deelusions from afar

2 minutes ago, M_9 said:

Whilst I agree with most of what you’ve said (BBB and Verrall) I do think it has to be like for like, especially as far as a back-up ruckman.
There’s no guarantee we’ll have both Max and JvR for every one of the remaining (17?) games. 

I don’t think you can ‘rest’ a player on the ground the way the game is played today. Too many attacks start from the backline. All forwards need to play defence at some stage of the game. You can’t chase and tackle if you’re ‘having a break’.

Agree with that - which is why Verral, BBB and Gawn in the one team makes me nervous.  BBB can't play ruck and Verral can't (as far as I know) play forward (curently).  The idea of Gawn and BBB in the same forward line will make it easy for any defence to rebound / switch the ball.  So essentially we will need one of the 3 on the bench at all times.

3 hours ago, M_9 said:

I can’t see Tholstrup getting a call up. We’ve got two tall forwards missing, one who is our back up ruck.

Tholstrup isn’t a tall forward let alone a back up ruck. TMac going nicely in the backline so I hope the FD keep him there (with no ruck duties). 
BBB in you’d think but NFI who fills the other spot.

Fair enough.  Given BBB doesn't ruck and I haven't seen Verral being touted as a forward option at this stage you're probably right.

However, if all players were uninjured (including not coming back from injury) then I suspect McAdam (who's a medium) might have come in for Turner.  I'm not convinced they would operate a forwardline (including bench space) of Petty, JVR, Turner, Fritsch and McAdam - i don't think we'd have enough forward pressure (noting that McAdam can kind of do it all).  So if that's the case, then we wouldn't necessarily bring in like for like.

I think it'll be a Verral debut  and a likely BBB recall.  If not BBB potentially they could look to throw Max forward more for a rest and if Petracca also goes forward then Tholstrup or more likely Laurie may get some midfield minutes.

27 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Do posters actually ever inform themselves of the facts ??? Stop posting innacuate, dumb stuff.

Schache is injured,  didn't play the last game & is not available.

Posters still calling for McAdams inclusion despite Goodwin & the Club insisting he needed to play several games at Casey.

I wonder whether Tholstrup will be given another go this week.  He's a WA boy and had a tough debut (not his fault) against a rampaging Brisbane when we were flat / off.

I wonder what his focus is for the VFL - ie what he has been told to work on to make it back into the team.

3 hours ago, Deespicable said:

While I like the fact that you have spotted the key changes, please don't try and make out that Goody is a clever coach.

We are now in an era where the coaches train players in their three parts of the ground and generally are way to scared to rock the boat and switch them. In the old days when players actually had a direct opponent and not a zone area to man, coaches would swing players who were getting beaten around all the time - the Rev was a master of it, while further back Barass made his reputation on it.

Not for the first time this year Petty was getting beaten, as was Turner - both defenders by trait. Weitering is a great player, so Petty was always going to be up against it,  McGovern had Fritters measure, even Cincotta was chasing down Kozzie. Down back T.Mac had made two massive howlers and was coming off a five-day break and is 31. At what point did the coach think, hey I'll send Turner or Petty back and bring T-Mac forward or if that doesn't work, take T.Mac off early so we had more run. That is not a slight on T-Mac, he's been pretty handy this year, but he's 31 and coming off a game where he had to run everywhere to keep up with Cameron and that's they type of scenario when five days can be a factor. You are allowed to switch players or sub them off - have a look at what Freo did last week - they played Fyfe as the sub so that he could play a full game tonight because there was just a five-day break. That's smart management. Goody has never understood that stuff.

True, Goody figured that given Trac couldn't get it in the midfield he'd send him forward - that in itself is a huge lightbulb moment for Goody. And after kicking our first two and getting the momentum back, what did Goody do - he watched as Trac was taken off right in front of him because of rotations - don't worry about the fact that we were finally on a roll and our forwards were gaining confidence having Trac around. Goody allowed the same thing to happen in the third term. It was only in the last term when blind freddie could see that Trac was the factor that he left him on the entire quarter as full forward.

Using ANB as a Walsh tag was also in the captain obvious category. ANB has always been our fittest runner and is the only player with the tank that could go with him. Yes it required a restructure and yes I should give more credit to Goody for allowing it to happen. But don't tell me it was revolutionary. What should happen now is that Goody should start thinking are there any other gun midfielders who we can use ANB on to quell - most likely after halftime when tiredness creeps in for most - Lachie Neale rd 16 is one I'd have in mind for ANB. There's no need for it to happen every week - just use it was a weapon when needed to break up our predictability.

