old55

The Dogs side that won the flag and ran GWS close away last night has a number of limited players who play the team game.

Disappointing

I disagree. We've definitely got a finals quality list and but for suspension and injury we would be certain to be playing this year. It's still possible we will.

There were distinct occasions late in both the last 2 matches where he marked in space between wing and HB and had 1 opponent to beat who was more or less level with him. Instead of running and gunning Hunt-style (and he's a better kick than Hunt), he played cautiously and went back behind the mark.. This would have annoyed the FD because it's what he's there for.

JKH plays a different role from Stretch so comparing their selection is not relevant. He struggled early against the Tigers but inproved as the game went on. He hasn't played at AFL level for a long time and deserves a chance to get with pace of the game. I agree that it's not easy to see his distinguishing attributes like it is in say Kent. But the key is listening ro Goodwin say he plays the way we want to play, I'm not sure that Kent does. That's the message.

Unsurprisingly I disagree. Stretch has endurance, decent pace, good evasion and very clean skills. Like others have said, he'll play 200 games. But he hasn't been using his tools recently.

It may be a load issue for Stretch but I've seen him hold up ball movement in recent games at critical times and not play "fearless football". As others have mentioned, players have strengths and roles, IMO Stretch has not performed his key role v Freo and Richmond.

Selection sanity prevails.

I like Billy but he has been ordinary the last 2 weeks. Failed to move the ball on quickly.

How many players that can play small-medium back is enough? N.Jones Salem Lewis Hibberd Melksham Garland Vince Hunt Jetta McKenna White Wagner Harmes J.Smith

Watts(?), Salem and Hunt from Brighton Grammar under Shaw

The reasoning is not that complex .... Pedersen can play absolute maximum ruck time 70% - Watts blew up after 50% vs Geelong and Richmond. 30% bench time. That means Watts plays 30% ruck time, max 50% forward time, 20% bench. Therefore tall fwds: Watts, Hannan, Petracca 50% Hannan, Petracca 50% That's why I thought Weed would play but from training reports it definitely seems he won't. The only other alternative is TMac or Frost take some of that ruck percentage and free Watts and Pedersen to have more % in the forward line, but that leaves us short in defence - hence OMac inclusion - but apparently only Watts and Pedersen rucking at training so this too sounds unlikely. If we leave them both out we only have 4 players over 190! I think it's a risk not including one of them. And if one of Pedersen, Watts, Frost or TMac goes off injured we are TOAST.

Agree @Deespicable

Cheers, thanks very much for the update - fascinating!

I agree it would be nice, but it's a tough one because the Casey stalwarts like Hutchins and Scott have to take numbers in the 50s. The alternative would be to give them low MFC/Casey numbers when they come free e.g. #8.

Nibbler following in the footsteps of the great MFC servants Hoppy and Godders.

Watts sustained about 50% quality game time in the ruck against Geelong and Richmond. I expect similar from Pedersen - they can't ruck as long as proper ruckmen. It's an absolute certainty that one of Weed or Omac will play. If Watts and Pedersen take all the ruck then it will be Weed. If TMac or Frost take some then it will be Omac. That means 2 of the smalls come out - Salem, Tyson, Stretch, Bugg, Harmes.

Won't be surprised if Billy misses

Will be good to hear from track watchers who is training in the ruck

It's going to be interesting selection. Hogan out brings Keilty or Weed into the frame. It would be good to hear from track watchers who is training in the ruck. Lewis has to come in and I expect that both Hibberd and Melksham will play against their old club. With 3 talls forced out I'd like to see 3 talls come in, especially when whoever rucks will play less game-time than Gawn or Spencer would have. If TMac or Frost are to ruck then I think Omac comes in. We could go with a Watts, Pedersen, Keilty combo and leave the backline intact.

I do think we made a LM error not recruiting a 200cm fwd-ruck, but I don't think it's fatal and I think it only applies this year. We've had bad luck that both Max and Jake have been injured at the same time for lengthy periods and as someone pointed out - at the start of the year before say Mitch King could build some game-time, match fitness and momentum in the VFL. This time next year Mitch King (barring further interruptions) will have a full VFL year as first ruck and a full pre-season so he should be ready to play AFL if required. Lochie Filipovic will be more advanced than where King is now because he will have had similar. And Weed will have another year of physical development and should be ready to do some relief rucking. This could easily turn into a knee-jerk LM issue - with Max and Jake (or a mature replacement if Jake leaves as UFA) we should be fine next year.

IMO we should have recruited a 200cm fwd-ruck - Vardy or Cameron were available to us in the ND - we could have taken Johnstone in the RD or not taken McKenna in the trade (how many HB do we really need?). I think rookieing an extra mature specialist ruck would have been less optimal.

I acknowledge the risk of playing TMac in the ruck is that Daniher and Hooker get a hold of OMac and Frost, but I think this is mitigated somewhat by having Hibberd in form and Lewis back. Pedersen needs to come in too for flexibility.

King would last 30 minutes at AFL pace and intensity against the mature AFL rucks he'll be up against. Then he'll blow up and Watts will have to ruck 60+% of the game. Even he blew up after 50% rucking in both games. Better to go with TMac who has elite endurance so wont blow up and has a mature body. Relief from Watts and Pedersen (that's what HE's on the list for). OMac back with Frost and Hibberd. I actually think we could be OK with this set up. Agree Frost is hopeless in the ruck.

I think there's too much focus on winning or losing those matches, but I'm sure few will agree. We're in the learning phase. The losses likely cost us finals which are a great learning opportunity. But there's other learning in adversity.