DeeSpencer

Have you watched Richmond play any time in the last 18 months. Nankervis gets destroyed in the hit outs by opposition rucks every week, but uses his lower centre of gravity/bulk to direct where the opponent can hit the ball and then follows it up. Grigg the same. Westhoff who rucked against Smith had 1 hit out to advantage from his 9 hit outs. Weideman would be better at getting hit outs but not at following up the taps. Considering opposition back ups aren't getting clean hit outs on Smith I'd say there's no evidence that Weideman in the ruck would provide any advantage. So it comes down to which player is better up forward and I think for the sake of balance that's Smith. Hogan and Tom McDonald are already struggling to find any separation and both be involved in the game. How does adding another 195cm+ tall who doesn't offer much at ground level help that? Again, it gets back to the way Richmond win with forwards who tackle and pressure to lock the ball inside 50. Jacob Townsend is a premiership player producing similar stats to Smith. Whilst Smith's basic stats weren't impressive the advanced stats rated his game as one of our better performers. They aren't always right but it's an indication that Smith's pressure adds more than meets the eye.

Set the tone for forward pressure in the first quarter. Competed well in the ruck and we lost nothing with Gawn off as we often do. Kicked a goal. Forward pressure is vital to our backline being able to compete. I wouldn't drop any player than does the job with pressure given how badly we've lost in games where our pressure is missing.

Have you been to training and watched the repeat runs /time trials. Frost is a super powerful guy but he is towards the back of any kind of endurance work. Fast twitch athlete as they say. He played up the ground against Hawthorn and was repeatedly caught out of position and didn't have the speed to catch it up when he was run around.

Clearly a choice from the coaches to give Pedda a chance at CHB knowing that as it stands Hogan, T Mc, T Smith and Weids should all play ahead of him for 3 forward spots, whilst down back we are short of options. Hutchins therefore playing a role up forward working around the positions they need to try AFL guys in.

Frost wouldn't have done any better on Cox than Oscar did. Oscar had a bad one. His first shocker for a year. Responded well by beating Dixon in nearly every one on one. Port coaches were smart though and made him keep track of Westhoff late in quarters who ran him around and he made a few dumb errors. The issue is Frost doesn't have the fitness to play CHB. And Oscar at CHB isn't a great option either. So they are competing for 1 spot. Hibberd, Vince and Joel Smith are rotating through the 2nd/3rd tall spots and mostly that's working, or at least it hasn't been terrible. I'd play Petty at chuck him in at CHB and let the other guys work around him, but that's still different to throwing Frost in and hoping he or Oscar can play up the ground.

Good on Weideman for playing well but I think people are missing the value that Tim Smith has given to the team with his forward pressure. He's our best tackling forward and I think he has to stay for that role. Do we drop Hogan? That would be bold but I'd support it if the coaches wanted to fire him up. Or do we drop Petracca and play the 4 tall guys and get Hogan out in space and Smith playing as the small pressuring? Or is Tommy Mc injured. Great to have Weideman back in form (against absolute battlers in Coburg) but I'm still yet to be convinced 3 talls works for us. Pedersen was in consistently great form but when he came in to the side the balance of the forward line was a mess. Weideman played against Ess, Saints and GC so it's not easy to work out how well the 3 worked with him but when Smith came in we destroyed Carl and Adelaide.

Your 1 example of me being wrong was when I said I was done with Tom McDonald, who is now playing a completely different role. I wasn't going to delist the guy on the spot, I would've sat down with him, worked out what's wrong in his game and quite possible played him ruck or forward years ago. Instead he played back with diminishing returns week after week until Gawn got injured and they bit the bullet to put him forward/ruck. Like most people on here I have varying opinion on a number of players and have been wrong on lots of them over the years. But I don't believe I've started a thread or maintained a constant position against any players besides Tom McDonald (as a defender) and Lewis. The only players worse than Lewis last night: Hogan (rough couple of weeks), Petracca (but a big first term), maybe Vince and Joel Smith who both spent a lot of time chasing after Lewis' opponent for him. As well as Oscar's poorly timed lapses that undid a lot of good work on Dixon.

Did a good job on Dixon. Although looking at Dixon's stats for the year I wonder how that actually is. Unfortunately let his guard down against Westhoff a couple of times. Didn't adjust to the more mobile opponent. He also has to watch the ball and not let it go over his head like the Thomas ( I think) goal. The first 50 was a joke. The player marks after Oscar has left the ground to spoil and it was a reasonable spoil. The 2nd 50 was there. Oscar too fascinated by the ball and his ungainly attempt to spoil and was there way too late. Of course the number of missed 50's our way and the face it was a 70m penalty are for another discussion.

I thought his clean hands around the packs early made a big difference, but he lost confidence after the run down tackle and he was chasing Motlop or Polec (poorly) for a fair bit of the game. He's not the answer to make us better but I thought he wasn't the problem either. Did enough good and bad.

