Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by deejammin'

  1. Great win, clinical, super consistent, better all over the ground. As much as I hate the channel 7 commentary team it was hilarious listening to BT trying to justify his love for the dogs tonight, my favourite was when he said ‘this will make it tough for the dogs’ when we went 41 points up with 14 minutes left, ahhhh yeah we’re double their score mate! Flat track bulldogs, sorry I mean bullies anyone? We’re 5-0 against the top 9, Dogs are 3-2. Pretenders. Go Dees! The one downer is the loss of Langdon, massive out, any chance Viney gets up ??????
  2. The way this commentary team talks about the bulldogs you’d think they were five goals up! Not getting totally outplayed and down by 4 goals. Anytime we get down in a game the commentary team go on about “trouble for the Dees etc” dogs get pantsed and they still talk like Carlton should be worried. Hilarious.
  3. Yeah I agree on Melksham which is why I think he stays in, he adds a midfield rotation which is valuable. But he was close to our worst, particularly in the first half this week so if he keeps that up I think another small forward might be more value? Petty’s second half was good against Hawthorn, but his first half wasn’t AFL standard. Tom has been in great form all year and I think a lot of his deficiencies from when he used to play back have improved. I’m nervous about Petty. Hopefully he plays a blinder and the three tall forwards rip it up and smash the swans. I just hope match committee aren’t being too stubborn re Tom back. One other little thing is that when Jacko goes in the ruck and Gawn rests forward the Gawn/Brown forward fifty looks a lot less mobile and provides a lot less pressure than the Gawn/McDonald forwardline. Perhaps Ben Brown needs to get up the ground when Max is forward? We shall see I guess.
  4. This was never a week, go with a fine if you must for careless, low impact. But really all the Wheatley Robbo comparisons to Dangerfields bump are ridiculous. Yes they both impacted an opponent high but: Dangerfield CHOSE to bump after the ball was gone, hit the player high and knocked him out. Fritsch fended an oncoming tackle and had his arm pushed high by the tackling player, hit him high, no concussion, no injury. Players are allowed to fend, if he had deliberately elbowed him that would be different but it is clear as day he tries to fend with his forearm and the low body of Powell moving down pushes his arm high. It’s an accident that occurred in 0.2 seconds. Not an intentional bump. Also we all hate it but the impact on the other player is important in how they measure these things. Powell was not concussed, had no other injury and came back on the field. If he had been concussed or had his face broken the result might be different, but he didn’t. Im also still mystified as to how this gets cited but Hawkins doesn’t, Hawkins carelessly throws his elbow back after a handball and breaks someone’s eye socket and concusses them. Bailey has his elbow pushed into his opponents head and dazed his for a bit. Why is Bailey’s initially Careless and Medium impact but Hawkins not? Surely Hawkins is Careless and High impact. If ones an accident they’re both an accident, but for Bailey to get cited and Hawkins not just shows the problems with this system. Good on the MFC for appealing, got the result we deserved.
  5. I’m very nervous about the three talls forward too DeeSpencer. It really looked bad in the first half against North, TMac was unsighted, Ben Brown was often double teamed and out marked but when he did bring the ball to ground it felt like our forwardline pressure, which had been fantastic the first 6 weeks, was non-existent. Gawn didn’t do much resting forward either. When TMac moved back we looked a different team. Also I’m excited for Petty but the difference between Petty’s game against Hawthorn and Tom’s second half back against North was marked, Harrison better play a vastly better game if he comes in this week. Particularly if Buddy is back. I still would prefer: Tmac Back, Jones Sub Tomlinson, Baker Out Sparrow, Chandler in but if we’re insisting on Petty I guess it will be: Tomlinson, Baker out Petty, Sparrow in Melksham is on thin ice. I’d be tempted to drop him for Chandler or Bedford.
  6. Brilliant news! Trac is a star and will still get even better as our team improves. There’s real loyalty at our club and it’s started at the top, Jonesy and Gawny have led the way, Viney, Salem and Trac have followed. It’s great for club stability now and our future, something great is building!!!!
