22 minutes ago, M_9 said:

A ruck contest is simply a way to restart the game.

Winning a ruck contest has become completely irrelevant.

Gerard Healy said exactly this on Saturday after analysing the third quarter of our Thursday night game.

Only one of Max's hit-outs in the third quarter, which we dominated, was a hit to advantage.

Max has been the best player on the ground by a country mile in our last two games.

Was his ruck work of any benefit to us as regard clearances?

Marginal in round 6; zero benefit in rounds 4 and 7.

Hitouts v Dockers +12. Clearances +5

Htouts v Tigers +8. Clearances 38 each

Hitouts v Cats +7. Clearances 32 each. A team with 'ordinary rucks'.

We do not need Max to be involved in ruck comtests all over the ground.

I've long been anti ruckmen. But I do think when the momentum is against you, having a ruckman that is competitive (and can take it out of the ruck) is gold.

Edited Sunday at 08:052 days by Adam The God

5 hours ago, Adam The God said:

He just can't kick, so hopefully he'd play as a decoy.

3 hours ago, DemonOX said:

Maxy also freaks out when kicking for goal which is not great for a resting forward.

Max needs to have a player or two running past to receive a handball if he marks I50.

52 minutes ago, M_9 said:

A ruck contest is simply a way to restart the game.

Winning a ruck contest has become completely irrelevant.

Gerard Healy said exactly this on Saturday after analysing the third quarter of our Thursday night game.

Only one of Max's hit-outs in the third quarter, which we dominated, was a hit to advantage.

Max has been the best player on the ground by a country mile in our last two games.

Was his ruck work of any benefit to us as regard clearances?

Marginal in round 6; zero benefit in rounds 4 and 7.

Hitouts v Dockers +12. Clearances +5

Htouts v Tigers +8. Clearances 38 each

Hitouts v Cats +7. Clearances 32 each. A team with 'ordinary rucks'.

We do not need Max to be involved in ruck comtests all over the ground.

Yes the ruckwork does not have a major contribution to raw clearance numbers, but his score involvements (SI), contested possession (CP) and clearance (C) numbers are all great.

Vs Richmond. SI 12, CP 13, C 6

Vs Freo. SI 12, CP 18 C10 !!

Vs. Cats SI 6, CP 12, C5

You simply want this guy on ball as much as possible.

57 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

I've long been anti ruckmen. But I do think when the momentum is against you, having a ruckman that is competitive (and can take it out of the ruck) is gold.

When Max is having a strong defensive game we tend to win. Would love to see some stats that back that up as it's purely anecdotal. But Max's presence is and always has been as a nullifying defensive ruckman whose clearance work at stoppages can prove effective at halting opposition momentum. In games where he is purely a tap ruckman without much impact elsewhere, we effectively lose a defender.

10 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

I’d like to use the WC game to try a couple of things:

I’d give Campbell a game to assist Max - and make the mix work.

I think Sparrow and Chandler are showing what our forward pressure should be like, and I’m afraid Fritta hasn’t added this to his game yet so I’d let him learn this back at Casey for a couple of weeks. The obvious replacement would be Melksham, but I’d rather go a different route and try a younger player in Sestan. I know he has been playing very well in the backline, but his DNA is as a forward. His backline “learnings” will have him bring the defensive pressure we need up forward from all players, and he certainly knows how to kick a goal. So I’d play him in Fritta’s spot in the pocket.

Turner to return to the backline, JVR to get another go, Rivers moved to the mids, and Windsor to the wing where he belongs.

Spargo and Tholstrup to lose their places not because they were poor, but because they didn’t do enough.

McVee, May, Turner

Bowie, TMac, Lindsay

Langdon, Viney, Windsor

Sparrow, Petty, Chandler

Kossie, JVR, Sestan

Gawn, Tracc, Langford

Bench: Campbell, Rivers, Salem, Oliver

23rd: Melksham

Out:: Spargo, Fullarton, Sharp, Tholstrup and Fritta out.

In: Turner, Sestan, JVR, Campbell, and Melksham sub.

Five changes is probably too much, but it’s what I’d like to see happen.

