Doggo

What about Jamar? Not many were (or ever have been) as bad as he was on the weekend...

And play who then? Ben Holland? Not any quicker or more agile is he? If Rivers and Carroll dont come up, like last week, our depth is really stretched. To the people who posted earlier in this topic suggesting that Frawley, Garland or even Warnock and PJ be omitted this week must not realise this, but, without Carroll and Rivers, and to a lesser extent Wheatley, we dont really have anyone else to play tall back... Holland is waaay too slow to play on any of the Hawk forwards, and it would be a huge ask of Stef Martin to come in and debut against probably the best attack in the league. My question to those people is, who else do we have to take the Hawk gun forwards? I don't particularly like the idea of having PJ back against any of the Hawk forwards either, or as a defender at all, but unfortunately Dean Bailey may not have much choice if things start getting really ugly or another defender goes down with injury. And for the development of the team and the versatility of Paul Johnson the player, it would be more beneficial to play him there than Holland.

PJ? Buckley? Frawley? = All young guys who would benefit most from playing in the 1sts, and despite the big loss last week, did ok considering what they were up against. (Ok, Frawley was shocking, but he's young and needs more time in the AFL to believe that he belongs. PJ was ok on Tippett and showed some versatility, and Buckley, despite his lack of defensive running, played his best game so far). You wanna drop these guys, who could all become fixtures in a successful MFC side in the future... For Yze? hmmm... i dont know about that. And 45hotgod is right. Jamar is surely first dropped this week after 1 disposal and 5 clangers.

Likely changes IMO: IN: C. Johnson (not my preference, but very likely given his VFL performance on the weekend), or Rivers (if fit) or Whelan (if it), or Ben Holland! OUT: Jamar (omitted) I have a feeling DB will only make the one change this week, despite last weeks horrendous belting. Jamar omitted after his one handball performance against the Crows for one of either; Rivers, IF he passes a fitness test; Whelan, probably my next preference if Riv doesnt come up; or most likely, Chris Johnson. CJ dominated in the VFL last week, and DB has stated he will reward good form, so he will most likely come in if Riv or Wheels don't come up. Ben Holland also performed strongly, so could be in line for a defensive spot if needed. It may even be likely, strange enough as it seems after getting thumped by almost 80 points, that the side goes in unchanged, due to injuries (with the news Carroll has done a hammy) and lack of match-fitness to the guys returning from injury (Rivers, Whelan, Sylvia etc). Defensive Match-ups are likely to look like this, perhaps (if Rivers doesnt play): Franklin v Warnock Roughead v Frawley Boyle v Garland Williams v Bell Rioli v Bartram Warnock has very good pace for his size, is tall enough (193cm) and strong enough to play on Franklin (196cm). He's been alright so far since getting back in. Franklin is the ultimate test atm for a KP defender, would be a great challenge for Matty. I think his pace definitely gives him first crack on Buddy. Roughead on Frawley doesn't really work- Roughead is too strong in one-on-one body contests. Garland could cover Boyle, who relies more on a lead-mark-goal style than Roughead, but Garland is still too undersized and likely to be exposed if that matchup isolated. Williams v Bell looks a good match-up, but we've seen Williams kick 8 on Bell before. I actually prefer Garland on Williams, think he has the pace to go with him on the lead, and the height to nulify him one-on-one as well. I think he'd be more suited to playing Williams than on any of the big 3 forwards. Bartram on Rioli is a good match-up, but Bartram may go to one of the Hawk midfielders. Very weak defensive structure if you ask me, even with the ruckman filling the hole in front of Franklin/Boyle/Roughead. Another possibility is Jamar stays in, and PJ plays back. PJ's a good strength and height match-up and a decent straight-line speed matchup for Roughead, letting Frawley go to the weaker but quicker Boyle, and Garland onto Williams. Making the match-ups look like this (the / indicates second option should the first one fail): Franklin v Warnock / Frawley Roughead v P.Johnson / Warnock Boyle v Frawley / Garland Williams v Garland / Bell Rioli v Bell / Bartram Overall this probably looks a lot more balanced and gives us more flexibility. The final option is we bring Ben Holland in for Jamar to play in defence on Roughead, and put PJ back into the ruck, dropping into the whole to help out the defence. Holland played well up forward for Sandy last week with 4 goals, he could get a call-up. But he probably isnt an ideal matchup for Roughead (or any of the other forwards for that matter), as he's likely to get exposed for pace on the lead. And Roughead is the slowest of their 3 KPF's!!

