nutbean

Maybe I am setting the bar too low. Sat through years of watching us NOT get our hands on the ball. Always getting smashed in contested and uncontested ball. Yeah we were wasteful and overpossessed the ball, but for me the good news is that we got our hands on the ball often enough. It is easier to fix what we do with the ball once we get it than trying to fix not getting the ball at all. Probably Jones was our only player that didn't cough the ball up - Tyson did, Oliver did , Lewis did, Viney did, Salem did, Petracca did ..... Clean that up and more wins on the way. Compare this to pre Roos when we didn't turn it over because we could get the pill in the first place. Frustrating to watch but I will take that any day over the frustration of watching us against Carlton last year.

Of course, teams rarely line up as selected - but Carlton's forward line except for one, is all over 190cm and Harry McKay on the bench. We have two talls only - the Mac's. We could get constantly outmarked or conversely we could generate huge amounts of run out of the backline. I suspect we will see one of Watts/Weed roll back into defense to help out.

Tyson behind a few midfielders ? 4th in our best and fairest last season. Can at times turn it over a bit (as can Viney) - I think you'll find he is a walk up starter when fit and firing. Comparing Kent to Tyson ? Why ? One is an inside mid and the other plays the small forward role. Not competing for the same spots.

Just to get a little more perspective on where growth will come from in Aussie Rules - on one of the fox footy shows last night - last season in the amateurs there was not one womens team - this season ? 41 teams ! The growth of females playing the game now there is a path is unprecedented. The growth in terms of teams and participants is spectacular. This can only be good for the game - Embrace the Daisy ! ( and the rest of the team !)

They need to play Weitering everywhere as he is the only quality tall they have.

The best way to shut down any forward line is kill them in the midfield and starve them of opportunities !

once last reply and then I am out.... I don't think anyone is worried about the possibility of a first gamer taking us to the cleaners. However, you if don't think that match committee and coaches do not look at match-ups and contingencies then think again. If I was Carlton I would not try to stop our pace out of the forward line by going small and hoping to keep up - I would go tall and try and isolate Oscar Mac as StKilda did in the first quarter, bypass Tommy Mac and outmark us. We have lost a player that plays tall from our backline and we do not an obvious suitable tall replacement unless Frost comes up. There is a distinct possibility that Carlton will go tall in the forward line. The match committee will be deciding who to bring in and if we go with two smaller players as replacements then they will also discuss who to play on Carltons 3rd tall. It may be someone undersized, it may be someone who played forward last week. There are very few decisions to be made at match committee this week on match ups. They don't have two rucks so i dont think Spencer will play. Although Tyson is not the same as Bernie ( playing HBF) we have enough obvious rotations that it is not a problem so I see his inclusion as a certainty . The only real discussions will be which Mac takes which key forward if both Weitering and Casboult play and who will take the new boy.

I do agree. I think most look quicker and I'm' sure it is partly fitness and being injury free. I also think it comes from belief that we will win contests or at worst halve them. I bemoaned the dark years that we had no idea how to "spread". We probably knew how to spread but weren't confident of getting the ball out to the spreaders in the first place. During the Neeld era we had a disproportionate amount of contested to uncontested ball. That was because we had so little confidence in our ball getting ability that everyone would pile in and if we did get it we had no one in space to give it out to ! Jones had every confidence in Oliver's ability and flashed past him st full tilt to receive the handball . In the Weeds goal, Petracca flashed past Oliver again knowing he would get the ball to him. We are doing so much at breakneck speed now because we have confidence in our own teammates ability to deliver.

Agree - except I saw a few games last year when he play in defense ( he will never be a forward) where he ran like a chook with his head on and played really well - so it is a matter if that can be harnessed on a consistent basis. ( a massive "if")

I never suggested it was a massive advantage but by the same token I have watched Neville Jetta get caught out in the diamond defense a number of times manning up against someone twice his height and that was when we did play 3 talls back. 3 talls forwards fallacy is not always a fallacy - the Bulldogs won the grand final with 3 talls up forward - Boyd, Roberts and Stringer and Hawks during all their glory days played three talls up forward. (no - I am not saying that the quality of Carltons talls are anywhere near the above). We play with three tall forwards don't we ? (and they took 16 marks between them last week) With Smith out we are either going to pick Pedo ( which I doubt), pick Frost ( which I also doubt he is ready fitness wise - maybe a few games at Casey), or an out of left field option - or go smaller in the backline. That is the simple facts. If I was sitting at match committee i would look at our forwards and say - yup - happy . Look at our mids and say - got them covered. Then look at their forwards against our backs - again not great concern but all I am suggesting is that without Smith we, in all likelyhood will be one tall down in the back half. If I was Carlton I would be selecting all 3 and see if it can be an advantage. Try and stretch our defense with height. That is all I am saying. No panic- no worrying - just something to think about.

Casboult is spectacular for about 5 minutes a game and it would not surprise me if he is dropped. As a general comment - would you not agree that a full strength Melbourne team would have one more tall either in the team or on the bench - aka - Frost or Smith ? As I said above - not panicked or worrying - we have options but they are all not perfect with our injuries and my belief is that our team need three talls that play in the back half

