Lord Nev

Don't mind it too much mate. Originally I didn't have vB coming in, but other posters are starting to convince me that maybe the conditions will suit him. I'm not 100% sure they'll consider him fully ready this week though. Definitely not against it if it happens. Hibberd for Jetta a chance I guess too, more so if Orazio doesn't play. I might lean more towards Lockhart than Hibberd if he does however, just for the run and pressure he brings if Jetta comes out. Yep Smith out. I like him, but the backline mix doesn't seem right atm. Weid in for Jackson IMO. TMac on thin ice, but the opposition, ground and conditions maybe tips the balance just. Kozzy 100%. He's my fave. Not sure for who though. Thought ANB's game was ok, especially early, his goals and score involvements were crucial to us winning in the end. Perhaps Kozzy for Jones? TBH I've shifted on the changes a few times, so many things to balance. I personally would go (have already changed my mind a few times tho): IN: Weid, Kozzy, Hibberd or OMac (pending rain report) OUT: Jackson, Jones, Smith What I think will actually happen is: IN: Kozzy, Hannan, Weid OUT: ANB, Jackson, Jetta

Interestingly, this article from the club makes it sound like maybe only one out of Harley and vB will be selected. "Similarly to Harley Bennell, vandenBerg has had a luckless run with injury, so it will be interesting to see if there’s room for both Demons in the same outfit." A chance to return: Who’s in the frame for Round 3? Also sounds a bit like Kozzy will be straight in, Hannan a good chance, Weid a possibility and Lockhart maybe only if there's a defender out with soreness or injury. (That's reading into it of course)

I was quoting the original post there to highlight how making excuses for Goodwin based on things he controls seems like a cop out. See below...

Perhaps if you focused more on the football talk and less on the snipes and snarky comments there would be less 'misinterpretation'.

Sure, but I was addressing your point that we made a prelim but then apparently had a "mini rebuild". I agree we've seemingly improved our list, but I think "mini rebuild" is going a bit over the top and to feels like another excuse to buy Goodwin more time without getting pressure.

I'm not sure where in my post I made personal comments or attacks against you so I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack people in your posts, notably in your OP before anyone had even said anything. You completely missed the point that the "challenge" Goodwin needs to address is of his own making. Let's address some of your points. You said: "In Max's comments on 360 he has alluded to the players thinking too much about the above instruction and when they were challenged by Carlton instead of adapting to the new rhythm/pace of the game they simply stuck to their instructions." Then you said: "I didn't say anything about making the players doubt themselves" So players 'thought too much about instruction' and didn't play the way they should have, but they weren't doubting themselves? You said: "we had 9 players who had played less than 20 games together, 3 that were playing in the side for the first time, should I go on. You seem to think that the side should instantly be like Richmond and everyone should be on the same page." Nowhere did I say I expected instant cohesion. In fact, what I said was Goodwin only has himself to blame for lack of cohesion because he doesn't pick a settled lineup. Then, you say this lack of cohesion you're saying is the main problem will be 'fixed' by changing the team. That goes completely against the whole point you're trying to make. You said: "if he is given as much time as Buckley and Hardwick some of the issues should resolve themselves." On this I challenged you, as I believe things don't just "resolve themselves". You then backpedalled to make it 'oh, now I meant Goodwin can resolve it'. It's not what you said. You said: "I'm not suggesting Goody be given a free ride" You also said: "if he is given as much time as Buckley and Hardwick" I'm not in favour of simply waiting for things to "resolve themselves" or just "staying the course". I'm in favour of Goodwin, his coaches and our onfield leaders showing us they've made the practical changes necessary to address the consistent issues we've had in Goodwin's tenure. I'm in favour of a coach who will use his half time and 3/4 time addresses to deal with what is happening on the field effectively. I'm in favour of our leaders actually leading for a change and showing they can deal with a shift in momentum. But hey, I want to see a flag, you're just happy to "stay the course" so maybe I'm in the "97%" that want the team to succeed.

You can't say the game plan is great because we made a prelim once and then back it up by saying we've just had a "mini rebuild".