What I do give Goody credit for is that he seems to have the players' support - I think in his desperation to cover up any of his own misdemeanours, we the public don't really get to see the confident supportive character that I suspect he is behind the scenes.

 

 

Whether Goody is or isn't a clever coach isn't really my point - there are enough threads on that already.

My point was more that we saw some different moves that worked:

• Trac is an obvious one that has been used before (but robs the midfield). 
• But the use of ANB was a big change.  If you listen to Sam Mitchell speak on Melbourne he seems ANB as our most important player in terms of link up play / score involvements.  I wonder if it is also due to his ability to cover trac running forward?  Maybe releasing ANB into the midfield can't really happen unless trac is forward?  
• Langdon was used differently last night (seemed to be more forward)
• Use of extra man behind play (I think) was put away when we needed to score - I wonder if we could tinker with that during game and not just when we're trying to run a team down at the end.

My main point is, the coaches (it's not just Goody after all) are experimenting more than usual (admittedly being down by 7 goals gives them no other option) and it is working.  Which I suspect gives them reason and confidence to continue to tinker and experiment in future.  I hope anyway.

You make some interesting points.  I don't agree on TMac - he's been very good and is prone to make the occasional error / howler.  His fitness is his strength - I don't think starting him as the sub makes the difference in terms of the errors.  Our defence was under a lot of pressure!  And I certainly don't think he has the agility to play forward anymore.  I think if we wanted more run they could put Petty / Turner back and sub T Mac as you say but I think they knew that he wasn't going that bad - our midfield were getting done at centre clearance and that's how they were scoring.

Clearly Petty was well beaten last night and so arguably a change should have been made.  Having said that he did take a big pack mark in the last.  If he had of kicked that straight (was a pretty easy one) we would have won the game.  So we weren't far off.  I get the sense they know Petty 'has it'.  They just have to continue to play him and he'll get there.  

1 minute ago, leave it to deever said:

Tracca was a monster up fwd.

But I'm not sure if we can't afford to have him play there .

It's a tough call taking him away from our midfield.

I agree.  Having said that, Geelong are one of the lowest ranked teams for clearance etc - it's all about the slingshot on the rebound.  So if we have players in there that are prepared to win it if they can but their first priority is to ensure the other team doesn't get a clean centre clearance, then maybe it's less of a loss (he's obviously going to play a mix).

What I did like is that Goody the last few weeks has shown an ability to shake things up a bit to get the right mix.  Petracca forward is an obvious one.  But also getting ANB in the middle (maybe no one else has the tank to go with Walsh?) and his use of Langdon was different also.

Last week I noticed Fritsch was much higher up the ground for parts of the game.  This was probably about dragging his player away from being third man up - but it also meant that Fritsch delivered some kicks into the forward line and that is a strength you miss when he is playing deep (not saying he shouldn't play deep but it's good to be a bit less predictable).

What a strange and disappointing night!  My reflections:

• We learnt a lot about the team which will be useful going forward this year:
  • Trac's ability going forward
  • ANB playing in the centre square (I assume to nullify and run with Walsh?)
  • Langdon playing more of an attacking role
  • How damaging /dynamic we can be when we need to score.
• Carlton's ins (Kemp, MccGovern, Hollands and Martin) were all very good particularly early.
• Carlton jumped us, were harder at the ball and also got us for strategy (Pittonet running forward to make Gawn accountable, not allowing Lever to go third man up) but the most important thing was we were able to adjust this and fix it after the 1st quarter.
• Beyond quarter time, Carlton were only able to score from stoppage.
• Our ball movement is definitely getting better - the way we moved the ball around in the last enabled us to create opportunities we couldn't have in previous years.
• Crucial misses and some umpiring calls (May touching Curnow's kick, the dump tackle) and we would have somehow won.

I'm hoping that it doesn't cost us at the end of the year - but also think you learn more from a loss than a win.  I hope they go to work on minimising the impact of a Weitering type player.  We get a bit more from Petty / van Rooyen / Turner and we win that game.

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You want to play Petracca on Cameron? Has Petracca ever played in defence before? Wow...that really is rolling the dice.

