13 hours ago, BigMacjnr said:

Maybe look at a couple changes:

In: Viney, Laurie

Out: Dunstan, Melksham

I think Laurie has been in good form at VFL level and probably the next best winger outside of the current 22 the team has available with Howes injured, who is both tactically astute enough to play the role as well as having the pace/endurance to play the role. Benefit being it allows Brayshaw to stay back if possible as he has been in All Australian form there. Otherwise you could bring in a half back flanker and push Rivers or Bowser up to the wing for a week.

How is Rosman progressing?

For memory we recruited him with a mind to have him on the wing?

5 minutes ago, JTR said:

How is Rosman progressing?

For memory we recruited him with a mind to have him on the wing?

He’s been playing as a back man and looking pretty good. He’s taller and bigger than I remember and looks very capable of playing 2nd or 3rd key back. He hasn’t been playing wing this year though.

Sounds like Vines is likely in.

 

1 hour ago, binman said:

Good assessment of his skill set  strengths and weaknesses. On weaknesses, his lack of pace is the biggest worry I reckon.

Williams is a really good comparison.

Mitchell (current and former) for the hawks is another similar player.

Not so long ago you could have 2 or 3 such players in the team - ie inside mids, extractor, high possession (mostly handball) types.

But these days you really only need one as the best mids now are tall, big and very strong bodies and/or have explosive break away pace.

We have viney in the Diesel Williams role. Laurie is probably going to be competing with Dunstan for the back up role.

You hate losing players, and I'm certainly not advocating trading him, but Laurie is the sort of player who we might lose because they want to play senior footy.

High enough draft pick, good skills, well developed by the best club and is probably ready for senior footy  and certainly will be after another AFL preseason. Could see another cluh being keen and unlike say baker, would have a bit of trade value.

 

Laurie has not shown enough AFL traits yet to be "probably ready for senior footy" IMO. While Laurie has been improving in the last month, he needs to consistently be winning 30 possessions per game in the VFL because he isn't quick and is small. He is competing with Viney, Spargo and ANB.

24 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Laurie has not shown enough AFL traits yet to be "probably ready for senior footy" IMO. While Laurie has been improving in the last month, he needs to consistently be winning 30 possessions per game in the VFL because he isn't quick and is small. He is competing with Viney, Spargo and ANB.

Whilst I agree that he's not ready for senior footy, I think he does show enough AFL traits to suggest he could be an AFL player. He needs to improve his defensive game, and get more involved at VFL level on a consistent basis. 

Goody mentioned in his presser that we have players at Casey that no-one has heard of, who they believe will make it with development, and used Jordon and Sparrow as examples. The players that came to mind are Laurie, Moniz-Wakefield, Deakyn Smith, Woey, Turner and Rosman. I didn't include JVR because he's a high draft pick, and everyone would be aware of him.

1 hour ago, John Crow Batty said:

Switkowski is a good player and a big loss for Freo. But how pathetic is the tribunal? A weak chicken wing tackle applied with no force earns a two weeks suspension. He just basically folded Ginnivans arm behind his back. No signs of injury, pain or protest from Ginnivan. No sense of rational proportion at all. 

The leniency on Ryan still angers me, and I agree that there is absolutely zero consistency when considering potential for serious injury.

 

4 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

Laurie has not shown enough AFL traits yet to be "probably ready for senior footy" IMO. 

You're probably right.

I was thinking probably ready for senior footy - for another team. And if he were to get spot in another team its obviously not going to be this year. 

But i def agree he is not ready to come into the best team in the AFL, one packed with gun mids

In: Viney

Out: Melksham

On second thoughts the club is nursing Melksham to 200 games so Dunstan will be the one who comes out.

6 hours ago, Sydee said:

Having watched a fair amount of Casey this season I'd be shocked if Laurie was selected as wing - at this stage he does not appear anywhere fit enough for that role. Nor does he have great pace - what he does have is good footy IQ, evasive skills, great hands and good kicking skills albeit over shorter distance (the player he reminds me most of is Greg Williams - I know that is a stretch but just think he is the closest like for like. Whether he will ever get close to Diesel is anyone's guess - if he does he will be a very handy player)

If he get close a player the quality of Diesel then handy would be an under estimation of his talents.

I liken him to Greg Wells when he started.

34 minutes ago, Deeminion said:

In: Viney

Out: Melksham

On second thoughts the club is nursing Melksham to 200 games so Dunstan will be the one who comes out.

could happen.  Melksham with 7 touches and 1 tackle, (and 1 goal) was not great.  but we might be too inside mid heavy with Dunstan staying in, especially on the G against a quick team

if it was me picking the team, I'd have Bedford in the 22 for Melk, Viney in for Dunstan

I’m still not convinced on Bedford. But I hope he’s given every opportunity to show his capabilities.

17oC on Saturday with hardly any rain expected (0.1-0.4m) 

6 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Switkowski is a good player and a big loss for Freo. But how pathetic is the tribunal? A weak chicken wing tackle applied with no force earns a two weeks suspension. He just basically folded Ginnivans arm behind his back. No signs of injury, pain or protest from Ginnivan. No sense of rational proportion at all. 

