Hib May Lever
Hunt TMac Harmes
Bennell Viney Langdon
Melk Smith Salem
Pickett Weed Fritsch

Gawn Oliver Petracca

Int: Bray, Jonsey, Hannan Lockhart

 

IN: BENNELL HUNT GAWN SMITH JONES

OUT: SPARGO SPARROW PREUSS TOMLINSON VANDENBERG

MOVES: TMAC AND HUNT BACK, SMITH AND SALEM FORWARD

REASONS: Smith would be a forward pressure beast with x-factor marking. 

- TMac is a defender, so is Hunt

- Salem skills needed for the all important inside 50 kick 

 

Edited August 24, 20204 yr by Pitchy

On 8/22/2020 at 10:45 PM, Ham said:

Out: Sparrow (Inj), Pickett, Preuss
In: Rivers, Bedford, Gawn

- Harmes to go into Sparrows role.
- Rivers come in to cover where Harmes has been in the backline.
- Bedford to come in and replace Pickett.
- Gawn to come in for Preuss.

Few questionable as well;

Spargo
Tomlinson
Vanders


 

?

Outs:  T Mac, Sparrow, Jones, Preuss

In: Brown, Gawn, Rivers and either Jordan / Bedford / Bennell. 

I think we are a special this weekend!

50 minutes ago, BScotti said:

1. Gawn in for Preuss; 2. Rivers in for Sparrow (Harmes forward/tag); 3.Bedford in for Spargo; 4. Hunt in for Hannan

 

PRUESS was one of our best if not best player... How can he be dropped on two very solid games?? If he goes then there is something seriously wrong at MFC!!

7 hours ago, binman said:

Suggested he should be dropped. And I'm one.

Noone suggesting he will be dropped. He won't.

Sums it up perfectly. I'll say this. St. Kilda are a quicker side than dogs so unless Goodwin wises up we will be run of our feet this week

Go all out for pace!

Ill go with this 

B SALEM MAY LEVER

HB RIVERS TOMLINSON HIBBERD

C HUNT VINEY LANGDON

HF VANDERS  SMITH  TRAC

F BENNELL  WEEDS  HANNAN

R  GAWNE CLARRY  BRAYSHAW

INTER FROM  BROWN, BEDFORD, BAKER,  PRUESS,  LOCKHART

Time to get ruthless 

OUT   SPARGO,  JONES , T MAC, HARMES, PICKETT, MELKSHAM AND FRITSCH

INNS  MAX , RIVERS, BROWN, BENNELL, BAKER, BEDFORD HANNAN

Edited August 24, 20204 yr by picket fence

5 minutes ago, picket fence said:

PRUESS was one of our best if not best player... How can he be dropped on two very solid games?? If he goes then there is something seriously wrong at MFC!!

Should we play him forward?

I am on the Oskar Baker train now.  We had better not bring in Hunt ahead of him.

4 minutes ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

I am on the Oskar Baker train now.  We had better not bring in Hunt ahead of him.

Bring them BOTH IN!!

Zero chance of Melksham being dropped. 

Josh Wagner could be an interesting option. 

25 minutes ago, picket fence said:

PRUESS was one of our best if not best player... How can he be dropped on two very solid games?? If he goes then there is something seriously wrong at MFC!!

more than half of his taps went straight to oppo midfielders.  He had 16 cm advantage over Dunkley and didnt use it.  He was not great around the ground (gets a pass mark).  So how do you reflect that he was our best player (ahead of S May for example).  

He goes out for Max because Max is better.  He only stays in if the structure suggests we need two ruck men.  I doubt that we do, as we need more speed and defensive pressure before anything else.

I haven't seen a game for four weeks, but it seems as though the same old mediocre players are doing the same old mediocre things. 

Vandenberg works his backside off, but can't kick or handpass.

Melksham has talent to burn, but is lazy, selfish and undisciplined.

Hannan and Spargo only look capable of getting a touch when the side wins by ten goals.

Tomlinson has the ideal build for AFL, but coasts along at about 40% of his capacity.

Salem drops his bundle as soon as pressure is applied.

Pickett is the ultimate "nearly" footballer.

The midfield as a whole only plays when it is on their terms.

