titan_uranus

So it's 4 scoring shots to 2, 8 inside 50s to 5, 57 disposals to 47, 11 tackles to 7, but we lead by just 2 points. That reads like a standard 2017 MFC start.

So if TMac is rucking, is Frost on Daniher? And OMac on Hooker?

Agree - Leuenberger worried me a lot more than Bellchambers does. I think we have a better chance of breaking even, or getting close to breaking even, in the ruck contests and that then opens the door for Pedersen/Watts/whoever to run Bellchambers off his feet around the ground.

This is clearly not close to our best 22. And yet, I still see talent on every line. A sign of the changing times, I suppose. IMO we need Watts to play permanently forward, as we need someone to keep Hurley occupied. Hurley's out of form but I feel like if we let him do what Rance did on Monday and zone off, he'll find that form pretty easily. I like the idea of TMac playing 100% of the game on Daniher. When Daniher rucks, he rucks. When Daniher goes to the bench, TMac does too. TMac is fitter than Daniher (hell, he's fitter than most players his height) and Daniher, though tall, isn't an amazing ruckman. Bellchambers is better for us than Leuenberger as he hasn't played in 18 months and he's also useless. Obviously would be better to have a ruckman in the side but if Pedersen can at least jump into him and make it some sort of contest in the ruck, I can see Pedersen getting amongst it quite easily through the middle of the ground and leaving Bellchambers in his wake speed- and fitness-wise. Jones and Viney appear to be fit. They both owe us after 3 and 5 games respectively of sub-par performances. If they lift, and our midfield gets on top of theirs, we can win this despite the outs. But if Essendon's midfielders are on top, I can see their forward line scoring with ease. I can also see Tyson being the one who is let go on the bench, rather than Harmes (it won't be Salem and I'd have Stretch above both Tyson and Harmes).

I'm just querying the argument that it was obvious, before the season, that we didn't have sufficient ruck depth on our list. Some clubs have more ruckmen than us. Probably more clubs have more rather than fewer. But some seem to have a similar number to us, and some fewer. So I'm just not convinced that it was so obvious, before the season, that we should have had an extra ruckman on our list. It's not, for example, as if we are an outlier in terms of numbers. I certainly think there are arguments for and against it but I don't think it was this obvious, glaring error as some are suggesting. Maybe the question ought to be whether our list is, generally, too short? That our talls/key position players are shorter than other clubs'? So that the problem maybe isn't a lack of ruckmen on the list but, instead, the problem is that players like Weideman, Pedersen and Smith, who nominally appear to be KPFs, are too short and therefore we find ourselves in this position where we can't rely on them to fill the ruck void? But that's a different question and debate to the argument that we should have listed another ruckman like Petrie.

If the general premise is that Tyson is not currently playing very well, I agree. I'm not sure I accept the argument that he's an inherently flawed player as I've seen more than enough from him to suggest he can be a vital part of our midfield moving forward. But right now his kicking is off and he's moving too slowly (both physically, in terms of legspeed, and mentally, in terms of decision-making). Not sure how I feel about calling him "senior". He's 23 and has played 75 games. At this club, that probably makes him "senior", but at any other club it wouldn't I don't think. Tyson has at least begun to kick on his right - he did it on Monday. I can't recall Viney using his right this year. What does "GWS knew which one to let go" mean? They've lost, what, 30 players? Did they "know" to let Treloar, Adams, Boyd, Bruce, Hombsch or Steele go?

It's been said by a few on here but just laying some tackles is not, and cannot be, sufficient at AFL level. I'd back Kennedy, if not Kent, to apply the same level of forward pressure and provide far more to the team outside of that than what JKH offered on the weekend.

McKernan's 196cm (and also awful as a ruckman). No more than a stopgap option. Keeffe is a defender. 200cm but otherwise no more a ruckman than Frost or OMac. Having said that, clearly overlooked Daw and I have no knowledge of Brisbane's list, so there's two clubs with slightly deeper ruck stocks than us. And I'm sure if I went through the rest there would be plenty with more talent than us. The general premise, though, is that I don't think our list is so different to the other 17 clubs' that it could readily be said that we did something stupid with our list management.

