Changes for next week vs Richmond

[Gazza_11]

Can see Gawn playing as the sub this week though, and easing Jamar out of it if we are well in front. Although he could just as easily be subbed out for any other player, Martin is perfectly capable of going solo in the ruck.

 

[Captain Jack]

While I don't think we'll go with 3 ruckmen, it would work better than Essendon's experiment I think. Dermie put it well this morning - they have three guys who are all No.1 ruckmen. We have Martin, who can play anywhere, Jamar, who provides a good target up forward, and Gawn, who is huge and potentially also can rest up forward.

Can't see it happening though.

 

[Deestroy]

Don't like the 3 ruckman idea. As much as I love big Max it's time for him to go back to the VFL to develop.

If Garland doesn't come up the question is whether we need another tall back or go with an extra runner (Gys or Bennell into the 21 perhaps) start someone like Macdonald as a 3rd tall and rotate Martin through the backline as required.

I just hope they come out to play this week. We all know how well they go when there are expectations of a good show...

 

[Tulip]

Agree Deestroy. The 3 ruckman idea could work, but remember that it takes an extra runner out of the game; as Essendon so painfully discovered.

 

[THE STING2]

In: Jamar, Gysberts
Out: Bennell, Strauss

Keep the 3 ruckman, leave Jamar at full forward. If Minson can kick a bag against Richmond I can't see why Jamar couldn't.

 

[saj_21]

Casey seniors have a bye next week, the reserves have a game. I think Tapscott needs a week at least at casey.

In; Jamar, Gysberts (Blease)
Out; Gawn, Bennell (Garland - pending injury)

Gawn has done nothing wrong, just for team balance. Bennell has had a couple of quiet games. I'd like to see Blease given a chance if Garland doesn't come up, it isn't a like for like but Richmond have a moblile forward line like us, Macdonald can play as the third "tall" if need be.

 

[DaveyTrainxpress]

You can't drop Gawn, he's been playing really well so it wouldn't be right to drop him. It will also send the wrong message to the young guys.

If Garland is injured I'd bring in Jamar otherwise no change for me. It would not surprise me if Petterd got dropped, Jurrah deserves to be dropped but he is still a very good target.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Gawn can and will be dropped.

He has shown some great signs, but he hasn't been playing well for anyones standard other than a 19 year old ruckman.

This isn't a criticism, just the way it is.

Three ruckman is probably a no go, unless we want Martin for Vickery in defense.

Changes for me:

IN:
Jamar, Gysberts (McDonald) (Blease - why not give him a taste against a young team)

OUT:
Gawn, Bennell (Garland) (Petterd - if by some travesty he gets weeks)

Team:

FB: Bartram Frawley Garland
B: Strauss Rivers Nicholson
C: Scully Jones Trengove
F: Howe Watts Morton
FF: Green Sylvia Petterd
Ruck: Jamar Moloney Mckenzie
Int: Martin Macdonald Gysberts
S: Jurrah

 

[syl]

No way we're dropping Joel Mac! I think Garland wont come up, Gysberts will replace him and hopefully Jamar for GAWWWWWWWNNN.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Who said we should drop Joel Mac?

Oops, my bad.

Those last two IN's were switched with the OUT's

 

[THE STING2]

Gawn can and will be dropped.

He has shown some great signs, but he hasn't been playing well for anyones standard other than a 19 year old ruckman.

This isn't a criticism, just the way it is.

For the tackle he put on McPharlin alone should keep him in the side. It would send a bad message not to award stuff like that. Jamar has been out for a fair while and will lack match fitness, stick him in the square with the occasional run in the ruck and if the 3 rucks don't work then drop Gawn.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Richmond is a game we have a good chance of winning, especially if we play our best football.

I don't want the club to be experimenting with 3 rucks in this game, unless they can come up with a viable reason. Maybe Martin to Vickery.

 

[Demon 86]

While I don't think we'll go with 3 ruckmen, it would work better than Essendon's experiment I think. Dermie put it well this morning - they have three guys who are all No.1 ruckmen. We have Martin, who can play anywhere, Jamar, who provides a good target up forward, and Gawn, who is huge and potentially also can rest up forward.

Can't see it happening though.

I think it would be remarkably similar to Essendon's, and should never be allowed to happen.

Jamar - Hille (both capable of rucking and going forward)

Martin - Ryder (both extremely versatile)

Gawn - Bellchambers (both decent ruckman who can drift forward and present)

I'm not comparing them on talent only on how they play.

 

[DaveyTrainxpress]

For the tackle he put on McPharlin alone should keep him in the side. It would send a bad message not to award stuff like that. Jamar has been out for a fair while and will lack match fitness, stick him in the square with the occasional run in the ruck and if the 3 rucks don't work then drop Gawn.

Well said If Gawn is dropped it would be wrong. Of course Jamar is better but Melbourne need to think of a way around having the three (Martin, Gawn and Jamar) in the side. Perhaps Martin can play back like he did in his first year or even up forward more?