I don't see them as a pairing. Vince does anywhere between 3 to 30 ridiculous things a game but otherwise he's just Bernie but a little slower with less penetration on the kicking. The guy will still go most of the time when it's his turn to go and he often takes a taller opponent given we aren't playing a designated 3rd tall (or even a designated 2nd to be more correct). With Lever and Hunt injured the replacement for Bernie is either Wagner - who doesn't inspire confidence or a first year kid in Petty. I understand why the coaches are reluctant to chuck a kid in, even if I think it's time. Lewis is completely different to me. He's playing as the loosest defender - a prime position to get a lot of the ball and impact games. And yeah he's solid enough with the ball in the uncontested kicking game, and that's important, but I'd love to see Salem or Fritsch in that role, both guys with more kicking penetration and the speed to take it on. When it gets close in tight Lewis won't turn left. He can't even handball on his right hand, so he's always looking to go in one direction. Can't break a tackle so we throw it away before it comes to that. His kicks often end up wild up an unders. And the defending. The awful awful defending. If he's not in the perfect position he just can't offer anything.

FB: Hibberd Oscar Jetta HB: Salem Petty Fritsch C; Tyson Oliver Jones HF: Spargo Hogan Melksham FF: Petracca Tommy Mc Hannan Foll: Gawn Brayshaw Viney Int: J. Smith, Harmes, T. Smith, ANB Bye bye: Vince, Lewis In: Petty, Spargo Very open to dropping Harmes and Petracca but the forward/mid stocks are light on as it is and we have to redeploy Fritsch to half back to replace Lewis and bring in Spargo as is.

Another awful performance from Plugga Lewis. To all the people who said mean things about me in this thread, don't worry, I'm not angry. Will gladly accept any and all apologies.

I'd have: Petty for Vince - get a genuine CHB in to build the structure around, Vince the defender with the worst form Garlett for Hannan - Hannan hasn't nailed the spot so back to flaky Jeff in the hope he can produce Tim Smith for Pedersen - the 3 big talls plus Melksham/Petracca makes a top heavy forward line that doesn't tackle enough, the extra mobility/pressure of Smith helps Tyson for Spargo - I didn't want to drop Spargs but the extra mid lets us keep Tommy forward and we get versatility with who goes inside/outside/forward. Probably should be Harmes or Petracca dropped but they have greater upside/flexibility. Strengthen our strength which has to be around the ball FB: Hibberd Oscar Jetta HB: J. Smith Petty Salem C; Tyson Oliver Fritsch HF: ANB Hogan Petracca FF: Melksham T Mc Garlett Foll: Gawn Jones Viney Int: Lewis, Brayshaw, Harmes, T. Smith

I can't imagine a max exodus from the MCC bars to pack in to a modern version of a social clubs, those days are long gone, but I can see the club offering post game drink invites to certain select members, most of whom have reserved seats in Northern Stand or are MCC members and it's the perfect location for that. I've often thought extending over the Richmond rail corridor near the tennis centre when the Southern Stand was redeveloped was our best chance to build an MCG adjacent facility. Jolimont is just as good and surely a simple proposition building over 2 rail lines instead of the 12 or so that run to Richmond!

Bit silly to have Fritsch ahead of Cerra, Rayner, Naughton and Brayshaw. They should be 4-7 on this list. Fritsch a good candidate to be number 8 though.

16 VFL and 1 AFL game last year isn't a bad return for his first season, I think he only had some assorted niggles last year. Then a hip injury this year. As long as they get it right I don't think it will impact his career long term. The main downside is he needs games to develop ASAP, but the trade off here is he can probably do a heap of lighter skill work as he rehabs. I still like his potential as a tagger/stoppage specialist, he has the size and athleticism to go with the big name mids.

With a minimal amount of landscaping those pathways should all be protected, certainly the long stretch from Richmond Station to the G won't be even close to impacted and the walk down from Jolimont should also be untouched. The area is already used as the AFL Live site/ Grand Final parade finishing spot. It's not nearly as steep as people thing.

The Pullman and other buildings opposite the station are 10+ stories, and the RACGP building directly opposite the proposed site is 6 stories. If the Government gives the approval to build above the train tracks I don't see a reasonable argument against a 6 story building. Covering over the train lines should mean increased pedestrian access. I don't think this piece of land slopes nearly as much as some of Yarra Park but it would be a challenge. It's a matter of selling the oval as a part of the park and as a community facility. I know East Melbourne residents are a certain type but there's Fitzroy Gardens, Treasury Gardens and the rest of Yarra Park to be enjoyed as purely park spaces. With apartments going up all over the city of Yarra and population booming the strong argument should be made that they need ovals. Council's can create parks from acquiring properties or re purposing car parks. Unless they have a huge vacant area they can't do that for an oval.

