Kit Walker

Warnock should get Roughead. Martin to Franklin. Possibly Bruce to Williams - I'd back him to get the biscuits in that duel. Bartram and McDonald will probably get Rioli and Bateman (interchangeable). Probably have to go head to head with the other match-ups for the start at least.

Fair enough. Based on what evidence was he a culture problem at West Coast and again at Richmond? Bearing in mind of course that he was 20 when he left West Coast, and has played 24 of the last 28 games with the tigers. I've heard some rumours about him at West Coast, although they were more to do with alleged family interference, and nothing from his time at Richmond until today. And even that relates to a case of poor on-field judgment than a personal/cultural issue.

Isn't the Round 11 spot only open to teams who don't have a full quota on the veteran's list (ie. two)?

The 1858 formation is quite a recent (relatively speaking) claim as well. I have some MFC collectables from the late 1980s which state "Est 1859".

As I've said earlier, I'm yet to be convinced by Valenti, but good teams have 8-10 players in a game who are capable of running through the midfield. Last week, Moloney had 10 out of 28 clearances for Melbourne. Out of the entire group you've listed, I count four (maybe 5) inside midfielders of which one is likely not to be here next year. This is the perfect opportunity to see if he can translate his VFL form to AFL level.

Thought he was quite positive last night on AFL Teams. Made a point of saying that the demons' improvement was impressive and that Bailey was doing a very good job, as did the other panellists.

Valenti for Bennell is the only surprise at all out of the three. Whelan in particular was always likely to come back in with Rivers out to provide some leadership in a very inexperienced backline. I thought they would rest Bennell last week. They didn't and he was very good, but it may have been the fact the game was in WA and he is a Bunbury boy that tipped the scale for his inclusion. For a kid built like he is, there was always going to have to be a rest period. As for Valenti, I doubt there is much more he can prove at VFL level. The opportunity is there because of the LTIs and a decision has to be made at the end of the year as to whether he stays or goes. Reward for performance in my opinion. I don't have Mr Bizkit's confidence he will make it, but good luck to him.

I tend to think McDonald will retire at the end of the year. At the age of 33 (by then), diminishing output will have caught up to increasing injury. Whelan may not retire, but I doubt he will get another contract either. 17 games out of the last 51 is a pretty damning statistic, and with the recruitment of a lot of pocket/flanker types, I don't think we can take the risk. Buckley is in real trouble too. While he has pace, he lacks a fair bit of polish. I think it's sometimes forgotten too that he is actually a month older than both Dunn and Bate. Has been overtaken by quite a few. Wheatley is a bit more difficult but I think is a delisting option too. Probably career best form last year and his kicking can be a real weapon. I don't see a spot for him in defence though so it may depend on whether he can adapt to a role at half-forward. The other one is Jamar. If they are going to uplift Spencer, one of the current ruckmen has to go and I don't see that Jamar is ever going to be able to have a genuine effect on games. May be a bit hopeful, but I think there is some evidence at least that Meesen and PJ may. Other possibles are Bell (if not contracted) and Cheney/McNamara, but with those two it really depends on what they show this year. Far too early to make a judgment call on either.

God I hope not. Both our alternate strips look okay, and I am firmly in agreement with the clash jumper policy.

Likewise and happy to be proven wrong, or at least hasty. Showed some genuine pace on the weekend too.

I would be absolutely shocked if Green returned via the VFL. Full pre-season plus collision injury equals straight back into the first 18 when not injured for mine.

Don't quite understand that as Spencer would not have played for about a month. Have Martin to play on either Minson or Hudson when they go forward and PJ play around the ground. Agree with the other two though, although Whelan may be a chance particularly with Rivers leadership in the back half gone.

I tend to think Joel Bowden is an easy target, and is quite a bit better than he's given credit for. That said, everything you mentioned about Morton is spot on. His workrate and endurance, particularly for a young kid, is outstanding. Added a big degree of courage today with that contested mark running back in defensive 50 too. Mightily impressive.