It's not my preference - more just putting forward ideas to disrupt Geelong.  In reality it is more likely to be Neal-Bullen that follows Cameron as Petracca runs forward but he's likely to get exposed in marking contests (hence why I was suggesting Rivers)

1 hour ago, Oxdee said:

Tmac has a huge tank. He can run up and down the ground with Cameron all day. Wouldn’t surprise me if he ends up with the points on Saturday 

Yeah I was wondering that too... he might do it.   I just think that Tmac doesn't have the sort of agility and acceleration that Cameron does so could get caught out.  But if it's mostly about fitness and marking contests then he's a good fit.

4 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Do we want to see Rivers spend more time in the middle.

I'm wondering whether he could get the assignment of running with Cameron.  It's obviously not his usual role, but he's probably one of the few in the team that has the ability to run with Cameron and have a chance of matching him in the air.

I know we (like most teams) don't like to mess with "our system" but most player struggle when you put genuine work into them.  I would think if Lever is third man up he is likely to help out in many aerial contests anyway.

Alternatively you could roll the dice and put Petracca on him as I don't think either will be overly accountable.  

I did find this poll interesting on the Crows Big Footy page (for general AFL chat).  It closed about a month ago!

Wouldn't surprise me if Tholstrup is there to soak in the experience with no intention of playing him (as Casey have a bye).  I remember them doing this as far back as 2017, taking young squad members who are on the fringe to be part of interstate trips - a good chance to bond with the seniors and also observe the preparation of the senior players in a way you wouldn't get with a match in Melbourne.

From all reports, he's not far away! (and I could be wrong too and he plays tomorrow night!)

Haven't been able to watch the match yet and so came on here to see what I've missed.

Obviously it would be nice to win everything all the time, but if they're experimenting  with paying more aggressive etc (which is costing us goals) then now is the time to do it.  Both teams had lots missing so I think we all get sucked into reading too much into preseason form.

I do remember getting smashed in the 2021 preseason by the Bulldogs and thinking they were miles ahead of us with so much depth and talent especially in the midfield.  We all know how important that preseason match was when it really mattered later that year!

16 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Why was he unfit to start with? I’ve heard (from several people including a relative of his) that Shane and Burgess didn’t work well together.

You hope he’s improving? In early December he was bent over, hands on knees, sucking in air after any exertion. It was a conspicuous sight. He’s currently so much fitter, the difference is huge.

It smacks of poor attitude? Maybe it appears that way to you, but I’ve spoken to him a bunch and his attitude is great. I’ve spoken to Kozzie about him, and Chocco and Perty as well as his relative whom I met last week. They only have positive things to say about him, that he’s determined to do well, he’s happy with us and with his training regimen.

Perhaps his demeanour and/or body language belies his enthusiasm and dedication. That, along with the fact that he’s a quiet, unassuming person might explain why you’d think you’re seeing a poor attitude.

Thanks WCW for clearing it up.

Re the bolded bit - it does strike me as odd that if he did have an issue for Burgess as a few have said, why would he come to Melbourne who would likely have the closest fitness approach to Burgess (of any club outside of Adelaide) given the influence and success he had only a few years ago with us.  

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

Clarry doing drills with McQualter. He was leading toward Mini zig zagging before running straight at him to mark the ball on the lead. 

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

Clarry back doing drills with McQaulter separate from the main group. Mixture of short passes, handballs or ruck taps from Mini ending with snaps at goal from Clarry. 

I know it's more likely to be just part of his program to get back to the main group... but I'm hoping these snippets reflect a focus on building his forward craft.  Last year revealed we can survive without him in the midfield and I think (as others have commented) he has enormous upside to pinch hit forward.   He's shown signs earlier in his career and has the odd game (often in Adelaide) where he kicks 3 or so.  But if he was able to regularly hit the scoreboard (and probably tidy up his disposal consistency) then it would elevate him to the best in the comp (and probably make us the team to beat in the process).

24 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Great reports guys.

If he’s in the team we really need to use Tomlinson’s big tank more, particularly to get rebound out of him. He can be a good field kick - good distance and penetration. Can cough it up a bit under pressure because he’s heavy footed. 

But he has to be instructed to take off and run and for the other defenders to find him with switches and link play.