  7. It’s a glass half full game IMO. On the one hand when a Melbourne team has failed to turn up like that in the past we have usually failed to get back (see Sydney and Freo last year) so to get the win, a comfortable 30 point win is a great result. Having said that, we can’t bring that first half form in against basically any other side and expect to stay in the game. Particularly not this week against Sydney. On changes one thing that seems to be getting missed is that the major change, that saw us return to our best in the second half was returning to only two big forwards (Brown + Jacko/Gawn) by sending TMac back. While there is no doubt we also lifted in the contest our forwardline looks so much better with two talls being supported by Kozzie, Spargo, ANB, and Fritta. It’s no coincidence they all came into the game more after this move, also our backline looks so much better with a tall taking the first/second forward to free up Lever and May. I get that we have good talls all in form but our best team structure is a two tall + Fritsch forwardline and I don’t think we can continue the three talls experiment against Sydney, particularly given what it looked like in the first half against North. I also like that the club is excited about Petty and what he offers but his first half against the Hawks was not AFL standard and Tom’s second half against North was excellent, including some great field kicking which would’ve been the knock on him. Baker’s pressure and disposal weren’t up to it, gee we miss Viney’s intensity when he’s not there. Melksham was worst on ground in the first half. For those reasons I would have: Out: Tomlinson ??, Baker, Melksham In : Sparrow, Chandler, Harmes (with TMac to go back, Sparrow to play Viney/Bakers role, Chandler to play Jones’ role and Harmes to replace Melksham although Harmesy hasn’t set the world on fire either so this may not happen, Jones to stay medical sub). I’d be tempted to replace B Brown with Weideman too on form but I suspect we will back Ben in and rightly so given his career to date. He’d want to have a good game though.
  8. The ‘behind the goals’ option seems to have disappeared ? Is it possible for the free MFC allocation to run out?! What a terrible system!
  9. Your name is painfully accurate for this topic mono, thanks for the info.
  10. That’s awesome! There’s another beautiful stat as well Titan. We’ve never been behind in any last quarter. The closest any team has come to us is GWS getting 6 points behind. Apart from that we’ve had a 12 point buffer in every game. I find it hard to believe as my severe MFCSS makes me terrified anytime a team kicks a goal on us at any time but we’ve really never been seriously challenged this year at the pointy end of a game. What a strange and wonderful feeling!
  11. Great team win! What a start! If you’d have told me in January that we’d be 4-0 with no Brown, Weideman, Hibberd and Viney for a game I would’ve thought you were mad! Incredible stuff! Also I was hearing a bit of ‘Melbourne haven’t beaten anyone yet’ on the radio this morning and I’m ok with that, keep the lid on. But there’s an interesting stat everyone seems to be missing, everyone Melbourne has beaten has beaten everyone the bulldogs have beaten. Geelong beat Brisbane, Saints beat WC, GWS beat Collingwood, admittedly Freo haven’t played North yet, but I think we can all agree they WILL beat them. So the next time a radio host tells you how incredible the dogs are but Melbourne ‘haven’t beaten anyone yet’ maybe cheekily point this out? While keeping the lid on of course... GO DEES!!!
  12. The main differences were that the dogs took the game incredibly seriously and put their best team on the park while they are gearing up for a serious tilt at smashing the season at the start, while Richmond are the reigning premiers who only played some of their best players in the first half and who, like most reigning premiers are more interested in playing young players in preseason and nursing their best team through their shorter preseason than the rest of the competition. Grand finalists are notoriously slow during preseason due to their later start date. I wouldn’t be getting overly excited about the Tigers game, Dusty playing all four quarters would be enough to change that result.
  13. I’m not too disappointed as it’s a practise game and the many, many players we had out make it difficult to judge. However, it is worrying that our pressure and effort were so lax, that our structure collapsed so regularly, that our tackles were broken so easily, that almost all our goals were from chaos ball situations, that our ability to move the ball is still so stagnant, that our skills are still so terrible and that so many players getting a chance to play for a spot were so very ordinary. Bring that type of performance to the first 6 weeks and Goodwin will be gone. I hope for his sake and ours that this was a personnel issue, because if we have really improved so little on all the issues that ruined last season, I shudder to think... Also while the dogs were closer to full strength than us they were missing: Treloar, Easton Wood, JJ (I know he was omitted but jeez, I’d like him in our team!!), Not to mention losing Noughton, Crozier and Vandemeer for much of the game! They may well be one of the best teams and we may well have been undermanned, but watching that game felt far more 2019 than anything we dished up last year. I desperately hope we bounce back against Freo.
