On 6/5/2021 at 1:45 AM, Cheesy D. Pun said:

Out: Melksham - he plays like couldn't care less.

I gave up on writing this each week, we are winning so im not stressing over it but its an odd one

Minimal changes for me. Langdon obviously comes in.

Salem would benefit from 2 weeks rest. This might be a good opportunity to get his body right for the rest of the year. He is only just going at the moment.

Melksham, Sparrow and Weideman would be closest to the fringe. 

Weideman was disappointing against the Lions but Harris-Andrews is an excellent defender. He needs to take his chances. I still want us to persevere.

 

Langdon obviously comes in.

The out/s will depend on report outcome, injuries, form and matchups. Way to early to guess and great to have 10days to freshen up. Actually it will be one game in 21 days. Terrific break for all the young'uns. Hopefully there will be some Casey games for others to push their case.

On 6/5/2021 at 2:30 PM, Jaded said:

. I would drop him and bring in Langdon and reshuffle JJ to Hunt’s role. 

Can’t see that happening Jaded. JJ is pretty much a defensively minded inside mid, I’m not sure he’s ever played half back, whereas Sparrow has, I think that would be the most likely move, but I think Jayden will be desperate to remain in the side. Salem would be the obvious one with ‘soreness’ if there’s a change in the back line. 
 

Lingers is the obvious in for a sore Salem - if he plays however,  then I think they will reward Sparrow and push Melksham  out of the 22. He could be medi sub or maybe Jones. 

Hunt or Melksham out 

Langdon in 

Collingwood are in for a really bad day if they bring their slow boring game style against us. May, Lever, Gawn Petty will just intercept all day and we will kick 10 goals on the rebound. 

unless they move it quickly they're no chance, and even if they do the overwhelming likelyhood is we torch their mistakes 

 

17 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

Hunt or Melksham out 

Langdon in 

Collingwood are in for a really bad day if they bring their slow boring game style against us. May, Lever, Gawn Petty will just intercept all day and we will kick 10 goals on the rebound. 

unless they move it quickly they're no chance, and even if they do the overwhelming likelyhood is we torch their mistakes 

 

I watched Collingwood on the weekend.

They played a completely different brand and took the game on much quicker through the corridor.  The same way Adelaide beat us.

This game isn't a walk in the park. No game is. Bring that game style again on the weekend and Collingwood are a chance.

Edited June 6, 20213 yr by dazzledavey36

Langdon for Melksham who only played 57% gametime.

Maybe Bowey to give Salem, who looks proppy, 2 weeks off.

Weid to stay.

Edited June 6, 20213 yr by Pollyanna

On 6/4/2021 at 11:55 PM, rjay said:

He can have a week off after the QB game.

Was important tonight, some significant involvements.

JJ is outright third in the league for tackles. We've managed his TOG from time to time, but he's back playing big minutes at the moment and smashing it. 

I'd go with Melksham out and Langdon in. Push Sparrow to half forward and another mid rotation. He's actually become a very good user of the ball, so we might not lose a lot by having Melksham out and Sparrow adding a genuine mid rotation.

That also leaves our midfield with Oliver, Petracca, Harmes, JJ, Sparrow, Kozzy and ANB for rotations.

1 hour ago, grazman said:

Can’t see that happening Jaded. JJ is pretty much a defensively minded inside mid, I’m not sure he’s ever played half back, whereas Sparrow has, I think that would be the most likely move, but I think Jayden will be desperate to remain in the side. Salem would be the obvious one with ‘soreness’ if there’s a change in the back line. 
 

Lingers is the obvious in for a sore Salem - if he plays however,  then I think they will reward Sparrow and push Melksham  out of the 22. He could be medi sub or maybe Jones. 

Lingers definitely in but I think Salem gets nursed through the game, similiar to him being taken off near the end of Fridays game.  We need to go into the Bye with a winning and Salem is a 'break glass in emergency' team member so nurse him, but have him available if the game is tight.  Don't mess with defence.

On 6/5/2021 at 11:24 AM, Jontee said:

Langdon in which unfortunately pushes 'yung sparra' to the medical sub.

Much talk about Melksham but he is only getting about 60mins on the ground each game so I suspect he has a specific role to play, which the coach is happy about.

Everyone said Jones had a 'specific role to play' and he was dropped the day after his 300th! I suspect Melksham & Sparrow are simply placeholders for Viney & Langdon. Whichever of Melk or Sparrow gets dropped for Langdon is pretty irrelevant, cause the other will be dropped for Viney soon enough.

Edited June 7, 20213 yr by adonski

I was fine with Melksham's game. He wasn't horrible, but if it's a choice between Langdon and Melksham, I know who I'm picking. Particularly, as Sparrow has been a better contributor in his game time this year IMO.

It’s been reported that five Victorian teams played a combined scratch match yesterday. Does anyone know if our players  were included in the game and if so, how they went?

16 hours ago, chook fowler said:

If Melksham stays and Sparrow is omitted I’m calling for a Royal Commission 

Sparrow Omission Royal Commission Report

A report into the omission of Tom Sparrow for Ed Langdon in the Rd 13 game, year of our lord 2021.