It’s not a practice match, this mob beat us by 5 goals over there last year

5 changes after finally getting a bit of mojo back for the last 2 weeks

In JVR & Turner

Out Sharp & Fullerton (forever)

So disappointed with Fullertons efforts after finally getting a chance, haven’t seen as soft a performance

IN: Van Rooyen, Turner, Brown

OUT: Fullarton, Sharp, Spargo

Mcvee May Mcdonald

Bowey Turner Salem

Langdon Oliver Windsor

Sparrow Van Rooyen Chandler

Pickett Petty Fritsch

Gawn Viney Petracca

Rivers Langford Lindsay Tholstrup

SUB: Brown

I thought about potentially giving Kolt a rest in the 2s to build up his fitness base and get more involved but, I feel his energy is infectious and he does the 1%ers that go unnoticed at times. We must continue getting games into him. Sharp needs a couple of full games in the 2s. I strongly considered Laurie for the sub due to his VFL form but, I feel like the sub needs to have an injection of speed and spark. We must play Jefferson out of the goal square in the VFL to get him back into form. Pup Brown loves to tackle and hunt.

13 hours ago, William said:

Why JVR? You want more of a player wandering around looking lost with little guile in his running patterns and regularly being pushed under the ball. I often watch him pointing to other players to doir job while he is in no-person’s land looking like he doesn’t know what day it is.

And do you like selecting players who even when the ball is delivered properly to them cannot even take a chest mark?

JVR should remain in the seconds until he learns to be a forward which I doubt is possible.

I know it is not a popular view but I have come to the view that he is in the Sam W. mould.

I think the MFC should ensure Turner is developed further as at least he can take a mark and seems to no where to run to get into viable positions. JVR cannot do that.

3 hours ago, monoccular said:

Max needs to have a player or two running past to receive a handball if he marks I50.

Not just Max,Viney as well

Can't believe some are suggesting Spargo should be dropped. His tackling and pressure in the forward 50 had been excellent. There's no way Goody is dropping him.

Assuming no injuries, I think it's going to be:

In: JvR, Turner

Out: Fullarton, Sharp

Sub: Tholstrup

I know Melky will be available but there's no doubt our best 23 has Fritsch in it. I think Melksham and Tholstrup are fighting for the same spot.

2 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

Can't believe some are suggesting Spargo should be dropped. His tackling and pressure in the forward 50 had been excellent. There's no way Goody is dropping him.

Assuming no injuries, I think it's going to be:

In: JvR, Turner

Out: Fullarton, Sharp

Sub: Tholstrup

I know Melky will be available but there's no doubt our best 23 has Fritsch in it. I think Melksham and Tholstrup are fighting for the same spot.

It's due to the fact that we are 16th in scoring this season ahead of West Coast and Richmond. We need more aerial ability and goal kickers in our starting line up. Especially because we don't have a dominant key forward we'll need a wide spread.

Spargs has not kicked a singular goal for the year. It wouldn't matter if we were more potent up forward but, the pressure of Kozzy, Chin, Sparrow and Tholstrup can make up for the loss of Spargo. I would even consider replacing Spargs with Melksham as we only have the 2 key forwards playing at the moment.

Against the better sides we will need to be able to kick a winning score. If you look at a few of the better sides in Geelong, Collingwood, Brisbane, Hawthorn; all of their small forwards hit the scoreboard.

Stengle, Miers, Close, Mannagh

Hill, Elliott, Mcreery, Schultz

Bailey, Lohmann, Ah Chee, Cameron

Watson, Moore, Macdonald, Ginnivan

7 hours ago, adonski said:

IN: JVR, Adams
OUT: Fullerton, Sharp

I agree that Adams is really beginning to show a fair bit for Casey. Tall,a good mark, and a beautiful left foot kick.

But there’s no room for him this week.If May isn’t fit, Turner can’t replace him down back.

Edited Sunday at 14:151 day by Jumping Jack Clennett
Typo

12 hours ago, Simon Port said:

I thought about potentially giving Kolt a rest in the 2s to build up his fitness base and get more involved but, I feel his energy is infectious and he does the 1%ers that go unnoticed at times. We must continue getting games into him.

100%

But, you didn't explain the rationale behind dropping Charlie Spargo. I see his numbers, too, but if you want a textbook 1-percent player, it's Spargo. I have no doubt at all he is coached to block and interfere with oppo patterns and create a 2nd/3rd option out of stoppage. He would be absolute pain in the [censored] to play against - his 5-10 stats a week do not tell the right story. And when he does get it, his kicking and between the ears work is as good as it gets.

35 minutes ago, TDS said:

100%

But, you didn't explain the rationale behind dropping Charlie Spargo. I see his numbers, too, but if you want a textbook 1-percent player, it's Spargo. I have no doubt at all he is coached to block and interfere with oppo patterns and create a 2nd/3rd option out of stoppage. He would be absolute pain in the [censored] to play against - his 5-10 stats a week do not tell the right story. And when he does get it, his kicking and between the ears work is as good as it gets.

and he knows how to make a tackle really stick.

