The Chazz

A few years back, after the great R Flower passed, I made the call that we should call the members wing of the MCG the Robbie Flower Wing. It is now unofficially the Robbie Flower Wing for our home games (I'll take credit for this!). While I'm not at all suggesting that Nev is or should be held in such company as Robbie, he's a player that I feel every Melbourne supporter loves. And let's face it, he does a bloody lot for the club, our indigenous boys and in the community. No harm in having the (unofficial) Jetta Pocket located up the Ponsford Stand end on the members side.

I'm seriously confused by this paragraph. New to the club to play in a position we targeted him for, played well (or in your words, "very good") in the preseason, the two players you mentioned aren't challenging for the same position, yet you "understand" he was "borderline" to get a game? Either you have misunderstood, or you are trolling. Possibly both.

How disappointing that we're not the first club listed when they talk about MCG tenants. The MCG is our home, the others are just squatters. (***enter @Sir Why You Little for comment...!!!***)

You float a suggestion (or in your words, raise a question) about a positional shift, give reasons why it could work, then when someone doesn't agree, you hide behind the "I didn't say that it should happen", or "I'm raising a question, not making a statement". Here, I'll paraphrase and see if you can see what you do... Lord Nev - Thoughts on playing Tomlinson up forward and ruck? Chazz - Leave him on the wing. Lord Nev - I'm not suggesting we shift him, but he could play forward/ruck at times... or this... Lord Nev - Thoughts on playing Tomlinson up forward and ruck? Deespencer - I don't think Tomlinson is very good in the ruck. Lord Nev - Didn't say he was good in the ruck, but we've seen him play there before and if he does, it would free up other forwards.

And people are answering it with why they don't think it would work. Probably be best if you didn't raise questions if you are going to get precious about the possibility of someone not agreeing with it, or saying something that you don't want to hear.

Didn't say you suggested it. You asked L36 for their thoughts, I chopped in and gave you mine. I didn't like the idea, and gave you reasons for my views.

We were crying out for two wingmen at the end of 2019 andwent out and got the two best that we could. The only way/reason we would shift Tomlinson from that role would be if someone like Baker has come on, and there was an opportunity to move Tomlinson forward. It's a huge no from me at this stage.

Looks like @Bitter but optimistic resume/CV...

So good to see that photo of Hibberd. He's had a terrible couple of months - hopefully being able to get out there and just play footy might help a bit with what he's had to deal with (and most likely still dealing with).

Not many more obscure for me than Dannie Seow. Interesting cat that ended up playing a handful of games for us after a short stint at Collingwood. To top off his obscurity, he now resides in Washington where he is an actor/model/dancer.

Barrass, Hurn and McGovern - 21 marks between them. Lever, May and OMc - 10. Obviously this highlights how poor the delivery in to our Forward 50 was (not a newsflash there). If we somehow halve the amount of marks these (Eagles) blokes took, then we have an additional 10 opportunities for our crumbers to do their thing. Then I watch one of the biggest culprits, Langdon, and how many times he appeared to just bang the ball inside 50. He's new to our team. To me, that highlights that the directive in the game plan is to do just that, bang it in long. Goodwin MUST revisit this during the break. Regardless of if we play again this season or next, there has to be an immediate change to that part of the game plan. I called before the game that if we were relying on TMc to do the relief ruck, Hurn et al would have a field day. They did. I also hoped that Melksham would've tagged McGovern, like he did when we beat them over there in 2018. He didn't. I just hope that Weid's ankle was not right, hence why he wasn't named. I've been a Goodwin supporter, but he lost me yesterday.

We are playing as though we have already implemented our social isolation requirements.

How people are paying out Oscar is beyond belief. He and May are playing very well, especially considering the amount of ball they are seeing.

@Lord Nev how's Simpson's 1 ruck idea going? Gawn getting smashed by Nik Nat AND Hickey. Making one of the best rucks in the game look like a simpleton.

Happy with the 2nd tall forward call, but gee, Brown over Weid? If it is TMc that gives Gawn a chop out in the ruck, then at least we have a tall in Brown to still make Hurn, et al somewhat accountable. I just hope Weid's ankle isn't 100% given who is playing in front of him.

