TEAMS: Rd 10 vs Adelaide

[Binmans PA 26,664]

5 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Argh..

How the [censored] does Melksham get in based on being a medical [censored] sub.

I'd have him out for Viney next week. Perhaps they want to try some things that Brown wouldn't fit into this week or next?

That said, I'd bring in Captain Sparrow this week instead of Melksham if that were the case.

5 hours ago, DubDee said:

I predicted Brown out but I didn't think they would have the balls to do it.

Good changes

We look very dangerous with Jacko/Weed and T Mac

There's not a lot that's dangerous about Sam to this point in time, but hopefully he starts to show it. And keeps his feet a bit more, whilst maintaining some strength in the contest.

5 hours ago, Deeoldfart said:

Probably on the basis that he offers more than Chandler at the moment, but he obviously knows that he's on notice.

Why not Sparrow? He offers more than Chandler and has been ripping it up in the 2s. I can only assume they think Sparrow is fighting for another position. Say ANBs spot for example.

[Binmans PA 26,664]

5 hours ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

Ben Brown is pretty stiff i reckon. considering the two rounds before last round he was averaging 2.5 goals a game which is consistent with the elite forwards of the comp, and was really just building back into it. 

not sure Weid did enough to dislodge him in my opinion. 

and Chandler is stiff to not get another week, but it's difficult to assess the impact Melksham has in a leadership capacity out there, because if it's not something like that, i genuinely doesn't make sense 

I would have been fine giving Chandler another crack, but we could also say this is the MC placing the bar higher than a handful of mostly ineffective disposals and not enough tackles. His game was definitely droppable, but is the yoyo the best way to get the best out players? Only the coaches will know how Chandler is likely to react and how best to motivate him.

4 hours ago, Jaded said:

 

There’s no doubt Melksham brings more than Chandler did last week. But we can’t talk about selection pressure and players putting in at Casey and then bringing in Melksham when you’ve got multiple players in the VFL working their backside off for a chance to play. 
What’s the motivation for Bedford for example to keep going when Melksham gets a week warming the bench and is then straight back into the side? What has he worked on while being a sub? Because he was obviously dropped for a reason. 

I mostly agree with you, but we don't know why Melksham was dropped. It may have simply been a horses for courses scenario and our desire to get Weid in the side meant that a mid sized had to give way for a small pressure forward.

[Binmans PA 26,664]

4 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

He touched the ball 4 times. That doesn't get you a game at Melbourne even Melksham has never been that quiet.

I'd say it's less about the possessions and more about the tackles and pressure acts. He wasn't good enough last week.

[Binmans PA 26,664]

4 hours ago, Nasher said:

We don’t know what the basis was for Melksham being left out in the first place. Everyone’s assumed it’s for this, that and the other behavioural type stuff, but it could have just been a horses for courses change. Perhaps with the different mix of talls, we thought we also needed a different mix of mediums and smalls; now that the tall mix is more like before, we put the medium-small mix back to how it was.

If that’s the case, the message to Bedford and whoever else is plugging away at Casey is that Goodwin and team will pick the team that suits whatever we’re trying to deliver, so make sure you’re putting your best foot forward.

We can only guess the reasoning, but if this change is mystifying in the context of your guess, then maybe the assumptions around why he was left out in the first place need revisiting.

Lol sorry mate. I should really read your posts first. Spot on. Agreed.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,266]

5 hours ago, Dr.D said:

yes I agree. but Brown's form wasn't better than Weideman's in the vfl so initially it didn't seem like a fair promotion. Nonetheless I was totally unimpressed with Browns first game that I felt that he deserved instant demotion. His dropped mark and a sloppy free kick in the forward 50m he gave away in the last quarter were momentum killers and he could've lost the game against better competition.  So I was calling for his demotion immediately. And just like all of these people saying 'oh you can't drop Chandler after 1 game' nonsense. Of course you can!

Ask Mitch Brown about this.

[Antioch 194]

7 hours ago, binman said:

Melksham in?

On what basis? 

On the basis that Chandler is nowhere near the level required and Melksham is.

[Antioch 194]

6 hours ago, Pates said:

Yep fair enough, Brown’s reputation and body of work from winning multiple Coleman medals is definitely something he has going for him. It was what got him picked over Sam when between the two of them Weid clearly had better form. I don’t think people should get too hung up on Weid being in this week, this is an opportunity he’s been given for the work he’s put in at Casey. 