17 hours ago, Adam The God said:

I've long been anti ruckmen. But I do think when the momentum is against you, having a ruckman that is competitive (and can take it out of the ruck) is gold.

The beauty of having Max is that he's a great ruck rover. As you say, he can take it out of the ruck.

The anomaly is that the stats don't reflect this.

This thread is about our next game. We need to better utilise Max's dominance. He's good enough to win a Brownlow, as his last two games have shown.

Similarly JvR, IMO, has the potential to be a very good KPF. But not if he has to ruck. TC is 'break glass' - too old and not proven.

AJ currently the best option. Fit enough to cover all bar centre square ball ups? Probably not. But can play forward, kick two goals every three weeks (more than Max), and throw some weight around.

We'll agree to disagree, @M_9 . I can't see AJ kicking 2 goals every 3 weeks.

The Spargo discussion is interesting. The last two weeks the forward line has functioned very well, with great tackling and ground level pressure. But Spargs is definitely in our bottom 5 players most weeks and his spot in the 22 is not guaranteed.

58 minutes ago, TDS said:

100%

But, you didn't explain the rationale behind dropping Charlie Spargo. I see his numbers, too, but if you want a textbook 1-percent player, it's Spargo. I have no doubt at all he is coached to block and interfere with oppo patterns and create a 2nd/3rd option out of stoppage. He would be absolute pain in the [censored] to play against - his 5-10 stats a week do not tell the right story. And when he does get it, his kicking and between the ears work is as good as it gets.

While I do agree he shows good understanding of his role, the kicking skills aren't quite there at the moment. His kicking efficiency is about league average at 60% as well and he does not average high score involvements or goal assists either. He also has tried to rip the ball of another teammate two weeks in a row which is bad team play.

Still, Kolt and Spargs are both coming from a long way back in form and fitness. I expect them to impact a bit more (especially Kolt) in the second half of the year. Reality is that Kynan, Woey, Laurie, Billings and Henderson are the only other options as medium forwards, and they are not AFL quality at present.

13 hours ago, Simon Port said:

I thought about potentially giving Kolt a rest in the 2s to build up his fitness base and get more involved but, I feel his energy is infectious and he does the 1%ers that go unnoticed at times. We must continue getting games into him. Sharp needs a couple of full games in the 2s. I strongly considered Laurie for the sub due to his VFL form but, I feel like the sub needs to have an injection of speed and spark. We must play Jefferson out of the goal square in the VFL to get him back into form. Pup Brown loves to tackle and hunt.

I'm a fan of playing players going back to their home town. They lift a cog when playing in front of family and friends. It creates player goodwill as well. JVR, McVee, Rivers and Kolt to star this week

absolutely must get the job done this weekend. no excuses.

In the last 2 games we only played 2* talls in the forward line so we might expect the same looking ahead

Surely JVR can ruck for 15% of the game. Doing that can get him involved in the game and I'm not sure it effects his play in the forward line anyway

In my view, if JVR comes into the side it will be at the expense of Fullarton. Which means JVR will be expected to contest about 15% of the ruck duels

Petty to play deeper forward than JVR if we go with that 2 pronged attack is my bet

But AJ might come in for Fullarton instead anyway. It's one or the other, not both

If AJ comes in, he would be best suited deep forward with Petty out at CHF

For balance, JVR to come in over AJ (assuming Fullarton has a spell in the ressies)

When JVR rucks Gawn can have a spell on the bench or play deep forward with Petty out at CHF (so a rotating forward line as such)

*Probably more like 1.5 tall forwards with the Gawn on the bench for 23% of the time along with Fullarton being on the bench for 30% of the time (against Richmond)

Edited yesterday at 02:201 day by Macca

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

In the last 2 games we only played 2 talls in the forward line so we might expect the same looking ahead

Surely JVR can ruck for 15% of the game. Doing that can get him involved in the game and I'm not sure it effects his play in the forward line anyway

In my view, if JVR comes into the side it will be at the expense of Fullarton. Which means JVR will be expected to contest about 15% of the ruck duels

Petty to play deeper forward than JVR if we go with that 2 pronged attack is my bet

But AJ* might come in for Fullarton instead anyway. It's one or the other, not both

If AJ comes in, he would be best suited deep forward with Petty out at CHF

For balance, JVR to come in over AJ (assuming Fullarton has a spell in the ressies)

When JVR rucks Gawn can have a spell on the bench or play deep forward with Petty out at CHF (so a rotating forward line as such)

I’m co

I’m coming around to the idea of JVR rucking now. The early criticism was he was a special forward talent we didn’t want getting hurt.

