Deespicable

If you read the link above, it would seem this time Melbourne did the right thing by a veteran player - so there's no need for others to try and turn this into some James McDonald type situation. Interesting to hear that he also had knee issues - he kept that fairly quiet, but while like every player I'm sure he wanted to play on, realistically he probably knew his body couldn't cope with AFL level anymore - hence his suggestion he may still play games up in NT with his brothers. The good thing is that our fans and the media have always treated him like a star since he arrived on the scene in 2005 and after his B&F he was given a really highly-paid contract - most reports say he was on close to $550,000 a year. He was a revelation back in his early days and unfortunately the game is now more suited to bigger bodies as tackling is no longer just about running someone down - it's a way of life for much of the game. He can still thread the needle, as he did when he came on last Sunday with a couple of ripper passes, but he just can't do it as much as he used to.

I think we all agree that Magner is probably not a long-term option, but when you get beat so bad, it's important that we are not outmuscled. Had Magner played last week it would have allowed two things; 1) Grimes could have played as a defender - the position he made his name at our club and one which they our now loathe to use him in. 2) It would have given us the option of moving Nathan Jones to a forward pocket to try and overcome his tagger Crowley. We still would have been smashed in the oustide run-and-carry because we don't have a Hill or a Pearce or a Spurr or a Fyfe, but we probably would have matched them for hardball gets all day, instead of tiring in last term. We have to wait and hope that Toumpas kicks on next season and is quicker after a big pre-season, that Kent keeps developing, that we either draft Aish or trade for Sloane. But for the time being surely we'd all like to have a tough nut with defiencies than guys who average less than three tackles a game.

I don't quite get why Neeld went off him. He loved his hard side initially and while his kicking wasn't always precise, that was partly because Neeld wanted the players to just bomb it up the line. This year he gave him two cracks at it. The first game against Richmond (rd 8 I think) he was really good and was one of the reasons why we weren't thrashed - a rarity under Neeld. The next game he was one of many who didn't go so well at patersons Stadium against Freo. Since then he's had to watch as the club gives everyone else who plays well in the VFL run, except him. While team balance makes it harder now that jack Viney is back and Sylvia is being used more in the middle, there's no doubt he'd be harder at it than just about anybody else and he would be more likely to lay a tackle resting as a forward than Blease, Davey, Byrnes, Howey and Tappy - no need to mention Watts.

Jack Watts will be a player - the problem is it won't be at our club. We have way too big an expectation on him - that's the probalem that goes with being taken at No.1 in the draft. He can't live up to our expectations because he's a highly-skilled player that will be a classy finisher at a good club that has plenty of tough nuts and a good culture. It's in everybody's interests for him to go because he doesn't have the hard-hitting game that we need to lift us out of the doldrums. Jesse Hogan appears to have that although please don't expect too much next season from him. If he's smart he'll go to Freo where he can spend a year or two sitting next to Pav and Mayne and kicking a lazy three or four each week. He's quick on the lead so he'll be suited to Subiaco. If he's not smart he'll go to Carlton where they will want to be their remedy for everything and be a gun straight away replacing Jarrad Waite. As to what we'll get for him, he probably rates about a 10-18 pick now. Freo will have pick 14-17 I suspect so it may be a direct trade. But personally I'd prefer if we tried to nab fringe youngsters Tom Sheridan and Hayden Crozier from them in exchange. That would give us two young kids who are struggling to break into their side that has plenty of season-bodied midfielders.

The thing about Craig's decision to play Jack Watts down back, which was mentioned on radio post game, is that having him play loose as the extra defender teaches him nothing about defensive pressure. If he was manning Pavlich, then at least he might pick up a few tips on intensity or just a lesson in how to lead up as a forward. But no, Jack is used as a roam free quarterback and puts in an insipid effort and plays way too deep most of time and makes possibly one intercept mark for the entire game. Rivers would have taken five. Garland probably 10. Whose fault is that? Jack's or the coach? The second observation is that poor Troy Davis has come in and played two games as a forward and tried but does not possess the tools for this level (not quick, not a powerful mark, not a thumping kick). He will probably get dropped and is a very high chance of getting delisted. It's nice that we played him, but it would have been nice if we'd seen whether he was up to it as a defender at AFL level. Whose fault is that. Troy's or the coach?

