4 hours ago, old55 said:

I agree with the sentiments that we shouldn't risk Fritsch or Viney.  We easily accounted for Richmond without them and I rank the Dogs in the same echelon.

IMO:

McVee is a lock after a solid lockdown job on Dusty, and Chandler, who could easily have had multiple goals against Richmond, will play.  Laurie didn't do enough to be retained but Woey was good and I think either he or JJ will play.  I like Hibbo for the sub, but it could be the Woey or JJ.

Lever May McVee
Bowey Petty Brayshaw

Gawn Petracca Harmes
Langdon Oliver Hunter

Neal-Bullen McDonald Spargo
Pickett Brown Chandler

Grundy Rivers Sparrow Woewodin/Jordon
S: Hibberd

Like it, but with Jordon a lock (he is just such a reliable player) and Van Rooyen as the sub. Reckon it's better to have a tall as the sub (particularly against the tall Dogs) - and it worked well when Lever had to go off in the Saints match: TMac went back and Van Rooyen went on and went forward. 

On 3/10/2023 at 1:47 PM, fr_ap said:

Yeah I should have added that against the dogs, I think we'd be foolish to assume midfield supremacy. Dunkley and hunter aside it still bats very deep esp. if bont spends more time in there. 

I suppose my point is we often don't overload our backline and rely on our exceptional kpds to win 1v1s. They might lose quite a few to 4 200cm forwards...

It's all scare tactics. We will play with 'mongrel' and take no prisoners. We will uphold Gawn's integrity across the game where 'talls' are concerned. Sparrow and Rivers have a job to do - the two of them have the fortitude to create mayhem, havoc and casualties and our midfield will get a really good shake of the sav against the Bulldogs. Mark my words, it is 'get nasty' time. 

16 hours ago, Tarax Club said:

Big Demon dog on an over-coiffured poodle.

Beautiful mental image from this - I suspect you are quite correct.

16 hours ago, Tarax Club said:

Giraffes don’t chase gazelles.

And, they are always second to the water-hole.

On 3/10/2023 at 1:25 PM, fr_ap said:

If the dogs play the 4 talls what do we do? Do we change our A1 lineup? Knowing goody the answer would be no, but it has the potential to mitigate the gawn/Grundy forward thing if one of them has to swing back to play on a 200cm forward. 

May - Naughton

Petty - Lobb (I actually think Petty's weakness is ruck-forwards so I'm not hugely comfortable with this and would prefer he switches with May)

Lever - JUH?  Or Darcy?

Darcy - ?????  Rivers/Hibberd/Mcvee?? Anyone of them will be giving away a lot of height

I'm not convinced their strategy will be a resounding success but in general, the only forwards that kick a lot of goals on our backline are ruck-forwards. They've almost got 3 or 4 of them...

What solution do you propose?  Going in with 4 tall backs, presumably May, Petty, Lever and either Tomlinson or D.Turner?

Don't you think this would make us too top heavy with Gawn, Grundy, TMac and Brown?

can't see us changing our structure built around three tall defenders plus four-five rotating flankers, at least a couple of which are excellent intercept marks due to their ability to read the play

first trick is stop the ball getting forward, or at least put them under pressure when they do bring it forward, use our smalls and runners to sprint away from their surplus of lumberers

 

37 minutes ago, old55 said:

What solution do you propose?  Going in with 4 tall backs, presumably May, Petty, Lever and either Tomlinson or D.Turner?

Don't you think this would make us too top heavy with Gawn, Grundy, TMac and Brown?

Smith would’ve been an option had he been fit.

We will just need to limit supply and make sure we get a second player up in contests. 

On 3/11/2023 at 4:49 PM, Fat Tony said:

Smith would’ve been an option had he been fit.

Appeared to be back training and out of rehab on Friday. 🤞🤞 🤞 

57 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Beautiful mental image from this - I suspect you are quite correct.

Yes quite tricky with the choice and position of the determiner and the preposition. 

32 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Smith would’ve been an option had he been fit.

We will just need to limit supply and make sure we get a second player up in contests. 

My understanding is he's training with the forwards this year.

1 minute ago, old55 said:

My understanding is he's training with the forwards this year.

I thought he was training with the massage table. 

13 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I thought he was training with the massage table. 

Wherever it is, he is not the answer.