Suspensions seem to be influenced by injuries inflicted. Thomas dumped Langdon forcibly and was free kicked for a dangerous tackle but not regarded as a reportable offence.Compare this tackle by Chandler. Was it really any more vicious ? What if Langers had sustained a punctured lung or fractured ribs would there have been a different outcome for the tackler? Inconsistency of the highest order. BTW I didn't either tackle was reportable. Just good red blooded tackles.

7 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Switkowski is a good player and a big loss for Freo. But how pathetic is the tribunal? A weak chicken wing tackle applied with no force earns a two weeks suspension. He just basically folded Ginnivans arm behind his back. No signs of injury, pain or protest from Ginnivan. No sense of rational proportion at all. 

You're kidding, right?

If anything, two weeks was light for that.

31 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Suspensions seem to be influenced by injuries inflicted. Thomas dumped Langdon forcibly and was free kicked for a dangerous tackle but not regarded as a reportable offence.Compare this tackle by Chandler. Was it really any more vicious ? What if Langers had sustained a punctured lung or fractured ribs would there have been a different outcome for the tackler? Inconsistency of the highest order. BTW I didn't either tackle was reportable. Just good red blooded tackles.

Not just injuries. The TV commentators have influence also and the tribunal takes notice. With Langdon, the commentators said basically nothing wrong there.  With the Chicken wing tackle there was expressions of outrage as with the Viney incident last season. The tribunal acts accordingly. If the commentators didn’t speak up about the chicken wing tackle I doubt anyone would have noticed. Then again if someone like Tom Hawkins applied that limp chicken wing tackle the commentators would have said he had nothing to answer for.

Edited May 25, 20222 yr by John Crow Batty

What I've liked about selection in recent times is that it is position related. So if Viney is out, Dunstan comes in. If Harmes (forward/ tagger) is out Melk comes in. The exceptions to this are when pivotal players like Salem go down, Brayshaw takes on his secondary role and Jordon goes to the wing. Based on this if Langdon is out you would expect Baker to come in. It's position for position. The integrity of the 'structures' are kept where possible. I can't see them playing Bedford, Melk or Chandler on a wing. 

34 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Suspensions seem to be influenced by injuries inflicted

In fairness, this is the only objective measure of outcome for any reportable/suspendable ‘offence’. Of course it ignores intent, misfortune, and any manner of other factors that might have influenced that outcome. Adjudicators I think have become so gun-shy in using instinct to judge any on-field act, because they are legally subjective, that they lean further toward the objectively irrefutable. Hence, Chandler’s act lead to a concussion. Incontestable. Ryan’s act lead to a moment’s discomfort for Bowey, who played out the game. Incontestable. The resulting penalties are often nonsensical when held up for comparison, but I’m not sure they care. 

12 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Not just injuries. The TV commentators have influence also and the tribunal takes notice. With Langdon, the commentators said basically nothing wrong there.  With the Chicken wing tackle there was expressions of outrage as with the Viney incident last season. The tribunal acts accordingly. If the commentators didn’t speak up about the chicken wing tackle I doubt anyone would have noticed. Then again if someone like Tom Hawkins applied that limp chicken wing tackle the commentators would have said he had nothing to answer for.

it's interesting to note that the chicken wing incident had no bad outcome but was still heavily penalised. that is to say that the mro/tribunal normally place more penalty based on the outcome rather than the action and its potentiality. but here the emphasis was reversed.

i think the penalty here was about right, but again it begs the question of mro consistency

7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

it's interesting to note that the chicken wing incident had no bad outcome but was still heavily penalised. that is to say that the mro/tribunal normally place more penalty based on the outcome rather than the action and its potentiality. but here the emphasis was reversed.

i think the penalty here was about right, but again it begs the question of mro consistency

If Ginnivan showed signs of injury, pain, discomfort or irritation because of the tackle then fair enough a suspension for Switkowski. What he did deserved a fine maybe for the bad optics. 

11 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

If Ginnivan showed signs of injury, pain, discomfort or irritation because of the tackle then fair enough a suspension for Switkowski. What he did deserved a fine maybe for the bad optics. 

The rules aren't based on outcome though, they're about 'potential to cause injury'.

Genuinely surprised anyone can try and conjure up way to defend that action.

28 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

The rules aren't based on outcome though, they're about 'potential to cause injury'.

Genuinely surprised anyone can try and conjure up way to defend that action.

That hard tackle on Langdon when he was vulnerable and in no position to absorb its force did not have the potential to cause injury?

Edited May 25, 20222 yr by John Crow Batty

36 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

The rules aren't based on outcome though, they're about 'potential to cause injury'.

Genuinely surprised anyone can try and conjure up way to defend that action.

Liam Ryan doesn't agree

3 hours ago, Deeminion said:

In: Viney

Out: Melksham

On second thoughts the club is nursing Melksham to 200 games so Dunstan will be the one who comes out.

If we didn’t “nurse” Jones to a premiership then I don’t see why we would “nurse” Melk” to 200 games. 

17 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

That hard tackle on Langdon when he was vulnerable and in no position to absorb its force did not have the potential to cause injury?

 

7 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Liam Ryan doesn't agree

I'm just stating what the rules say.