So, Goodwin's failed game plan has been replaced by Goodwin making the players doubt themselves and it's compounded by Goodwin not picking a consistent lineup, but we're relying on these issues to "resolve themselves"? Also, are we saying that in the 2 chances Goodwin and the leaders had to address the players while Carlton had the momentum that they didn't recognize this need to adapt? That's not very convincing of the ability to 'rectify' going forward. I'm not in the sack Goody camp, yet, but this sounds like a bit of a let off for him. He makes the decisions, he deserves the heat at the moment.

Agreed. (Barring a complete disaster this year)

Unless it's as head coach...

Agree mate, but heard Malcolm Blight talking the other day about how Chaplin had told him the Dees had spent the summer settling Weid into the role of forward/ruck, so you can pretty much lock it in that if he comes in he'll be the Gawn backup.

I'm no huge ANB fan, but if they review that game honestly and decide to drop ANB ahead of both Jones and Melksham then I'm officially on the sack Goodwin train as it's clear he's not the 'win, no matter what' coach we need to be successful.

Perhaps. I don't know about his feelings on his exit from the club but am aware a few other players from that era have bad memories of theirs. But can 100% guarantee you that near the end of last season he was very excited and hopeful about the possibility of coming back to the Dees as a coach. Definitely wanted it to happen, tried to make it happen, but as mentioned previously, other factors came into play and at this stage it was better professionally to stay at Hawthorn (and they weren't shy about playing hardball).

Rubbish. I know for an actual fact he loves the club as much as ever and was very keen and excited about the possibility of an opportunity with MFC late last year. Hawks played hard ball in the end and he felt it was better professionally to stay.

Oh yeah, to be clear, my original changes in this thread were: OUT: Jackson, Smith, Jones IN: Weid, OMac, Kozzy But I was adding in Brown for TMac on top after reading the scratch match report.

Ah yep, that's fair, although not sure TMac has done much since becoming the first forward. Just like what I read from Egan about Brown making the forward line function well. Can't see us rolling with 3 talls in the current format, so I guess I'm just asking if we think Brown and Weid is a potentially better combo than TMac and Jackson?

I know it's only a scratch match, but after reading the report from the club what about Weid and Brown in for Jackson and TMac?

Sore quad it was apparently. Makes more sense why he missed now. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/706162/the-reserves-practice-match-all-17-players-reviewed

But do you pick a side on 'upside' or do you base it on form, contribution and effort? I reckon I know what most successful sides would do.

5 goals (out of 8 in total) and 8 score involvements between them. Don't think so mate.

Not saying he's completely safe, but for a team with noted forward 50 deficiencies, note these stats: ANB - 2 goals. 4 inside 50s. 5 score involvements. 1 tackle inside 50. 1 mark inside 50. 9 disposals. Jones - 0 goals. 2 inside 50s. 0 score involvements. 0 tackles inside 50. 0 marks inside 50. 11 disposals. Melksham - 0 goals. 3 inside 50s. 2 score involvements. 1 tackle inside 50. 0 marks inside 50. 10 disposals. Even if you want to argue about Melksham and Jones playing up the ground more, ANB still had more inside 50s and basically the same amount of disposals. Seems to me that most saying ANB will come out without a doubt might be a little biased.

Look, you seem like a reasonably sharp poster, I'm not sure why so many of your posts are these kinds of snarky comments. Why not discuss the actual point? If you have a contrary view based on evidence I've got an open mind about things and would be interested to hear it.

All the footage we've seen from 'behind closed doors', including the stuff in To Hell And Back clearly paints the picture that Goody is just as uninspiring when speaking to the players as he is with the media.

Not saying he'll get fired, really don't think it will happen this year (barring absolute capitulation), BUT we're all talking about the financial aspect without perhaps knowing if covid-19 may affect that? He's already on a pretty reduced amount now, that's on record, so would that mean his payout would be reduced also? Would there even be some other kind of condition in the contract about extreme circumstances? The AFLPA are about to renegotiate their CBA, so there's pay cuts going on everywhere already. Genuine questions, don't know the answers, but is there a possibility that paying out a coach this year has about the same impact as it would any other year?

Just think it's strange to say the problem is cohesion, but it's not the coach's fault when he not only picks the team, but is in charge of them every day. Giving Goodwin a massive get out of jail free if we're saying the way the team plays isn't his responsibility.