stevethemanjordan

History and therefore evidence suggests that the vast majority of finals and especially Grand Finals are won from hard/strong inside contested ball kings. Plays and situations where heavy packs of players are trying to win first possession. You've named an outlier in Johannisen winning the Norm-Smith one year. Usually it's influential combative contested ball players or mercurial forwards who take out that award. Hardly speculation. It's not that I don't rate Parish, I'm simply saying I'd rather head into a Grand Final with Clayton Oliver starting in the guts over Parish if I had a choice. No, we're not. And I agree with Parish being a stronger inside player than Toumpas. Only because of his tenacity. But again I'll stress that the heat of a final or grand final is at an entirely different level. I'll also add that a contested possession is another 'stat' that can be misleading. Just like a clanger. I won't post it here, but you should have a look at what counts as a contested possession these days. My argument is that Oliver is bigger, stronger, more aggressive, is as clean/or cleaner with his hands and has a far better chance of marking the ball in a contested situation than the smaller Parish. All of these things point to him being the more influential player in a final, given the way finals are usually played.

All I think and care about with this kind of comparison (Oliver/Parish), is who would be more likely to be the better player under the heat of a final. And for me, Oliver wins without question. Generally finals and especially grand finals are scrappy contested affairs and Parish is exactly the type of player who'd be caught out in that type of environment. He is 180 cm and will never be in the build of Nathan Jones. He'd purely be relying on the heavy lifters to get the ball out to him and whilst he may have that rare ability to kick a classy goal when it's most needed. Oliver would be right in the coalface from the start making it happen.

^ Agree He and Hibberd playing in round 1 will make me feel a lot more comfortable about our back six. I'm worried Goodwin doesn't have Jetta as a lock for that small defender role like Roos did.

Lol. Whenever Burgo conducts these injury update videos with Misson, I can't help but laugh. It looks like Misson is having the shittest time of his life talking about it and Burgo seems scared to ask about anything and fumbles his way through the questions. And there's rarely anything other than vague time-lines of where players are at. Also heard nothing about how Wagner is going.

Quite plausible really.

Edited. Left out the ectomorph by mistake. Maybe he won't be. But I'd like it to happen.

Now that the JLT has come to an end, here's my 22 heading into round 1: B Jetta O Mac Hibberd HB Lewis T Mac Hunt C Brayshaw Jones Hogan/Riewoldt HF Petracca Watts Vince FF Garlett Gawn Weideman Foll Spencer Oliver Viney Int Stretch Melksham Salem Bugg Notes - Hibberd and Jetta need to come in if we're any chance. They're both sure and steady with ball in hand and and play unsociable, combative and hard footy which we'll need against the Saints. As others have already mentioned, Goodwin may have other ideas re: Jetta. Something I don't agree with. I think he's an extremely important ingredient to our back six. Billings and Lonie are types that he'd suit perfectly. Generally he's a really good decision maker. Hibberd is a no-brainer providing he gets through the Casey game. He can take Membrey, provide good coverage as a third-man up and his foot is a weapon. We need him in the side. Kent and Tyson - Can't see either cracking a game round 1. Kent has missed too much footy with this back injury and considering he's not in the most amazing shape, I think he could be a liability if he came in rusty, underdone and not up to fitness. Garlett is risky enough and we can only afford one small forward position to an underdone player. Tyson just doesn't cut it for me at this stage of the pre-season. For someone in a full-time footballing environment, you'd allow a couple of mis-kicks in a JLT game of footy without saying much. But Tyson literally gave the ball straight to the opposition on several occasions against West Coast. In awful positions. If he'd been prolific with his inside work or perhaps hit the scoreboard or played strongly in some other facet of the game, then he may be considered. But he was a liability against West Coast. Slow two-way runner, butchered it plenty and wasn't prolific enough inside. We can't afford that sort of player against a quick and slick St Kilda at Etihad. Oliver, Brayshaw and Viney are all better prepared and in better form. Unlucky for Dom. Hogan/Roo - Posters may think I'm bat-[censored] crazy on this one, but we need to play horses for courses in this game. We're at their venue, slick deck, slick team, hard and fast runners. Our team structure needs modifications if we're going to beat them. Think David and Goliath. I just can't see us going head to head with them on that deck thinking we'll out play them at their game. We simply aren't skilled enough throughout our side and St Kilda won't not turn up to round 1. Which is why I want Hogan to at least start up the field on Riewoldt. Give him a task to go head to head with a great and watch him salivate at the challenge. It allows us to play the Spencer/Gawn combo and whilst I agree Spencer hasn't done 'enough' to demand a spot, I think it's time Gawn takes that forwardline role seriously and really imposes himself on this game. He could ignite us in this game. Carlisle to Gawn, Brown to one of Watts/Weed leaves them vulnerable. Especially if Hoges can take advantage on a counter attack. I think that if we started with a bang in the midfield, it would really [censored] with them positionally and we could start playing the game on our terms. Spencer would need to play his heart out against Hickey and we'd need to be on fire in the middle. But that can happen. There are plenty of runners in that side, most of whom have positional versatility which we need. People may think there's no chance we'll line up like that but it's the only way I can see us getting up against this mob.