My bet is Michael Newton. Juice has got half a season left in '08 to prove, not only that he is worthy of persisting with next year and beyond, but also (hopefully with some encouraging performances at FF if/when he gets back into the team), that he could take the #9 in the future. If there are commitment and attitude problems there now with Newton, imagine how much growth and sense of purpose he will take into '09 and the rest of his career- after being handed the no. 9 as the immediate successor to David Neitz. If there was ever going to be anything that would motivate and fire up Juice- change his attitude, this would be it.

Thanks for the memories Neita! It is a strange, hollow feeling knowing we won't ever see you grace the 'G in the #9 again. You've been an out-and-out champion, and the heart and soul of this club for 15 years. Thank you! I tip my hat to you, sir... To David Neitz... A True MFC Legend & Champion

If you are correct, that is interesting. I guess not everybody who plays footy at a high level really has the desire to go to the very top. I think if i were even remotely good enough to play at the top level, i'd do everything i possibly could to get there, and most young footballers woud feel the same. In many ways it is a shame, because he is definitely a prodigious talent, and there would have to be 100's of kids out there with considerably less talent than he, but the desire to succeed, who become very good AFL players. But if he knew he couldnt handle the demands of AFL footy, good on him for making the right decision and becoming a VFL great.

As i've said already, it was a size match-up more than anything. PJ looks like a smart, disciplined enough player to stick to a given role. Today his role was to spoil Tippett and block his run wherever possible, and he stuck to that task pretty well. Tippett is only young, but the kid has all the makings of a star player. PJ did a good job. Things could have gotten seriously ugly with Carroll (190cm) on Tippett (201cm), a match-up easily exposed one-out. Because of PJ's size (199cm), the match-up between Johnson and Tippett was not one that could be so easily exposed, and IMO a better bet. Carroll may be a better, more experienced defender, but he is simply 6cm or so too short for the match up. PJ's not naturally a defender, but has shown some ability to pinch hit in that position in the past. Today was probably his first full game at FB, and he did ok in a side that got belted. Credit to the kid. He probably wont have to play down back too often this year (given Jamar is likely to be dropped this week), or at least until we play the Pie's (if Ben Holland is not picked to play on Anthony Rocca). But its good to know we have an option for the monster forwards if needed, other than Holland. Martin has shown glimpses at Sandy, but is a long way off still, and Carroll's been fighting above his weight for years. More of a worry today was the inability to cover the many agile, strong marking, medium sized forwards they had, like Goodwin, Jericho, Burton and Porplyzia given the quality supply. Unfortunately for Carroll, none of those guys were any better a match-up for him than Tippett was.

Carroll is a good, solid AFL player at best. He was in no way the dfference between us winning and losing today. In fact, i think things would have been worse had he played instead of PJ. But i've said that already in other posts...

Carroll would have been murdered by Tippett today. PJ did quite well given the circumstances; it was his first game back from injury, his first game playing in defence since the 1st NAB cup match, he was the 2nd most experienced player in the defensive unit (behind Bell), and Adelaide were delivering the ball cleanly and with ease into the forward line. Tippett kicked 4.1 from just 7 disposals & 3 marks, but he only beat PJ one-out in a marking contest to goal once on the day, when PJ was taken under the ball and fell at the last moment of the contest 10m from goal. I think out of Tippett's 4 goals, 2 came from lead-mark-goals (one courtesy of a block off the ball on PJ we didnt see a replay of, the other an unstopable low pass out in front), 1 from the aformentioned marking contest where PJ lost his feet, and the other a ground contest where PJ went up to help his teammate in the marking contest and Tippett stayed down and crumbed a goal, i think. Hardly a dominating performance as the news would have you think. PJ had 8 1%'rs today, a large number of those would have been defensive spoils overhead, where Carroll would have been less effective due to his height. Given the way in which the ball was coming into their forward 50, it could have been much MUCH worse going in with the undersized Carroll on Tippett. Tippett didnt hurt us in the air that much today, and PJ had a big say in that. The match up meant we weren't as exposed to long high kicks to Tippett one-out. I'm afraid had we picked Carroll over PJ, Tippett could have had 6 or 7 goals, and really arrived at AFL level. I haven't agreed with everything Dean Bailey has done this year, but i think he took the right path today and made a smart match-up selection, and a decision for the future, to pick PJ over Carroll.

