The only part of selection I’m annoyed at is JVR being omitted. We are absolutely killing his continuity and his attempts to get back into 2023/bits of 2024 form.

90% of the club can’t kick a set shot from an angle, Petty being the prime example when he killed our momentum V Port with a 25 metre miss from a slight angle. And yet JVR nailed one from a seriously tight angle. Why? Because he has a proper goal kicking routine. We’re losing games purely due to inaccuracy and yet we drop this guy.

Windsor needs to come back in ASAP. Young Stars of the game are generally fully developed and ready to be consistent AFL players after 50 senior games, so it’s a complete waste of time if he spends weeks at Casey. We know he’s a known AFL commodity on the wing, so play him there.

If we lose on Saturday, I’d rather lose knowing we were clearly the inferior side rather than bemoaning a 2.7 goal quarter which cost us the game. Sick of that movie.

12 hours ago, Deeoldfart said:

I understand where you are coming from Roger, but he has also played his best games when introduced as sub. Maybe that’s what our MC have in mind.

PS. I know it seems like weird logic, but ………

I understand where you're coming from too DOF - the logic was I assume to top up the miles in his legs at Casey.

13 hours ago, bluey said:

I’m only here for the outrage.

I'm here for the personal attacks on my character every now and then.

And the positivity.

10 hours ago, Roost it far said:

I get that but he’s contracted and has been good at Casey. Sharp offers little and Tholstrup’s all fizz and no bang. JVR and Jefferson should be given a month to show if they can be our forwards.

Agree Rtf but it seems the FD don't agree with us. Sharp is a quarter and at a stretch 2 quarter player the Lions let him go because after a number games he wasn't sharp. Kolt is at best so far a 2 quarter player. Kolt is a young player and as finals are now out I guess getting games into him is ok. They may think he is our best chance to fix the forward line scoring woys. Dropping JVR mistyfies me.

Edited June 26Jun 26 by old dee

10 minutes ago, old dee said:

Agree Rtf but it seems the FD don't agree with us. Sharp is a quarter and at a stretch 2 quarter player the Lions let him go because after a number games he wasn't sharp. Kolt is at best so far a 2 quarter player. Kolt is a young player and as finals are now out I guess getting games into him is ok. They may think he is our best chance to fix the forward line scoring woys. Dropping JVR mistyfies me.

So being blunt what is the point of Sharp?

There is much to be mystified by O.D. at Melbourne. We are that team that dares where others don't, tread where others won't. We're Demons unafraid of going to Hell in a handbasket as we already reside there.

Ego is not a dirty word at Melbourne but the Logical song never gets an airing.

Watching the Dees we're just a horror movie right there on the TV

31 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The only part of selection I’m annoyed at is JVR being omitted. We are absolutely killing his continuity and his attempts to get back into 2023/bits of 2024 form.

90% of the club can’t kick a set shot from an angle, Petty being the prime example when he killed our momentum V Port with a 25 metre miss from a slight angle. And yet JVR nailed one from a seriously tight angle. Why? Because he has a proper goal kicking routine. We’re losing games purely due to inaccuracy and yet we drop this guy.

It's unfathomable

5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's unfathomable

Yes it is Dr.

I’m ok with making a selection statement. I’m ok with dropping Lever. I’m even ok with dropping Windsor, even though I’d have preferred that we just move him to a wing - hopefully going back to Casey sparks him a bit.

But dropping JVR frustrates me, and bringing Sharp and Tholstrup back after not much at all at Casey frustrates me more.

I’m no Laurie fan but how can the FD justify recalling Sharp when Laurie busts his [censored] at Casey every week? Even Billings would be justified in shrugging his shoulders.

As for JVR, apparently we’re not playing TMac because he’s not the future. Well, Melksham, as good as he was 6 weeks ago, is out of form and is just as much not our future as TMac.

I’m also fundamentally sick of us playing JVR for 67% game time, some of which is in the ruck, then dropping him when he doesn’t dominate.

I presume we’re going to put Petty in the ruck when Gawn rests? Shapes as disastrous - he stunk in the ruck last year, and when he does go there our forward target is going to be Jefferson against Collins and Andrew.

11 hours ago, Roost it far said:

I get that but he’s contracted and has been good at Casey. Sharp offers little and Tholstrup’s all fizz and no bang. JVR and Jefferson should be given a month to show if they can be our forwards.

AGREE but after a promising 2 goal start from Roey, he delivered little else. I would have kept him for thevery same reason you spoke of.. building some forward synergy Between Jeffo and Van Rooyan. How Petty continues to get a game as a forward is the eight wonder of the world. He has been abysmal all year in this position. Hows this for an enterprising idea.. Play May or T. Mac at FF, Alternate Jeffo and Rooey at CHF and Petty if he plays at all , plays back.Viney is cooked, and we offered him unbelievable terms for a zillion years. Rivers , Salem and to a lesser extent Sparrow have done little. With the season cooked games needed to be got into Brown dog, Woey and possibly Adams and Verrall. Again though Goody has baulked at making the harder calls and so we wont know what might be the future moving forward! Assuming Petty gives Max a chop out, the forward line will contain 1 tall... fourth gamer Jeffo... MADNESS!

