old55

I wonder if Mitch Lewis doesn't get up for the game whether the Hawks will go with two rucks and bring Meek in to partner Reeves? They have Lewis and Koschitzke forward recently so I think we need to go in with 3 tall defenders, I don't think we can go with May, Lever and Hibberd - we tried and dispensed with that set-up early in the year. I think we need Smith forward so that would mean Tomlinson back into the side - he has his well discussed good and bad points. As I've posted elsewhere I think we misused Grundy against Carlton and played him too much forward and not enough in the ruck. As @deelusions from afar pointed out in the Grundy thread, when he did go into the ruck in the 3rd and 4th quarters we turned the scoring around significantly. I'm probably Robinson Crusoe, but I'd stick with Grundy this week and have him and Max split the ruck and forward duties - 20-30% gametime forward each, covering when Smith or JVR are off on the bench. That would mean Tomlinson for a runner - JJ, we have been playing with an extra runner because we've traditionally gone with 2 tall forwards and 2 rucks, but recently we've gone with a total of 3 of these. This possibly means we need a runner as sub which pushes Hibberd out of the 23, unless we think that Rivers can go into the midfield when Hibberd comes on. I'm not enamoured with our running sub options: JJ, Harmes, Woewodin, Spargo, Laurie - for various reasons I don't have confidence any of them can have a major positive impact when they come on. So maybe we can go with Hibberd. In: Tomlinson Out: JJ B: May, Tomlinson, Lever, Salem, Rivers, McVee, Bowey M: Gawn, Grundy, Petracca, Oliver, Viney, Brayshaw, Sparrow, Langdon, Hunter F: JVR, Smith, Melksham, ANB, Kossie, Chandler S: Hibberd This is what I would do, but not necessarily what I think will happen.

I do. There's a bit of MFC 2021 about them. It's going to be very hard for them from 5th though if we can win one ofthe remaining two games.

CHF and CHB don't exist anymore.

Carlton are very good - better than I thought, but we can definitely beat them. JVR x 2, Chandler and Salem all missed chances they usually nail and then there was the Petracca goal call. One of those five instances goes our way and we win. It's ridiculous to say we can't beat them.

That was the week before vs North. Grundy wasn't playing.

From the Stats thread: I expected and think we should have rucked Grundy more and played Max forward more. For Grundy 24% of ruck contests and 29% of CBAs is very low. He played 60% gametime, if we take the 24% ruck contests to indicate gametime in the ruck that means he played 36% gametime forward (60% of his gametime), but that's even a big underestimation because a lot of those ruck contests would have been when he was forward. The message from the FD was "we want to play Grundy a bit more forward" but we played him predominantly forward. Max contested 73% or ruck duels vs Carlton. Last week vs North he contested 62% with JVR 38%. It just doesn't make sense to use Grundy so little in the ruck.

I expected and think we should have rucked Grundy more and played Max forward more. 24% of ruck contests and 29% of CBAs is very low. He played 60% gametime, if we take the 24% ruck contests to indicate gametime in the ruck that means he played 36% gametime forward (60% of his gametime), but that's even a big underestimation because a lot of those ruck contests would have been when he was forward. The message from the FD was "we want to play Grundy a bit more forward" but we played him predominantly forward. Max contested 73% or ruck duels vs Carlton. Last week vs North he contested 62% with JVR 38%. It just doesn't make sense to use Grundy so little in the ruck.

Let me guess the summary. We actually won except for cheating umpires, but we're rubbish anyway and can't win the flag. Amirite?

That's rubbish. I lived in San Franscisco for 3 years and the drug and homeless problem there is far, far worse than in Melbourne. There is nothing comparable to the Tenderloin in Melbourne.

YOU were the poster who said they had to 0-3 to miss top spot when it is in fact 1-2. I didn't see anyone say they will go 0-3.

The very point I was making. When thinking about the future success of the Tamanian team it's likely to be more relevant to consider the experience of WC, the Crows and Port - all teams who won flags within the career span of an AFL player, rather than GC or GWS.

You're right. I thought it was tomorrow. So maximum one out for sub is likely.

16 MFC listed players is good, although at least 2 will come out for the senior side for Sub and emergency.

"We've got a plan going in, but that may change in game" - Wait, what, surely not?

"In total, I’ve been involved at AFL club level for more than 25 years as a player, coach, and GM of Football for a decade at both Essendon and Melbourne. It has been a privilege and I look forward to what is next.” Sounds likely from that. Needs to get away from Dodoro too.

Michael Hibberd, on 195 games and turns 34 next January. He made it clear earlier in the year his goal is to get to 200 games. He'll be sub tomorrow which will help but there's not a lot of runway left this season to get there.

I asked West Coast, Adelaide and Port Adelaide and they all said it's possible.

Colby McKercher - captain of the first Tasmanian Premiership team

I didn't say he's going to stay at Sydney or Fremantle, I said he'd leave but they would benefit more from the draft pick compensation. Mate.

Incorrect, if Collingwood go 1-2 and Brisbane and MFC go 3-0 then top spot is decided on percentage and Collingwood's will fall, while Brisbane and Melbourne's will rise in that scenario.

If I'm Brady Rawlings I'm doing everything to retain McKay, he's only 25 and he seems to be finally getting his body right over the last 3 years. It takes longer for KPs to mature. They would be well set with Larkey forward and McKay back as their young talented midfield matures and they could draft another mid or medium this year. If McKay leaves they'll have to find another KPB and they're in short supply.

Colby McKercher will be going to the Tasmanian team in 2028 - nothing is surer. The club that selects him will be well compensated in draft picks. North would be ill-advised to pick him because if they do he'll be coming through with their current injection of youth and will lose him just when they are really improving. They won't want a new draft pick then. Melbourne would also be ill-advised to pick him because he'll be leaving just as Petracca and Oliver come to wards the end of their careers. We won't want a new draft pick then, we'll want a ready-to-go replacement. A club like Sydney or Fremantle would be in the best position to take him. They have young, already developed midfields and McKercher would augment them over the next 5 years. Then they can use the compensation pick to draft replacements for these their guns, replacements who can develop in parallel with them for latter half of their careers. The issue for Fremantle is they won't have a pick to take him of course.

I don't believe that it's correct that we lose momentum when Grundy is in the ruck. In R12 vs Carlton Max and Brodie each attended exactly 50% of CBs: https://dailyfantasyrankings.com.au/resources/afl/cba.php We didn't lose momentum at any time in this match: https://www.afl.com.au/afl/matches/4884#timeline In fact from R6 - R13 inclusive when Max and Brodie shared the ruck almost exactly 50:50 we went 6-2. I challenge you to produce evidence that we lose momentum when Grundy rucks.

Like Fanatique you mean?

Grundy rucks most of the first half, plays a bit forward and Max plays mostly forward, a bit of ruck. Grundy is subbed at or after half-time for Hibberd, Smith goes forward, Max rucks the entire rest of the match fresh. We can afford to do this because we're playing one more mid than we have in the past so our run won't be compromised.