We have had great service from our bomber ex pats. Thank you guys. 

Milkshake is a solid, low risk choice and probably a better Like for Like replacement for a Harmes than Bedford or Dunstan. 

Geeze lots of carry on for an undefeated team making 1 change.  

Hope he kicks some beautiful long goals. At Marvellous Stadium that should mean from Inside the Center Square!!

3 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I've had worse.

Melksham should be the absolute last resort of selection. The point of being selected when we have multiple injuries. He's well past it at nearly 31 years of age and not in the club's future plans.

He shouldn't be in the team robbing games off Bedford who actually deserve to be rewarded for his consistency of form in the VFL but also the perfect opportunity to see what he has to offer at AFL level with a string of games while Harmes is off injured.

Lucky we aren’t playing much of an opponent. 
I reckon they’ll try to get him to 200 and I’m not super mad about it since this is most likely his last season. 

Bit of a surprise but we need a midfield / fwd link man to replace Harmes. 

I hope and assume getting Milkshake to 200 games has nothing to do with the selection as it would be ridiculous. 

milkshake must perform or Bedford should be straight in next week

Well I agree 100% with dazzledavey36. Enough said.

Missed opportunity to give a younger player a go against a bottom 2 side and Melksham hasn’t played a good game for a long time anyway

Melbourne is so boringly good now that even the team changes on Thursday night are ho-hum.

Melksham isn’t going to get a much better chance at having a string of 2+ games. This week provides an opportunity for him to get settled and play his old link man role. Personally would’ve chosen Bedford, but not upset that Melks get a chance to close in on 200. 

31 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Lucky we aren’t playing much of an opponent. 
I reckon they’ll try to get him to 200 and I’m not super mad about it since this is most likely his last season. 

But isn't that the perfect opportunity for Bedford to come in and try and stake his claim in the senior side starting this weekend? I mean would this also provide an opportunity to give Bailey Laurie a taste of AFL action? I would think that these are the games where you could easily accommodate for a Bedford or Laurie.

While Harmes is out for a few weeks then this would have provided the perfect opportunity for Bedford.

If it's not now then when does he get the opportunity when we are full strength again??

Sitting on the bench for another 6 games as a sub is probably the next closest thing he'll get to AFL action again now.

Edited May 19, 20223 yr by dazzledavey36

My guess is the FD are looking to share the love around in order to keep their preferred next rung of players up and about and at the level (AFL worthy) in case needed to cover off injuries late in the season.

Otherwise the preferences (around the middle anyway) would surely have to be Bedders or Dunstan in most cases.

The four in the mix seem to be Melk, Weid, Bedders & Dunstan.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Genuine [censored] selection and it's been obvious that Goody has been trying desperately hard to get his Essendon mate a game this past few weeks.

I was waiting someone to come up with the line of Goody's mate, it didn't take long.

Just now, drysdale demon said:

I was waiting someone to come up with the line of Goody's mate, it didn't take long.

I knew you'd be waiting so I said it. 

Just now, dazzledavey36 said:

I knew you'd be waiting so I said it. 

You didn't disappoint.

I like thay we are taking the opportunity to play Melksham, he was solid against Hawthorn, good pressure, and I think his class adds fwd to connection

If we're actively trying to get him to 200 then great! That's a plus, and a great reflection on a good team looking after those who have played roles along the way

Bedford is exciting, and has plent of class, but he'll get plenty more chances

I expected the change to be Dunstan for Harmes and Bedford for Chandler but I am not conflicted about Melksham coming in. I am a great believer in rewarding player loyalty and 200 games is such a big deal for AFL players and we are playing the bottom team, so little risk to the final result.!!

So will this make it 199 for Melksham?

1 hour ago, sisso said:

Don’t really understand why we’d go with the Melk unless it’s to nurse him to 200

I thought they'd pick him last week as medisub which made sense as it would have got him to 199 probably without playing (and as it turned out would have saved Chandler from a 2-week suspension).

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

You've genuinely got to be [censored] kidding me right?

We pick a bloke off the back of not playing last week being an emergency, over guys like Bedford who had the perfect opportunity to play consisten game time at AFL level. Even if it was Bailey Laurie to get a taste of AFL action.

But no, we select a guy that's going to be 31 this year and we'll past his best at AFL level.

Genuine [censored] selection and it's been obvious that Goody has been trying desperately hard to get his Essendon mate a game this past few weeks.

Opportunity missed.

I don't agree with you about Melksham being underserving of his spot. And this Essendon mate thing I think is crap. They've hardly been gifting him games in recent times. He played well when he came in with 5 out because of COVID.

ut having said that I can't really understand why Bedford has been overlooked. I thought he was a cerainty this week especially with his promotion with the indigenous jumper. They could have made Melksham the medisub and that would have got him one game closer to 200. He has to be in the 22 for his 200th but that doesn't have to be in a challenging and important game like Fremantle. If they'd picked him as medisub last week it would have made sense to bring him in for his 200th against North.

1 hour ago, DemonWA said:

Milkshake is a solid, low risk choice and probably a better Like for Like replacement for a Harmes than Bedford or Dunstan. 

Possibly which can be the only reason he was picked. I still think it would have sent a better message based on both form and effort for Bedford to be in the 22 and Melksham to be medisub. It's not as if we're going to lose anyway.

33 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

So will this make it 199 for Melksham?

I thought it was 198, could be wrong.

[censored] choice, Melksham is well past it.

Should've brought Bedford in.

If Melksham didn’t play this week, the VFL’s bye would have meant two weeks without playing a game. And they are keen to respect the players’ milestones which I think has to be a leadership driven thing.

I wouldn’t have done it but clubs are interesting places and respect and ruthlessness is a never ending exercise in balance.

I think with some of these decisions there is consideration being given to the player going out.

With Melksham taking his spot there is no argument that as soon as Harmes is fit he goes straight back in. We have Salem coming back soon as well. I don't want Hunt just cast aside. I don't think the FD will either. I dare say if Bedford plays there is just more selection angst in weeks to come. Melksham is filling a gap. He's a gap filler.

I'm not sure I agree with myself.

If we gifted games - jones wouldve played in a granny 

 

Bedford is not a mid forward, Dunstan is not a mid forward, Laurie is not a mid forward 

 

Melk is - he can play a role and will make way when needed 

2 minutes ago, MrFreeze said:

If we gifted games - jones wouldve played in a granny 

 

Bedford is not a mid forward, Dunstan is not a mid forward, Laurie is not a mid forward 

 

Melk is - he can play a role and will make way when needed 

Jones was gifted his last half a dozen games