Nasher

I suppose if you consider them as like for like changes, they kind of add up. Pedersen can play Vanders role of big, marking flanker; Brayshaw replaces Vince as a genuine mid; Hunt can play as the low game time, junior running mid that Stretch was. The balance might be okay. I'm really just trying to convince myself. I still think this is not a strong team on paper.

Don't buy that at all. If Misson is going to use a segment clearly intended to inform the supporters to lie to the supporters purely to throw the opposition off the scent, they might as well just save everyone the hassle and disband the segment; it would have the same effect. I prefer the simpler explanation: Misson presented his opinion based on the best information he had at hand at the time.

Moore, Cloke, ??

Second week in a row that the selections have left me scratching my head. * Can't see a role for both Pedersen and Frost * It is a big roll of the dice playing both Wagner and Hunt. That is a lot of inexperience in defensive posts - assuming that is where they play. No choice but to put it down to "these guys are the experts and I'm not" and go with it. It's not doing my confidence much good though.

Having Dank on the books doesn't mean we have anything to worry about. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to employ a sports scientist.

People didn't *want* him delisted, we just thought he would be. I think it's an important distinction. I still think he would have been had we not managed to re-home Toumpas and Howe. Anyway, good luck to the lad. Very surprising selection if we're also persisting with Wagner; I can see the intention but there are obvious risks.

ANB is on your bench, but not in your "ins" list. I think you need to add Vanders to your outs. There isn't the room or the need for Wagner AND Hunt in the side (regardless of Garlett availability). One project HBFer is plenty - there's a strong case for even one to be too many I think. Very few sides that like to win a lot do so by loading up on players with less than 10 games under their belt, especially not ones with considerable question marks over their game. This would be pure madness I think. There won't be four changes. Bugg will play now that there are two forced outs - I don't see ANB as being a huge improvement on him. There is also a strong case for Grimes playing ahead of ANB as uncool as that seems to many. I can't see the point in playing selection ping pong with Frost and Pedersen. It's clear they're both inadequate; I'd prefer we gave Frost some time to settle in to the role.

Brayshaw has played three cobweb blowers now - one of them just happens to have been in the seniors. He should be well and truly right to go now you'd think. Agree with the two forced changes only. Brayshaw in and Garlett if fit, ANB if not.

Is that the benchmark though?

I allowed myself to get carried away with expectations and have ridden a hell of a rollercoaster in the last two weeks as a result. On paper and form we should be well on top of this mob, however I think for now I'll revert to the 2015 mantra of "cautious optimism".

I'm excited, confident and can't wait for this match. Hold me.

I don't think that really changes the point though. It wouldn't really matter who we were playing - all the clubs have good players you could reel off and say "that hurts". I agree with HH. It's a bummer, but definitely no reason to chuck in the towel (I'm not suggesting you are) or allow it to erode our confidence too much, as he is but one of a team of players.

Now *that* is a thread bump.

I laughed. Then I sobbed heavily.

This thread is one part about a footy issue and ten parts about one poster with serious issues with women. What a disgrace. Closed.

Same here, bay 15, seat B18 or something. Was good from the point of view of it being at the scoring end, but I couldn't see anything down the other end of the field thanks to the sun and being too close to the ground. Was great to be surrounded by MFC fans though. Can't believe the buggers who got their tickets late got Ponting stand seats! I wonder if the club has any say on their allocation of seats?

Who though? Our forward line was predominantly Hogan, Watts, Kent and Frost, then was filled on a rotating basis with mids - Harmes, Kennedy, Vanders, Bernie and Oliver all spent time there. I think really, despite Garlett usually playing close to goals, when making a calculation of team balance, you have to count him in the pool of midfielders, because that is who fills his role when he is out. Him playing frees up Kennedy et al to spend more time in the middle, so in essence it becomes Kennedy et al replacing Vince, and Garlett replacing Kennedy et al.

I always thought he seemed terribly anti-Melbourne too, but maybe he's just objectively a good judge - after all, we have actually been pus for the best part of a decade. Could be a good sign!

Four changes! Sif. If there are any more than two, including the one forced, I'll eat my hat. It'll be Garlett for Vince, and possibly the next worst midfielder for Brayshaw - Bugg and vandenBerg front of the queue for mine. There is no hurry on Petracca while his fitness builds.

Maybe - gotta squeeze Garlett and possibly Brayshaw in too.

I'm surprised more players weren't dead on their feet to be honest. It was a marathon, high intensity game, and every quarter went over 30 minutes.

It's a 1%er for mine. Both are inadequate rucks, and Gawn seems capable of carrying most of the duties now. Pedersen may hold more marks, but realistically Watts and Hogan are the marking targets; a third just clogs the forward line as we've seen. Now that I've seen Frost in person I'd persist. He has some serious athletic traits; with some time to settle and comfortable I think he can be good a player. I don't support the view that he should be played as a defender, I think that wastes his athletic traits, and you'd need to also play Pedersen in that instance as you can't really ruck when you have the job on a key tall.

By the way the other thing I saw up close was Watts get the absolute stuffing knocked out of him in the contest that ultimately resulted in the turnover. Without wanting to make excuses, seeing him during and after the contest, there was no doubt in my mind he lacked clarity of thought in that instant. Hogan's very short lead in to the pocket was also just rubbish - one of your side's best kicks has the ball in hand for a shot on goal - don't confuse matters by leading in to a spot where you'll end up in basically the same place anyway. It was a high risk low reward play by both players - who incidentally were both otherwise fantastic on the day.

I'm with you. Saw him up close for the first time yesterday (literally - I was seated basically on the fence on the flank where he kicked his first) and he's seriously impressive. It's not just the clean ball use either - he never seems to end up in the wrong position, ever. I saw him take one away just standing behind a pack of talls who all ran under it. Great judgement while playing in a gale. Love that everyone knew who you were talking about without you mentioning his name! Hard to believe some clubs didn't even think he was worth interviewing. He and Viney - who has without a doubt gone up a gear this year - make a formidable inside mid combination. The best part of it is it's already true; we don't have to wait for them to develop or play the "he'll come good" game. Just so bloody exciting.

LOL! There's only one person commenting in this thread so far that seems unable to deal with the fact that we lost.