Another terrible display - we seemed to go backwards more often than forwards and our defenders had no confidence of going up the middle of the ground. Jack Viney was so much better than his teammates it was embarrassing. Hopeful someone shows a video of his second and third efforts and maybe they will get the drift. Jack Trengove did a good job of presenting on the wing (but you can't be damaging from there unless you can run like Stephen Hill) and Dean Kent looked dangerous on the break, but he only won it a handful of times. Tom Mc was the pick of our defenders keeping Pav fairly quiet - his second goal came when Tom Mc was off for a bit - not sure why he went off in the first place. Spencil tried hard but was given a hiding by Clarke, who in case you didn't know already, is a class act. We were damn lucky Sandilands went off, or the error of being one of the few clubs that don't play two rucks would have become more evident. What was even stranger was that after a short burst up forward, Jack Watts was persisted with as a defender almost all day. Despite countless errors and the fact that Troy Davis was again out of his depth up forward, he was kept back there for the remainder of the game. Go figure! Agree with other comments on Bleasey and his departure through injury after one of the most howling errors of all time was a sad indictment on his game. His lack of vision and selfishness may have cost himself a new contract. Straussy (shoulder injury) can't win a trick and we still don't know if he can elevate his game to the required level. Nathan Jones barely touched it (Crowley and De Boer nagged him all day I think). Why Matt Jones was played down back is also beyond me. Terlich got lost on Ballantyne a few times, but at least he keep presenting and I have to say the same about Dunny. Both turned it over a bit but both weren't in our worst 10. Davey looked good when he got on, while Byrnes (moonboot at game's end) may be finished for the season.

Creating a winning culture that doesn't give up on their mates is what it's all about. He should have a week off and if his knee is structurally fine, then he should play VFL finals. We want hardened guys and we have a rare chance of winning the VFL comp against Geelong and Hawthorn (Box Hill). Yes it is only VFL, but have a look what losing each week is doing to the mentality of our senior players.

6 Viney (fantastic to see a player who gives second and third efforts). The rest don't really deserve votes but the pick of them in my view were: 5 Tom Mc (did a pretty good job on Pav - not sure why he was off ground when Pav took a ripping pack mark on Dunny to score his second, but then again I'm not sure why jack watts was playing down back and a defender Troy Davis was playing forward. 4 Jordie McKenzie (showed intent all day and worked hard on Fyfe and then Mundy). 3 Trenners (I assume he was told to play wide and be a linkman and he racked up heaps of touches. Just wish some of them had been in middle of park where his next kick could hurt them). 2 Garland (not a great game by his standards but Mayne was BOG last week and was quiet this time). 1 Sylvia (As with Dunn and Terlich, he racked up plenty of the ball, but his effective kicks must have tallied only five or six). He did win quite a few hardballs though.

I know isolated showers are forecast but I don't quite see how you can leave out Pedo when they have Sandilands or Clarke standing in the goalsquare when they are resting. But then, I didn't get why we went for outside run against Geelong and North, despite the fact that they have a stack of hard-bodied midfielders. One positive is we have picked just about our fastest side possible. And it more than likely means Davis will get a chance to play as a defender once Craigy realises he needs another tall down back.

When you look at defensive match-ups, Pedo has to play. Tom Mac gets Pav and Garland has to play on Mayne, who at the moment is their most dangerous lead-up forward. Given how well Dunny played on Lindsay Thomas, he's ideal to play on the serial pest Ballantyne. I think our chiefs are hoping that Davis can do a negating job up forward like last week, nullifying the run of Johnson, so that leaves Pedo to pick up Sandilands and Clarke. Pedo also has the ability to kick long and given Freo's press, we will need players capable of breaking the line, so even though many doubt Pedo's defensive abilities, he does give us that offensive option. Terlich would pick up Walters, who is quicker than Ballantyne, and Strauss would take the in-form Neale. It seemed logical to me to play Gawn to help Spencer against Clarke and Sandilands, but given we have named both Davis and Fitzy in the 18, his selection along with Pedo would make us way too top heavy against such a fast side like the Dockers. Kent is safely in the side and my source at the club tells me that Davey rejected overtures of retirement this week and wants to try his luck next year with a new coach. Given Davey is fresh from playing as a sub last week, I imagine he would beat Bleasey for the role of playing on Hill and it means we all get a good chance to see if he has still got any high-Ho left in him. That would leave Tappy as the sub with Gawn, Rodan and Blease left out. Freo play a game of keepings off, so Nathan Jones, Jack Viney and Sylvia et al have to be careful not to blaze away from the centre bounces, because that plays into their hands. Our best chance of scoring, and against Freo, any score is worthy of a celebration, is to break clear from their press with precise ball movement and utilise the speed of Watts, Fitzy and Kent on the break. I'm hoping Howey plays on Freo's whiz Fyfe - what a battle in the air that would be. That would leave Jordie to tag either Barlow, who usually carves us up, or Mundy. Hopefully Freo rests up one of them for the finals Crowley will most likely tag Nat Jones and Matt Jones should go to Danyle Pearce. Sadly I have not mentioned either of our two skippers, which probably shows how their importance to the side has dropped. With Clisby out, I imagine Grimesy will be part of our seven-man backline rotation this week and float through a variety of roles, depending on which of our other six defenders is off the ground. I'd love to see Trenners tag Mundy, but I'm not sure the club has the confidence to give him such a big role anymore. One of the great things about this week is we will get to see a side that plays with system and has the belief that flows from knowing precisely your role. But provided our defenders don't panic and take the game on when they get a chance, for some stupid reason I think we can cause them problems on the counterattack. Silvagni and Dawson aren't superstars and Duffield doesn't play close, so you never know. Realistically however a loss by less than 50 points would be a great effort.