6 - Jones (probably the best game I've seen him play) 5 - Moloney (10 clearances out of a team total of 28 was awesome) 4 - Morton (Got a lot of it and took some marks backing into packs which I hadn't seen from him before) 3 - Bruce (remarkable that some here didn't think he was in Melbourne's six best players) 2 - Miller (kept us in it in the 2nd quarter, worked hard all day) 1 - P Johnson (broke even with Dean Cox. That's almost as good as a win) I thought Davey was very good in the first half but had little impact after half time, Bennell was very good, and it was very pleasing to see Maric bounce back.

So.......... Is he injured yet?

Years Collingwood lost a grand final, with the years Melbourne beat them in red. Well done sir.

My money is on Paul Johnson being Haitian.......

I'd drop PJ and have Meesen run around all day tagging Dean Cox everywhere except inside about forward 50. Inside forward 50, I'd like to see Miller just repeatedly jump into him and have a third player come over the top. We are no chance of breaking even in the ruck, whether with one ruckman or four, so anything that can be done to limit Cox's influence is worthwhile. Likewise, Meesen's big selling point is his endurance so it would be a great lesson to see how the best ruckman in the competition plays close up. Bennell should also be left out and get some extended game time with Casey. In would come any two of Grimes, McNamara or Cheney.

He was well beaten in the taps, but was far more influential in general play than any other ruckman on the ground. I thought he had a very good game. If he can continue in that vein, and improve his actual ruckwork (which wasn't shocking but needs a fair bit of work), we may have a player.

Jones and Morton are certainties to be on the bench. Meesen is supposed to have the endurance of an elite distance runner so I would have no problem with him rucking all day, perhaps supported by either Miller or Martin (most likely within their respective fifties). I don't think you can guarantee PJ a spot based solely on him being the backup ruckman. Especially when Geelong are still minus Brad Ottens. If PJ is dropped, that may save Newton from the same fate, but I can't see both being picked on the bench. Other than that, I would have either Bennell or Cheney ahead of Jetta at this point. I'd like to see what he can do at the level below with close to 100% game time.

No, but we do know he was about 20 metres from the interchange gate when it occurred and that Bailey is reknowned for using a high number of interchange rotations. Assumption doesn't mean the same thing as logic. I get where CB is coming from because he believes that kicking long to a contest of roughly even numbers in the forward half is a good option. I generally disagree from Melbourne's point of view with our current playing stocks but it's a valid view. I don't know the point you're making.

By that logic, whenever you see a player going to the bench after kicking a goal, they are being punished for doing just that. Brilliant.

It did make the 8 games/8 moments section on the AFL website. Still pretty happy with selecting him as the player to have a breakout year. Although Frawley is certainly giving him a run for his money at the moment.

My comments aren't about "tempo" footy (almost as stupid a term as "frontal pressure" btw but that's not your fault ) as it was clearly the wrong tactic at the wrong time with the wrong players. It was quite clear from Dean Bailey's bewildered look in the coaches box that they were his thoughts as well. I was criticising the bashing of Bruce who apparently committed the cardinal sin of telling an inexperienced team-mate to keep possession rather than panicking and kicking it to a flood. As I've said (repeatedly), there were better options that would have (as near as possible) guaranteed possession be maintained while opening opportunities to switch the point of the attack into forward 50. Moloney (in previous years) has been rightly criticised for merely roosting the ball 50-60 metres to no discernible advantage. He is a better player this year for lowering his eyes and not doing that. Meesen (who generally had a pretty decent game) apparently saw only two options and probably chose the wrong one. A better/more experienced player would have seen Bruce's lateral lead.

Thanks for not reading what I had written. If Bruce had said "kick it backwards and we'll slow play down and not give it to them" you may be right. That is clearly not what he said though as he's then made a lead to space forward of the ball. The options were to kick backward and keep possession, kick relatively short centrally and keep possession, or to kick long to a contest about 80 metres out on the boundary. Meesen chose option 1. Option 3 would be marginally better than option 1 but significantly worse than option 2. Retaining possession does not equal kicking backwards (feeling of deja vu here).