Nasher

Because this is the changes thread, and as if his name is going to come up in selection discussions.

Does playing players who played in a VFL game on the same day as the AFL game really "freshen" the team up much? The intensity at VFL level may be lower, nonetheless Grimes, ANB et al all played a full game of football, just as the AFL players did.

Watts post game: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2016-07-03/rd-15-jack-watts-post-match Both his tone and his words indicate frustration and pain over the loss. Who remembers "I move on pretty quickly after losses"? As sadistic as it is, it's refreshing to hear players express some self-frustration over not quite getting the job done. Watts to me in this interview came across as a player who believes in himself and the team and believes they're good enough to win, and anything less is unsatisfactory, even if the effort was there. It's such a stark contrast to the despair and deflation you would hear in their voices after matches in the past.

Honestly, I just scroll past any post that opens with "we haven't improved...". It's just such a daft analysis that it's not even worth digesting, let alone wasting time arguing against.

Might as well just scratch them off the score then eh? Both free kicks were definitely there and genuinely inhibited him from contesting. You couldn't be sure they wouldn't have been goals anyway had he not been illegally blocked.

Honestly I think it'll be a no-change, pending injuries. The players I see in our side that could be improved upon are: Dawes, one of Frost or OMac, Bugg and possibly vandenBerg or Matt Jones. Dawes has never been dropped in his whole time at the MFC, so I assume the status quo will be maintained there. Hulett may be progressing, but I don't see an urgency in bringing him until we're sure he's ready. We might leave out OMac (Frost is the better of the two IMO) - for who though - Garland? I'm not against it but I don't see it as a huge improvement. I thought Vanders stepped up in the second half when he was put on the ball; didn't get too many damaging possessions but it at least got him tackling again. We persist, I think. Matt Jones besides one pretty ordinary fumble was passable. The players I see out of the side who may be considered are Lumumba, Trengove, Brayshaw, Oliver, Garland, Michie, Hulett, Grimes and Neal-Bullen. Besides Brayshaw and Oliver, I don't see much opportunity to improve our side given the players in question and the players available to replace them. I expect the club to be as conservative as practicable with Brayshaw given the horror year he's had, and I can't see the point of playing selection ping-pong with Oliver; let him settle one way or the other.

6 Watts - complete game. Played all over the ground and got involved in each place. He is having an outstanding year. 5 Jones N - errors took the shine over an otherwise excellent game. Was consistently involved throughout the whole much. 4 Garlett - just so dangerous around goal. Thought he outplayed Betts today. So important to have him firing. 3 Hunt - his use of the ball post-dash was much better today. Two plays of his in particular got my blood pumping - the intercept mark and dash that lead to a goal, and of course his own goal on the run. Not a finished product by any stretch, but gee he is exciting to watch. 2 McDonald T - he is fast, fit, strong, and intercepts like a boss. This was all on display today. His ineffectiveness on the rebound keeps him continues to keep him a rung below the best in the business though. 1 Hogan - looked dangerous as a forward at times. Also really liked the game of Billy Stretch. He is starting to look like a composed user of the ball and is getting on the end of it more, and hitting contests at speed which is great.

Yes - I don't think anyone would argue that we don't need to find someone better, and hopefully soon. His spot is not under threat right at this moment though.

That kick probably should have been another handball then The kick that comes out being crud is a different, independent problem. I agree that this was a real issue today.@

OP only saw the fumble in the last quarter and forgot the rest of the game.

The players are clearly told not to hack it out of a contest. I know we handballed a lot, but it looked to me like the bulk of the handballs were in congestion, and people didn't kick until they had some space on the pack. I've got no problem with that - that clearing kick is more dangerous than over-handball IMO.

That was winnable. Some of our ball use was just so frustrating. I hope that's an experience thing and something that will improve with time, because it is the difference between winning and not at the moment. At least we're fairly consistent in effort relative to the last decade.