I don't think the amount of talls in the opposition team really will have much of a bearing on how we play, we'll try to win it out of the middle and put them under a lot of pressure, make them kick it long and high and let our team defense do it's thing. 

I'd suspect Gawn will go behind the ball pretty early in the game but beyond that it'll be more about beating them on the inside where i think they're a little thin without dunkley

3 hours ago, old55 said:

What solution do you propose?  Going in with 4 tall backs, presumably May, Petty, Lever and either Tomlinson or D.Turner?

Don't you think this would make us too top heavy with Gawn, Grundy, TMac and Brown?

Brown's cut his hair - so not as top heavy as you may think. 

3 hours ago, old55 said:

What solution do you propose?  Going in with 4 tall backs, presumably May, Petty, Lever and either Tomlinson or D.Turner?

Don't you think this would make us too top heavy with Gawn, Grundy, TMac and Brown?

We don’t have to go in with 4 tall backs; we have generational players back there and they will make 3 feel like 4. Also Darcy will go back against us possibly. Don’t see them going so too heavy against us. We would win all the footy on the ground.

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

We don’t have to go in with 4 tall backs; we have generational players back there and they will make 3 feel like 4. Also Darcy will go back against us possibly. Don’t see them going so too heavy against us. We would win all the footy on the ground.

Someone called Max is not to shabby dropping back!!

I think each team will back in their preferred setup, and then it will be a matter of who blinks first if things are getting out of control.

As a few have pointed out it’s likely the Dogs will only have three talls in their forward line at any point in time with Lobb giving English a chop out in the ruck, and all of those talls needing bench time too - especially Darcy who doesn’t have great endurance.

If teams are selected as expected it’s more likely to be an even 3 v 3 talls in the Dogs’ forward line and 3 v 2 with Melbourne having the additional tall in Melbourne’s forward line. They will need to have a Bailey Williams or Crozier giving up massive size to someone if they don’t go for Bruce, who played back against North, in their 22.

If I was the Dogs I’d either have Bruce in the 22 or have him as the tactical sub. McDonald and the possibility of one of the rucks dropping back give the extra defensive options already in Melbourne’s likely team.

If Fritsch doesn’t get up Melbourne could try to stretch the Bulldogs even more with JVR or Schache to also have as many as 4 tall forwards. I don’t think they would do that as the match sim and practice matches were opportunities to try that setup and they didn’t use it.

Lets hope this time next week we are reading about a victory 

8 hours ago, dees189227 said:

Lets hope this time next week we are reading about a victory 

Let's hope so, could use a nice Sat evening.

On 3/10/2023 at 2:00 PM, Bring-Back-Powell said:

It's a great question and we need to be weary of Lobb who destroyed us last year as a Docker at the G - albeit May went off at quarter time and then out defensive structures fell apart.

Infact Naughton defeated May in round 1 and JUH destroyed us in round 19 so they're all very capable.

Whilst all 4 of their talls may start in the forward line at the opening bounce, there will be times when only 3 of them are in the forward line at the one time, because English will need to be relived in the ruck when he's on the bench and the 4 forwards themselves will need some bench time throughout.

Yes, Ugle-Hagan played brilliantly against us.

But that was an exception, not the norm. He kicked 5 against us but then just 3 in his subsequent 5 games.

Lobb also played brilliantly against us in Round 11, but then was awful in the later return game.

If we back our intercept and midfield defensive pressure game, as a backline we should hopefully be able to stop them getting easy marks inside 50 without necessarily needing to play a fourth tall defender. Plus, as you say, Darcy is being used as a forward because he's not fit enough to run out an entire game, plus Lobb has to give English a ruck chop out.

On 3/10/2023 at 6:14 PM, layzie said:

We are very scarred by the playing of underdone players last year.

Do you mean we here on Demonland, or the club?

Would be madness for the dogs to play 4 tall forwards at the same time if they don’t mark it they will be in serious trouble on the rebound 

9 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Do you mean we here on Demonland, or the club?

We on Demonland, by the looks of it anyway. Real sticking point.

 

A bit before the half-way mark, on a leg injury:

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/1281655/rd-1-press-conference-christian-petracca?videoId=1281655&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1678665114001

I hope he was talking about the end of last year, into the finals, not now!? (as usual 😤we can't hear the question)

While at the end: Kick to kick returns to the 'G 👏

Edited March 13, 20232 yr by Timothy Reddan-A'Blew

Get healthy, get good.