Sydney_Demon

Look back to the GF last year. The Bulldogs had a small forward line and we had the equivalent of the 4 you have listed with May, Petty, Lever & Hibberd playing. I don't think we were too tall. We need the extra tall defender so Lever can zone off a smaller forward to take intercepts. If we drop a defender for Lever we need to keep Brayshaw on the HBF to keep our 7 defenders. He did a great job last week, but with Lever back we don't need him to play that role and he goes back to the wing. Looking slightly longer term Petty comes in for Tommo, Smith probably stays in, and mid-season Salem comes in for Hunt. For the many anti-Smith posters you will remain happy because it will give you a few more weeks to continue to critique his game 😄. Accepting the mistake by Jackson, you are not comparing like for like. He is not being picked as a defender. Of course his defensive skills are part of his all-round game. No-one's suggesting anyone gets dropped because they missed one mark in one specific game. Your criticism of May is unfair IMV. The reason those goals were kicked on him was largely because there was acres of space for Peter Wright to lead into and insufficient pressure on the kicker. Normally another defender would be filling that space. For whatever reason that didn't happen. He was not giving Wright 10m start. There was only one situation where a sizable gap occured and that was a case of May clearly stopping when he could see he wasn't going to be able to make up the distance required tp spoil. May had the same number of marks as Wright and had 22 disposals to Wright's 10 (admittedly his disposals were inflated as I assume he took most of the kick-ins from Essendon's 10 behinds). Wright was working up and down the ground and played very well, he's very tall and a fantastic kick so on his day a tough opponent. No doubt Wright outpointed May but May did not have a 'complete stinker'.

Ken Kinkley has advised that Clurey will play but that Gray will miss.

Petty will be back next week or the week after since he's playing for Casey on Saturday. Lever's back on Thursday. TMac might be a better defender than Tomlinson (I'm doubtful) but IMO he's not a better defender than Petty. Why would you contemplate making further disruption to the backline just to keep TMac in the side for a week or two at best? Now if Lever doesn't start on Thursday and one of our other tall defenders drops out then maybe they could consider this option. You don't fight for a spot on the interchange. Being on the interchange is exactly the same as being in the starting side. It's not an 18, it's a 22. We normally play 7 defenders and it doesn't matter which 6 you name in the defensive starting positions and which one is on the interchange. The 7 are all equal. It sounds like any of the Port injured who do make it back are likely to be underprepared. Why would they consider Duursma given he got dropped the previous week and he's suffered at least a minor injury? Aliir, Dixon & Fantasia are obviously all big outs.

I like your creative thinking here, and love the idea of maximising the use of Jackson's mobility, but resting either Gawn or Jackson up forwards or on the bench as we currently do still works best I feel. I really don't see Jackson as a competitor with the elite midfielders from opposition sides. Definitely more mobile than opposition rucks and I love his and Max's follow-up work after the ruck contest. I don't really understand your thinking here. It's pretty unkind describing our current Back 7 as second-string and my (admittedly not-particularly-well-informed) analysis is that most of our defensive issues this year have been created by the midfielders not putting enough pressure on upfield. In any case even without Lever I can't see TMac as part of our defensive setup currently. He's either in the side as a Forward or out of the 23 IMO.

Sorry DubDee. I wasn't accusing you of trying to be clever, more the Club if they make that decision. I agree Petracca shouldn't be played if there's a risk that playing him will cause long-term issues. What I was trying to say is that assuming that isn't the case then he should be played because this won't be an easy game and we can't afford to take Port easy. I pointed this out when the Draw was first released but was accused of being negative but here I go again. The reality is Melbourne's breaks after Round 1 were/are 10 days (travelling to Gold Coast), 6 days (travelling back from the Gold Coast after playing in humid conditions: predictable before the Season started), 6 days (travelling to Adelaide), 9 days (travelling back from Adelaide). Compare this to Western Bulldogs who supposedly have a tougher draw due to who they're playing: 8 days, 7 days, 8 days, 6 days with every game in Melbourne. Now, maybe things even up later in the Season, but I find it hard to accept there needed to be so much travel and that a 6-day turnaround gets scheduled off a trip to Queensland in late March. You could see that Melbourne (and even Gold Coast who played off a 7-day break) were flat last round which isn't surprising. Now we get to travel to Adelaide off back-to-back 6-day breaks. Contrast that with the opponents we play/played off 6-day breaks who were also off 6-day breaks but didn't have to travel. Now I don't want to whinge too much, after all the Interstate teams are travelling continuously and it must be incredibly difficult expecially for the Western Australian teams, but as far as the Victorian teams are concerned I don't feel it needed to be this hard.