A professional quality oval for community use would be a huge win for the council. Especially with the rise of Women's footy. They'd have no problems finding clubs to allocate it to. The development over the train tracks comes down to whether it will be approved for apartments next to our site. You put a few apartment buildings and you've got a council rates bonanza. That's the income councils love. Shutting down the trains for a select period of time to build over the eye saw that is exposed tracks and create useful community space and housing. That's a win win. Then Melbourne build next door with a community oval, medical facilities, maybe even make the gym public use outside of certain hours, some form of Indigenous cultural centre - pretty much you are doing the council a favour!

You can run it across that corner of land and pretty much fit it in without losing many trees. The trees that would be lost could be replaced with native varieties. It would stop an area being used as a car park (a dying trend anyway) and replace it with an oval that can be used for a functional purpose whilst still maintaining a park feel. Pretty much all you are doing is levelling an area of grass, fencing it and painting a few lines. With the right approach it should be allowed to happen. Getting the funding, planning and design of the building over the train line should be the harder part of the project!

Given the game can afford it I have no issue with 4 umpires, heck make it 5, but a trial for a few weeks isn't going to lead to useful data based upon the free kicks paid. The umpires will be used to how they worked in a 3 umpire system and probably a normal flow for how many free kicks per quarter/per contest they like to pay. This trial is really more interested in working out where each umpire stands, what kind of view of each contest they are getting and the impact 4 umpires make on their running and work load. Also, whilst there would be a rise in the number of free kicks paid that's not necessarily a bad thing, even if it does mean more mistakes as well. Sometimes you have to clamp down and get the players away from repeatedly infringing. More umpires could mean they start seeing all the off ball holding and throwing that we often see in the stands on on tv that should be cut right down. This trial also falls in the middle of a clamp down in illegal contact in a marking contest which is a shame because I think half of those free kicks are either guesses or wrong so that's going to skew the figures quite a bit.

I agree, although the unfortunate thing is Roos couldn't find reliable outside mids so we're using Tommy to give the younger guys a chop out on the wing, whilst also making sure the forward line isn't top heavy. I'm not against the idea, I'd just do it with Hogan instead. And up against Port it's a nice way to counter the damage that Westhoff can do as a mobile tall on the wing.

Restricted free agent, I can't see how we wouldn't have to trade for him. Eagles would match the deal, or do what Adelaide did with Danger and threaten to match whilst they worked on a trade. The only exception to the Eagles matching - It's the perfect situation to rort the system. They take the first round pick compo. We trade them a bunch of stuff at cents on the dollar to make up the rest of what's needed - ie. a couple of 2nd round picks they can package up to move up the draft and a nice depth player (Tyson, Kent, both?) for a guy they are about to delist and a 4th rounder. We just have to sing the praises of how much we love unwanted Eagle (ie. back up ruck Fraser McInness) and get the AFL Integrity department to tick it off.

The speed, smarts and discipline of those Tiger forwards create their great pressure, but it's back up by a midfield that spread hard and cover the outlets. I think at some stage we'd be wise to give Petracca that midfield spreading lesson. Also watching Richmond today I couldn't help but think Spargo is outperforming Jack Higgins and would be excellent in that role for Richmond, yet they also have Castagna, Rioli and Butler. We have ANB (who's more up the ground anyway), Petracca and Hannan. And the Cats had Parfitt, Gregson, McCarthy and Parson's all in the team to chase and pressure. We need a heap more defensively from our smalls so we can lock it in forward against the good teams.

I don't care about 1-3 and 5-6 Saty but on point 4 Gaff has been an ultra consistent and very solid wingman for years. His increase in form this year I'd put down to: 1. The return of Nic Nat meaning he can play inside mid and get spoon fed the ball from clearances. Nic's hit outs and ground level pressure makes the job of his midfielders so much easier. Gawn would provide the hit outs, if not the follow up. 2. Confidence - the increase in West Coast's form in general - confidence is infectious 3. Maturity - he's just turned 26, we expect too much from AFL players too early, a player should keep improving on weaknesses through their mid 20's. 4. West Coast's general skill level improving meaning Gaff's unrewarded running becomes rewarded running I've really liked Gaff since his draft year but his Grand Final in 2015 stood out to me, not because of the result or how well he played, but the style in which he played. I was superbly impressed that under the weight of massive Hawthorn pressure he kept going contest to contest and willing his side on. If he came to us his work rate - either on the wing, on ball or maybe one day even at half back as he ages - would make the team better and make the other mids better. He'd run hard to provide an option which makes ball movement so much easier and he'd work back hard to block off options or help the backline. At this stage I actually think the contract and trade will both be too much for us to get Gaff, but I certainly hope we are trying.