeted by players in a game we easily would have won without him and will now miss at least those 2 games originally called for.

If you heard Max talking about the injury post-Crows the impression it was a captain's call seemed pretty clear.

Plenty of posters here called for him to not play the Crows game as he would be more needed later.

7 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

So Darren Burgess calls all over the world and gets clearance for Max to play with his Lat injury and then he hurts his knee late in the game in a completely unrelated incident and he shouldn’t have played?

I’m all for resting players on short breaks and not aggravating existing injuries, but it’s footy, injuries will happen.

Max might be fine, if not we’ll give Preuss a run or carry on with the Jackson and T Mc combination 

He should not have played. We were always going to win that game. It was just a silly decision by Max and the coaching staff that allowed him.

The moment he ran onto the field he looked banged up and sore.

It's now potentially cost him 2 games.

5 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

He should not have played. We were always going to win that game. It was just a silly decision by Max and the coaching staff that allowed him.

The moment he ran onto the field he looked banged up and sore.

It's now potentially cost him 2 games.

Melbourne supporters don't say things like that, dazzle.  Most here, me included, were packing ourselves that we would somehow lose that game.

I think Tomc playing as a ruck/forward 'tagger' is an interesting experiment with positive results in the one attempt so far. I'd cheerfully let him go at it a second time and definitely wouldn't risk Gawn if there's any doubt. 

Plus, Gawn has shown in the past that he can use time 'out' to think through his game and target improvements. If he comes back better at targeting his taps then he will actually be close to ruckman perfection. 

Personally I think the team let Gawn down a little by not putting away Adelaide early so he could be rested in the second half. But such is life when it's all on the line.

I’ve contacted Maxy, he’ll be on here soon to find out whether or not he’s playing on the weekend. 

If we play Preuss it will be like playing with 17 men.He is useless for anything else around the ground. I say we go in as last week.

2 hours ago, chookrat said:

I think it offers an advantage. We can plan according to our internal knowledge on whether Gawn will play while Collingwood has to plan contingencies. This game is massive in the context of our season, with Collingwood going only ok, and if we can keep improving each week could win our final 8 matches and finish top 4.

I hope you're right mate. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

42 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

He should not have played. We were always going to win that game.

Errrrr, no.

1 hour ago, Mel Bourne said:

Am I being overly cynical thinking that the reason Gawn wasn’t rested against Adelaide, was due to Goodwin being scared witless of losing that match and having his coaching career thrown into certain doubt? 

Yes.

52 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

So Darren Burgess calls all over the world and gets clearance for Max to play with his Lat injury and then he hurts his knee late in the game in a completely unrelated incident and he shouldn’t have played?

I’m all for resting players on short breaks and not aggravating existing injuries, but it’s footy, injuries will happen.

Max might be fine, if not we’ll give Preuss a run or carry on with the Jackson and T Mc combination 

Burgess doesn’t know squat compared to the DBT (Demonland Brains Trust).

I'm excited by the challenge this presents if Max is indeed out for 4-6 weeks. The players should be excited for that challenge too. 

We responded in 2017 under similar circumstances. I'll back us in again.

Edited August 12, 20204 yr by A F

He’ll play 

31 minutes ago, doc roet said:

If we play Preuss it will be like playing with 17 men.He is useless for anything else around the ground. I say we go in as last week.

I barely watch the bloke but where have you seen this? 2019 vfl? I wouldve thought burgo wouldve got him ready 

1 hour ago, sue said:

You are assuming it takes no effort to plan a strategy.   Planning two is harder than one.    While the decision on the day may be as simple as long stops vs short, the work needed to develop and manufacture different types of stops is the relevant analogy.

Fair enough @sue, I just assumed that all clubs, have all of champion data's intel on all clubs, easy accessible, relatively easily relatable to coach when the club itself would focus on what it can do, with minor tweaks (as its one player)..with the knowledge that roughly 7/8 days ago Gawn was going to miss.

• Tweak the need to shark Max's dominance
• Combat midfield as a consequence
• Kick Ins to Max
• Max dropping into the hole in defence.

 

But, I do love to simplify things.

10 minutes ago, A F said:

I'm excited the challenge this presents if Max is indeed out for 4-6 weeks. The players should be excited for that challenge too. 

We responded in 2017 under similar circumstances. I'll back us in again.

Can we confirm you are Simon Goodwin now?

14 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Can we confirm you are Simon Goodwin now?

I do like football systems, but as you well know, I'd have had Viney playing forward, Harmes playing on the wing or in the midfield, and I'd have not played Angus Brayshaw on a wing for most of the year.  Nor would I have played 3 tall forwards against Port.

Edited August 12, 20204 yr by A F

23 minutes ago, Ham said:

Errrrr, no.

Errr, yes.

Why is this just getting released now if he sustained the injury 7 days ago ?