binman

Good assessment of his skill set strengths and weaknesses. On weaknesses, his lack of pace is the biggest worry I reckon. Williams is a really good comparison. Mitchell (current and former) for the hawks is another similar player. Not so long ago you could have 2 or 3 such players in the team - ie inside mids, extractor, high possession (mostly handball) types. But these days you really only need one as the best mids now are tall, big and very strong bodies and/or have explosive break away pace. We have viney in the Diesel Williams role. Laurie is probably going to be competing with Dunstan for the back up role. You hate losing players, and I'm certainly not advocating trading him, but Laurie is the sort of player who we might lose because they want to play senior footy. High enough draft pick, good skills, well developed by the best club and is probably ready for senior footy and certainly will be after another AFL preseason. Could see another cluh being keen and unlike say baker, would have a bit of trade value.

Quote not edit

I think what many people miss, and by people I mean [censored] knuckles in the media paid to analyse footy, is that our approach is different. It is not about ruthlessness, for ruthlessness sake. Old school footy rules has a team as dominant as the dees crushing a team from the first second to the last, like a dominant boxer not once slowing up on a hapless opponent. Through that lens, we establish an early lead and the lead grows in a linear, even upward trajectory for the whole game. But that is not how we play - against any team. Stretching the boxing analogy, we certainly look to dominate early and establish a lead. Land a few early blows that rock opponents and put them on the back foot. We then absorb their pressure, take their best shot. Not quite rope a dope, because they don't land that many blows, but the ones they do we absorb. We respond to how they want to play the game. If they want to attack, we repel. We are comfortable with the ball being in our defensive zone for long stretches. If they want to play a high possession game and chip it around their back half, like the Roos and Port did, then we are happy to accommodate that approach too. Hard to score from deep inside their own 50. if they want to go wide and try to stretch us, like the saints did, no probs, bring it on. If they want to flood our forward line and bring multiple extras to the stoppage, like the bombers and GWS did, no dramas. If they want to attack through the corridor and go fast like the hawks (sometimes) tried - then be our guest, attack away. They throw their best punches. And inevitably tire. And we they tire we take over. It is a dance, with two participants. The gears we supposedly have that you hear people talk about is really about this dance. What i don't like about the idea of gears is that implies we are in cruise mode and then just flick some imaginary switch when we want/need to. Which apart from being a wrong characterisation of how we play, is disrespectful to our opponent and totally contrary to goody's philosophy. Like a dance, our game is all about tempo, rhythm (as in the rhythm of the game) and responding to what the opposition bring to the table. The goal is to win. Not win by some arbitrary margin - but win. Our approach maximises our chances of wining. Trying to win by the biggest possible margin doesn't as by definition trying to do so involves taking risks and risks create opportunities for the opposition to score. The key reason why Brisbane were beaten by the hawks was their inability, or choice, not to control and slow the tempo in the last quarter, and instead keep their foot to the floor and continue to take risks. The margin doesn't determine how good a win it was for us. Sticking to team rules, discipline, attitude, behaviors, how well we respond to the opposition's approach - how well we parried - and how effectively we got the game on our terms, to look like how we like it to look, are the key determinants.

True. But his ruck craft is really improving- particularly his soft taps to advantage. Holding his ground better too at around the ground stoppages and throw ins.

The best contested possession player ever. Under yze he has added something that I think has taken his game to another level, a level that if maintained will put him in not just the discussion about the best ever dees player ever but also in the all time great discussion. Big call I know, but just look at his results in the bluey. He won his third bluey, in a premiership year no less, last season. Three before the age of 24. He must be raging favourite to win his fourth this season. He had made two aa teams (should have been more) and is a lock for the next 5 years at least. And has changed how footy is played by mids. Which is where my comment about yze comes in. Leigh Matthews, who I hate still, was amazing to watch because of his power from the contest - particularly later im his career playing as psmall power forward. Dusty has a similar ability to burst from the contest, not to mention style. But under yze, Oliver had taken the mattews template to another level by applying it to ever contest he is involved in as a mid. He still wins as many contested balls, but now instead of handballing to a receiver, Oliver is now driving from each contest with three or four powerful strides, balances up and, when not handballing to an outside runner, driving it 50 metres forward for a 60 metre territory gain. It is fundamental to our game plan. And increasingly other star mids are looking to rhe same. Players like cripps and neal are the ones that come to mind

The margin will be determined by the level of intensity and pressure the roos bring, and if that level is acceptable how long they can maintain it. I am extremely confident we will bring our minimum base level of intensity of pressure. So If they don't bring it, or do but only for say the first half, then a 100 point hammering is on the cards.

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.