I can't see us playing finals now, so we really have to get games into the likes of Rivers, Baker and Bedford. I don't think Bedford and Baker will make it, but at least we can make a decision at year end based on actual performances rather than guesswork. Better than going back to Hunt, Neal-Bullen (next week) and others who have fallen short on multiple occasions.

1 hour ago, Dannyz said:

Zero chance of Melksham being dropped. 

Agree DZ.

Some questions i am curious about (not trying to be smart [censored], i promise, just curious because I've noted an inside mail vibe about your posts):

Do you think he should be?

Do you think his performances this year have been at the required level?

How do you rate his on field leadership this year?

Edited August 24, 20204 yr by binman

I’d like to see a number of changes, including positional ones, but we’re talking about Goodwin so it isn’t going to happen. Realistically, Preuss and Sparrow out, Gawn and Rivers/Bennell in. 

1 hour ago, poita said:

I haven't seen a game for four weeks, but it seems as though the same old mediocre players are doing the same old mediocre things. 

Vandenberg works his backside off, but can't kick or handpass.

Melksham has talent to burn, but is lazy, selfish and undisciplined.

Hannan and Spargo only look capable of getting a touch when the side wins by ten goals.

Tomlinson has the ideal build for AFL, but coasts along at about 40% of his capacity.

Salem drops his bundle as soon as pressure is applied.

Pickett is the ultimate "nearly" footballer.

The midfield as a whole only plays when it is on their terms.

I can't see us playing finals now, so we really have to get games into the likes of Rivers, Baker and Bedford. I don't think Bedford and Baker will make it, but at least we can make a decision at year end based on actual performances rather than guesswork. Better than going back to Hunt, Neal-Bullen (next week) and others who have fallen short on multiple occasions.

You see the irony/hypocrisy here, don't you?

Out: Sparrow, Hannan, McDonald, Preuss

In: Rivers, Bennell, Jones, Gawn

Melksham very lucky.

I'd play Harmes, Jones and Viney as pressure forwards. Demand that Kozzie and Spargo bring the heat too for 4 quarters.

Rivers takes Harmes' half back possie and Bennell plays between forward and centre wing.

Fritsch takes the second tall role, with a licence to play higher up the ground.

Preuss for Gawn.

If Jones doesn't get up, Hannan is lucky too.

I notice a number of posters calling for 5 or even 6 changes. That is desperation  stations and wont happen.

With the aim of some sort of team stability, I would reckon 3 or, tops, 4. Now as to who they might be, I must as usual, admit to bafflement.

Sparrow is a given. I guess if Max is right, Pruess will go but he is stiff as he's more than earned a spot on his performances.

Tmac is a real question mark but he did take a couple of grabs against the dogs but missed a couple of others. Had he taken them and converted - it's a good game. In fairness though the conditions were not conducive to marking. He'll stay.

I love Jones but even if he comes up fit, his lack of pace would be exposed against the aints.

Love to see Bennell in because he has pace and classy skills. Skills were clearly in deficit against the Dogs. He's received a few whacks on this forum for being soft. Unfairly I believe. He's not naturally a bash and crash type but, even if he were, he's still got work to do in simply building up confidence in his body. 

Spargo was ordinary but will get another chance. Kozzie is the future not the present but , as I said on another thread, how else is he going to learn?

Anyway just musing over a Shiraz.

Out. Sparrow, Pruess and ???

In.   Max, Bennell and Rivers.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, picket fence said:

Bring them BOTH IN!!

What Hunt going to do for us?   Disappoints every time he comes in.  Can run fast and thats it.

9 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I notice a number of posters calling for 5 or even 6 changes. That is desperation  stations and wont happen.

Great minds. Was just thinking the same thing (about not making many changes).

 I reckon Jones will be out injured, sparrow obviously too and i can't see them playing preuss and maxy. 

So that's three. And i very much doubt they will want want to make anymore.

That said there a few players who better take the chance to atone this week. Kozzie being one.

I wish melk was one but he reminds me of the old joke about council workers - stands all day leaning on his shovel, but aint no way he's getting sacked (now of course they have sacked his entire department and spend three times as much on contractors to not dig the hole).

To be honest, I couldn't care less who plays, as long as they give 100% effort, all game and we take our chances and use the ball reasonably well. I didn't ask for perfect ball use, as we are incapable of even very good use.