Agree with comment that a really good midfield coach would help (eg: Simpson or Voss) and I reckon he has the vision and smarts to be elite, but the big issue is his leg-speed. Misson has been good for getting the boys endurance fit, but the club needs to employ a genuine sprints coach who can get him and his mate Tapscott working on leg-drills and improving their leg drive. If the club can't afford to employ one then I reckon they should employ one themselves - after all it's their career on the line. Both boys have the right attitude and are courageous. But unless they can find an extra yard, they cannot provide us with enough run and carry or the ability to chase down opponents to make a genuine impact at AFL level.

Ins: Frawley, Howe and assuming he passes fitness test then Dawes comes in as well. We also have to play Gawn this week because Freo have two rucks that can dominate (Sandilands and Clarke) so to just play Spencer would be expecting way too much and a major misjudgment. Frawleys return means Pedo can't get back in. All are outs are unlucky coming off a good game but I suspect the following: Out: Davis, Nicholson (last player in), Fitzpatrick (unless Dawes doesn't come up) and Clibsy (susp).

I agree with you that Vossy learnt a big lesson over the Fev and recycled player thing but he had just come off a first year where his side made the finals and I think he thought they were still in a premiership window. To me he should be right up there in our thinking for next year because he has had great success developing his midfield - Rockliff, Redden, Rich and more recently Mayes and Hanley. He would be instantly respected by our players and he has charisma and leadership abilities - something that puts him ahead of Eade. The two things I'd want to check out are: 1) It was reported that some players were ante him - if it's just guys like Polec who aren't getting a game then its understandable but report suggested Rockliff wasn't happy, so I would think our club should find out why. 2) What is his game plan - the Lions seem to like to go up the corridor and when they play well they can upset good teams, but often they lose to weakish sides. is that because they persist with going up the middle and get caught out on counterattack etc?

It's not official yet, but the club will be holding talks with Aaron Davey this week to decide what sort of send-off to give him. Davey, in his 10th season, has been one of the most popular players in history since arriving at the club via the rookie draft in 2004. Anyone who saw his first season under Neale Daniher will know how he took the chasing game to a new level pioneering the breakneck speed and classy ball movement that small forwards like Cyril Rioli have copied. He wasn't as robust as The Whiz, but The Flash, as Daniher called him, lifted spirits with his ability to bring down unsuspecting defenders and use the ensuing turnover to great effect. He would have won the AFL Rising Star had Jared Rivers not had a huge first AFL season as well. He was stiff however as he finished third in Melbourne's best and fairest that season, ahead of Rivers. In 2009 Dean Bailey moved him into the midfield to provide more run and he ended up with the Bluey Truscott Medal. In 2010 he was pushed more into defence and in 2011 injury and a loss of confidence contributed towards him being maligned a bit in the media. It's been a tough run for him since and his lack of muscle in today's heavy-tackling game doesn't suit his style and has meant he has spent many games as sub in the past two seasons. But it was nice to see an article earlier in the year that talked about how he'd been invited to dinner at Mark Neeld's place. It corresponded with a purple patch of form mid-season where his silky skills were again evident. The 30-year-old has now played 174 games and will go down as one of the club greats. Will history rate him higher than Jeff Farmer as the club's best small forward since 1970? Adem Yze also has strong claims to that spot as well. Let us know what you think and don't forget to cheer him on at the MCG against Fremantle this Sunday. I'm tipping he won't be the sub this week.

