The Chazz

If he played at Casey this week, he'll as least be playing against some AFL standard players... Scrap that - just looked at the VFL fixture and saw who we are playing. Perhaps we can organise a game for him in the EDFL to give him one last (in comparison) decent hit out before an AFL return?

I haven't watched his game closely this year, but I'm wondering, for those that have, are the opposition putting a lot more time in to him? Effectively playing a defensive forward on him, which has seen him struggle to adjust? Only a question. As I said, I haven't been watching him that closely.

He should've just jumped straight in the shower. Every guy knows that there is a reserve bladder that needs to be emptied when the water first hits you.

Really? I corrected a wrong post. And I will do it again with yours. No, I did not waste my time watching 360. I enjoy it. My decision, not yours. Out of curiosity, what are you watching in that time slot? As summer bay and Ramsay st have closed, I have no idea what you watch after that.

Incorrect. She was on 360 last night, and I'm sure she didn't say she barracked for Melbourne. She listed 3 teams she barracked for, but none were Melbourne.

I agreed with what he said. The 4-week block (Essendon, Saints, Suns, Blues) are all must win games now, mainly because of the games we dropped in the first part of the season. Because of our losses, especially that against Geelong, it has put extra pressure on this run of games. How I see it - we did what we should've against Essendon, albeit in a half of footy, then against the Saints we finally played 4 reasonable quarters. The issue for us is that we often get ahead of ourselves, so having played a decent "all round" game last week, there is that trust issue that we won't back it up. If we win this weekend, then there's no issue, but I, possibly like Gerard, will again have us as the potential "biggest loser" going in to the Carlton game. We have 2 more weeks to prove to the footy world that we can be trusted.

Would love for both of them to go head to head next week. Would be one for the ages.

They can share the one that Joel lost...

I don't know the answer. Both are seriously gifted players. What's against Cripps is that he is basically a one-man show where he plays, yet he still rises above. Clarry at least has some element of depth in his midfield. Does this make Clarry better because he is still our best mid, even though he has more "competition"? I don't know. I don't think so. Would love either on our team, and fortunately we have one of them.

One thing about the above that I've always wondered, but certain it was never brought up on here, and it's definitely at the risk of derailing this thread, but given how Col was playing a big part in us winning that game, what TF was he doing on the bench that late in the last quarter? He was white hot in that last quarter, yet when the game was in the balance, he was on the [censored] bench.

Was Jeff White playing Scrabble drunk when he thought up his kids' name?

I'm refusing to get sucked in to this argument. Richmond played/s with a small forward line, because basically, other than Riewoldt, they have no competent tall forwards. While they are premiers, and favourites to go again this year, I'm sure Hardwick would love to have another tall forward to play. The Bulldogs had Cordy and Boyd playing the tall role, as well as Stringer (who plays taller than what he is). They moved Cordy back last year, but added Schache last trade period. Yes, last year's premiers played a "non traditional" forward line last year, but if you look at the past 150 or so years before that, you will find it's an exception to the rule.

The introduction of the new teams is only going to bring the quality of the games down. If the existing clubs are required to give up some players, who it is going to do is make us pretty thin across the board. For example, Lily Mithen is clearly in our best team, but is probably in the 5-10 best range. If she goes to Geelong, she'll become their top 1-3 range player. We lose out because we've lost a handy player, and Geelong will struggle because that handy player we lost isn't in that top bracket for them. A better thing for the AFL to do would've been expand the current fixture, making it a 14 week season + a Top 4 finals series, rather than its current format.

The people calling for him to kick more just don't get it. For him to kick more, it means he's handballing less. His kicking is excellent, but his handballing is on another planet. The footage above (the dish to Gus) is further proof - he could've easily evaded that tackle and ran along the boundary to kick it. Why people would want him to do that more, and less of the actual feed to Gus, is just ridiculous. Clarry has an amazing ability to know where our player should run, well before the player know themselves. You can almost see the moment where our player reacts to the play, then starts moving in the right direction. It must be an amazing feeling for them when Clarry has already made that decision on their behalf, and has put a handball in that proximity, meaning they generally look up and the ball falls in to their hands. He's already one of the best Melbourne players I have ever seen, and I date back to the days where I had Robbie's number on my back.