Brown will be back and I’m locking it in right now he will absolutely destroy a team this year (talking 7+ goals). 

Ben Brown doesn’t look fit. At all. Needs to do a lot of work in the gym and on the track to get back to his best.

[picket fence 15,735]

11 hours ago, Dr.D said:

Pretty simple really. Weideman was playing better vfl footy than Brown and Brown was incorrectly promoted ahead of Weideman. They persisted with Brown for 3 weeks where he didn't impress and now he's dropped. What else do you need a hand with?

VFL footy is largly irrelevant. The FACT that 3 out of 4 seasons BB has kicked 60 plus goals. Weeds has not done done that since coming into the system. So on one hand you have a proven goal kicker ,on the other a still highly speculative could be. I know who I would rather have and its BB!

[BDA 20,895]

BB took his marks and slotted his 3 goals v Sydney in a very tight game. I wouldn’t trust the Weid to do that…yet. He really needs to take this chance. No more talk of potential. I think he has what it takes but he’s at an age now where he has to start delivering for us. If he doesn’t fire against Adelaide I reckon we go with the proven goal kicker in BB against the Dogs.

[picket fence 15,735]

22 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

BB took his marks and slotted his 3 goals v Sydney in a very tight game. I wouldn’t trust the Weid to do that…yet. He really needs to take this chance. No more talk of potential. I think he has what it takes but he’s at an age now where he has to start delivering for us. If he doesn’t fire against Adelaide I reckon we go with the proven goal kicker in BB against the Dogs.

Yep

[Engorged Onion 9,570]

31 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

BB took his marks and slotted his 3 goals v Sydney in a very tight game. I wouldn’t trust the Weid to do that…yet. He really needs to take this chance. No more talk of potential. I think he has what it takes but he’s at an age now where he has to start delivering for us. If he doesn’t fire against Adelaide I reckon we go with the proven goal kicker in BB against the Dogs.

It's the age old conversation of - How many games sequentially for someone to give them some continuity before the threshold is reached that they cannot retain their spot in the side.

No one aside from the supporters are talking about 'potential'. Someone on here wrote a post yeserday re: Weideman last year - did alright in the first half of the year, got injured, played with TMAC who was out of form, was the big dog forward in a team that was misfiring delivery into the forward line as well as general midfield play.

It's a different context at the moment.

Personally, though, I am dubious about his performances when taking the best defender... (and I assume the FD would hope the best defender goes to TMAC).

Edited May 20, 2021 by Engorged Onion

[Kent 2,673]

Watched the last quarter again  last night concentrating on Weiderman

Anybody want to see Weid potential it was on display

Dropped a large number of marks

Was easily pushed of the ball 

Didn't compete lacks any ferocity

I was 50/50 before on Weid 

Not now he is looking like a liability FD thinks otherwise but he would want to pull his finger out this weekend

I'm completely underwhelmed No wonder the club went after Brown The weid is not what we think

[Jymothy 9]

I would have preferred they persist with Brown. If he is up and running we’d be unbeatable. Plus he takes the best defender.

[Kent 2,673]

11 hours ago, ProperDee said:

Well young Sam, here is your chance son!  I want to see him hold a handful of marks, lay some strong tackles, crash a few packs and kick at least a couple of sausage rolls. Step right up to the plate and give those fans that believe in you something to get excited about. I reckon you owe it to them.

 

This player hasnt' got  it in him. Plays with absolutely no desire or passion I've never seen a big man get pushed around so easily

Only reason to play him is to improve his perceived value for trade which is pretty low at the moment I would guess

[Kent 2,673]

13 hours ago, loges said:

Much better ? He didn't have much to beat. They were both very average.

Have a look at Weidemans' last quarter It was appalling!

[Sydee 3,755]

23 minutes ago, Kent said:

Have a look at Weidemans' last quarter It was appalling!

I personally remain unconvinced in either Weid or BB - neither seems to have any real strength and aggression, both too easily pushed under the ball or out positioned by key defenders

Time will tell if either will start performing at the level we want/expect - this week it was a toss of the coin as to who made way for LJ who in my opinion offers more to the team atm 

[Superunknown 3,632]

1 hour ago, Better days ahead said:

BB took his marks and slotted his 3 goals v Sydney in a very tight game. I wouldn’t trust the Weid to do that…yet. He really needs to take this chance. No more talk of potential. I think he has what it takes but he’s at an age now where he has to start delivering for us. If he doesn’t fire against Adelaide I reckon we go with the proven goal kicker in BB against the Dogs.