He also beat McEvoy and Brogan - so he's three from three. But yes he won't have the height for Sandilands and it will be interesting to see if his confidence around ground drops when he can't win the taps.

6 Spencer - I'm probably still in shock at how good he's played in his past three - He actually towelled up McEvoy, Brogan and this time Gorringe was a piece of cake. 5 McKenzie - Ablett only had 19 touches - so hard not to rank highly. And he kicked a long goal late. 4 Watts - very classy just wish he'd lay a few tackles as well. 3 Viney - huge first quarter gave everyone confidence 2 Garland - he's become so dependable. 1 N.Jones - plenty of touches but just wish he'd stop running around the back for easy handball.

There are four big positives from this season and all were evident again tonight. 1) Colin Garland has become an elite defender. Picked up Ablett when he rested forward and really annoyed him. 2) Jake Spencer is now a player - it's not just that he works hard around ground, it's because unlike Jamar and Gawn, his hitouts actually find a target quite often (34% tonight from 41 hitouts). 3) Jack Viney - for obvious reasons. He had 24 disposals tonight and if Davis hadn't wiped him out in a marking contest he probably would have got 30. 4) Dean Kent - we needed a small goalscoring forward who tackles and has pace. We drafted Byrnes for the role, but got really lucky and ended up with Kent at pick 50 or whatever who is a long-term proposition. He still hasn't cracked 20 disposals in a game yet I don't think but he had 19 tonight. You could probably add a fifth positive in Jack Fitzpatrick saving his AFL career in the past seven games - a very handy back-up for Mitch Clark next season. The Jordie haters need to take a step back this week too - did a great job on Ablett. Jack Watts was very classy again, if only he could tackle, then we'd all get off his back.

Yes, your interpretation of this seems to be correct. Any player that plays AFL after July 1 must have played six VFL games and no more than 12 AFL games to qualify. Players who haven't played after July 1 seem to be eligible, provided they have played at least one VFL game and less than 12 AFL games. All players are eligible to play the first VFL final - provided they are not required in AFL that weekend. Can someone else confirm whether Casey has a limit of only 12 Melbourne-listed players per game? Jimmy T has played three VFL games to date - Rds 4, 5 and 8 - primarily because that numbskull Neeld rushed him into the seniors in Rd 1 and then dropped him for the GWS game. He will have to play the next three round in VFL to qualify and I doubt Craigy will keep him out that long. Jack Viney cannot qualify for VFL and is too good for it anyway. But Dean Kent, Fitzy, Jake Spencer, Mitch Clisby, Cam Pedersen, Daniel Nicholson and Jordie McKenzie can all still qualify for VFL finals. The other problem is that in the past we've sent any player with a semblance of an injury off for surgery or an early holiday so they can be back doing pre-season training by early October. The club hasn't given a stuff about Casey - it would be nice if that changed and we encouraged a winning culture - even if it is only at VFL level.

Yes, pleased for Troy, but he's hardly coming off a big couple of weeks having had a combined 20 disposals (av: 10 per game) in the magoos. He should have played weeks ago. Furthermore, unless they intend sending Dunny or Garland forward, then he will be playing as a forward - hardly the easiest spot in a Melbourne side at the minute. But at least we will get a chance to see if he can step up at this level. I don't get the selectors. When we played Geelong and North, who are always physical, we went for leg speed players and got hammered all day. This week we play probably the fastest side in the comp and we add Jordie to our line-up. Explain that?

There's a stack of people on other forums quick to bag him and he was tried as a forward/ruckman by Neeld in the first few weeks and failed dismally, except in first game against GWS where he took a couple of marks. But as a defender he is quite useful because he has a thumping kick like Dunny and whilst not as good in one-on-one contests as Tom Mc, Garland or Chipper, he's quite a strong mark. He's well worth keeping on the list as a back-up to our star trio and potentially could play as a fourth tall defender against side's that go top-heavy or when Garland is used on a damaging lead-up small forward. I suspect those that keep bagging him only saw his early games. Anyone who saw his recent work, including his super goal against GWS, would say he has a bit of talent.