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

To be honest, I couldn't care less who plays, as long as they give 100% effort, all game and we take our chances and use the ball reasonably well. I didn't ask for perfect ball use, as we are incapable of even very good use.

Didn't like our ball use in the previous game, mate? 16.4 was pretty bloody good. 

59 minutes ago, binman said:

Agree DZ.

Some questions i am curious about (not trying to be smart [censored], i promise, just curious because I've noted an inside mail vibe about your posts):

Do you think he should be?

Do you think his performances this year have been at the required level?

How do you rate his on field leadership this year?

I don't think he should be dropped, as I don't see a better medium forward option below him. Many would say this is the most difficult role in the team. 

Some performances have been down but particularly liked his game against the Pies.

His on-field leadership has been good. He plays with intensity and his voice/instruction is currently the best we have in the forward line. I'd say his leadership internally is judged on what he does during the week. Elite habits, trainer and much loved team mate by young and old. 

12 minutes ago, A F said:

Didn't like our ball use in the previous game, mate? 16.4 was pretty bloody good. 

Yes we kicked well for goal against an injury ravaged team coming off a short break, who just couldn't apply any pressure.

How did you like our ball use against Port or the Dogs?

When the pressure is on, our disposal becomes bog ordinary.

You have picked kicking for goal as the marker for ball use, in the one game where we hardly missed, because of a total absence of pressure from the opposition.

Our field kicking and handball is generally poor and nearly every Dees fan I believe, would acknowledge that.

Our best player went at 31% disposal efficiency against the Dogs. Sums it up I would think.

Edited August 24, 20204 yr by Redleg

5 hours ago, picket fence said:

How many chances do you give to obvious downhill skiers?? Season on the line its time for a shake up!

I'll submit a team shortly! T Mac, Fritsch, Spargo, Melksham, Kysiah all on slivers of Ice!

Kozzy is no downhill skier. His willingness to run and pressure is first rate but he can't do it alone. If anything, we need two of him to replace one of our medium/makeshift forwards, preferably Melksham.

2 minutes ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

Kozzy is no downhill skier. His willingness to run and pressure is first rate but he can't do it alone. If anything, we need two of him to replace one of our medium/makeshift forwards, preferably Melksham.

Agree with this. I'm hoping we go for another small or two in as I think we have too many mid-sized forwards in who don't pressure enough.

Also, this is from SEN today:

Prior to the Bulldogs game, Melbourne had settled on a forward mix that provided marking targets and defensive pressure. The late change due to Nathan Jones’ quad injury brought Mitch Hannan into the side, and the Weideman-McDonald-Fritsch-Hannan-Melksham mix was unable to pressure the Dogs’ defensive half attack, leaving too much to Spargo and Pickett. In their third quarter burst, the Dogs kicked four of their six goals from defensive half chains, as the Dees were unable to pressure the Dogs switch.

A slightly smaller and more mobile forward mix will create more defensive pressure, as it showed in the Dees impressive win over the Pies.

The teams on the fringe of the 8: Where they're strong and where they must improve

 

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yes we kicked well for goal against an injury ravaged team coming off a short break, who just couldn't apply any pressure.

Couple of things about this.

1) Ball use makes conversion from forwards easier.

2) Do you know the pressure point stat differential between Melbourne and Collingwood? I know the tackling tackling stat differential. Collingwood were +2. We were +3 for 1%ers. Hardly a team who couldn't apply any pressure.

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

How did you like our ball use against Port or the Dogs?

There was nothing good about the Port game and the Dogs game, our ball use wasn't much worse than theirs. 4% difference between DE and we went at 70%, which is 1% lower than our average. We're 9th in the league for ball use by the way.

Was ball use our problem in those games or was the bigger problem our lack of work rate?

The ball use stat is hyperbolised on Demonland.

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

When the pressure is on, our disposal becomes bog ordinary.

You have picked kicking for goal as the marker for ball use, in the one game where we hardly missed, because of a total absence of pressure from the opposition.

Our field kicking and handball is generally poor and nearly every Dees fan I believe, would acknowledge that.

Our ball use could get better from stoppage and entering forward 50, absolutely, but that's not where either of those games were lost.