Changes v Melbourne

[vaughany]

I know it is early and there is the VFL game on Friday night that may provide some indication on some players form but we might as well kick start the good old "changes" thread.

Don't like to make changes after a great win but here goes...

In:
Jetta (he is best 22 simple as that)
Gumby (if Crameri doesn't come up)
Browne
Hardingham

Out:
Hooker (not required especially if one of either Mitch Clark or Dawes doesn't play)
Melksham (doesn't do enough as we all know, needs 3 or 4 weeks in VFL to get hungry and prove that he is an AFL player)
Crameri (if injured?)
Merrett (harsh but makes way for Jetta)

*Note NLM not required this week but have him ready to rough up freo, stk and coll in the following weeks

 

[Zach Package]

I'd go in unchanged if there are no injuries

 

[vaughany]

I'd go in unchanged if there are no injuries

Yeah fair enough, but can we at least squeeze Jetta in?

 

[JETTA7]

Yeah fair enough, but can we at least squeeze Jetta in?

there is no need for jetta to be in the team...

 

[Kyptastic]

Teams don't make four changes for the sake of change after a win.

Bags for me is the only one who I fell could be dropped, but the coaches have seen something in him and he should get 3 or 4 more matches to see how he goes.

Swap Zaka and Merrett as the sub and you've got your team.

 

[BrunoV]

What did you have this saved on your hard drive from August last year?

How on earth can you seriously propose three unforced changes on the back of such a good performance and miss the players that actually underperformed vs Adelaide last Friday? It is just trash, attempting to dress up dislike of players as something more credible.

 

[lamaros]

Too early for this thread.

 

[Charliebrow 16]

I'm also of the belief that you don't drastically change a winning formula, so I'd be perfectly content if we were to go in with the same side that we did against Adelaide. However, my personal preference is to see Hardingham in the squad for Baguley, but the latter did have a much improved second half and he does admittedly deserve his opportunity in the senior squad based on his NAB Cup form.

Hopefully not too many changes - everyone played reasonably well.

 

[eth-dog]

why can't we just put all of this in the preview thread as well?

 

[Zach Package]

Yeah fair enough, but can we at least squeeze Jetta in?

Is that you Leroy?
I can't see a need for any of those changes unless fitness is an issue.
Jetta, gumby, browne and hardingham will have a chance to prove themselves in the VFL between now and then, however I can't justify any of them.

Without trying to sound patronizing, did you even watch the game?
Melksham looked much sharper, Hooker killed many contests, and Merrett's forward pressure and chasing was a welcome change to what we saw from jetta last year.

 

[Bombers36]

The only feasable change I could see is Hardingham in for Baguley.
I would let Jetta work hard in the twos to win his spot back - no one else deserves to be dropped.

 

[Tommy08]

Hardy for Bags.

Done

 

[bombermick]

Come back after Fri's VFL game and we can discuss ins and outs. There's one change I'd like, but too early.

 

[vaughany]

There is no "hidden agenda" trying to disguise a dislike of players.

Simply just want the best 22 to be playing right now, regardless of the result.

There is no room for complacency in AFL so the old theory of not changing your side after a win is no longer applicable.

Dawes/Clark not playing there is simply no match up for Hooker next game and against freo on the wide open spaces. He can return when we play Collingwood (Lynch/Cloke)
People have short memories Browne is a gun, he is now a lock for best 22.
That quote above by Jack Package "Melksham looked sharper" oh my! trolling surely?
There is no denying Jetta just has to play.

 

[Jaffii]

Dropping Hooker ? Not sure if serious

 

[eth-dog]

There is no "hidden agenda" trying to disguise a dislike of players.

Simply just want the best 22 to be playing right now, regardless of the result.

There is no room for complacency in AFL so the old theory of not changing your side after a win is no longer applicable.

