mo64

OP is delusional if he thinks 1 game can determine the premiership chances of a team. Both the Roos and Dogs are chances of making the top 4, which gives them a shot at the flag. We'll struggle to make the eight, so to think that we are contenders based on one game is laughable.

For the past 3 weeks, the odds for our opponents have shortened dramatically after the teams were announced. I could understand the Collingwood game with Sidebottom and Varcoe in as against Vince out and no Garlett. Couldn't work out the Richmond game with Maric in versus Vince and Garlett. And I would have thought that the exclusion of McCartin was a win for us. Let's hope the bookies/punters get in wrong 3 weeks in a row.

The father rang up SEN (Andy Maher) to relate the story. It's a must listen. Here's the link. Click on Mick Peters: http://www.sen.com.au/programs/sen-afternoons#JYr8pkwb1jAdObxg.97

That's impressive given that Yze and Hendrie were left footers and Stevie J a right footer. Were you equally good at cricket like Bomber Hendrie?

I don't rate him as an AFL level ruckman, but it's important for the young players developing at Casey that we have a competitive ruckman at that level.

That stat just related to % of an individual players' gametime played in the midfield. In other words, the Dogs have an even spread of players rotating through the middle. Jack Viney had the highest % at 96% of his gametime in the middle.

So you are saying that clubs don't make mistakes with trades? Melksham's CV dosesn't warrant the term "AFL grade flanker". That suggests that he's been a reliable player over several years. He may well have started the season ahead of Wagner and Hunt, but unless his form was an improvement on last season, he would have found himself out of the team. And Lumumba's CV far exceeds that of Melksham. I know what Lumumba has to offer. But I was in the "Garland is not in our best 22" camp.

The term "not impressed" tends to suggest that he thinks he's being hard done by. I could understand if he's disappointed, because most players are when they're dropped. But his form to date doesn't warrant being "not impressed".

It's funny how players are always rated higher when they're not playing. Melksham had an ordinary year last year, and the knock on him is his disposal. On exposed form, I don't think he warrants a place in our best 22.

Can't agree with that. His one-on-one play this year has gone backwards compared to last. Someone must have got into his ear after round 2, and he's been more effective by playing as a true CHF. Haven't noticed him drawing a 2nd or 3rd defender since playing as a CHF, but his benefit to the team has been far better.

I'd be shocked if Pedersen wasn't offered another 1 year deal for 2017. The developing key forwards look miles off being regular senior players. Weideman looks like the most likely talent wise, but he looks like he needs another 12 months before you'd consider him AFL ready.

Yeah, I thought he was fumbly when under pressure, and offered nothing when moved into the centre for ball-ups. Didn't think he did much against Collingwood either. I had Kennedy down as a candidate to get dropped if Petracca and Oliver were included. Assuming he doesn't play, I think we'll miss Oliver's clearance work, as I've got know doubt that the Saints will come up with a plan to nullify Gawn.

To be honest, Hogan has been ordinary when playing as a deep forward this year. He's been far better playing as a CHF. Watts has been far better playing deep.

Spot on. Gawn will play 85% game time as 1st ruck, and Spencer can't play any other position. With fewer interchanges, no team can afford the luxury of a 2nd ruckman who can't fulfill another role. Our attacking game style makes Spencer's inclusion even more remote.

Malthouse failed to disclose that he coached Rance's father at both Footscray and West Coast. The good bloke argument was laughable.

I actually think it might have been Leon Baker who Barassi flicked for being too small and slow. Ezard also tried out and got flicked. Interestingly a couple of weeks ago, the names Van Der Haar and Baker were named amongst the best for the Casey Dev team, and my mind immediately sprung back to the Bombers of the early '80s. Edit. I just checked on Leon Baker. He was in Melbourne's zone and we were keen, but his dad thought he was too skinny. When his dad thought he was ready, he told him to knock on our door, but Baker didn't have the courage. The one that got away.

One thing I've noticed since round 3 is that Dunn and T Mac don't stray up the ground, and pretty much play as stay at home backmen. We're not getting caught out with height mismatches as we were in the NAB Challenge and rounds 1 - 3. The zone in the backline has tempered, and even Wagner and Jetta don't stray too far up ground. Dunn and T Mac are our best 2 key defenders, and that will remain until O Mac develops.

Exactly. He could have just posted a tweet, or had the members of his cult drop a pamphlet in people's letterboxes.

God.

I'm not sure that it's best for Goodwin or the club if Roos remains in a part-time capacity, as well as having a full-time media role. It puts Goodwin in a no-win situation. If the team is winning, credit to Goodwin will be diminished, because they still see Roos in the background. If the team is playing poorly, Roos will constantly be asked about it, and I doubt that he'd accept any responsibility.

I'm bemused when Rance apologists say "it was out of character". No, it actually was in Rance's character to forearm a defenseless player to the back of the head when they're lying on the ground. A minute percentage of the population would be cowardly enough to commit such an act, so it's in Rance's character.

Are you and Saty joined at the hip, because you both bring up the Jetta argument. You seem to forget that Jetta was actually delisted by the club and re-rookied. And if Grimes was one of our best v Dogs and Saints (which he wasn't), why couldn't he get a gig for round 1? And the old "bleeds red and blue" counts for nothing if he isn't in the best 30 players at the club.

During the NAB Challenge and at Casey, he hasn't played in defense, so he's actually not competing for a half back spot. He's actually trying to compete for a wing/midfield role, which puts him even further down the pecking order. Unless we get a massive spate of injuries, I don't see him getting a game this year, which would spell the end of his career at Melbourne. And I'd be really surprised if another club picked him up next year.

I don't understand the criticism. The creative possessions Salem had far outweighed the odd mistake. The reason why we are scoring more in the past 3 weeks is because we finally have some backmen who know how to attack. Lumumba, Salem, Jetta, Wagner and Hunt are not afraid to take the game on. We are actually going out there to win the game, rather than just stopping the opposition from scoring. And it's not like we're leaking more goals than we have in the past. I've been a massive critic of Garland and to a lesser extent Grimes because they offer nothing offensively. Our current backline structure is like a breathe of fresh air, and Salem's contribution is integral.

A players' pace can appear to be different depending on the quality of the opposition. A quality team like Willi may not allow soemone like Trenners time and space, and that's where he could be perceived to be slow. I take stats from VFL matches with a grain of salt. Unless you've watched the game like AF and AAC, you can't determine whether a players' performance would stand up at AFL level. Having said that, it's encouraging that Trenners was one of our best last night.