6 minutes ago, 48 Year Now said:

I’m coming around to the idea of JVR rucking now. The early criticism was he was a special forward talent we didn’t want getting hurt.

It's more a case if 'have-to' with JVR being the part time ruck

If it's not him, then it's Fullarton or AJ as only 1 of the 3 gets a game under normal circumstances

It's interesting that we were happy to go with just the one tall forward (predominantly) in the last 2 games (Petty)

We've looked far more potent (and mobile) with a mainly medium sized forward line (we've also laid a lot more tackles and locked the ball more in our forward line as well ... in the last 2 matches)

Helps when we're no longer predominantly bombing the ball forward (as a default move)

Back-track to the first game of the season when we played 3 talls forwards with all 3 barely touching the ball (AJ, Jefferson & JVR) ... can't imagine playing all 3 in the same team now

Right now, playing 2 of the 3 is 1 too many

Edited yesterday at 02:341 day by Macca

50 minutes ago, MrFreeze said:

The Spargo discussion is interesting. The last two weeks the forward line has functioned very well, with great tackling and ground level pressure. But Spargs is definitely in our bottom 5 players most weeks and his spot in the 22 is not guaranteed.

While I do agree he shows good understanding of his role, the kicking skills aren't quite there at the moment. His kicking efficiency is about league average at 60% as well and he does not average high score involvements or goal assists either. He also has tried to rip the ball of another teammate two weeks in a row which is bad team play.

Still, Kolt and Spargs are both coming from a long way back in form and fitness. I expect them to impact a bit more (especially Kolt) in the second half of the year. Reality is that Kynan, Woey, Laurie, Billings and Henderson are the only other options as medium forwards, and they are not AFL quality at present.

I feel that whatever he does he'll have his knockers on here due to

1) His physical attributes
2) he's not super prolific as a goal scorer.

I still believe he is a good cog to have in a well performing team - but the issue of recent times has been we are not a well oiled machine.

For those who watched the Casey game against the Tigers

What role did JVR play? A roaming forward or more stay at home? And did he do any rucking?

And did AJ play deep forward or further out from goal? (or a combination of both?)

Edited yesterday at 02:421 day by Macca

34 minutes ago, Macca said:

It's more a case if 'have-to' with JVR being the part time ruck

If it's not him, then it's Fullarton or AJ as only 1 of the 3 gets a game under normal circumstances

It's interesting that we were happy to go with just the one tall forward (predominantly) in the last 2 games (Petty)

We've looked far more potent (and mobile) with a mainly medium sized forward line (we've also laid a lot more tackles and locked the ball more in our forward line as well ... in the last 2 matches)

Helps when we're no longer predominantly bombing the ball forward (as a default move)

Back-track to the first game of the season when we played 3 talls forwards with all 3 barely touching the ball (AJ, Jefferson & JVR) ... can't imagine playing all 3 in the same team now

Right now, playing 2 of the 3 is 1 too many

If we are playing Petty forward, why cant he and JVR share the 2nd ruck duties, so as not to put too much pressure on JVR.

I am in the camp of letting JVR just work on his forward craft without having to go into ruck, but they need to get him to start leading at the ball carrier rather than just put hand up all the time, whether the ruck duties affect his ability to do this, I am not sure.

The discussion round Spargo is interesting, I'm usually quite critical of him since i don't see a spot for a fwd who doesn't kick many goals in a team that struggles to kick goals, something has to give. But its also the case that over the last few weeks we have been able to lock the ball inside our front half for long periods of time, something we have struggled to do since 2023, coincidentally when Spargo last played consistently. Maybe what he brings to the team is what the french wound describe as je ne sais quoi.

9 minutes ago, Dees1911 said:

If we are playing Petty forward, why cant he and JVR share the 2nd ruck duties, so as not to put too much pressure on JVR.

I am in the camp of letting JVR just work on his forward craft without having to go into ruck, but they need to get him to start leading at the ball carrier rather than just put hand up all the time, whether the ruck duties affect his ability to do this, I am not sure.

I doubt it will be Petty (rucking)

And being in the ruck should help JVR, not hinder him

It gets him into the play and he can get his hands on the ball. A bit like Kozzie who often needs to get his hands on the ball early

But right now, 1 of JVR, AJ, Fullarton or Campbell gets a game so the MC will give them all a chance

Fingers crossed 1 of the 4 turns out to be a decent contributor. There's a spot there for 1 of them

My preference is for a more mobile forward line with very few inside 50 bombs (unless it's to the advantage of a teammate in a 1 on 1 ... heads up, eyes down, for the distributor kicking into the forward line)

Edited yesterday at 03:171 day by Macca