Second this, and what Kent said.

[AllMyTeamsAreWank 564]

I liked Ben Brown when he got the ball but he just looked seriously unfit. Happy to go with Weid until he is moving a bit better. Can't recall him getting any separation on his opponent. 

[pinkshark 938]

I love the Weid.  2018 Geelong final when he was in the open in the forward line, out the back, crowd saw it before the players did, WEEEEIIIIDD went the rumbling roar from the out of their minds faithful.  He marked, and goaled.  Rapturous!

He has not excited me since though.  Needs to bloody well mark the contested ball better.  I cant help but think, and I don't like thinking it, i try to banish the thought, but sometimes theres a little bit of the 'Looks like tarzan...' going on for me.

Brown will be back.    Big rugged tasmanian should get a little [censored] off with his dropping and when he gets back in be bloody keen to do some damage.  

I want Weid, Jackson, Tmac, Brown and Big Maximillian in the same team.  Lets just go [censored] giant and dominate.  I'm no x's and o's man, so to the strategists out there is there at all a possibility that this could happen?  Is too much speed/forward 50 defensive pressure and drive given up somewhere?  Spell it out for me someone.

[Pipefitter 2,083]

Melksham is a much better player than Chandler at this stage. Chandler was not up to the level at all last week. Happy with the changes. 

[binman 39,469]

6 hours ago, Antioch said:

On the basis that Chandler is nowhere near the level required and Melksham is.

I'm perplexed by the decision to melksham.

But as Wadda we sing quite rightly noted at 9-zip you have to give the selection committee credit where it is due. And as nasher has pointed out of course we are not privy to roles,  kpis, plans etc

That said I don't understand the comments that he is in because he is better option than chandler.

It is complete false equivalence.

He's nor replacing chandker.

For one thing, chandler's role was a small pressure forward.

They might have thought they needed an extra one last week in the likely slippery conditions and to offset Brown and weeds lack of inside 50 pressure. 

Melksham is decidedly not a small pressure forward. I have a vague memory that he is, or was, a plumber. If so I'd never get him to fix my water pressure issues. He'd be clueless as to what base line pressure is.

And secondly there are a other options that could have been selected. Captain Jack sparrow for one. He has been in the best at Casey for the ladt two games. And if he was a plumber I would get him to fix my shower.

And if they wanted a small forward who could pressure, what about Bedford? 

[Dees2014 2,377]

15 hours ago, binman said:

Sure.

But lets say he plays well against an inexperienced, young backline? What does that prove in terms of his ability to play say the dogs the following week. 

He better lay some inside 50 tackles and apply elite pressure. If he doesn't and he stays in I'm just not sure what message that sends to the rest of the squad. 

May well be a smart move by selectors. Weideman has all the attributes to develop into an A-grade key forward, but has let himself down in the past by not applying enough gameday pressure. This might be a condition of letting him play this week ie demonstrate he is capable of pressure football in return for a continuing place in the side. 
 

One of the continuing advantages of our fabulous start to the season is that we can afford to experiment with selections to find our best combinations, and we always have BBB waiting in the wings anyway. I suggest there will be a few more such experiments in the coming mid year rounds, although after this Saturday we have a month of very difficult games when we will have to be at our best. We will do well to come out of it 2-2. 
 

If BBB can demonstrate gameday pressure and kick bags of goals at Casey, l have no doubt a spot will be found for him, especially as the weather improves as we move towards Finals.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Dees2014

[loges 6,336]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Have a look at Weidemans' last quarter It was appalling!

Look I hope he has a great game this weekend but too many on here still rate him on his final against Geelong.

[Pickett2Jackson 3,904]

57 minutes ago, AllMyTeamsAreWank said:

I liked Ben Brown when he got the ball but he just looked seriously unfit. Happy to go with Weid until he is moving a bit better. Can't recall him getting any separation on his opponent. 

Browns knee will be  real problem for us.  I said before Round 1 I dont think he will play many games in a Melbourne jumper and I haven't changed my mind.

I wonder if there would be any benefit inn resting him another month. Probably not.

[Kent 2,673]

Just now, loges said:

Look I hope he has a great game this weekend but too many on here still rate him on his final against Geelong.

Me too Loges

I was genuinely surprised at how poor he was in the basics upon watching the replay

As I said I was a supporter I am now not so keen

Like you,I really hope he puts in a great game on Saturday