We've lost to three teams who have suffered two losses combined through the first five weeks. We've led in the fourth quarter of every game and have the lowest average losing margin of all clubs to have lost a game (14.7). We've won 12 quarters (fifth best in the league, the only club not currently in the top eight on the ladder to be in the top eight in that measurement). We've led Geelong and Richmond, both undefeated, in the fourth quarter despite being one/two/three down injury-wise during those games. We've done all this with Viney playing his worst five game stretch in a long time, with Lewis missing three games, with Gawn missing 2.5 games, with Hogan missing two games, with Vince missing a game (and otherwise not being that good anyway), with Watts having to ruck more than he should, with a long injury list generally and having been forced to use 31 players (equal second most in the league). None of this means we're going to make the finals or even challenge for them, but IMO talk of the season being over, or of a lack of improvement, or of Goodwin struggling, is nothing more than classic MFCSS.

I posted a few earlier in this thread. Looking through, some clubs have the same as us, others have one more it seems. Essendon actually has fewer than us: Leuenberger, Bellchambers and an 18-year old called Sam Draper (with Daniher). Carlton has Kreuzer, Gorringe, Philips and a rookie called Korchek (with Casboult). The Dogs have Roughead, Campbell and a 19 year old called English (with Tom Boyd). Geelong has Smith, Stanley and Ryan Abbott (with Blicavs). Hawthorn has McEvoy, Ceglar, Pittonet and Fitzpatrick (with Vickery). North has Preuss, Goldstein and a 20 year old called Sam Durdin (with Ben Brown). Brisbane has Martin and I don't even know who else (a bunch of kids it seems). Collingwood has Grundy, Cox and an 18 year old rookie called Max Lynch. Take the best two rucks out of these sides and you're left with teams in what appear to me to be quite similar positions to us.

Hogan played last night. Are Vlaustin or Griffiths even best 22 for Richmond at this point? Certainly, if so, they'd be bottom 6 players. Shane Edwards was missing though. Anyway, not the point, we should have won last night regardless of the players missing and even taking into account the injuries on the night. It all came down to the first quarter.

"I think I'm around the mark, but maybe not in front of them [Talia, Rance, Tarrant]". You have a problem with him saying that?

Please provide evidence of this.

Certainly Jenkins and Lobb are much better relief ruckmen than Watts but the main issue is how they would respond if they lost their best and second best ruckmen. They could play Lobb in the ruck but as it stands they play a forward line with Cameron, Patton and Lobb so to take Lobb out is to do the exact same thing we have to do by taking Watts out. And as for Geelong, isn't that precisely the argument in support of our ruck stocks? That, in a worst case scenario and we get injuries to ruckmen, we rely on our midfielders and the rest of the side to cope without them? It's the same tactic Geelong uses which supports the argument that our list management, insofar as we only have Gawn, Spencer and the two kids, is not actually that different to other clubs'.

I think, clearly, we would have been a better side in each of the losses with Lewis and Hogan. But I just think there was more to each of the losses than simply their absence. The Fremantle one is the one they cost us the most. The other two are much harder to say with the forced lack of rotations in both and I don't think Lewis in the backline last night would have solved the problems we created ourselves earlier in the game. Would he have improved our efficiency in the first quarter (where the game was lost)? Possibly. I just think there's more to it than their absence. You're entirely correct about their actions, though. I don't want to re-ignite an old debate but my personal view is that the two views can co-exist: both deserved to be suspended (and ought not be defended for being "tough") but neither deserved the length of suspension awarded.