  14. I remember that too but watching him this year I thought his field kicking was excellent, his kicking for goal less so.
  15. Stoked about Brown! I think you’re right and this is one idea that hasn’t been mentioned enough, the possibility of rotating Jackson and Fritsch between 3rd forward and wing. At the start of this year there was talk that Jackson was mobile enough to play a Ruck Rover type role perhaps he could play a Blicsavs circa 2017 role as a tall running wingman? If you then rotate him with Fritsch when he rests forward or goes into the ruck you could cause some matchup issues with his height and both are great field kicks. Exciting I reckon.
  16. It’s really exciting to have us landing a key forward but I’m naturally mistrustful anytime Barrett reports on North. He is so one-eyed when it comes to them that he would always be reporting whatever works for North. I hope we play hardball with them, get Brown to nominate us, get him for pick 23 or he walks to the draft, North have basically thrown him out the door they’re lucky to get any pick for him.
  17. I forgot about KK, I’d say he’s definitely going. I think Jones staying on as a playing coach one more year is a good idea and I think Jetta is contracted so unless he chooses to retire he goes around again and I’d back him in if he gets back to his best form, his game against St Kilda was pretty good. The thing about kicking people off the list is having quality to replace them with, Jones and Jetta stay for mine as even if we get three second rounders for OMac, Preuss and ANB (not going to happen) we would already be using four second rounders (and if we had this we’d definitely exchange two/three second rounders for a first round pick leaving more list spots), pick 43 and 62. Then as you say Chandler, Nietzsche and to a lesser extent in my opinion Hore and Bedford can also be delisted if we need more space. Jetta and Jones are more valuable to us than picks 63 and 83 this year and then when they retire in 2021 we’ll have higher picks to bring in as we’ll be back in the first round. I think we’ll be looking to consolidate our picks into 4 second/third round picks using Preuss, ANB and OMac as trades and then if we’re lucky we’ll land a Saad, Smith, Cameron and still be comfortably within our list size without having to turn out too many players. I think Jones, Jetta, Hore and Bedford all have more upside than speculative picks at this stage and we need leadership and professionalism for our still relatively young list. It’s also dangerous to turn too many players over in one year with list sizes reducing again next year.
  18. Clearly the FD rate Tomlinson and Smith ahead of OMac for our second/third KPD. With May, Lever, Tomlinson, Smith and both Petty and TMac who can potentially be sent back I totally understand why we would be looking to trade OMac. All things going well it looks like 42 will be the number for a list this year so our list looks like this: Delist: Dunkley, Wagner, Wagner Retire Bennell Trade: OMac, ANB, Preuss If all seven go through (and I know TMac may well be traded along with some others depending on the offers but these three look likely) then we have 5 list positions to fill and the following picks: 23,47,62,63,83 I would think we would be aiming on pick upgrades with most of these trades and perhaps even packaging them up to a team with an academy prospect for an even higher pick. If OMac upgrades one of our picks in the 60s to 40s-50s we’ll be doing well. I imagine we would be hoping to get a couple of second rounders and a third rounder at least with the three players we have on the table, which would be a significant upgrade on our current draft prospects, who knows maybe we can even get to the point where we package up a couple of second rounders for a late first?
  19. So Goodwin still has a better finals record than Chris Scott over the last three years. Geelong need to get over WC or Collingwood to draw even....? 2018-2020 Finals record: C Scott 1-4 S Goodwin 2-1 lol #straightsetscats
  20. I hear what you’re saying but three years versus four years on a contract doesn’t mean as much these days. If we get to the third year and Jack’s not working out at Melbourne, then a trade will probably happen, hell players have asked for trades one year into a contract, if he’s ruined his body through injury he will retire like a number of other players, if a four year contract gets him over the line I think it’s worth it. I think Jack is a high quality player and individual that sets super high standards in behaviour, training and attack on the ball and that he will make our club and team better. I think he will play well for us, heart and soul for all four years and possibly beyond, but I really don’t think four years versus three will make much difference if things go wrong. Nathan Jones sounds like it’s as much about him coaching from the list as it is about playing, this idea is become common and will get more common with the reduction in the soft FD cap. Burgoyne at Hawthorn, Hodge at Brisbane, Mitchell at West Coast, Heath Shaw to GWS?? it’s a common thing clubs do to get quality people and leadership in-house. Nathan is a club legend, a good person and a good leader who is intelligent enough football wise and emotionally to be a good coach. We’ve all seen the hard way what happens when you let your senior players go elsewhere on mass, Bruce, Yze, J McDonald, Green all left our club at a similar time to be assets to other coaching panels, including premierships, as our list bottomed out and floundered for leadership. We still have a relatively young list with relatively few experienced leaders. Keeping Nathan is a no brainer and if the best way to do it is one year on the list then great.