 

[syl]

3 talls would be a huge mistake (see: Essendon)

Stefan Martin and Gawn or Jamar is the only viable option IMO.

Our run is what wins us games, having an extra tall forward is a waste when we don't play a traditional lead up forward line. We can have one of our 2 talls dropping in to the goal square for the ball to be dropped on their heads when we have a F50 setup.

 

[Dee31]

Reckon if Garland doesn't come up, and Jamar returns, I'd keep Gawn for the centre square bounces and Jamar as a forward/ruck. Play Stef Martin as the 3rd tall/backline ruck.

Agreed!

Richmond's key weakness is their backline. Newman, Delidio and Houli are good players but their two tall key backs - Rance and McGuane - are very, very poor decision makers, can be forced into simple turn-overs and are genuine weaknesses in their defense. If we play Russian at full-forward that will force Richmond to use one of them on him and if he's focussed he'll be far too good for either of them. That's especially true overhead because neither of those guys can take a strong contested mark.

It's hard to carry three ruckmen and as much as I'd like Maxie to keep playing (I have no doubts he could handle and beat Browne at the centre bounces and around the ground) I think we'll have to rest him this week.

End of the day, to beat Richmond we have to beat them in the middle of the ground. Like us, they're very fast but they're also a fiercely determined team and I think their commitment is going to be a great lesson for our boys. If we can match them in that department then we'll win.

Wildcard players are, for mine; our forward line depth. I firmly believe Richmond's defense is its weakness and if our forward line includes Russian, Ricky, Liam, Howe, Col and Brad then Richmond can't cover them all (or even 3/4's of them. That said, our defense will need to tighten up significantly and we can't allow Richmond to run. Jonesy might have to take King and I'd be tempted to use Nico on Nahas or Edwards. Vickery could be the wildcard for Richmond (we already know what Riewoldt can do).

 

[Chip_]

For the tackle he put on McPharlin alone should keep him in the side. It would send a bad message not to award stuff like that. Jamar has been out for a fair while and will lack match fitness, stick him in the square with the occasional run in the ruck and if the 3 rucks don't work then drop Gawn.

That's just not smart. I know it gets said every week, but this is really a must win game. If you're going to get anywhere as a team you have to beat the sides around & below you & Richmond is right on us. "If it doesn't work then drop Gawn" is potentially much more damaging to MFC & Gawn. Losing this game could end our run at the finals (not expecting us to make it but we're in the race right now) & playing Gawn/changing out tactics could be a big part of the reason why.

Getting dropped for a guy who is in our best 5 players & was AA last year is no criticism for a 19yo guy, it's just how the world works. Getting played & us losing as a result, while selection is not his fault, could hurt his confidence.

Why would we experiment with something we've never even considered before? We went into games with only 1 ruckman earlier in the year, clearly Bails has the opinion that less more in terms of ruckman. 3 ruckman would be detrimental to our game plan taking a runner away from us.

Very unlucky, but it's a good unlucky for us to have. Gawn will have been told when he first got a game that it was ahead of schedule & they would've prepared him for maybe getting dropped regardless of form.

In : Jamar, Gys
Out: Gawn, Bennell

I'd play Martin as the 1st option & Jamar out of the square spending about 40% of the quarter in the ruck.

Bennell needs a few games at Casey & only back in the side when form warrants. BUT, when he's back in he needs to play in one spot & not be the sub & given at least 3 weeks doing this, not chopping & changing his position. He's still young & he's a confidence player, he needs to be backed in & given more than 1 game to have a crack.

 

[Demon 86]

You can't drop Gawn, he's been playing really well so it wouldn't be right to drop him. It will also send the wrong message to the young guys.

If Garland is injured I'd bring in Jamar otherwise no change for me. It would not surprise me if Petterd got dropped, Jurrah deserves to be dropped but he is still a very good target.

Gotta say I strongly disagree. Gawn and every player on the list knew that no matter what happened, when All Australian Mark Jamar came back into the team Gawn would be back to Casey. He has lapped up and loved every second of his experience, and has shown all of us enough to leave us happy in the knowledge that we have a solid looking succession plan for Jamar.

Gawn will be better for the experience, and some of our more senior players will be better for having seen such a young, unlikely source have a bigger crack than them.

 

[Dez!]

Bailey hasn't written off the idea of all three of them playing.

Here

Bailey flagged the option of playing three ruckmen against the Tigers, with Mark Jamar due to return from injury.

With Max Gawn and Stefan Martin good in tandem in Sunday's huge win over Fremantle, Bailey said the Dees could well both keep their spots despite Jamar's likely return.

"We might be able to play Jamar, Martin and Gawn in the forward line,'' he said.

"All three might be able to play - two talls and a ruckman.

"We're looking at trying to kick the ball in deeper to a couple of targets.

''(If we have) all three playing in the game, if you look at some of the other teams that have gone with tall forwards, I think that might be an option for us.''

People have been crying out about Bailey not having a forward structure and playing the three of them with Jamar being up forward fixes that immensely and people still complain.

If Jamar is up forward, he isn't going far so it gives us a very good marking target to bomb on top of.

