DeeSpencer

Unless the result gets way out of hand I wouldn't be expecting any tactical changes. The rotations should be largely mapped up based on how much they want to spread the game time between 26 players. I wouldn't worry about match ups unless players are playing super poorly or super well. I'd be hoping game sense scenarios are built in to the game plan (ie. when to retain possession, when to go more defensive) but otherwise I'd be happy with 4 quarters of practising plan A.

I was never sold on the idea but if we were to do it, then it was worth doing properly. Being rubbish is the first of many problems but it seems we are still doing some form of school visits and community camps in the region plus the VFL team are still there. I'm not all that impressed with the AFL dropping in 2 power house teams for a NAB challenge game in the region whilst none of our 3 games are in areas that benefit us at all.

Richmond - big following everywhere including the outer south east to play against Hawthorn - huge following in the East and set to move to Dingley, in a game at Beaconsfield on Saturday....whilst we travel to Adelaide then the Northern Suburbs. Not a good sign for our Casey relationship.

I'm a bit over this focus on competitors and competing .We'll assemble a team of competitors only to have a team devoid of skill. I've got Grimes as a starting wingman and am tossing up between 2 debutants (Wagner, Hunt) and Lumumba for a spot on the back flank. We might have competitors but I worry about skills. Just give me a team of footballers who go out each week and play football. Which means attacking the ball, running hard and displaying skills. I like tough, physical, strong football that ensures you are always winning contests and making the other side work very hard, but I love winning more. The best teams always have a standard of competitive football required to keep a spot in the team, but they also always have players with varying skill sets which balance out the team. We won't solve all our problems by putting the cart before the horse and expecting some unachievable standard where by every player attacks the contest like Jack Viney.

How I'd line them up FB: Jetta Dunn Garland HB: Salem T McDonald Wagner C: Grimes Viney Stretch HF: Brayshaw Watts Kent FF: Frost Hogan Garlett Foll: Gawn Vanders Tyson Int: Oliver Harmes Bugg Kennedy Pedersen Michie Hunt ANB Emer: O McDonald, M Jones, Terlich

This has gone a bit off topic, but anyway, I was at a talk given by the Bulldogs recruiter Simon Dalrymple last week and he said ruckman are super hard to find. Apparently Port were willing to pay heaps for Jamar had they been given a top up player. The Bulldogs wanted a look at an 18 year old but the TAC club said that they didn't want to put their forward structure out on the eve of finals. It's very hard to find physical, competitive, athletic (endurance, speed and agility) and skilled big men. Spencer is 0/10 in skills but with a good run at it potentially better than average in the other categories. Max King has lovely skills but needs to work on the other 3 aspects. Mitch King is just a baby for a ruckman but I like his game sense and his skills are ok for an 18 year old ruck. I wish we had the spare cash to have an international prospect developing. Maybe it's something we will get to next year.

Did the ACL in 2011 and the ankle took out most of his 2014, but played a good number of games in 2012, 2013 and 2015. But certainly hasn't had full preseasons (which is common for ruckman).

FB: Garland Dunn Jetta HB: Salem McDonald Wagner C: Grimes Jones Stretch HF: Vanders Watts Brayshaw FF: Garlett Hogan Kent Foll: Gawn Viney Tyson Int: Frost Vince Kennedy Bugg Emer: Oliver Pedersen Harmes Unlucky: Petracca, Lumumba, White, ANB, Hunt, Michie GWS are going to have running machines in Scully, Whitfield, Kelly etc on the wing, so let's get both Grimes and Stretch on either wing and let them do what they do best and run. If we want to move the ball quickly we need fit blokes on the outside who can cover the ground. Don't worry about how many times they get the ball or even really what they do with it. Just covering the ground will make the team better. Pick your best 6 defenders. Pick your best 4 forwards. Fill the rest of the side with midfield rotations to work around them.

If he's up at stoppages and getting caught that's fine, but otherwise if he's playing key defender he should be in space and not get caught with the ball. His endurance makes him an interesting option for a bit of wing time as part of a rotation but he doesn't have the skills or decision making to play there or as a rebounding defender. I'm fine with him taking the game on in preseason but come the real stuff he needs to play within his limits more when he has the ball. We need our other defenders to lift their attacking work rate so that Tom doesn't feel the need to try running around people on the mark and other rubbish. Salem in will help and I expect/hope Jetta, Dunn and Garland step up this season. It sounds like Wagner and Hunt are also right in the race for a spot in round 1.