Sigh...I'll have another go - TALL forwards - why even discuss Membrey ?He is 188 cm - mid size and we had any number of players who could have gone to him. That is the reason why it did not have an impact when Smith went off. If StKilda had McCartin in the side Smith's injury may have caused a little extra concern for us. McKay (200cm) was in the best last week , kicked 4 goals . Casboult (201cm) will get one of the Mac's . If Weitering (195cm and plays tall) plays forward which I expect him to, he will get the other Mac. So McKay who is tall marking forward - who will you play on him ? To say anyone can play spoil him shows disrespect for the player - apart from the Macs - he is at least 10 cms and 10 kilos heavier than our next defender. Still haven't got an answer from anyone. VP - How exactly will we adjust ? My view is one of two - Tyson IMO is a lock - leaving Bugg or Kent as the other - if we go that way AND they select McKay AND they play three talls forward then we may start smaller but if they start marking the pill then Watts (preferred as he has played back) or The Weed may need to go back ( we have even sent Hogan back at times but it is obvious where his most use to us is). Or we select Pedo - but he is not seen as the future. Either way - we are definitely one tall back short at the moment and at the start of the season we would have been thinking Frost/Smith - Garland as depth. I suspect this is where most of the discussion will be for match committee this week. Edit - I'm not panicking as there are options but none of them are ideal IMO and I anxiously await the return of Smith and the availability of Frost. We need one more tall back

pretty hard to run off them all match if they mark the ball constantly .... I'll ask again - once you send Tommy to Casboult and Oscar to Weitering, if they pick McKay at 200cm and 95kg - who do you send to him ? I understand we use the diamond defence and help each other out. I understand we rotate players around but if they play all 3 talls forward we are in danger of being constantly outmarked. I would like to Pedo as a third tall back and ruck relief option but I also think that Goodwin wants more attack so I suspect Tyson and Kent and Carlton will go tall. Goodwin will throw Watts down back for the times they play all 3 in the forward line. Then there is a real opportunity for Tommy and Watts to run off as both are more nimble than their opponents.

Horrible call.....Neanderthal call...18th century call..... The amount of interest the womens game has attracted is spectacular. My daughter has played Aussies rules for two years now and the leagues have exploded over the past 12 months with influxes of both players and new teams. This will translate into more females watching the sport at its highest level both the men and womens comps. As you mentioned, Daisy is arguably the most marketable face in womens football ( along with Erin P) and we should be embracing it.

That is the sort of thinking that can land you in trouble. Weitering took 7 marks as a tall forward and kicked three last week from limited chances in a fairly putrid performance by Carlton. The only thing Casboult can do is mark and he does that very well. McKay's game is built on marking. You absolutely need someone with some height to combat their only real asset - marking. If you bring in two smaller players then you will have to swing Watts or Weed back on the the third tall.

McKenna is 186cms and light - giving away a minimum of 10kg to any of the below weitering 195cm, Casboult 201 cm, Harry McKay 200 cm (he kicked 4 in the reserves last week and is probable). Who is your 3rd tall to play on one of these 3 ?

It is clear to me that there are 2 project players in the team at present - Omac and The Weed. Whilst they are both making some errors and will sometimes have quieter weeks it is obvious they are part of the plans going forward and unless they are horrible will be given a little leeway. Did Omac have some "moments" last week - absolutely. However he was assigned one the games best and lowered his colors - he had a shakey start but he was not alone and the whole team contributed to us being 4 goals down at Qtr time. As someone else said, he was isolated and that was a team defense problem that was rectified after qtr time. As we got our defense right ( and dominated around the ball), he was then ok after that - his game was not below AFL standard.

From my understanding none of our ready made replacement defensive talls are ready - Wagner or Frost. I seems the popular thinking is Tyson and one of Bugg or Kent. That would mean a bit of patch up job down back if they bring in Harry McKay - 200cm. Weitering can mark as can Casboult - these two will get the Mac boys on them. I suspect that if we don't bring in a tall then Carlton will try and stretch us defensively and have McKay down forward as well - Watts or Weideman may need to pinch hit down back if they go very tall down forward. I would opt for Pedersen as I do believe we are one tall short - Pedo lets us keep our preferred forward structure if Carlton go with 3 talls forward.(I know nothing about Declan K to know if he is in the mix or not)

Jones is not lightning quick - what Jones does is hit the contest at top speed . Viney does that too. I think what has really improved with both of these guys is the reading of the play - it means you can go at the contest at full pace with some confidence knowing that the ball is going to be there. It also helps first and foremost that Gawn will put it exactly where he promises he will. But if you look at the goal he kicked from the Oliver handball - he just took off past Oliver knowing he would gather the ball and give it to him. Weidman looked quicker than he has because he took off knowing he was going to end up the end user of the handball chain. Confidence in your teammates abilities is a glorious thing. They talk about "quick sides" - but it is not always about leg speed - it is about confidence that your teammate is going to get the ball and give it to you so you feel right about going hard to get yourself in a good position.

I think they will always be slightly different - Williams was never quick of foot but was lightning quick with his hands - the congestion and numbers around the contest was not quite as great so in his day he would get the ball and it was gone in an instant. Oliver has this wonderful ability to draw players in ( the featured clip on has him drawing in 4 players) but getting his hands up high with the ball and releasing the handball with accuracy from eye level or higher. You watch - he rarely gets caught with his hands by his sides - they are free and high. Draw four opposition players to you and it will invariably mean that one of your teammates has to be free.

Oliver's hands are fantastic - but geez - "better than Diesel Williams" is over-reach

have a look at The Weed's goal. Oliver's one handed pick up at full pace and getting it off to Petracca was a thing of beauty. He is just so clean with his hands.

It just shows you that you need all moving parts of a club working. It really does defy belief how the Eagles won the premiership in 2006 with all that was apparently going on.

When you think about it ( and I am sure that other people those two brought in were also part of the revival) it is hard to imagine that all it has taken is two professional people to turn around the stinkhole that was our club.

sorry..you need to drive to "Stupid" and then go about 50 kilometres past for that decision. That decision was only second behind the decision for gross stupidity in the JLT where the ball was thrown in short from the boundary and hit one of the onballers on the back of the hea who was waiting in front of the ruckman and he was free kicked against for third man up .....