Mcvee should be sub before Windsor. Bring him on in a different role, midfield or wing

Good to see Adams get a chance.

At least it shows Chaplin's thinking is not totally aligned with Goodwin's.

I’m hoping Sunday works out like our game vs Freo that I wasn’t optimistic about beforehand but turned out to be a lovely day in the sun with a comprehensive performance.

McVee actually could make a good sub on the wing if they want to try something different.

4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

McVee actually could make a good sub on the wing if they want to try something different.

The same McVee we want to re-sign ?

Asking for a friend

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

The same McVee we want to re-sign ?

Asking for a friend

Sorry but if McVee is going to not stay at Melbourne because he’s played one game as a sub after some very ordinary performances that he’s gotten away with all season, then frankly speaking he doesn’t belong in our team.

I want to keep him, without a doubt, but he’s had a contract for 18 months that he’s yet to sign. I don’t think where he starts in round 20 will be the deciding factor.

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

The same McVee we want to re-sign ?

Asking for a friend

He is massively overated IMO

30 minutes ago, Dee-tonator said:

At least it shows Chaplin's thinking is not totally aligned with Goodwin's.

It doesn't show anything except your confirmation bias.

For all any of us know, this could have been thrashed out in coaches meetings/selection committee on Monday, or even last week. Given the absence of May and Lever, and the makeup of the Dogs forward line, a third tall was always going to come into consideration.

You'd think McVee sub. Makes sense, was probably between him and Howes given the need for height down back.

Pretty clear though that with only one change the coaches and FD have been more or less on the same page. The opposite of wholesale change.

38 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Sorry but if McVee is going to not stay at Melbourne because he’s played one game as a sub after some very ordinary performances that he’s gotten away with all season, then frankly speaking he doesn’t belong in our team.

I want to keep him, without a doubt, but he’s had a contract for 18 months that he’s yet to sign. I don’t think where he starts in round 20 will be the deciding factor.

I don't disagree... I was just asking the question. :😀

1 hour ago, picket fence said:

He is massively overated IMO

Wow,hard man to please,1st year playing afl and finish 9th,2nd year finishes 7th,very overrated🤔

No Lindsay again? Is he ok?

1 hour ago, doomsday dee said:

Wow,hard man to please,1st year playing afl and finish 9th,2nd year finishes 7th,very overrated🤔

And this year??

1 hour ago, deejammin' said:

No Lindsay again? Is he ok?

He’s being managed. I reckon his season is done, or alternatively they’ll bring him in next week and manage another player as we have a short break ahead of the Hawks game.

Chaplin mention management ahead of that game in his presser.

I would give Lindsay the rest of the season off and set him up for a big pre season. He has nothing left to prove this season, has shown plenty.

Edited Friday at 11:532 days by Jaded No More

54 minutes ago, picket fence said:

And this year??

Like the rest of them,[censored] house

3 hours ago, bing181 said:

You'd think McVee sub. Makes sense, was probably between him and Howes given the need for height down back.

Pretty clear though that with only one change the coaches and FD have been more or less on the same page. The opposite of wholesale change.

I agree McVee must be the sub from the 5 named not on the ground. Windsor, after his last game through the midfield must stay there, and none of the other could realistically fulfil a sub role.

4 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

Sorry but if McVee is going to not stay at Melbourne because he’s played one game as a sub after some very ordinary performances that he’s gotten away with all season, then frankly speaking he doesn’t belong in our team.

I want to keep him, without a doubt, but he’s had a contract for 18 months that he’s yet to sign. I don’t think where he starts in round 20 will be the deciding factor.

I think the point may be - we are so worried about losing him yet we don’t consider him best 22

Nevertheless he is a good young player who had a down year and hope he stays

4 hours ago, bing181 said:

It doesn't show anything except your confirmation bias.

For all any of us know, this could have been thrashed out in coaches meetings/selection committee on Monday, or even last week. Given the absence of May and Lever, and the makeup of the Dogs forward line, a third tall was always going to come into consideration.

I have no bias for or against either Chaplin or Goodwin. I was just pointing out that Chaplin has given a chance to a player who never got one from Goodwin.

Your suggestion that selection decisions for the Bulldogs game could have been finalised before last weekend's matches seems a bit far-fetched.

Knowing Goodwin's cautious approach to changes, I suspect he would merely have switched Petty to defence as the additional tall. And yes, that is pure speculation on my part.

Out of the box, but maybe Petty does go back and Adams is the sub? Just a thought, given both are listed on the interchange? Reckon McVee is perfectly suited to playing on West.

6 hours ago, picket fence said:

He is massively overated IMO

He's rated highly because this is the only year since he made his place in the team he's been average to poor. Every other year he has been one of our best users of the ball in defence, and been brilliant in all aspects asked of him.

I had zero doubt this poor year has been 100% because of his injury, next year I'd picture him having a year similar to what we've got from Bowie this season.

As for this game, I would've liked to see Petty sent to defence but I am happy to see Adams given his chance. I think Windsor would be the obvious one to be the sub.

I'm hoping the players will play with a bit of freedom and dare, and if we can give the dogs an almighty scare than that would be fantastic. I have a strange feeling about this one, I don't know whether it's a positive or negative feeling. It's just strange.

11 hours ago, DubDee said:

If Max did his a serious injury, we’d have no mature 1st ruck cover

Pretty obvious need I would have thought

I agree we needed an experienced ruckman. But surely there was a state league player 6-8 years younger. TC is an average VFL ruckman. He could only cover for Max for one or two games.

According to the MCC website:

Level 4 of the Warne and Ponsford stands closed despite this fixture averaging 50,000 at the G since 2022, the Pink lady game and plenty of Dogs supporters in attendance due to their finals chances.

13 hours ago, DubDee said:

I think the point may be - we are so worried about losing him yet we don’t consider him best 22

Nevertheless he is a good young player who had a down year and hope he stays

Someone understood 😉

18 hours ago, picket fence said:

He is massively overated IMO

Good lord you post some nonsense.

General Admission Seating and Cheer Squad locations

General Public

Shane Warne Stand

M4 (Demon Heartland)

M5-M9

M12 rows A-L

Level 4 closed

Ponsford Stand

M30-M31

M33 rows U-MM (no alcohol)

M34-M36

Level 4 closed

Olympic Stand

M55 rows A-EE

M56-M57

Q49-Q57

CHEER SQUAD LOCATIONS

Melbourne: M3 (Punt Road end)

Western Bulldogs: M33 rows A-G (City end)

https://mcg.org.au/whats-on/events-calendar/2025/august/afl-round-22---melbourne-v-western-bulldogs#GeneralAdmissionSeating

Edited yesterday at 07:121 day by Kev