My concern with the above names are; TMc (the player that many believe is our MVP) - taking our only tall out of our forward line to play ruck will just play in to the hands of the Eagles' key defenders Tomlinson - we traded him to play wing, which is an area that we need he and Langdon to play as much as possible for as long as possible OMc - will be required to play on either Darling or JK. That's why, for me, it's a no-brainer that Weid plays on Sunday.

Ha, you're right, games are decided by scores, and Richmond's was more than Carlton's. Cripps needed to shark the opposition ruck to drag his team back in to the game. Imagine if Carlton had a decent ruckman so they could run their own plays? And your last line? Please. Are you a child? My opinion is different to yours, and I have actually proven with facts that my view makes sense. Let's see what Simpson does this year. Bet Nik Nat + 1 is his preferred line up. We shall reassess at the end of the season.

Hit outs; Richmond - 41 to Carlton - 26 Clearances; Richmond - 30 to Carlton - 33 If you watched the game, you would've seen Cripps almost single-handedly dragged them back in to that match with 10 individual clearances. Facts enough?

How? In your initial post, you said that we could see Gawn and no Weid/Brown, with Tomlinson being back-up. I want Weid, a recognised back-up, in so that we don't have to take Tomlinson out of his best position. I've highlighted that Carlton did that last night (ie played without a recognised back-up ruck) and it hurt them.

Kreuzer went off a long time before Carlton started being more competitive in the middle. Point is that one team went in with two rucks. The other team went in with one ruck and a couple of "if needed" players. The team that went in with one had it bite them on the [censored] because their main man went down.

I see Richmond went in with two rucks last night, didn't impact them. And you only need to look at how long it took Carlton to adjust after Kreuzer went down last night to realise you need to have a suitable back-up ruck. For me, Tomlinson isn't that - he's of far greater value to play all game on the wing. Weid, first and foremost, is a key forward. He can play extended minutes in the ruck if need be, and moving him out of the key forward role can be relatively easily covered given our other scoring options. Dragging Tomlinson off the wing to play an extended amount of time in the ruck (if needed), clearly has the greatest impact on our structures.

Where have you heard this? Would've thought Marsh games were for experiments. Personally, I don't want Tomlinson in the ruck at all unless it's due to in-game injuries to others. We recruited him to be a wing. He showed against Hawthorn how valuable he will be. Let's not have to take him out of his best position. I'd still be playing Weid, regardless of what the opposition might or might not be trialling in the ruck.

Given that we are going through an unprecedented world event, I think it's close to a miracle that we have any footy to look forward to at all. Based on that, any complaints about how the grandstands look or what sounds you can hear are so insignificant for mine. Further to that, a superimposed version of a crowd would look so amateurish, would cost fortune to look good, would take weeks to months to develop, and it's something that is totally not required. The players are the ones that are seriously missing out because they aren't playing in front of a crowd. We're not missing out on anything. And I'll go even further with a dose of reality - we had no idea at all if the season was going ahead until THIS week. Yes, we knew stadiums would start off empty should the opening rounds go ahead. But the call to try and attract new sponsors (ie Netflix, Amazon, et al), what a joke. What company is going to go and pay for sponsorship opportunities in the current climate.

With the announcement that Pickett and Bedford are both playing, and they are both listed on the extended interchange, given one of our opponent's great strengths - their backline, I wouldn't be surprised to see Weed and Brown coming in. But as soon as I started thinking that, I remembered back to the game that we won against them to get us in to the finals in 2018, and from memory Melksham played as a defensive forward on McGovern and that was a crucial match up. So with that in mind, I can possibly see Melk tagging McGovern again, meaning that Brown misses out, and I have NFI about who else plays! I like Lockhart, so I will go with him. I think it will be a good game. Don't think we will win, but we often play well against them (other than in '18 PF).

Presumably so that when they try and play games with a shorter turnaround, that players won't be as fatigued. About the only logical explanation I can come up with, and even then, I'm sure some will pick holes in it (remembering it's not my idea, it's Gil's!).