I thought I'd get this started and while I know a lot of you like saying what does it matter, I always enjoy reading everyone's comments from the ones who want Dunny out every week, to the ones who always want Taggert in. I'll quickly start this off by saying that based on the VFL player report I reckon there can only be a maximum of five ins this week against Gold Coast. 1) Dawes if fit, would come straight in. 2) The four listed as best in VFL were Magner (who from reports not only tackled by kept Christensen fairly subdued as well), Strauss (who has been in the best for several weeks now), Nicholson (who has been impressive since getting dropped) and Blease (who had 22 touches and seems able to win ball at VFL level but is always the scapegoat when he plays poorly at AFL level). It should be noted that the last three all provide speed and run - something that I would think would be pretty helpful against Gold Coast which is regarded as super quick. Magner, whilst not always effective with his kicking, provides grunt and tackling and IMO would be worth using on Ablett in first half with a fresh Nicho to come on as sub at half time and takeover the Ablett duties. Given Casey lost by 10 goals, it's hard to see how you could consider other inclusions this week, although I'd love to see Taggert, Barry and Tynan get a shot at it before the end of the season. The only question in my view is who goes out, which is always difficult. Over to you.

Our only strength is in the bigs and so if we want an underperforming midfielder from another club (performing one's won't want to leave) or a second round draft pick, then we will have to trade a big. I agree though Fitzy may need to be kept because who really knows if Clark will play again and Dawes doesn't like doing ruck work and realistically Hogan and Watts are a bit small to be the back up ruckman. If Spencer is kept, then we can afford to lose either Jamar or Gawn, but both are contracted for next year - so I suspect we will end up not trading any bigs and just delisting about nine players. Back to point of topic, which is superfluous anyway. What gun midfielder from another club would want to head to Melbourne? Our best bet is to take James Aish with pick 2 - his game against Sturt two weeks ago won me over on him. It would be great if a couple of quality running types were still around for our next pick - approx 20 - Blake Acres is a smooth mover or happy to take punt on Dale Garlett if he's still around. Then at pick 38 approx, we should go for someone like Chris Cain, who would add run and carry to our midfield. After that it doesn't really matter as its all guesswork from there.

Yes and I suspect one of them should play this week and the other should come in to help fire us up to attend our final home game - Round 21. There's plenty of players who should come in this week given the VFL side is coming off good win at Victoria Park where we used to win once every decade. The only thing is deciding who gets the chop as a case can be made for all bar about six players to be sent back to VFL. I seem to be only one who wants Spencer in but he shocked me against St Kilda and I want to know if he can repeat that sort of form. I don't get why you punish a bloke that had a great game and did a physical act and gets suspended. He's spent two more weeks out because Fitzy and Gawn have shown a bit, but at the same time, despite their glimpses, we have been thrashed in ruck in every game they have been a tandem. So for me this week it's: In: Garland, Spencer, Terlich, Strauss, Barry Out: Frawley (inj), Gawn, Clisby, Kent, Davey I'd also love to see Magner get another go but can't see Craigy making too many changes.

I know there are heaps of Dunn-haters on this forum, but you just have to keep quiet this week because he had probably his best ever game last week and he was pretty good, by his standards, the week before. Craigy's been [censored]-scared of making changes and he probably will be again this week because he will think we can win against GWS. By my reckoning about eight players deserve to be considered as inclusions this week based on form in VFL, but I reckon about three or maybe four will actually get a go. The eight are: Spencer, Magner, Taggert, Tynan, Barry, Strauss, McKenzie and Nicholson (forced to play VFL2s). Garland and Terlich are also expected back. Garland comes in for Pedersen (we don't need four big defenders v Giants) Terlich comes in for Clisby (he's had a good go of it now and he's handy but he's no star and Toumpas is made of teflon and did better down back and that means another defender has to go). Spencer comes in for Fitzy or Gawn (we can't keep getting beaten in the ruck and leave the big fella out - have a look at his goal from outside 50m in VFL) Barry or Taggert comes in for Kent (needs to go back to VFL and win more footy). If Terlich is still injured then Strauss has been in top form for four weeks and deserves a chance. One of Magner, McKenzie or Tynan also deserves a crack at it, purely because they rack up tackles, unlike the current encumbents, but Craigy likes pace, so I can't see him dropping Davey or Blease on top of Kent. But it would be good if he did.

Our side under Craigy is much quicker because he's happy playing Kent, Blease and Davey in one side, whereas Neeld got his way and went with big, slow bodies. The only problem that I can see is that North traditionally crunch us with physical approach with Swallow and Ziebell in the middle and Thompson and Firrito down back, plus Harvey and Petrie up forward. Pleasingly Firrito's not playing which means there's one less sniper to worry about, but I reckon this is definitely a game to have a couple more tough boys in the side - ie: Magner and Tapscott. I can understand that Craigy wants to stay loyal and breed solidarity by not making changes, but if we get smashed up like we did against Geelong in the wet, then it also reflects on the coach.