TEAMS: Rd 15 vs Brisbane

[SFebes 4,884]

Brisbane and Geelong should be loading as well, they seem to be going OK. Time to stop the excuses and start digging deep when the heat is on.

[george_on_the_outer 7,695]

4 minutes ago, SFebes said:

Brisbane and Geelong should be loading as well, they seem to be going OK. Time to stop the excuses and start digging deep when the heat is on.

They both fell over the line against Saints who had only 2 on bench, one of those with an ankle injury, and the WCE who sit at the bottom of the ladder. 

They are loading as well.

[SFebes 4,884]

5 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

They both fell over the line against Saints who had only 2 on bench, one of those with an ankle injury, and the WCE who sit at the bottom of the ladder. 

They are loading as well.

But they won. Brisbane kicked 10.18 from memory and Eagles gained a few players back finally. Brisbane and Geelong are doing OK.

[layzie 33,991]

2 minutes ago, SFebes said:

But they won. Brisbane kicked 10.18 from memory and Eagles gained a few players back finally. Brisbane and Geelong are doing OK.

Exactly, that's what it's about right now. Getting over the line, even if ugly. Freo and Bris have been doing that, we haven't. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

11 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

To be fair, both B Brown and Weid need to stand up, and both B Brown and Weid need to play their role.

100%, both need to perform. I just have VERY different expectations and standards for each, especially compared to the scrutiny each receive.

[poita 3,902]

12 hours ago, At the break of Gawn said:

Montagna had some fantastic vision on AFL360 of Melbourne’s forwards against Collingwood. It seemed that when we generated a turn over in the middle, our forwards were too far up the ground and were just generally disorganised. He hypothesised that our forwards were overcompensating for our defence. Most of the vision was in the 3rd qtr when our defence was short so it’ll be interesting to see if our forwards hold their structure tomorrow better with May back.

Our first three possessions coming out of defence are generally 15 metre sideways kicks in recent works, so the forwards are completely out of position by the time we are forced to kick long. If the likes of Salem and Lever take some responsibility initially we will be able to kick to a leading forward one out.

[chook fowler 19,524]

would have preferred Dunstan to allow Trac to spend more time up forward. 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Longsufferingnomore said:

 I wish they had named Melky just to see the Dazzling one go bananas (sorry Mr.Leg).

Samesies, LSNM!!!

Guess we’ll have to put the popcorn away for now. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

Normally I would prefer Hunt from the four choices of sub because a medium size player provides the most versatility. However, this week I would choose Tomlinson. Obviously, he can replace any of the tall defenders but if we lose any of Brown, Jackson or Weideman we're very small up forward, particularly if one is on the bench having a rest. However, if we lose one of Brown, Jackson or Weideman I wouldn't necessarily put Tomlinson forward. I'd push Petty forward and add Tomlinson to the backline.

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

PLEASE, NO LONG BOMBS i50 TO ANDREWS!!!

[old55 23,687]

14 hours ago, CHF said:

I can see in the named side only 9 players that have consistent and good experience in the middle and that includes the wingers. There are two others that are presently named on the bench that we could run through there on limited occasions and these are Bedford and Pickett. Both of thee guys have vey limited experience in the middle.

I would rather have seen Dunstan named instead of Bedford as I think the balance would be a lot better and may allow out midfield to run out the game better

I believe that for success we need to have a depth of 10 or 11 players in the team that can rotate through the middle.

That is my logic.

I think you're talking about the 3 starting midfielder roles and the 2 wingers - that's 5 roles that need to be covered by 500% game time.

The 5 incumbents in these roles play this much average game time:

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/tr-melbourne-demons?year=2022&rt=TA&st=TG

Langdon 93% (it's actually close to 100% but his average is reduced because of the match he was injured in)
Petracca 88%
Oliver 86%
Viney 79%
Jordon 79%

That's a total of 425% game time covered by these 5 players leaving only 75% game time in these roles to be covered by other players - Harmes 70% game time and Sparrow 68% game time can easily make up the deficit.

With these 7 players we've got 563% game time coverage for 5 roles. It's not clear why we need a "depth of 10 to 11 players" for coverage.

Edited June 23, 2022 by old55

[CHF 2,768]

4 hours ago, old55 said:

I think you're talking about the 3 starting midfielder roles and the 2 wingers - that's 5 roles that need to be covered by 500% game time.

The 5 incumbents in these roles play this much average game time:

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/tr-melbourne-demons?year=2022&rt=TA&st=TG

Langdon 93% (it's actually close to 100% but his average is reduced because of the match he was injured in)
Petracca 88%
Oliver 86%
Viney 79%
Jordon 79%

That's a total of 425% game time covered by these 5 players leaving only 75% game time in these roles to be covered by other players - Harmes 70% game time and Sparrow 68% game time can easily make up the deficit.

With these 7 players we've got 563% game time coverage for 5 roles. It's not clear why we need a "depth of 10 to 11 players" for coverage.

Fair enough….. different opinions.  I want to see us win and win well. I just think we are light a midfield player in this team.