Nasher

After a fair bit of brain racking I concluded Sylvia. Not sure why we couldn't just say it.

The AFL would be packed with players in that position, surely.

Even discounting the fact that 3 of the MFC players will disappear from that side, someone is going to be seriously stiff. Can't see how Joel Smith is not going to be in the dev league this week. Competing with Keilty for the last bench spot looking at that.

Love the barney about Oscar chasing kicks up the field. This is one of the benefits with players being very comfortable with each other - you can have a "frank discussion" with each other and get what needs to be said, said. Great stuff.

A no change bench if ever I've seen one.

Close

How much have they helped our younger players? Our back line is the youngest line of our young team. You'd think if anyone needed a bit of experience, it'd be us. Alas, we seemed to have coped just fine without them. I'd be amazed if we got anything for these two. Roos and Goodwin might as well have duct taped signs saying CAN'T PLAY MODERN DEFENCE on to their foreheads.

Wasn't Jake Spencer also a basketballer? I vaguely remember a story about him choosing footy over basketball because he liked hurting people. I've loved him ever since!

I think it just offsets the massive advantage they already had against the 5-8 team in the Prelim. It just brings them back to the pack rather than crippling them, per se. Personally, I hope this whole thing is a moot point because Borethorn go out in straight sets

The minimum any team will play is 3 in a 5 week period here though, and no team has to sit out two weeks in a row. Your team must have missed two weeks in a row somewhere unless I've stuffed up, which was surely the biggest momentum killer? So while that was a pretty unsatisfactory outcome for your team, it's not going to be that drastic here. It will also take the edge off the top 4 advantage of having a rest week after the first week of the finals - it's a big part of the reason why nobody in the current finals format has ever won a flag from 5-8 (and not just because they're not good enough) - those teams come up against a top 4 side who have had their feet up for the week, while the 5-8 teams busted a gut the week before in the semi.

I assume it's pay related. Either to make him eligible for something (ie a player welfare decision) or to jump through some loophole in the salary cap. I don't think it has any practical implication for the team. I am entirely speculating through.

Exactly. Best 22s are fluid. Love the player or not, I see no upside to an AFL capable player on our list being in this position, and that's not to mention the human side of this. The grave-dancing that goes on on this site is nauseating sometimes.

If you thought I was comparing the worth of McDonald and Harmes as players then I've clearly failed in getting my point across again. I'll leave it at that.

They might have been, not me though. I never thought Grimes would be near our 22 this year. I would have had Garland in my 22 at the start of the year (and he did play early I'll add), but at that stage I hadOscar in the VFL, Frost forward, and I'd never heard of Josh Wagner. As the season has unfolded I have zero complaints about Garland's treatment. I think a better comparison would be Tom McDonald. There are a few on here who have tuned themselves to see every mistake, big or small, to the point where it's now all they see. I see the same thing happening with Harmes. I totally agree that he needs to clean up those errors, no disputing that. I just don't agree that he's anywhere near the fringe of our side, and his standing in our side supports that, but his name comes up in these discussions every week.

Is the player who has played 1 game in the VFL like the players who have played the whole season there? Yeah, nah.

Haven't even got as far as the interview yet. Had to stop and have a deep breath after seeing the Stretch goal again in the highlights reel before the interview. My god, that was a spine tingling moment. Even Derwayne commentary didn't put a dent in it.

Harmes has become a victim of Demonland groupthink IMO, so I won't go in to that, but I really doubt Bugg's spot is in doubt. He's been excellent since returning from his VFL stint. His intensity is back up, his ball use has been clean, and he's kicking goals from the midfield. I'm a Salem fan, but I'm happy to keep him waiting rather than dropping a player in good form for him.

Sunday game, so I'm guessing the initial squad will read: IN: Jones M, Kennedy, Salem OUT: - Jones, because Plapp said in his review that he played like an AFL player in the VFL - as ringing an endorsement as I've seen; Kennedy as the obvious replacement for Garlett if he doesn't get up Salem because he's class I've gone cold on the idea of Weideman for this week.

I think bringing in one is different to bringing in three, which was the premise I was responding to.

If only Martin was on our list now eh? He could be playing a vital part in a Casey premiership tilt.

King? If Melbourne delist him, I think the more likely outcomes are that he'll disappear off the face of the football Earth forever, or that he'll disappear off the face of the football Earth and suddenly appear again when he's 26, big and mature. He kicked a few bags in the VFL last year and kicked another, albeit in the dev league, last week. The guy can obviously play, but hasn't looked close to stringing it together for long enough to play AFL at this stage. He's a typical example of "big men take time". It's just a question of whether or not we're willing to wait, because by the looks, he's very much on the slow burn.

Agreed. Garlett, Pedersen and Harmes played 85, 82 and 86% TOG respectively. We've already got Oliver, Stretch, Kent and Brayshaw who regularly play in the 60-75% range. I think the last thing we need to be doing is adding too many players with question marks over their ability to run out a game. For me, if Garlett is injured, Kennedy is the replacement. Notwithstanding JKH's good couple of weeks, Kennedy has been playing well in the VFL for longer, is fit, and has demonstrated AFL ability at times this year. With our season suddenly getting serious, I wouldn't be taking any risks. I'd consider Weideman for Pedersen, but I'm far from convinced and would be happy either way. No other changes to a winning formula for me.

Jeez, only 14 inside 50s for your boy for his 36 touches. Needs to lift his game! He has the Casey best and fairest in the bag this year, surely.

Who would he play in front of? Watts seems to have been pretty much settled upon for the second ruck. Since moving in there, Pedersen has only been picked as a pure forward - even in the last two weeks when Pedersen has been in, Watts has been the second ruck. I think this role for the MFC died some time ago. To that end, I wouldn't bother bringing in any ruck types from other clubs. Spots are finite - for rucks, use them to develop plays who will be used primary as first rucks - for backup to Gawn during apprenticeship years, and to take over from him later. We've already got an already capable ruckman (Spencer) and an apprentice (Mitch King) on our list, so I don't see a need for another one. Spencer gets released when King is ready, or approaching it, and at that point, we recruit a ruckman from the draft as the apprentice. It probably makes this thread boring, but I can't see us adding a ruckman to our list at all this year. Three is the right number in my opinion.

How about not even contesting the ruck, and instead just have an extra midfielder sharking the opposition's lone ruckman's inevitable hitout?