Thanks for this but all i can really say is lies, damned lies & statistics. At least these stats are more meaningful than the AFL 'Efficiency Inside 50' percentages that measure shots on goal (including those that fall short or go out of bounds). Why don't they just measure goals scored as a percentage of forward 50 entries? Why should you get the same defensive rating for a point kicked against as a goal kicked against? (I'm not making this point as a positive for Melbourne as our opponents this year have kicked 31.24 which is an accuracy rating of 56.4% compared to the AFL average of 53.5%). Also of course as a minimum surely you need to look at the number of Inside 50s in conjunction with the % scores conceded. I reckon Melbourne would be happy with the 51% against Essendon in conjunction with only conceding 39 Inside 50s. Hawthorn top this table but have conceded 175 Inside 50s to Melbourne's 150. And a sample size of 3 games against varied opponents for all teams I'd say produces a fairly meaningless set of numbers. OK, the last time a Premier was not ranked in the Top 5 of this stat was 1999. But isn't this all a bit obvious. Wouldn't the Premier usually be in the Top 5 of nearly every category you can come up with?

The point isn't that Wiedeman has only played one good game. He's currently in the side and kicked 4.3 (probably should have been 5.2 as he missed 2 easy shots and kicked one difficult one last week). It's a totally different argument if TMac and BBB played against Essendon and TMac played poorly, but where we are at right now is that TMac & Weideman are both in the side. I don't know how you can drop Weideman and keep an out-of-form TMac in the side without sending the wrong message. I think you are totally underselling our form. The wins against GC & Essendon were both meritorious. Both opponents played well against us. Yes, if you look at the way Essendon played against Geelong or the way GC played against GWS you would say we should have thrashed both but it doesn't work that way. We are missing key players and are definitely not in peak form but have won by a combined 68 points (would have been closer to 100 if we had kicked remotely straight). If you'd asked me at the start of the season whether I'd take these results I would have said yes in a heartbeat. Are we playing premiership-level football? No. Are we playing at a level the coaches will think is satisfactory? Definitely, but of course there's room for improvement.

Bedford still gets match practice even if he's a non-playing medisub. The only time this is an issue is if Casey is playing before or at the same time as Melbourne in any given week. This won't be an issue this week as Melbourne plays Thursday night, Casey plays Saturday night. Bedford was the unused medisub at AFL level the last 2 weeks and played for Casey both weeks. Agree it will be horses for courses. Depends whether Robbie Gray and/or Charlie Dixon play. If Dixon plays Tomlinson will probably stay in and possibly Hunt goes out (unless Gus is moved back to the wing when as you say JJ might be pushed back to medisub). If Dixon is out then line ball whether they exclude Tommo or Hunt. Might keep Hunt in if Robbie Gray is back. My understanding is BBB was a close contact, not actual contracting COVID, which means he would have been exercising on a specific club-designed program since Thursday so I agree he is likely to come in. Missing a week's training is not crucial. TMac to go out. Other's have suggested he be made medisub because he can play forward or back, but I think it makes a lot more sense to pick a mobile medium or small as medisub (Chandler, Bedford or JJ). He'll play even if 70% fit. We can't afford to be clever with selections against a desperate Port side. There's a 9-day break after this match so he can rest then.

There was a post on the JVW thread that he will be playing on Thursday, based on the fact that he didn't play for Casey on the weekend. I posted that he was highly unlikely to play but could be being taken to Adelaide as cover. Maybe he didn't play on Saturday because it's a 5-day turnaround (from Casey's game), or equally possibly because he pulled up a bit sore from Casey's 1st Round Match (leg cramps?), in which case he probably isn't flying to Adelaide. I'm releived that BBB didn't turn up to training 😄

Thanks for the analysis (particularly) of Carlton's Draw. I could be wrong but I think Carlton have been overhyped and Western Bulldogs dismissed far too early. Carlton should have lost to the Bulldogs and were also lucky against Hawthorn (helped by a couple of very doubtful late umpiring decisions). Their defence is very shaky IMO. I don't think many people think Hawthorn are going to even make the 8 and is Carlton's form any better than Hawthorn's or Collingwood's for that matter? The Bulldogs dominated the Swans everywhere but on the scoreboard so why is everyone suggesting the Swans are going to be Top 4 but not the Bulldogs? I think it's far too early to make any predictions. If Port beat us (hopefully not) and Carlton the next 2 weeks they're right back in it again. And, stating the obvious, if they lose those 1 matches they'll be in trouble. Yes, but they shouldn't have beaten them. If the Bulldogs had shown any sort of exposure they would have run right over Carlton in the last quarter. Richmond didn't turn up in the last quarter. Hawthorn also should have won (apart from a few late non-decisions in Carlton's favour).

I'd be amazed if JVR came into the side to replace TMac (assuming BBB doesn't get up for the game). If BBB does get up I'd say it's likely he will come in at TMac's expense (After Friday night's game Sam Wiedeman surely can't be dropped. If nothing else, it would severely undermine his confidence). Maybe JVR is being held over as cover for Thursday as an emergency, although I would have thought he could have played a half assuming he isn't actually injured (I can't find anything one way or the other as to why he didn't play for Casey on Saturday).

I missed the start of the game and didn't see it but apparently we was flattened off the ball, came off and didn't come back on.

