binman

But why then would he replace harmes?

Dunstan is not a forward

Good points, well made. You're right, melksham is probably the closest like for like and will be a good option.

I reckon Mrs DOF is spot on.

Maybe

Bedford is still in the team!

Blimey. Melksham instead of Bedford Bedford medi sub again most likely

If I was a bomber fan, I'd prefer my line in the sand was all team intensity for 4 weeks in a row and some wins. Not 1990s faux tough guy, cheap shot stylee

No he didn't. If that is what he said at the time then i'd have no isse with his comments He stood in front of big TV screen, showed the Parker gestures and then showed the very next bounce, some 15 seconds later. He pointed to the screen (perhaps even slowed down the vison) and showed viewers where and how Shiels should have taken the chance to run through (my words) Parker. He described it as a line in the sand moment. Please Which would have almost certainly resulted in a free and possible report becuase it would have involved Shiels running past the ball to run into parker. Lloyd is trying to rewrite history

Loved the vision. But not sure it made Lloyd's point. He was whining about the criticism from a small handful of people (nowhere near enough IMO) for advocating Sheils run through Parker at the ensuing center bounce (which he actually had the chance to do - but f he did he almost certainly have given away a free as it would have been off the ball). To support his argument, the first bit of vision was may and Oliver taking the chance to hit Jones hard but fair was used as an example. But that is comparing apples and oranges. For one thing May and Oliver bided their time and waited for opportunity to smash into Jones fairly x 3 in the flow of the game and in a way that was legal and no report were on the cards. Neither even gave away a free. And secondly Jones tunneled Langdon and could have seriously hurt him, so that was much more serious than some stupid schoolyard teasing by Parker. I mean how could the incidents be compared? The teasing didn't seem to bother Shiels, he laughed if off. But it certainly did bother all these alpha ex footy meat heads who were incensed by some gestures questioning Shiels courage? No way they would have allowed an opposition player disrespect them back in the day. And it is important to note that parker WAS TRYING to provoke a reaction and mess with Shiel's. Parker would have loved more than to receive a free in the center of the ground becuase he got in Shiels head. The rest of the vison was making a different point - the bombers are not playing with enough intensity (not even close) and the dees are the benchmark for intensity and legal ferocity. Hard to argue this, but at best it is tangential to his push back on the criticism he mentioned he had received.

Was in terrible condition last week. Way too sandy

Of course. But he has been in the best 23 all season and 100% deserves his inevitable selection this week

You should have asked him about all three phases in beanie construction

Yes i thought much the same. The fact that they selected Toby to do the club's Sir Doug Nicholls Round video (published on Monday) ratjher than say may or Kozzie reinforces that point i think https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/1128685/toby-bedford-sir-doug-nicholls-round?videoId=1128685&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1652682034001

That's true actually

That's a good point. He was excellent too against the roos. So perhaps 'that's exactly what will happen' was a bit strong. That said I think Bedford is still a better option because he can cover the roles you note that harmes plays ie on ball minutes, high half forward who can snag a goal and up and down the ground running as a quasi winger. Not sure Dunstan has the same flexibility - particularly forward craft.

That is exactly what will happen. Why? Because Bedford is next in line. That is how goody had used the medi sub role. And given they are clearly following last year's successful template for all manner of things, then that is how he will continue to use the medi sub role. I find it perplexing when posters who have followed us in the last 18 months suggest we will do things like rest players, drop nibbler (or kozzie, or spargo) because they are not kicking enough goals, change our approach when playing bottom of the ladder teams (eg by giving some young players a shot) etc etc etc. (Note: a caveat on the comment above, I acknowledge there is sometimes some grey between what people think should happen and what they think will happen. I'm referring to what people think WILL happen). By the by i think Bedford might also do some midfield minutes too, as he has been splitting his time at Casey between the midfield and high half forward.

If you put Dr d on ignore you will miss out on hours of entertainment

He is still a kid, so that's OK. That said, his attack on the ball was ferocious. Won a number of 40-60 (against him) contests. Took a dukes out screamer too. Nice, neat kicking for goal action. Not too many moving parts.

Would you believe......

Not me. I went and stood at our end each quarter. So watched all our forwards closely, particularly weed and rooey. I thought weed was excellent. His intensity was really good. Took a fantastic pack mark, rucked well in the front half, used the ball super well in general play and took his chances, including the late round the corner goal in tbe third, which was brilliant because the wind was howling in that quarter. Rooey played super well too, but he is neither fit enough, or big enough for the AFL. Thst said, roey is the real deal. Wants tbe ball, is super vocal and plays like a caged lion. Reminds me such of a young David Swartz. Will be scary good when he fills out.

Lets I'd love them to keep them to zero. Dont worry too ,much about our score - just don't let them score

Spot on. And I'd that the combination of his skill, brilliant one one marking ability (particularly for a player who is neither tall or super strong) and his importance to the side mean that the opposition simply have to put a decent defender on him, and they have to play him pretty tight. Which is tricky on a number of fronts. He will thrash most small defenders in the air, so you need a medium or big on him. But they also have to cover THREE other talls. Thisls adds to the match up challenge as how many tall defenders do each team actually have. It is one reason why the dogs struggle to contain us And making things more of a challenge is that having to play him tight makes it hard to zone off him - which in tun makes or harder to stop our other talls. The other ace up fritters sleeve is his brilliant field kicking that often create score involvements and goal assists.

The Burgess mantra is resilience. I prefer to think it is more related to the players all being demons. No rest for the wicked.

Yep. But wet coke's biggest issue is that defensively they won't be missed at all.