Thanks for the reports guys. Some really exciting things to come out of the game it seems. Doesn't seem like we will run much of a zone backline though which is a bit disappointing, Carlton showed they could do it in one preseason the other night, or for at least half a game. The centre square rotation potential of Tyson, Viney, Vanders, Brayshaw, Oliver, Harmes, Kennedy, ANB and eventually Petracca is enticing. I hope the coaches are thinking hard about Vince and Jones playing half back for something different and to give some of these young guys the opportunity. Tom McDonald seems to be the biggest concern from the best 22 senior players in terms of finding form. Second tall forward/ruck and 1 or 2 half back flank spots might be the biggest questions to ask.

From what I've seen from Hulett I'm not convinced he'll run around better than Pedersen at this stage. He's 18 and didn't come off a full base before being drafted. I'd put Pedersen in the ruck against the right match up and leave Frost chasing around forward. Or I'd do what is probably going to happen and hope Watts, Vanders and Petracca can out mark their opponents and that our ball movement is quick enough that we don't need tall forwards.

Effort is inexcusable so you can drop a guy for poor effort, can't drop a good player for a poor game though, you'll never develop a consistent team doing that. The problem with determining poor effort is that besides using the GPS numbers it's hard to gauge who was and wasn't putting in during a really bad team effort. Particularly these days when being competitive relies upon an attacking mindset and skills under pressure. Sydney Swans 2005 era effort was easy. Chase, pressure, tackle, wait until Goodes or Kennelly etc opened the game up with brilliance, then Hall and Mickey O finished it off. This current Melbourne side relies on everyone being brave and skillful to create good ball movement. If we have days when we just sit back and can't attack or can't win the footy it's hard to blame individuals.

I thought any role for Roos from next year would be part time at most. If he wants to work for good money I think he'll rejoin the media Had me thinking: Pedersen new 1 year deal Dawes backended contract Howe and Toumpas shipped off Garland new deal Grimes getting towards the end of a deal I wonder how it accounts for Melksham (are we paying him?) and if Trengove possibly playing (on a new deal) changes the numbers The reality should be that only players who we trade in or create interest on the open market should be 'overpaid'. Melksham, Dawes and Lumumba might be the overpaid recruits, but Tyson, Vince and Garlett have all been good value. Similarly our players who would've been in demand when last out of contract - Jones, Gawn, Viney, Dunn, McDonald they have performed as well.

Bit of a country kid who doesn't want to overstate where he's at. That's fine by me. He's living with the Brayshaw's, so surely he's aware that it is possible to step in from day one. C: Stretch Jones Vanders HF: Kent ##### Brayshaw Foll: Gawn Vince Viney Int: Tyson Plus: Kennedy, Harmes, ANB, JKH, Michie, Matt Jones I'm very keen to see where he fits in the pecking order. It took Brayshaw a couple of dominant VFL practice matches to leap ahead of a few and get picked last year.

Pedersen is the better option if we need another tall forward to take care of Gawn isn't he? He can either go in to the ruck himself or play as a key forward whilst Frost rucks. Hulett's an interesting prospect but no way would I be rucking him, he's not tall enough and despite impressive muscle definition is still a kid. I think part of Frost being in the team is his potential as a good back up ruck giving us some extra pace around the ground but I don't think we will play someone like Hulett to be the extra tall forward. I think Watts and Petracca will have to provide the extra marking power in the forward line.

I feel he should've played more (and as a forward, the backline stuff was never going to work), but he took so long to get his body right and his skills were mostly dreadful. He'll offer the Hawks about as much as Frost will offer us. A big body who won't mark or kick it well but can provide speed in the forward line, can jump in the ruck and possibly pinch hit down back (Frost has better long term potential down back). If he plays for the Hawks he'll do well because his speed with their ball movement in a lethal combination, but doesn't mean he would produce the same for us.

No matter how quick or fit a guy is it takes really good delivery to take marks on the lead inside 50 these days. So if Watts is playing deep we will need to be moving the ball better. Also as the designated '3rd tall' he'll have to compete in the air much better than he has and take some contested marks. The possibility is there for guys like Watts and Petracca to work together to create mismatches on the mid sized defenders, with Watts using his pace and vision to get free from bigger opponents and Petracca using his size and power to outbody smaller opponents, it's just a matter of it coming together. I also think there's no way Watts should ever be used close to goal entirely, his best games are so often when he can float up the ground and get involved in play. He can be designated as the third tall but he's got to use all his tricks to his advantage. He's never going to be a traditional player.