Findings

1. The time on ground percentage (TOG%) of the non-omitted player was 57%.

2. The role played by the non-omitted player is a stop-start facilitator of getting players on and off the ground.

3. The non-omitted player was across a number of distinct roles.

4. Young players playing in minimal distinct roles gives them the best chance to play well.

5. Young players should be afforded enough game time for them to appropriately settle.

SUMMARY

The omission of Sparrow for Langdon in lieu of the ‘non-omitted player’ (who is not named out of respect for the safety of his family) is an understandable decision based on the findings above. Therefore, there is no recommended action for the Commonwealth to follow or to recompense the parties involved.

 

Signed, High Court Judge - the honourable rpfc.

Langdon in for Hunt, who’s shoulder will obviously benefit from a week’s rest  

Salem is still hampered by “general soreness”. Get him out, get him right  

In his place comes Lockhart, who was the leading possession-getter in the last game Casey were allowed to play. While it’s the case that we can’t give our reserves match-play, then get them playing in the real thing. 
 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Pollyanna said:

Langdon for Melksham who only played 57% gametime.

Maybe Bowey to give Salem, who looks proppy, 2 weeks off.

Weid to stay.

Why Bowey and not Lockhart?

9 minutes ago, rpfc said:

1. The time on ground percentage (TOG%) of the non-omitted player was 57%.

2. The role played by the non-omitted player is a stop-start facilitator of getting players on and off the ground.

3. The non-omitted player was across a number of distinct roles.

4. Young players playing in minimal distinct roles gives them the best chance to play well.

5. Young players should be afforded enough game time for them to appropriately settle.

Sparrow played 58% and the Commission has made no recommendation on the dreaded sub rule and the absence of the VFL. Both those negate the benefit of a veteran role player taking the 22nd spot.

Langdon will come back in and play his usual 95% game time, although I’ve always said this should be more like 90% so we don’t overdo him.

But Oliver, Brayshaw, Petracca, Harmes and Jordon all played 86% or more. 

With 3 wing options (Langdon, Gus, JJ) and 5 on ball options (Oliver, Petracca, Harmes, JJ, Sparrow) it’s time to share the loads and share the half forward time. It promotes skill development, selfless play and keeps the big guns fresher.

I’ll be so disappointed if Sparrow is dropped before Melksham after that game, it sends completely the wrong message to players outside this team that when they get there chance and do everything that is asked and can’t hold a spot while a senior player gets away with sub par performances week after week gets to keep playing to find form. Form that even if found I don’t think is that impressive 

Edited June 7, 20213 yr by Garbo

Apologies if it has already been said but I do feel for Collingwood having to play their grand final at the SCG this year.

1 hour ago, Mel Bourne said:

Why Bowey and not Lockhart?

I don't think the FD rate him whereas they do rate Bowey.

Also I think Bowey is more like for like dor Salem with his kicking skills.

Edited June 7, 20213 yr by Pollyanna

20 minutes ago, Pollyanna said:

I don't think the FD rate him whereas they do rate Bowey.

Also I think Bowey is more like for like dor Salem with his kicking skills.

I really don’t get that. His form at Casey after (returning from injury) has been very good. He’s played great games at AFL level in the past, and he’s also a very good kick ??‍♂️

Just now, Mel Bourne said:

I really don’t get that. His form at Casey after (returning from injury) has been very good. He’s played great games at AFL level in the past, and he’s also a very good kick ??‍♂️

This is a stab guess, but I think they really want to nail Boweys defensive game first. His offence is elite, but being able to defend first is something they'll be educating him first.

This was something Rivers spoke about last week was the high importance in being able to defend first and the rest falls into place with the offensive side.

Could be wrong though...

IN: Lockhart, Langdon

Out: Melksham, Hunt or Salem

Easy

Edited June 7, 20213 yr by Yung Blood

Honestly confused by the Weideman slander on the site. Weed put in a sub-par performance on the weekend but coming off an interrupted pre-season and needs continuity - has played 4 games. He is playing a selfless role and against one of the best backlines in the comp he competed and brought the ball to ground on a number of occasions for our smalls to capitalise.

I think we should back Weed in for at least the next four. 

IN: Langdon

OUT: Melksham 

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

Sparrow Omission Royal Commission Report

A report into the omission of Tom Sparrow for Ed Langdon in the Rd 13 game, year of our lord 2021.

Findings

1. The time on ground percentage (TOG%) of the non-omitted player was 57%.

2. The role played by the non-omitted player is a stop-start facilitator of getting players on and off the ground.

3. The non-omitted player was across a number of distinct roles.

4. Young players playing in minimal distinct roles gives them the best chance to play well.

5. Young players should be afforded enough game time for them to appropriately settle.

SUMMARY

The omission of Sparrow for Langdon in lieu of the ‘non-omitted player’ (who is not named out of respect for the safety of his family) is an understandable decision based on the findings above. Therefore, there is no recommended action for the Commonwealth to follow or to recompense the parties involved.

 

Signed, High Court Judge - the honourable rpfc.

I object Your Honour.

Melksham/Sparrow for Langdon.

Think Goodwin holds Melksham in high regard.