Makes no sense to have a player who can blow up the tanks of the big forwards chasing him and restrain him to simply sitting in the back pocket.

Hopefully McQualter can get some of that Richmond rebound game going

I've thought the same for a number of years.  However I think the problem is he isn't particularly quick so if he turns it over up the field (or a team mate does when he's run hard forward) then he becomes a liability.  His kicking is ok but I don't think any opposition is going to fear him getting it in the corridor forward of centre like them might with May.

If Gawn goes down, he might be a good backup ruckman that could wear down his opponent (most ruckman aren't quick off the mark) though I suspect Fullerton would get first go at this.

1 hour ago, Colm said:

So added to the above deal Dees get 23 and give 42

North give 57 and get 24

WC gives 23 and 58(perhaps with a later Suns pick coming back)

Wonder if there's any chance for us to get 15 or 17 from NM and pick 3 rather than pick 2 and 23.  My thinking being we seem keener on Duursma who most think will be pick 3 rather than 2 (walters aside).  Then at 15 or 17 we seem more likely to get a slider of someone spoken about in the mix for our pick 11

What's the advantage for Brown or MFC in him nominating and us accepting?

This is not potting anyone that's made the Fyfe references - but isn't he a bit small for this kind of comparison (unless he's still growing)?  I know its only a few centimetres and players can play shorter or taller than their height... but he's currently 3cm shorter than Fyfe.

For context he's 1cm shorter than Rivers and 1cm taller than Petracca.

24 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

It wouldn’t be the first time a social media manager has gone too hard on a topic only to bring chagrin to an organisation.

I think WC’s current hard stance might be that it’s not a sufficient offer, but the social media manager wouldn’t be privy to what they will eventually be willing to accept in the absence of better offers.

You're probably right - but if you were involved in the recruiting or management of WCE you would not want your social media manager doing this now as it just boxes them into a corner.

35 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

It's quite funny - Gary wants Harley sooo bad!  Goin into bat for the dees but trying to not to b=make it too obvious!

Intrigued to know if we packaged up 6 or 11 with 42 and F1 to get a bit higher, and somehow managed to trade for Reid, do we have picks after 42 eg for Brown?  Or do we go with less on the list next year? Or can we have extras train over the summer and pick them up in the pre-season draft (does that still happen?)

Interesting to see how all parties manage expectations from here.

On the West Coast Bigfooty board (I know) they are underwhelmed by the offers.  The seem to think they will get 2 and 3 from North and give something back.  As delusional as it is - if they're fans genuinely think that then the generous offers that are already there are not going to cut it for their fans.

The hawks offer for them is the closest (but has the risk of the hawks climbing the ladder next year).

9 minutes ago, Demonsterative said:

From memory, Curnow had some issue with police… in his draft year. It may have been drinking driving. He dropped down the order as a result. 

I thought this was something that Carlton were happy to have out there (given they had his brother they knew all about him) which enabled them to get him (and McKay) in the one draft!

1 hour ago, roy11 said:

The October Rankings from Twomey

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1054452/cal-twomeys-phantom-form-guide-top-draft-prospects-october-ranking

...

if we dont trade up, imagine O'Sullivan will be gone by our 2nd pick -  Will they jump to Ollie Murphy for a big defender?

I'm warming to the sound of this guy.  Tall (200cm) which might be helpful with the height of many key forwards, athletic, good contested mark / one-on-one and a reliable kick.

What's he like in terms of speed and endurance?

14 minutes ago, Dee tention said:

Would this work…? 

Melbourne

IN - Pick 7, 10 and Cadman

OUT - Petty, Pick 11, F2

Adelaide 

IN - Petty and 43 (GWS)

OUT - Picks 10, 14, Himmelberg

GWS 

IN - Pick 11, 14, F2 (Melb/Syd), Himmelberg

OUT - Pick 7, Cadman, 43 

 

I may have egg on my face at the end of the day but I can't see how the MFC would trade Petty this trade period.  He's arguably our most important player next year if he's able to reproduce the kind of form he was in prior to getting injured.

The trade scenario is creative but I think that's overvaluing Himmelberg - GWS paid so much to get pick 1 (Cadman) last year, can't see them giving up on him after 1 year.  Seems a lot for Adelaide to be paying for Petty (from our perspective he's worth all of that - but that's because he can play positions in our team that we have no one else as backup)