6 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

I'd bring Petty in for Max. That'd be it.

If Petty isn't a forward, he's even less of a ruckman. 

2 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

If Petty isn't a forward, he's even less of a ruckman. 

We just need a contest in the ruck, and he's more than proved he's a good contested mark forward and back.

Edited July 8, 20241 yr by Binmans PA

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

OUT: gawn, woey 2.0
IN: fullarton, petty

turner to sub

Like it.  We need to keep JVR up forward. he can ruck  for short bursts, but one of our keys to finals now this year. (amongst others of course)

And we've still got Melksham's MRO hurdle to clear.

The match report said he might be under scrutiny on McGovern.

4 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

And we've still got Melksham's MRO hurdle to clear.

The match report said he might be under scrutiny on McGovern.

 

Spin that roulette wheel I guess. 

2 minutes ago, roy11 said:

 

Spin that roulette wheel I guess. 

It was clearly accidental. That won’t matter much though; the MRO being who he is, is bound to see it differently.

#HowAboutLookingAtHeeneyForOnce

42 minutes ago, Kent said:

No Petty please

You do realise he leads contested marks in the club? 

2 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

It was clearly accidental. That won’t matter much though; the MRO being who he is, is bound to see it differently.

#HowAboutLookingAtHeeneyForOnce

The best hope is that he will bend over backwards to get Heeney off and then would find it difficult to explain why Melks' was worse.  But I probably underestimate his talents as a contortionist.

31 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

We just need a contest in the ruck, and he's more than proved he's a good contested mark forward and back.

I don't think Petty or Disco has the ruck nous/ability to negate Draper.

The ruck is not "overrated" if Draper is able to feed his mids.

1 minute ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I don't think Petty or Disco has the ruck nous/ability to negate Draper.

The ruck is not "overrated" if Draper is able to feed his mids.

If the ruck position was so important, we'd be unbeatable. I just disagree.

The ruck position is important in so far as you don't want to be dominated in that spot.  An ability to at least negate is important.  However, I agree with Binmans PA that Petty could be an adequate replacement around the ground with his marking ability.  He's absolutely useless at centre bounce, as demonstrated by his efforts in the Alice against Freo, but he can take a mark and he moves reasonably well.  He's no Gawn, but he's probably the best option we have.  Also, re Draper specifically - he loves to get forward - remember how he torched Grundy last year.  At least Petty could defend him when he runs inside 50. He might also be able to hurt him the other way.

5 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

If the ruck position was so important, we'd be unbeatable. I just disagree.

I see what Max gives us in two parts:

1. His tap work allows our midfield to control where the ball goes. Whether our mids or the opposition win the clearance and whether we get a clear exit or turn the ball over is less certain.

2. His contested marking around the ground, in particular behind the ball makes it really difficult for the opposition to kick long and if our contest and pressure is at a high level they are forced into turning the ball over in the middle of the ground.

The reason Grundy didn't work out was that if Grundy was in the ruck, Max would play forward and therefore wouldn't be able to setup behind the ball.

Max fills the ruck position but his biggest asset to our team is his ability to prevent the opposition from kicking down the line.

8 minutes ago, chookrat said:

I see what Max gives us in two parts:

1. His tap work allows our midfield to control where the ball goes. Whether our mids or the opposition win the clearance and whether we get a clear exit or turn the ball over is less certain.

2. His contested marking around the ground, in particular behind the ball makes it really difficult for the opposition to kick long and if our contest and pressure is at a high level they are forced into turning the ball over in the middle of the ground.

The reason Grundy didn't work out was that if Grundy was in the ruck, Max would play forward and therefore wouldn't be able to setup behind the ball.

Max fills the ruck position but his biggest asset to our team is his ability to prevent the opposition from kicking down the line.

IMV, Petty is equal to or as good as Max in the air. That's why I think he's a good replacement for Max this week.

As for Max's tap work, let's just say I disagree. Sides read off him all the time and shark him. We're now more unpredictable at stoppage and the opposition becomes more predictable from stoppage. 

41 minutes ago, roy11 said:

 

Spin that roulette wheel I guess. 

Surprised more hasn’t been made of the incident around here.

A chance to miss a week or 2 after finally making his return…

Jordan Boyd just got away with a fine on the basis of his incident being high contact, careless contact and low impact. It was initially assessed as medium impact and downgraded to low at the Tribunal.

On any view of the footage, Melksham's impact with McGovern is significantly less than Boyd's impact with Mansell. It would be somewhat astounding if Melksham could be classified as medium when Boyd was classified as low.

That is even if the incident can be deemed a reportable offence, as there is an argument he is initiating body contact with his opponent in a bid to manoeuvre him out of the contest and then contest a mark, which he does do straight after the incident.

However, Boyd plays for Carlton. So I look forward to the MRO / Tribunal bringing back the nebulous "potential to cause injury" concept to try upgrade the impact from low.

28 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Surprised more hasn’t been made of the incident around here.

A chance to miss a week or 2 after finally making his return…

Maybe we could use the "but he's a good guy" Charlie Cameron defence

5 minutes ago, Demon_spurs said:

Maybe we could use the "but he's a good guy" Charlie Cameron defence

a) Melksham's been suspended before.

b) I think the AFL told the tribunal in no uncertain terms that the "good guy" defence is not to happen again.

1 hour ago, godees said:

Sparrow was the top and second top player on the ground for average speed in attack and defence. He ain’t going nowhere. Excellent work rate, clearly he is doing jobs for the coach

Maybe so but he just doesn't get his hands on the pill enough.

Yes, there is no doubting his work rate.

Like Nibbler he ammasses a decent amount of tackles each week and given his strength, they are really broken. 

But that said for a midfielder he seems not to read the play asxwell as he should. Some mids are very good at this and find themselves judging where the ball is going very well.

I'd prefer to see him play more of a forward role like we used Tracca.

He has a similar build to Tracca and can roost the ball a fair way. He's reasonably accurate at goal kicking too. Just saying.

7 minutes ago, Demon_spurs said:

Maybe we could use the "but he's a good guy" Charlie Cameron defence

And a decent reference from his mom.

17 hours ago, binman said:

If AMW can take the quality small forwards like Cody weightman and Bobby Hill, Mcvee is freed up to play higher up the ground, where his beautiful kicking and elite decision making can be even more damaging.

I see AMW more as a forward than a defender.

Didn't he kick 20 at Casey last year?

And maybe a little out of eftfield perhaps ( no pun either) but perhaps ultimately with a possible role in the midfield.

But yea McVee up the ground makes sense.

1 hour ago, Binmans PA said:

If the ruck position was so important, we'd be unbeatable. I just disagree.

No worries. We'll agree on disagreeing.

42 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Surprised more hasn’t been made of the incident around here.

A chance to miss a week or 2 after finally making his return…

I might be biased but if this goes to the tribunal there is no chance of the AFL allowing a whiff of a possibility that we beat Essendon next week. One week. Batards!!!

17 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

a) Melksham's been suspended before.

b) I think the AFL told the tribunal in no uncertain terms that the "good guy" defence is not to happen again.

Makes a mockery of the idea of an independent tribunal...

If Melksham goes to the Tribunal we might as well fold the competition.

Eyes on the ball the whole time. Simple jostling for position to mark the ball.

 

The MRO once Demonland is happy again