Edited June 26Jun 26 by picket fence

Basically we can swap Jeffo,JVR,Petty,Turner,T.Mac( perhaps not anymore) around CHF and FF and we all know it going to be a failure (more of the same). Coaches have no idea what to do also you would think Petracca would be a lethal weapon up front considering we bought in Langdon. Throughout the year most of our players were undroppable, we also said the likes of Verrall ,Adams ,Sestan and Pup were not up to senior standard otherwise they would be getting a game. In Pup's situation we played him as a sub, great encouragement. Some of our players have become irrelevant like Fritsch,Viney,Billings ands perhaps Lever.

43 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I’m ok with making a selection statement. I’m ok with dropping Lever. I’m even ok with dropping Windsor, even though I’d have preferred that we just move him to a wing - hopefully going back to Casey sparks him a bit.

But dropping JVR frustrates me, and bringing Sharp and Tholstrup back after not much at all at Casey frustrates me more.

I’m no Laurie fan but how can the FD justify recalling Sharp when Laurie busts his [censored] at Casey every week? Even Billings would be justified in shrugging his shoulders.

As for JVR, apparently we’re not playing TMac because he’s not the future. Well, Melksham, as good as he was 6 weeks ago, is out of form and is just as much not our future as TMac.

I’m also fundamentally sick of us playing JVR for 67% game time, some of which is in the ruck, then dropping him when he doesn’t dominate.

I presume we’re going to put Petty in the ruck when Gawn rests? Shapes as disastrous - he stunk in the ruck last year, and when he does go there our forward target is going to be Jefferson against Collins and Andrew.

Boggles the mind much

14 hours ago, poita said:

As for the inclusions, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. How do Sharp and Tholstrup possibly deserve a recall before Brown or Culley get a chance?

I'm interested in this, as well. Dropping Lever but not replacing him with McDonald suggests to me the idea that the same 26 to 27 players will come good and turn the season around is starting to erode.

So why not take another slightly more adventurous step and give Brown a run? Is his disposal really so bad he's just not a chance?

Tholstrup may end up being a player, but at the moment I haven't seen much to warrant being right on the edge of selection all the time.

I'm not as down on Sharp as others, but he's in the same category as Tholstrup for me.

12 hours ago, Pates said:

So I don't mind our selections, and I feel like I'm a lone wolf in feeling like Sharp isn't a total flop of a player.

What I am struggling with is the balance within the team and like for like selections.

JVR out for Jeffo? Forward for forward, but one plays as a back up ruckman and can crash packs (supposedly) while the other is more a lead up forward with more craft about his patterns. I would have far preferred Jeffo come in TO PLAY WITH JVR.

Windsor for Kolt? Young for young, I'm ok with it but they're different positions.

Lever out, and Sharp in? Clearly not like for like. Howes will have to play in the Lever role, which I don't mind him being given that chance.

I just feel like this isn't maximising our available list (and really we have a good injury list). Petty being played as a forward is killing him, get him back as a defender swing man. This was a golden chance to do it with Lever out. Jeffo and JVR need to have a block of playing AFL together, if the coaches really think they're our future then given them that chance.

The season is cooked so I just want to see development, I just have question marks over whether they are selecting players in the best way to achieve that.

Petty can be the 2nd ruck

Turner will take the interceptor lever role, Howes is our 3rd tall.

Rivers likely goes back to replace Windsor

Sharp/Kolt to be the sub

Gold Coast burned us for pace last time we played. I expect that's partly the reason behind Sharp's recall ahead of Laurie. (However, my own argument fails to explain why Windsor has been dropped.)

Lever hasn't been great since he came back but it's not really playing to his strengths letting teams rocket the ball from one end to the other at warp speed. Remember when teams would get the ball at half back and have NFI what to do next? Now they may as well have runway lighting guiding them to spare players inside 50.

Tmac was dropped after our Lions game. A DA member commented to him that his omission meant his 250th game wouldn’t be in round 19 as we’d expected. He replied “I don’t think I’ll make 250 this season.” That was six weeks ago. What did he know that we don’t know?

My point is, folks need to remember that their opinions on selection aren’t based on all of the facts. They’re based only on what the general public knows.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I presume we’re going to put Petty in the ruck when Gawn rests? Shapes as disastrous - he stunk in the ruck last year, and when he does go there our forward target is going to be Jefferson against Collins and Andrew.