Dawes/Clark not playing there is simply no match up for Hooker next game and against freo on the wide open spaces. He can return when we play Collingwood (Lynch/Cloke)
People have short memories Browne is a gun, he is now a lock for best 22.
That quote above by Jack Package "Melksham looked sharper" oh my! trolling surely?
There is no denying Jetta just has to play.

Clark and Dawes will both play, along with Pederson
So much so that he's gone behind Merrett, O'Brien and Kavanagh in the pecking order
That's because he did look sharper. The only troll in this thread is you
Easily deniable

 

[BrunoV]

There is no "hidden agenda" trying to disguise a dislike of players.

Simply just want the best 22 to be playing right now, regardless of the result.

There is no room for complacency in AFL so the old theory of not changing your side after a win is no longer applicable.

Dawes/Clark not playing there is simply no match up for Hooker next game and against freo on the wide open spaces. He can return when we play Collingwood (Lynch/Cloke)
People have short memories Browne is a gun, he is now a lock for best 22.
That quote above by Jack Package "Melksham looked sharper" oh my! trolling surely?
There is no denying Jetta just has to play.

So why not drop Ryder who was crap and put Hooker in as the second ruck rotating forward if he isn't needed down back? Hooker is tall enough to ruck 15% and was initially a forward so it is not as much of a stretch as it sounds (not that I'd do it).

If Jetta "had to play" he would have convinced the coaches that he should have been selected for round 1. Presumably, if Browne was considered a lock for best 22 he would be playing.

If you don't think Melksham looked sharper you're not a good judge of such things (and you opinion is simply wrong). Not only was he covering the ground better and displaying better agility in tight, he attacked the ball and man with aggression.

 

[vaughany]

Dropping Hooker ? Not sure if serious

Just horses for courses mate.

With Dawes and Clark under clouds who does Hooker play on? Shannon Byrnes ?

 

[vaughany]

Clark and Dawes will both play, along with Pederson
So much so that he's gone behind Merrett, O'Brien and Kavanagh in the pecking order
That's because he did look sharper. The only troll in this thread is you
Easily deniable

yes, Clark and Dawes play= Hooker Plays

 

[eth-dog]

Just horses for courses mate.

With Dawes and Clark under clouds who does Hooker play on? Shannon Byrnes ?

Ever heard of Cameron Pederson?

 

[Tommy08]

I must say I was surprised that Jetta didn't get a game. But in saying that I was rather impressed with Merrett's game. Stiff on the kid to drop him after a solid start

 

[Kyptastic]

Dawes/Clark not playing there is simply no match up for Hooker next game and against freo on the wide open spaces. He can return when we play Collingwood (Lynch/Cloke)
People have short memories Browne is a gun, he is now a lock for best 22.
That quote above by Jack Package "Melksham looked sharper" oh my! trolling surely?
There is no denying Jetta just has to play.

I'm glad your're not picking the team, based on those opinions.

Browne looked good, but so did Colyer in his second year. Hasn't done enough to get into our midfield ahead of those already there.
Melksham had a very good second half against Adelaide and set up 2 or 3 goals.
There's much denying that Jetta 'has' to play, given that between Davey and Merrett we got everything and more we would expect out of Jetta.

As for Hooker, he'll play on the resting ruck. Had a very good game on Pavlich last year as far as I remember. Not worth arguing about Hooker, as there were still nuffies paying him out on Friday after what was a good game blanketing Jenkins.

 

[eth-dog]

yes, Clark and Dawes play= Hooker Plays

Also; if Clark and Dawes don't play they'll swing Garland forward like they did against us last year, and he'll play on him

 

[vaughany]

Just think we are all so so harsh on Browne. Last year he showed what he is capable of.

 

[Kyptastic]

Just think we are all so so harsh on Browne. Last year he showed what he is capable of.

Noone's being harsh on Browne. We all think he's capable of great things - we sponsored him after all. But you can rate a guy for the future without thinking he's best 22 at this point in time. He's not in our top 10 midfielders.