Just out of interest, to anyone who knows... has Sautner ever spent any time on an AFL list? He's been a heavy scorer at VFL level for years now- was there ever a time when a younger Nick Sautner may have had his chance at the top level? I understand he was overweight for a long time, only trimming down a bit at the start of last year and maintaining that size since. So obviously there would have been queries over him adapting to the professionalism of AFL in the past. But did he ever get a shot? He's been the big gun FF or thereabouts every year for the best part of a decade, i cant help but wonder if he would have made it. I'm not suggesting Sautner has or ever had something to offer us at AFL level in the past, but it would seem almost unfair that a player of Sautner's status at VFL level never had a crack at the big time. Did he spend some time on a rookie list or supp list in the mid-late 90's perhaps? Often the superstars of the lower leagues around Australia are players who weren't quite up to it at AFL level, but occupied a spot on an AFL list at one time or another in their careers. I wonder if he ever got a crack?

Did anyone here actually attend the game? I voted as i saw the game on tv at home on foxtel, but i'd be interested in hearing from some people who were at the match. I always find it a lot harder to give votes if u havent been able to see what players were doing around the ground and off the ball, etc.

I agree, his skills have lifted, but he's still not hurting the opposition to the maximum of his capabilities. He can be far more damaging than he showed today-- i'd like to see him be more creative and take more risks. Looks like he's playing a bit of 'safe-footy' at the moment. I love Beamer, he's probably my 2nd favorite player on the list and I want him to do well, but IMO he was no more than another 'also-ran' today. Did well holding Thompson to only 21 disposals, but had little influence himself. edit: Interestingly, the afl site has Moloney's disposal effeciency at just 43.75% effective. I actually didnt think his skills were too bad today. Work that one out...

6. Morton - 18 touches and 3 goals in a classy, tidy effort. Looking good, but is built like a boundary umpire. 5. Green - best senior player on the day, only player to show any glimpse of leadership in the 25+ age group. 4. Wonaeamirri - looks so composed with the footy, doesn't waste possesion. Consistent thus far. 3. Bartram - completely blanketed McLeod, got a bit himself and kicked a goal. Return to form. 2. Buckley - ran the lines hard, generally used the ball better than in previous appearances. 24 disposals, 87.5% efficiency (was surprised by that to be honest) 1. Jones - good first hallf but faded in the 2nd. Found plenty of the ball and had the most clearances for the team, but disposal often left wanting Bate (unlike last week's first half, was clean by hand and foot all day, worked hard and used it well), Davey (is at his best when he's taking 'em on, provided plenty of run), PJ (8 one-per-centers playing out of position in a backline under siege) all stiff to miss out.

Moloney? U serious? I'm one of Brent's biggest fans and will stick up for him when i think his game has been underrated, but no way was he in the votes today. He played on Thompson and managed to curb his influence somewhat, but took himself out of the game in the process. Break even score at best for Beamer IMO.

Not an outstanding debut, but very solid first hitout for Shane. Looked comfortable at the level. Spent a bit of time up forward, and a bit on the pine too, but was very positive with what he did with the ball today. His defensive pressure when up forward was top notch. Pickering on Fox called him "quick"! hahah... tho he's a [censored], but it sure goes to show he certainly wasnt as shown up for pace as many thought he'd be.

PJ played deep at FB on Tippet for pretty much the whole day. Frawley and Warnock were used more at CHB on Jericho/Goodwin/Burton, with little success. Word on Stef Martin (though i haven't seen him play this year) is, as a late starter to footy, he is still very raw, not physically strong enough yet to play of the monster forwards yet. But his leap, closing speed and athleticism can't be taught, so the scope for him to improve greatly with more knowledge of the game is there. Will get his chance, probably later in the year, but he's still learning his trade, and isn't really pushing hard for selection yet, despite our dire need to develop another young KP.