Agree. What abysmal umpiring in the last quarter and what abysmal commentary. At one stage a Melbourne defender got a free from an obvious push in the back and it was called doubtful. This after 2 frees to Essendon at the start of the quarter from beautiful Casey tackles that were called high/holding the man (both led to Essendon goals). Having said that Casey should have won that game by 5 goals if you look at the difference in class (even without any Forwards).

Well I guess that's true in the sense they won the 2014 & 2015 Premierships without him and the Swans haven't won a Premiership with him, but I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. You have to look at the effect on salary caps, impact on retaining/losing other key players, marketing the Club (much more important for Sydney rather than Hawthorn) ... Let's not overstate how good Hawthorn have been in recent times. They were good up until 2016, went out of the Finals in straight sets in 2018, and were ordinary in 2017 & 2019-21. We are not the Hawks of 2013-15 yet but are on the way, with or without LJ (and we definitely have him for this year at least!).

Diagree entirely. I was extremely happy that it went through but it was close to a fluke. Sadly, this is the sort of goal that wins goal of the year at the AFL. Like Serong last year, when clearly the Kozzie Goal against St Kilda in Round 2 was way way way better.

I think I'm the 705th post and about 700 of those (including this one) contain absolutely no useful information on this topic. Just thought I'd state that I, like everyone else, have no inside information on this and will await the final announcement in due course. Yes, the Club should work to sign Jackson (duh) and yes (duh) LJ should do whatever he and his manager think are in his best interests (maybe a 2-year contract extension would make sense at this stage, just in case Melbourne's form unespectedly falls off a cliff).

I think it's a bit rich for any Melbourne supporter to argue about relocation of other clubs. Would you have been happy for either of the mergers with Hawthorn or North to have gone ahead and Melbourne as we know it to not exist? The arguments for or against North & GC are entirely different in any case and they shouldn't be grouped together IMO.

Why? The Tasmanian population is 540,000 with a bit split in loyalties between Hobart & Launceston. Sydney Swans started playing in 1982 and had the Sydney market to themselves for 30 years before GWS started in 2012. Sydney and Brisbane/Gold Coast are expansion markets with significant population bases. I have no problems with introducing a Tasmanian team but am happy for GWS (especially) & GC to have come in first.

Not sure what you mean by ugliest win but it's pretty pointless talking about it anyway. An ugly win means a lot more than a pretty loss. Even as far as ugly wins go, I'd say the First Round win against Freo last year was right up there, but I'd take that and this against the losses and the draw last year, especially the loss to Collingwood and the Draw against Hawthorn, both of which were pretty horrible performances.

Can't see this myself. Once Petty is fit it will be Petty or Tomlinson, not both (assuming Lever is back as well). Gus will be back on the Wing, rather than in defence. If we make a change in attack amongst the small forwards Bedford come in. If we make a change amongst the key forwards JVR comes in (I don't think both Browns wll play in the same side as they are both pure forwards, not the forward/ruck position that TMac, JVW & Wiedeman appear to be playing this year).

Binman, I disagree with you entirely about TMac's form at the end of 2021. He was just not the same player after he came back from the back injury. He missed Rounds 21 & 22 and apart from an OK performance in the Prelim against Geelong he played poorly. He kicked 1 goal out of a Team 19 in the Prelim and 2 out of a Team 21 in the Grand Final. His only meaningful contribution in the GF was the shepherd for Sparrow's Goal in the 3rd Quarter. The game was over in the last quarter when he kicked his goals. Even including the Prelim he totalled 32 possessions and 3 goals in the last 4 matches. So how is that 'fine'? I think though that you can't combine 2021 & 2022 form. 2021 was probably injury-affected and I assume he is now fully-fit. Having said that, IMV he has been ordinary in attack the last 2 weeks and I assume Melbourne aren't going to move him back into defence unless Rivers doesn't get up for this weeks game. Maybe it's a bit unfair to read too much into the GC form since it looked nearly impossible to hold an overhead mark in the humid conditions. I'd be surprised if Melbourne changed the forward set-up this week given all the fit Melbourne-listed backup forwards played a full-game for Casey on Sunday and would be playing off a 5-day break on Friday night.

He did but he also said Lever was ahead of Hibberd and that one of the two would be back in the side next week, which means it's highly likely Lever will be back in the side against Port.

A bit premature I think. I agree that they're not likely to make the 8 but I thought that before all the COVID cases. I think their performances have been admirable so far all things considered. This was the borttom 5 and their percentages after 2 rounds last year and 3 of these sides made the 8, so maybe everyone shouldn't be writing anyone off just yet (neither should they be declaring Carlton a premiership chance). BL 2 0 84.5 CA 2 0 78.2 GW 2 0 77.5 ES 2 0 73.9 NM 2 0 48.4

Essendon, St. Kilda, Port Adelaide, Adelaide. Disappointing against Richmond today but super-competitive against the Swans last week. Missing their best player too.

I'm enjoying the game. The only problem is I can't cast to my TV from my phone. Have had to resort to watching it on my laptop. Definitely a first world problem 😁