59 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Give up ! Not likely.

I'll put it on the record that I reckon Baker has been treated harshly & deserves a run.  If he doesn't get a go I predict he'll go elsewhere & make a decent career.

If he doesn't I'll be happy to concede u were right & I was wrong.  

You might be one of very few who believes he needs a run CF as I'm with the majority.

His one weapon is his pace that looks the goods in twos.  When he plays with the big boys however, sadly they're all just as quick and I don't think he adds a great deal else.

I'm not sure of his contract status but I'd imagine he's a decent way down in the pecking order at the moment.

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

 He played 3 games last year. Averaged 5 disposals, 1 tackle and 1 mark.

You seem to not know your history. Both were dropped numerous times before improving and earning their spots.

Spargo played 8 games in each of 2019  and 2020.

Neal Bullen spent a ton of time at Casey working on his competitiveness playing as an inside mid and was nearly traded end of 2020.

Give it up mate.

Not sure where you got your info from LN...

Baker only played one match last year against Norf.  The other two matches unused sub.  His stats in the Norf game...

10 effectives & 66.7%, one 1 percenter, 2 clearances, 1 rebound 50, 6 inside 50s, 4 tackles, 4 score involvements, 2 intercepts, 315 meters gained & 3 turnovers.

His only significant season (non-covid regular) was 2019 where, as i think you may have correctly pointed out (or someone did), he played 9 matches.  5 of those consecutive from Rnds 9 to 13.  Another block of 3 games from Rnds 19 to 21.  His statistical averages from those 9 matches indicate a pretty sub par outcome for the season backing up those who are suggesting he was given a number of chances but didn't cut the mustard (at AFL level).

3 other consecutive matches in 2020 from Rnds 16 to 18.  Again pretty sub par statistically but he had plenty of mates that season!

Edited May 26, 20222 yr by Demon Dynasty

8 hours ago, binman said:

Bedford is a ripper.

Smart player, good skills, good decision maker and is super fit

And has one key attribute that makes him AFL ready - genuine speed.and an ability to maintain that speed over distance.

The reality is ( as binman has said) that Toby  has pace PLUS good  skills, is smart and a good decision maker, plus is super fit. And this has been building over 3 years and a half, especially the last year and a half as his confidence has also grown.

I look at Toby now and  he not only has developed as a player but into our system mentally and is ready with self belief to take his chance.when given the opportunity. He is also looking when at Casey above that level and AFL "ready".

Baker since bring recruited which championed his leg speed as his point of difference has not despite small numbers of opportunities for about one year longer greatly improved his ball skills ie kicking and disposal especially, nor his natural game awareness to another level ie AFL.

That is  not saying Bakes does not try any less than Toby or is any less committed to our Club.

In addition Sparrow Jordon Kossie Dogga Riv Petty Fritta and Bowser plus Laurie who are all now or have since joining been ready for AFL duties. Most of our other 2020 and 2021 draftees are younger and developing, improving at Casey at their pace given the advantage of time our strength now allows recruits to learn the Melbourne way over 2 or 3 years if necessary. Jordon and Sparrow needed this time and are still in some ways are works  in progress and learning more on the journey as all of the above mentioned have).

Ultimately it appears that Bakes does not possess the natural ability or footy smarts in spite of a red hot career go and sadly is now looking at having potentially missed his opportunity. He should be the one on the wing replacing Lingers in an ideal world or at least in the 26 named for the match. 
 

10 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I don't understand the reference to not being in the 18. It doesn't matter whether a player's in the 18 or the 22. Just because they are named on the interchange doesn't mean they're more likely to be a late withdrawal. Or am I missing something here? Are there different rules for late withdrawals from the 18 than the 22? Sunday games are of course different because 8 are named on the rxtended interchange and this has to be trimmed to 4 by 5 on Friday night (and you can't change the 18).

Quite right, rules for late withdrawl are the same for all 22.  And there is no particular significance to being on the bench rather than the starting 18. 

My musing was about both McDonald and Petty being hampered last week and played less than their usual game time.  Petty more so than McDonald. 

Then having both Tomlinson and Weideman in the emergencies made me wonder if one or both might play.  Having said that our policy is players play through 'niggles'/soreness so my throw away line about 'maybe a late change' was just an idle thought.

Edited May 26, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

9 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Not sure where you got your info from LN...

Baker only played one match last year against Norf.

See above mate, already been addressed.

This will be our hardest test of the year missing Langdon who is in the top 5 most important players for us. 
It will likely be a low scoring affair. Hopefully we can break them open late. 

I doubt Melksham would be playing if it wasn't his 200th game. However, as we did with Jones, the club has shown respect to our senior citizens and assisted them to reach significant milestones. With Hames, Langdon and Salem all due to return soon, Melksham might not get another chance to get to his milestone match. So, it's a smart selection at this time. It's not like he's keeping out an obvious choice instead.

I think out ins and outs are all system based, as in Viney back = Dunstan out

Harmes out = Melksham stays in. 
if Harmes was recovered and back it would have been Melky out. 

15 hours ago, Demons11 said:

Disappointing to lose Langdon but great to have Viney back.  I’m thinking Laurie might get the sub vest this week. 

Also disappointing that Harmes ain't there at the home ground. We need his intercepts and buoyant energy - plus his unexpected forward scoring and feeds.

 

16 hours ago, old dee said:

How certain are we that Tmac will play? Look to be favouring a knee late in the game. Not listed in the 18. 

You may have something there with Weid named as an emergency.

Tomlinson is very unlucky, as he has been in great form with Casey. I wonder if he could be tried forward if the opportunity arises.

15 hours ago, picket fence said:

Really disapointed that Melksham gets a game on his handful of possesions over Dunstan

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve read on here that STATS AREN’T ALL THAT MATTERS. Maybe this only applies for particular games/players/teams/moon phases??? Since I’m still rocking L plates, perhaps you might explain (?) T.IA.