And not forgetting the development of Mitch King (if he can ever get a decent run at it).

My issue with this thread is that the opening poster has named 3 "Best 22s" since he started the thread (which was 8 days ago). We've also had people that have tried to contribute, but have listed t a team with less than 22 players (which says more about where they rate our list than the poster themselves). It's also an issue with player personnel, in the way of form and availability (you can't tell me at top form, Jeffy isn't miles ahead of Spargo). We also have umpteen Best 22 threads, so I'm wondering why the need to create another one. But even they are laughable, given the amount of people that actually name more than 22 players in the team (ie they may have a position where they will put, for example, ANB/Melksham/Fritch). We're asking for our best 22, not best 25 or 16. I'm happy to read all threads, but I was directly asking Werridee about this one, with the particular emphasis (in my mind) about the very first point I made. But to humour me, how would you have preferred I "pitched" my initial post?

Are you going to put a new team up each week? Please let me know so I can put this thread on ignore.

I call BS on this. He was always going to come back on - a rolled ankle can get needled up pretty quick when part way through a game, and a player can finish the game off. It's the next morning when he wouldn't have been able to put any weight on it (after the juice wore off) that will be the test. Personally, I wouldn't risk Hogan this week. I'd bring in T Smith for him, and have the rotations of Smith/TMc/Weid/Gawn. Will be just like Viney the following week. Goody said the High Performance Team will have him ready for AFL footy, probably next week. Well, given the track record of the High Performance Team, the player himself, and the opposition we will face (and where we face them), I'd sit Jack out for one more and bring him back against Carlton.

Apologies, wrote don the total kicks - should've been 122. Will adjust. Still, averaging near 6 marks a game, which in his 2nd season, is quite reasonable.

If Hogan doesn't get up, I'd bring Smith straight in. If Hogan does get up, and the only change is Salem, then I'd imagine Wagner will come in. Tough on Smith? Not at all. He can keep banging the door down and when he does get his opportunity, grab it with both hands. I don't think "trialling" Smith as a midfielder in the seniors is necessary at this point. I'd rather see him start forward for a few games, get confidence and continuity in his game, then allow him to start roaming. Far less risk.

I think he was busy finishing off his equivalent of War and Peace, called "Why Tyson shouldn't play".

Let's not forget about Howe's first couple of seasons with us. In 2011, he kicked 18 goals from 13 games. In 2012, he kicked 19.25 from 22 games (also had 68 tackles and took 122 marks), a very good year, even with the inaccuracy. In 2013 he kicked 28.16 in 21 games. To say Howe was one dimensional isn't 100% right in my book, and I think his output, especially in 2012, is backed up by the basic stats of goals, marks and tackles for a medium forward. I think the comparison between Fritta and Howe is a very good one (much better than the Smith comparison made earlier). If Fritta can consistently have years (as a medium forward) similar to that of Howe's 2012 (but with better goal kicking accuracy), then he will have a long and exciting career at the MFC, and I will love supporting him. But again, I will hold my judgement until he has played around the 50 game mark, as I'm just concerned that this style of player can get shut down by decent defenders (that have spent a bit more time watching him).

Absolutely.

Revisionist BS. Take a look at Howe's first two full seasons. All of those things you mentioned were not an issue in his early days. They started to be when opposition defenders paid him more attention and he started getting frustrated (which led to his shift to the backline).

Absolutely no way I can see where Oscar stuffed up in that clip. You are underestimating how seriously good that kick was. Our entire team were out of position once Clarry lost the ball. We had players running forward of the ball, and as soon as we turned it over, Essendon had players streaming forward. That 10-15 metre burst that Zaharakis got because of the turnover meant that Oscar was that 10-15 metres ahead of where the ball ended up being marked. By the time he realised the mistake was made up the field, he ran straight back but the bird had flown by then. Absolutely nothing he could do about that.