I'd argue that it may well have been worse had we played Carroll, Holland, Yze & co. It was some of the younger players today that provided the excitement and spark for us. Garland, looked good up forward early when we were still in it, and when sent back in the second half, looked more composed and instinctive than he has all year. Aussie continues to impress, Cale was outstanding in the first half as was Jones, Buckley found lots of the footy (still needs to work on his desicion making though), Bell (ditto Buckley), Bartram's job on Andrew McLeod was great. Bate looked ok in his 2nd game back. All of these young guys will be better off in the long run for the experience and game time they got today. It was a brave move bringing PJ in ahead of Carroll to replace Rivers, and many would argue it didnt pay off. But i actually thought PJ did quite well on Tippett despite conceding 4 goals (one per quarter). He was good on a few occassions in the air, and managed to nulify Tippett one-on-one and get a fist onto the high ball better than i'd imagine Carroll would have. It was a good match-up physically, better than Carroll v Tippett, with Tippett only prevailing in the end thru sheer weight and quality of numbers in supply from the Crows mids. Could have gone either way, as Tippett got a couple of lucky goals, but also missed one or two he should have got. I still prefer PJ as a ruckman, but its good to know he has the versatility to take the big forward match-up (Ben Holland backline role) as another option. Jamar was pure cr*p today, 1 ineffective handball, no marks and 16 hitouts were his contribution, and no immediate match-up springs to mind for PJ in the Hawks forwardline, so i'd imagine he'll return to second ruck duties next week. Jamar's "bash-into-other-ruckman-at-all-costs" ploy used so well against Sandilands last week, was exposed by the umpires, and he gave away several frees for having eyes on his opponent rather than the ball at stoppages. There were definitely some positives, but the performance of our leaders continues to be a worry, as does the collective skill level of the group as a whole.

PJ did ok on Tippett i thought, despite Tippett kicking 4 goals. The way they brought the ball in today, i'm surprised Tippett didnt kick more tbh. PJ did well enough and 2 of Tippett's goals were a bit soft. What a dream it would have been to play in the forward line for Adelaide today, their players consistently made good desicions and hit targets when coming inside 50. PJ wasn't our worst down back in what was a real tough day, but a valuable learning experience for our young defence.

Word is he was flown to Adelaide with the squad and did not play for Sandy. A late change perhaps?

I think PJ could be decent as lead-up FF from the square. His hands on the lead have always been very good, and he has improved his aerial judgement and overhead marking a lot since his junior days. Is a lovely kick at goal though has had the yips in recent times. Would be a good pinch-hitter, but would need to be playing in a side with a really skillful midfield to play there on a full-time basis and get the most beneficial outcome. Ideally, would like to see him trialled and succeeding at VFL level in that role as the #1 "go-to" man, before even considering it for more than a pinch-hit option, but the same could be said about 3 or 4 of our guys, and in the past with Miller and even 426. Our alignment with Sandringham, or rather, Nick Sautner, has made it almost impossible for us to develop FF's in the VFL. Back to the topic, PJ's main spot if he is to make it as an AFL player, would primarily have to be as a ruckman-follower type. Disappointed he wasn't included into the side this week. I hope he gets a gig sonner rather than later, he is clearly best-22 ahead of Jamar, who keeps his spot on the back of one good game (against an opponent whose style suited him) and one ok game against the Lions. Not too worried though, Jamar will struggle this week against more mobile opponents than Sandilands. In fact, he'll struggle against everyone, except Sandilands.

Buckley wasn't rookie-listed, he was picked up late in the National Draft, pick 50 or so.

Awesome.

Being from South Australia, Bell would not have played TAC U/18 footy as a Junior. Point taken about playing as a forward/mid prior to being drafted. Seems a bit strange taking a solid medium-defender type from Junior footy with our 1st pick in the draft (pick 14).

I dont think i've seen it mentioned anywhere before, but how do people feel about playing Bell as a defensive half-forward? There are many arguments for and against the 'Bell to midfield' case, the major ones being his lack of awareness and poor descision making under pressure, not ideal for inside midfield situations. His form has been poor and its these key areas that he has regressed in this year under immense pressure down back. I dont believe these would be as much of an issue playing in the forward half, where he could make the opposition's best running defender accountable, use his tackling and strong body to lock the ball inside 50, and become dangerous when we have the ball, using his speed, good foot skills and strong mark for his size. Would be perfect for roles on Lindsay Gilbee/Heath Shaw-type attacking defenders who always carve us up because guys like Robbo dont chase, and a good learning curve to help him improve his own attacking game. Thoughts?