I didn't see much of a sling action or a double action. He pinned the arms as that's exactly what is required to stop a player disposing of the ball. Good players only need 1 arm free to dispose of the ball, even average players can pretty much do as they like if no hands are pinned.. His mistake was to dump him too forcefully for a training situation, but if you think the AFL will be able to discern between what is and isn't a legal tackle then you've got more faith in them than I do. Sling tackles had to go. But crunching side on tackles will be very hard to police. You can't be penalising players for just being stronger and harder than others.

Let's see how the new tackle rule shapes up before we speculate too much. It was a silly tackle in that it risked hurting a team mate, in a similar way in which you wouldn't knee a team mate in the back in a marking contest at training. But for the last 100 or so years it would've been a great tackle on game day, just like the tackle on Ablett in round 1. How they will adjudicate tackles is a bit beyond me, but I think besides obvious slings they'll go on whether the player is concussed or not. Tommy Mc wasn't and it wasn't a slinging tackle, it was a dumping tackle with the arms pinged. If they call it a free kick or suspension I'd like to know just how they rule on it and not almost every other tackle that pins the arms and takes a player to ground.

He's been injured at the start of every year and played 12, 18 and 14 games in his 3 seasons at the MFC. Not great ones, but some decent games and patches of form. I'd be tempted to put him on the LTI list so there's absolutely no rush, but there's also a reality that his best value might be to get him back, get him playing and let him cover for young talls. I guess the question is what rehab program does he try now? Looking at him yesterday he really is top heavy, but he's not exactly carrying weight in the upper body just his legs are so lean. I'd send him away to do some completely different training and try and build the strength in his core and legs before he starts running again.

Gawn finally took over from Jamar after 5 years on the list. I'm not sure we have a 2nd key forward and/or a ruck forward in the same situation. Pedersen and Frost will be used, but I'm not convinced either will solve the problem long term and Max King/Mitch King/ Weideman/Hulett are a while off. I don't know what the future is for Dawes, it's still a long time before that has to be decided, but this could be more like Jamar 2012/2013 than last year when the replacement finally took over.

Even numbers makes it difficult to move the ball, only have to watch a Melbourne game to know that. Think of how many stoppages and turnovers there are in a standard game, or how many contests. Giving an extra number to the defensive team would be near on impossible to move the ball. You'd go man on man and have a spare floating a kick ahead. 9-7 gives a good chance to practice running to space and clean ball movement whilst making the 7 work hard and smart when defending. You have to zone when out numbered. If we are planning more zone on the back end of our defending this is good practice for it, and then come match day you'll have 2 extras at the contest. The point of the drill was to get fast ball movement up and transitioning back much more than it was to test it against even numbers, they do smaller drills, particularly by hand with even numbers, then train to run and spread and hopefully outnumber opponents in space.

Whilst most players stood on the sidelines waiting for their turn, Hoges found a nice seat on a pile of bump bags under a bit of shade. Macca had a few words for him that I don't exactly remember but it was rather entertaining. He's a character for sure.

Weideman is a nice size and shape, moves, marks and kicks smoothly but I haven't seen him involved much in the match simulation. Hulett is a bit the same, he did the 9-7 stuff and got involved a few times but not nearly as much as others, no mistakes. I think his issue will be his tank. I was impressed by both, and am still a White fan, although he was a bit fumbly today. I expect the half backs to be closer to a spot in the team than Viv, but if he's covering the ground well he could be picked. All 3 should be heavily involved in the NAB challenge. ANB covered the ground really well, he kicks nicely when clear in space, his main weakness at this stage would be bombing it when under pressure. I'm keen to see how his tackling and disposal holds up in match day situations. On work rate and reading the play I think he's well placed and he's got the physique to stand up at AFL level.

It doesn't have to become a big thing but I am of the view that the Viney tackle was over the line. It was arms pinned and slammed on a shoulder. Better to save those ones for game day. But I'm also of the opinion that Tom McDonald needs to sharpen up or he'll become a liability. He's still too indecisive with the ball and not up to scratch with his kicking. Maybe a few Viney tackles will sharpen him up. I loved the little push and shove they had after, which was quickly defused by team mates.