Freo is easily the best defence we have come up against (the last 2 weeks aside). It will be fascinating to see how we play. I don't think we can afford to be waste so many inside 50's this week. Lower your eyes and hit targets.

Freo are almost full strength.  How much will we miss Langdon? A lot is my guess. Especially without another proper winger on the other wing. Him, Salem and Harmes are all significant outs as they are all link men and involved in so many scoring chains.  Time for Jordon and the like to really step up.

Demons by 4 points 

6 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve read on here that STATS AREN’T ALL THAT MATTERS. Maybe this only applies for particular games/players/teams/moon phases??? Since I’m still rocking L plates, perhaps you might explain (?) T.IA.

They're not ALL that matters, but they do give an indication of certain things, for us it's usually an indicator of the role being played and then potentially how effective the player was in that role.

Melksham's game last week just seem a bit devoid of those indicators.

He was clearly brought in for Harmes' role, so you'd think stoppage clearances, marks, tackles, inside 50s and possessions (to a point) were indicators of how we went. Statistically he was poor in those areas.

He possibly had some time on Langdon's wing as well, but those statistical indicators would have been fairly similar for that role IMO.

For mine, the key areas I think Melksham can contribute really well are inside 50s and goal assists. In some previous years he's been quite important for us with his quality delivery forward. Last week he had 2 inside 50s and 0 goal assists. You can forgive a lack of impact with the ball if the player is 'bringing the heat', but he had just 1 tackle, 1 one percenter, 1 ground ball get and 10 pressure acts (for reference, ANB in a similar role had 25).

Just not a good enough game from a senior player.

5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

They're not ALL that matters, but they do give an indication of certain things, for us it's usually an indicator of the role being played and then potentially how effective the player was in that role.

Melksham's game last week just seem a bit devoid of those indicators.

He was clearly brought in for Harmes' role, so you'd think stoppage clearances, marks, tackles, inside 50s and possessions (to a point) were indicators of how we went. Statistically he was poor in those areas.

He possibly had some time on Langdon's wing as well, but those statistical indicators would have been fairly similar for that role IMO.

For mine, the key areas I think Melksham can contribute really well are inside 50s and goal assists. In some previous years he's been quite important for us with his quality delivery forward. Last week he had 2 inside 50s and 0 goal assists. You can forgive a lack of impact with the ball if the player is 'bringing the heat', but he had just 1 tackle, 1 one percenter, 1 ground ball get and 10 pressure acts (for reference, ANB in a similar role had 25).

Just not a good enough game from a senior player.

Thanks for explaining. And explaining well.
Perhaps I should start reading what ppl are saying in their posts  instead of reading what they’re NOT saying. The “unsaid” stuff is still there though. 

3 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Thanks for explaining. And explaining well.
Perhaps I should start reading what ppl are saying in their posts  instead of reading what they’re NOT saying. The “unsaid” stuff is still there though. 

TBF, it IS the internet, and most of us go to the black and white pretty quickly and pretty hard! I think we can recognize Milkshake had a poor game (and is probably lucky to play this week) but also not absolutely smash him all week.

3 hours ago, PaulRB said:

I think out ins and outs are all system based, as in Viney back = Dunstan out

Harmes out = Melksham stays in. 
if Harmes was recovered and back it would have been Melky out. 

Yep, good call. he can cover Harmes minutes in the mid field and is natural forward so can cover Harmes' half forward role. 

I have been as big a critic of Melksham as anyone over his time at the dees.

My main criticism has been his lack of intensity, particularly in 2020.  But i have seen some really positive signs in that regard at in the Casey games i have watched. 

He is perhaps fortunate to keep his spot on the back of a pretty quiet game last week, but the fact he has tells me he applied sufficient pressure and played his role to a level acceptable to Goody. So, that's good enough for me.

It wouldn't shock me if getting him to 200 games is a factor in his selection. And if so, as someone noted, that would be in keeping with the culture of respect we have built. I think it was factor in the decision to pick Tmac for his 200th game ahead of Weed. 

That said there is no way Goody would gift anyone a game. If Goody figured he was not up to he job he wouldn't select him. Again, that's good enough for me.

I hope he has a ripping game and shows off some his undeniable A grade kicking skills. 

It surprises me a bit* that Melbourne supporters, who watch us play every week, struggle with the concept that Melksham and Dunstan aren’t competing for the same spot in the team.

*not at all

22 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

TBF, it IS the internet, and most of us go to the black and white pretty quickly and pretty hard! I think we can recognize Milkshake had a poor game (and is probably lucky to play this week) but also not absolutely smash him all week.

… nor anytime. It’s not a huge ask. 
 

McDonald out so i Guess Weid gets another chance. 

Yep Weideman in and M Brown added to Emergency list.

Edited May 27, 20222 yr by Mr Steve

4 minutes ago, Mr Steve said:

McDonald out so i Guess Weid gets another chance. 

What's wrong with McDonald?

 

Just now, dazzledavey36 said:

What's wrong with McDonald?

Ankle. 

I'm delighted for Melksham getting to 200 games. It's a great achievement

Lingers is a huge out. He's one of the few players in the side that we don;t really have a like for like replacement. hope he recovers ok and is back next week

1 minute ago, Mr Steve said:

Ankle. 

That's a huge loss considering how good of a form he is. 

If Weideman doesn't perform then makes you wonder if it'll ever click for him at AFL level.

That's now Langdon, Salem, Harmes, McDonald and Hibberd missing from our premiership side.

This will be a mighty win if we get up.

damn just when Tom had hit form too - still the Weid plays pretty well on the MCG has kicked a few goals this season