I don't think this can be properly analysed without looking at other clubs' lists. Adelaide has Jacobs, O'Brien then Himmelberg (19yo) and Hunter (rookie). They get some relief out of Jenkins who is 200cm. GWS has Mumford, Simpson, Downie and Flynn (19yo). They get some relief out of Lobb (207cm). Geelong has Stanley, Smith then Buzza and Abbott. They get some relief out of Blicavs (198cm). We have Gawn, Spencer, then Filipovic and King. We get some relief out of Watts (196cm). We are in a position that is similar, I think, to the above clubs. If Adelaide lost Jacobs and O'Brien they'd be in a very, very similar boat to us (either Himmelberg or Hunter or they rely more on Jenkins or another forward/defender). Ditto GWS. Ditto Geelong. West Coast has more rucks but they started the pre-season with Naitanui and Lycett already out for all/most of 2017. I haven't been through the other clubs yet but at the moment I tend to think our ruck stocks are about the same as others' and the main issue is the bad luck of losing Gawn and Spencer. Happy to be proven wrong if other clubs' lists are different, though.

Tell you what, if there were only 20k Melbourne there, that was the loudest 20k of supporters I've ever heard.

I get you're responding to someone making a joke about the Carlton doctor but in all honesty do you truly believe the three losses are as simple as no Lewis and no Hogan?

To be fair to Melksham, the entire side does this far too often. It's possibly the only criticism of Hunt, who regularly goes up in contests when he should stay down. TMac and Frost make the same mistake, as did OMac when he was playing.

To be fair, Cotchin put his elbow into his head. But I wouldn't be surprised if Viney did end up distracted. Wouldn't be the first time. And given he wasn't able to impact the game, he probably found it easier to assume the role of some sort of aggressive, "rough them up" style player.

A stat which, I think, gives weight to the argument that we're doing more right than wrong, but failing to put that dominance onto the scoreboard, is the quarters won stat. We've won 12 quarters this year (out of 20, being 60%). That puts us 5th in the league (today's game can't change that). Only Adelaide, Port, GWS and Geelong have won more quarters than us, and those four clubs combined have lost 3 games).

From the MCC it sounded like around 55k Richmond and 30k Melbourne, but I suppose the MCC is where the Melbourne voice sounds loudest. I suspect exhaustion had something to do with it, to be fair. Jones couldn't run in the fourth and Cotchin went straight by him more than once.

I actually think Jetta has a great attacking game. It wasn't on display last night, agree, but I don't see his ability to get forward or link up in play to be a weakness in his game. He saves us goals on a weekly basis and that alone is worth his spot in the side. True, but we're playing Essendon who will be coming off a 5 day break after, possibly, a game in the wet. So I don't think we'll need to make a stack of unforced changes just for that reason. But how will King be able to "nullify" Leuenberger when he is 200cm and 99kg and hasn't played a full VFL game? He's obviously the tallest option we have but I don't think that is sufficient to warrant putting him in the middle and Leuenberger driving his knee/body into him at every opportunity. I don't see that option as being any more effective or "optimal" than Frost, TMac, Pedersen or even Watts. Whatever we go with, it's not going to be ideal, but I don't see how throwing King's development out the window at a time when we otherwise wouldn't be close to discussing his suitability for AFL football is any better than the other options. All 22 players showed intent last night, so I'm not sure it's enough for JKH to hold his spot for doing what everyone else was doing. Yes, the 7 tackles is good, but IMO when added to the mistakes and the general lack of influence elsewhere means he was a net loss to the side. The injuries may well mean he gets another crack and if so, let's hope he builds on last night, but if we had a fresh list I don't think tackles alone is enough.

Balance the 7 tackles with the rest of his game. IMO, it comes out against him, not for him. With the injuries he may well get a second game but I'm not sure I'm OK with picking players because they tackle when they make too many mistakes and otherwise have no influence on the game.

I agree with most of this, although you're doing that thing where you start going all "I'm smarter than everyone else" which you tend to do when you get into debates. My issue is that I don't believe MItch King is going to do any better than Pedersen, or Frost, or anyone else, because he's just not ready for AFL football right now and our lack of other ruckmen doesn't change that. I agree that ruckwork is important and I agree that Pedersen/Frost/Watts are not good options, but you can't definitively say "Pedersen won't work" and then in the same breath say that we can't argue King won't work because we haven't seen him. We haven't seen the 2017 version of Pedersen try being first ruck so we equally can't say he won't work.