  21. Gawn didn’t play in the dogs game. Preuss did. And there are two ways to look at that game, one is that ruck men aren’t important and that Dunkley broke even, the other is that we failed to capitalise on this opportunity in the ruck. Preuss and the mids lacked connection in that game, he was constantly hitting it to where our mids were not and eventually Preuss resorted to just taking it out of the ruck and booting it forward, which hurt us as well as we allowed the dogs so much rebound off half-back and freedom in transition. The fact is we should’ve played better in every facet of the game against the dogs and Preuss’s previous game against North was excellent! Good ruckmen are key to Port, Brisbane, Geelong, West Coast and Collingwood and while Richmonds rucks aren’t setting the world on fire they still play them. That’s the top 6 teams all having key ruckman, many would argue Nick Nat is one of the most influential players in the AFL due to his ruck craft! We are a better team when a dominant ruckman is connecting with our mids and unless we bring in some good talls to replace TMac and Preuss we can’t afford to take the risk of trading them both. If we have Gawn, Jackson and Weideman as our only ruck/tall forward options next year we’re taking a huge risk, one injury and the good teams are going to exploit our lack of height, both in the ruck and forward, especially if we keep bombing the ball forward under pressure. If we trade TMac and Preuss we need to be bringing in at least one key forward/back up ruck, and if we can’t, we should keep Preuss for insurance. Unless of course we get a ridiculous offer (like a Brent Daniels) for him and even then we should still be bringing in a backup ruck somehow.
  22. I mean, if we could do that it’d be pretty amazing. Obviously I don’t think we’d be able to trade Preuss for him, but from a whole list perspective if we could trade TMac, Preuss and bring in Cameron and draft a young tall we’d be going well. I’d say it’s more likely we bring in a different less high profile tall forward as everyone is saying Cameron is involved with Geelong. My main point was just if it looks like we will end the trade period not being able to bring in at least one tall for T Mac then I don’t think we should trade Preuss. Unless someone offered something ridiculous of course. We really need talls on our list and while Jackson is great it’s too much to ask a second year player to be both the number 2 key position forward AND back up ruck.
  23. I think part of this is probably that Preuss wants game time and so the club is checking what they could get for him as a matter of due diligence. The reality is if we trade both Preuss and TMac we are leaving ourselves exposed for talls. Sure neither has set the world on fire in the role we really need to fill, that of tall key position forward, but we were relatively lucky for injuries this season, I’d be very worried if the only tall forwards on our list were Weideman, Jackson and Brown. That leaves us very thin on the ground should one of them get injured or if Gawn goes down. From a list perspective we need a tall forward anyway, trade both Preuss and TMac and you really need to be bringing in at least 2 talls, at least one of whom can play ruck. If we trade both Preuss and TMac and don’t get talls in one long term injury to Gawn, Weideman or Jackson and it’s curtains for 2021. We can’t leave ourselves that exposed. This deal only gets done if we can find a way to get a Cameron type forward.
  24. I’m enjoying how we’re going and hope Goodwin does brilliantly, but he should’ve played Frost, who has been very good for us since he came back in, against St Kilda. I believe we would be in top 4 this year if he had. Anyway woulda, coulda, shoulda. I’m excited about our list, the finals and our potential for growth. Just thought this was one we got wrong.
  25. The decision to play Petty (over Frost) against St Kilda is still one of the most mystifying of the year and nearly cost us finals, atm it’s costing us top 4. I hope the “learning” Goodwin has taken from this year is to play our best 22 as often as possible. anyway, FINALS!!! ??????
  • Create New...