We're Melbourne supporters. Was this unexpected?

Because I think they're better one-on-one players than zone defenders.

I just wish for one game, Tom and Oscar were made to play on one opponent for the entire night.

A lot better than his brother makes him an average kick at best. Nah jokes. They're both great. Love em.

Burgo. *cringe*

Hang on. You want us to be in with a chance don't you?

We'll lose round 1 by about 35 I reckon. Saints more consistent, better runners, taller and stronger book-ends and will make us pay.

Hibberd being available for round one is a must. He completely changes the feel of our back six.

Lol. Rance is streets ahead of T-Mac because he is far more consistent as a player. One bad JLT game and Melbourne supporters think T-Mac has him covered. Until Tom displays a consistent body of work, (a season at bare minimum) they shouldn't be spoken of in the same sentence. 3 x AA from 14-16 Club BnF and a runner up. Y'all are clowns.

Nah. Nah, he's not.

We have no one else, which is why he is continued to be played even though it's obvious he's not ready. I similarly wanted a ready made KP defender and still don't understand why we didn't get one. Frost and O-Mac are young, underdeveloped and have 'potential' only. And Tom is anything but consistent.

Upon second viewing, Oscar McDonald is so far from being AFL ready. Physically and mentally.

You know.. But do you reaalllllllyyyy know?

Sure. But there is a spectrum of levels within. And within that spectrum, you and I are in very different places.

I don't wish to be a smartarse. But seriously, if you're missing the bad he does and only taking note of the good, it's no wonder you're at his defence at every opportunity. I also witnessed the three (or thereabouts) really good defensive marks that he took in difficult conditions. That's great. But I also took note of how he disposed of the ball, whether or not he played on at appropriate times, whether he corralled well, spoiled well etc etc. Consistency in all areas of his game is what we want. We want that of every player. We had an abundance of players who butchered the ball last night on various occasions, I'm waiting for those posts to come at me. But Tom is one who consistently has a problem with his CONSISTENCY in playing at the level required. And considering we have no back-up and I'd argue one of if not the thinnest KP defensive stocks in the AFL, it's problematic. Because his place in the team will never be under question at any time this year, regardless of how he performs. That needs to change if we want to keep moving in an upward trajectory.

I guess that is what one would call a serious case of cognitive bias. So much so that it's clearly affected your ability to see on a television. Sure makes sense now when I think about how many on here believe his consistency or lack thereof isn't up for discussion. I guess you can't help people that don't see what's in front of their eyes.

I imagine some over-the-top supporters of Tom would say the same thing. And I want to know why you thought he was good last night rather than just average. (Which is how I saw it).

Perhaps you're right to an extent. But overall, the issue is with how we're entering our 50. Bombing it long to a six man pack is under 10's footy. I don't remember Gawn taking one contested mark last night. Hogan's preference to asking for it long rather than presenting forward as an option is also somewhat problematic. If we didn't directly turn it over last night, we weren't hitting the right spots, and whilst a small forward like Garlett may have been able to jag one or two, I reckon it's a secondary issue. One thing that'll save us going into the St Kilda match is that the ground is smaller and the Saints won't have as much space to work with. Subi is a long ground and part of what made West Coast look good is their running power from their half-backline through to their midfield. Yeo, Sheppard, Wellingham, Masten, Shuey, Cripps, Jetta and Gaff are all power runners. They can all cover the ground with great ease and are fleet of foot and last night they showed us up on the rebound and even from stop plays in their back-half. They were just able to get on their bikes a lot more easily than us. We have a greater abundance of slower, one-paced mids and wingers who are really strong inside. Evidenced by the fact we beat them in clearances, centre clearances stoppages and the contested possession count. Hunt, Melksham and Stretch were our power/outside runners last night. That's not enough. The Saints similarly have some strong runners in their side as well as a stronger back-line and forward-line. For us to have any chance in round 1, our D/E will have to be right up and we'll have to make sure at least one in every three inside 50's result in a score. This is providing our mids get on top. As for the Spencer/Gawn conundrum. I don't know what to think. If we do go with it, I'd have Jesse on Roo the entire night whenever he's on the wing. Jesse/Gawn or Jesse/Spencer in our forward-line just get in the way of each other. We don't need a forwardline of Jesse/Ruckman/Weid/Watts. That's ridiculous.