This is the bit that doesn't make sense to me with respect to dropping JVR and having Petty playing reduced forward minutes.

We'll often have a fourth gamer who looked hopelessly out of his depth in game #3 against Collins and Andrew who will probably take 25 marks between them.

Fritta and Melksham will have to station themselves deeper into our 50 to support Jeffo.

38 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The only part of selection I’m annoyed at is JVR being omitted. We are absolutely killing his continuity and his attempts to get back into 2023/bits of 2024 form.

90% of the club can’t kick a set shot from an angle, Petty being the prime example when he killed our momentum V Port with a 25 metre miss from a slight angle. And yet JVR nailed one from a seriously tight angle. Why? Because he has a proper goal kicking routine. We’re losing games purely due to inaccuracy and yet we drop this guy.

Windsor needs to come back in ASAP. Young Stars of the game are generally fully developed and ready to be consistent AFL players after 50 senior games, so it’s a complete waste of time if he spends weeks at Casey. We know he’s a known AFL commodity on the wing, so play him there.

If we lose on Saturday, I’d rather lose knowing we were clearly the inferior side rather than bemoaning a 2.7 goal quarter which cost us the game. Sick of that movie.

You are not alone BBP.

17 hours ago, demon3165 said:

1 hour ago, Deespicable said:


Wow, that's a big call on Lever and Windsor, especially given Rivers was the most likely out after being subbed out against Port.
Sounds like Rivers will be sent back to defence in place of Windsor.
I assume T.Mac is back in for Lever and Jeffo in for JVR with Tholstrup in as likely sub - Lindsay back starting.
I especially liked hearing that Goody intimated that Viney may play forward - been calling for that for some time as he actually is a very accurate shot at goal - he just can't hit up targets with ease.



And what benefit would Viney be playing in the forward line, average overhead mark, cannot kick over 45 metres out, not quick on a lead?

Jack is actually a very good mark for his size, but that is not his role nor is it the expectation and if he plays up forward his primary roles will be to crumb and tackle - both of which he's very good at.

He also gives the forward six some aggression which will be necessary given we've gone with Jefferson along with Fritter.

And whilst he may struggle to catch Rioli, Powell or Noble, if he does snare them it is highly unlikely they will break the tackle.

I expect he will play the Nibbler role and his move up forward (if it happens) allows Trac, Kossie and Ed to spend more time in the middle.

Ultimately though, it could all be a ruse and he may end up tagging Rowell! But given Rowell ran free so easily from Viney and Oliver in Rd 3, then I expect Langdon to be given that task.

I think we're all forgetting what a nice trip to the Gold Coast will do for the boys' suntans. Let's focus on what's important at this time of year.

I'm okay with giving Jefferson another chance but I get Michael Evans vibes from him. Does well at Casey but then little at AFL level, borderline liability. I am all for giving him 4 weeks but his performance at AFL gets so useless it's hard to justify his placement. Though I suspect he will be given 2-4 weeks.

3 minutes ago, praha said:

I'm okay with giving Jefferson another chance but I get Michael Evans vibes from him. Does well at Casey but then little at AFL level, borderline liability. I am all for giving him 4 weeks but his performance at AFL gets so useless it's hard to justify his placement. Though I suspect he will be given 2-4 weeks.

Who's Michael Evans??

4 minutes ago, praha said:

I'm okay with giving Jefferson another chance but I get Michael Evans vibes from him. Does well at Casey but then little at AFL level, borderline liability. I am all for giving him 4 weeks but his performance at AFL gets so useless it's hard to justify his placement. Though I suspect he will be given 2-4 weeks.

Petty's had all year ??

15 hours ago, Roost it far said:

I get that but he’s contracted and has been good at Casey. Sharp offers little and Tholstrup’s all fizz and no bang. JVR and Jefferson should be given a month to show if they can be our forwards.

JVR has been given 15 rounds to show he isnt

2 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

This is the bit that doesn't make sense to me with respect to dropping JVR and having Petty playing reduced forward minutes.

We'll often have a fourth gamer who looked hopelessly out of his depth in game #3 against Collins and Andrew who will probably take 25 marks between them.

Fritta and Melksham will have to station themselves deeper into our 50 to support Jeffo.

Yes it is a big call to only play the four medium height talls (May 193, Turner 194, Petty 197 and Jeffo 195)plus Gawny against a side that has Mac Andrew (202cm), Collins (194cm), Walter (195cm), Ben King (202cm) and Ethan Read (202cm) plus Joel Jeffrey who is 192cm.

Clearly we are worried about their pace, which makes the dropping of Windsor for this game a little bit surprising. But if it rains as it is now forecast, the extra smalls could be beneficial.

But personally if you are going to go small, why not have a back-up big as sub (which I know is against the norm). That way if you lose a May or Turner or Petty, you are not annihilated in the air.