...k

I know in hindsight that I have contributed to the deviation of topic in this thread, but this post doesn't even mention Neville Jetta at all. Use another thread if you want to talk about McDonald brothers or Garland. Line drawn HERE - anything not about Jetta now will be deleted. __________________________________________________________________________________________

Doubt he'll player there though. I don't think any MFC players have played in the Dev team this year. Edit: There are 12 people on that extended bench. 4 of the players named in the side will play for the MFC, so you'd assume the 4 non-King MFC players (Jones, Lumumba, ANB, Hulett) on that bench will move on to the 'field' (or possibly in to the MFC side in the case of Jones). 23rd man Machaya will play. That leaves 4 spots for King, Collis, Moncrieff, Morris, Munro, Pattison and Wilson. Moncrieff, Morris and Munro are Casey seniors regulars I think, but I can't see them picking fringe Casey players like Collis, Pattison or Wilson over King. He definitely won't play in the Dev league IMO.

I thought two years was pretty stock standard. I'd say signing Jetta for two is as expected and Garland being the choice of player for three is what's odd. I might be nitpicking.

Didn't Garland sign last year? Different drivers - this decisions are often around trying to balance out the number of players coming out of contract at the same time and so forth.

Low key announcement for a low key bloke - doesn't seem the sort for fanfare. Definitely one of my favourites. There's been a lot of discussion about Jack Grimes and how the MFC did him no favours during his key developing years - Nev Jetta is in exactly the same boat. It's fantastic that he's turned in to such a solid defender given that he was as close to the scrap heap as you can get without ending up in it; his transformation in to such a reliable player really was against all odds. It's a testament to his own strength of character, as well as the developmental skills of our current coaching team. I was surprised when the club re-drafted him on to the rookie list but I'm now very glad they did. On the field his last two matches have been down relative to his last couple of seasons. Perhaps he was a man distracted and this will be a huge weight off his shoulders.

REVISION (I'm sure nobody cares, but it was bugging me): With PA and Collingwood: Out: Howe, Toumpas In: Kennedy, 29, 50 Which enabled the GC trade: Out: 6, 29, R1 2016 In: 3, 10 Which enabled the GWS trade: Out: 10, 43, 64 In: Bugg, 7 Netting off the final results, also excluding the zero-value pick we traded out [64], I think it was this: Out: Howe, Toumpas, 6 [Ah Chee], R1 2016 In: Kennedy, Bugg, 3 [Oliver], 7 [Weideman], 50 [Hulett].

I've actually stuffed that up anyway - we got Weideman and Bugg with that pick 10 and pick 43 went with it to GWS- I think Hulett arrived as part of that deal, not the Gold Coast one. The trade was more complex than the Saturn rocket - glad it's Mahoney, Viney and Taylor orchestrating that stuff and not me.

Because Toumpas was a potato? Anyway, the final trade was EDIT I stuffed this up, see posts below We got rid of two players who were borderline, a pick that doesn't even exist until next year and a decent player for a ready made mid, the next big inside midfielder, and two young key forwards with plenty to work with. Even in hindsight it's hard to fault this trade I think.

We beat GWS and got umpired out against North. Oh sorry, I forgot those didn't count. The Goliath Slaying Saints season has featured a loss to West Coast by 103 points, a loss to Adelaide by 88 points, and all their other wins have been against sides outside the 8. Keep finding ways of how this game reflects poorly on the MFC though.

Amazing how people will use pretty much any result to confirm their existing thoughts. If you're the type to want the sky to be falling, to write off anything good happening to the MFC, or to make bold declarations about average teams passing us, last night's result was a confirmation bias goldmine. All it said to me is that this year, no team is unbeatable. I actually took confidence from it rather than the opposite.

You're right, according to this article, assuming it's reflective of the final rules. Given that we took two first rounders in 2015 (Oliver, Weideman), in theory we could trade our 2017 first rounder this year, *and* our 2018 first rounder next year and still fall within the "two first rounders in four years" rule. A future first rounder is a pretty risky commodity to accept for the receiving club though - firstly because of the obvious reason you don't know where the position of it will be, but the second reason is that it delays your player development by a year. This is why the trade with Gold Coast last year was such a belter - had it not happened, we'd have had pick 6 and not 3 or 10 - assuming Oliver was gone and we took Weideman at 6, our Oliver equivalent player would a) be a year behind in development and b) probably a lower caliber player since our pick will be in the 10ish range. I don't reckon it'd get the deal done for a player of any significant quality. Especially when we are competing with clubs who have a first rounder *this* year to offer (and I know you weren't suggesting it would Stu - just extrapolating my own point further).

I thought we weren't allowed to do that again this year, having done it last year.