For this week anyway Mark Jamar should be a forward and nothing else because he will monster every defender Richmond has, besides that I have doubts about him being able to run out a full game straight up.

 

[DaveyTrainxpress]

Gotta say I strongly disagree. Gawn and every player on the list knew that no matter what happened, when All Australian Mark Jamar came back into the team Gawn would be back to Casey. He has lapped up and loved every second of his experience, and has shown all of us enough to leave us happy in the knowledge that we have a solid looking succession plan for Jamar.

Gawn will be better for the experience, and some of our more senior players will be better for having seen such a young, unlikely source have a bigger crack than them.

You make a good point but it could go either way.

 

[Chip_]

People have been crying out about Bailey not having a forward structure and playing the three of them with Jamar being up forward fixes that immensely and people still complain.

If Jamar is up forward, he isn't going far so it gives us a very good marking target to bomb on top of.

For this week anyway Mark Jamar should be a forward and nothing else because he will monster every defender Richmond has, besides that I have doubts about him being able to run out a full game straight up.

The complaining is not about them being there permanently, it's that we need the resting ruckman there, which we've done & it's been working.

The question is though, if Jamar is forward already, we have Watts, Jurrah, Green, Howe already potentially in the forward line, where do we put the other ruckman? If not in the forward line, that's a lot of time on the bench. Can't see it working, even if Jamar is considered a forward, unless we going to drop a forward or lose someone to injury (Green maybe).

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Gotta say I strongly disagree. Gawn and every player on the list knew that no matter what happened, when All Australian Mark Jamar came back into the team Gawn would be back to Casey. He has lapped up and loved every second of his experience, and has shown all of us enough to leave us happy in the knowledge that we have a solid looking succession plan for Jamar.

Gawn will be better for the experience, and some of our more senior players will be better for having seen such a young, unlikely source have a bigger crack than them.

Think you pretty much nailed it there D_86

 

[stretcharmstrong]

That's just not smart. I know it gets said every week, but this is really a must win game. If you're going to get anywhere as a team you have to beat the sides around & below you & Richmond is right on us. "If it doesn't work then drop Gawn" is potentially much more damaging to MFC & Gawn. Losing this game could end our run at the finals (not expecting us to make it but we're in the race right now) & playing Gawn/changing out tactics could be a big part of the reason why.

Getting dropped for a guy who is in our best 5 players & was AA last year is no criticism for a 19yo guy, it's just how the world works. Getting played & us losing as a result, while selection is not his fault, could hurt his confidence.

Why would we experiment with something we've never even considered before? We went into games with only 1 ruckman earlier in the year, clearly Bails has the opinion that less more in terms of ruckman. 3 ruckman would be detrimental to our game plan taking a runner away from us.

Very unlucky, but it's a good unlucky for us to have. Gawn will have been told when he first got a game that it was ahead of schedule & they would've prepared him for maybe getting dropped regardless of form.

In : Jamar, Gys
Out: Gawn, Bennell

I'd play Martin as the 1st option & Jamar out of the square spending about 40% of the quarter in the ruck.

Bennell needs a few games at Casey & only back in the side when form warrants. BUT, when he's back in he needs to play in one spot & not be the sub & given at least 3 weeks doing this, not chopping & changing his position. He's still young & he's a confidence player, he needs to be backed in & given more than 1 game to have a crack.

Bang! You nailed it too.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Bailey hasn't written off the idea of all three of them playing.

Here



People have been crying out about Bailey not having a forward structure and playing the three of them with Jamar being up forward fixes that immensely and people still complain.

If Jamar is up forward, he isn't going far so it gives us a very good marking target to bomb on top of.

For this week anyway Mark Jamar should be a forward and nothing else because he will monster every defender Richmond has, besides that I have doubts about him being able to run out a full game straight up.

Hmmm, you also make some good points. I'm so conflicted

 

[THE STING2]

That's just not smart. I know it gets said every week, but this is really a must win game. If you're going to get anywhere as a team you have to beat the sides around & below you & Richmond is right on us. "If it doesn't work then drop Gawn" is potentially much more damaging to MFC & Gawn. Losing this game could end our run at the finals (not expecting us to make it but we're in the race right now) & playing Gawn/changing out tactics could be a big part of the reason why.

Jamar comes in as the full forward, so really Martin and Gawn have the same roles as the did against the Dockers as rucks floating forward and back.

I think trying to stretch Richmond defence is the way to go. Gawn's form has been good and I don't think he should be dropped until he starts struggling.

Jamar comes in for the sub who was Bennell. 8 touches in 2 weeks just ain't good enough.

The question is do we rush Gysberts back in?

Nicholson should keep his spot (shouldn't have been dropped in the first place), so that only leaves 2 possibilities to get dropped and that's Gawn and Strauss.

I obviously think Gawn should be in cos he impresses me more than Strauss does. Strauss has given me nothing to be excited about so far, although the 2nd person to be dropped will be very stiff.

I think Gysberts or Strauss will be the sub and will eventually replace the poorer performer out of Gawn and Jurrah.