Round 1 V Essendon

[Ludwig]

I have a feeling that McGlynn may miss out on round 1, only for the reason that I don't believe there's been a definitive statement that he will play.

I also feel that Towers will get the nod over Heeney, despite Heeney playing more than well enough to earn a spot. He will certainly get a crack soon.

I think Mitchell should be a starter. I'm not worried about this 'slowness' chatter about our inside mids. Mitchell allows JPK and Parker to spend more time off the ball and in the forward line where they can both be very damaging. Both are great contested marks. I noticed Kennedy getting a lot of uncontested ball on the wings.

We are a good contested ball team, but we will have to be even better, because without Malceski we can't afford to have the ball coming into our defensive 50 too often. We haven't had the opportunity to see where Macca is likely to play this year, but I think we need someone to get into the right position in our defensive 50 and take those intercept marks. Laidler was very good at this in his one big year at Carlton, but hasn't shown that ability so far with us. I think he just gets squeezed out of our 22.

[aguy]

I have a feeling that McGlynn may miss out on round 1, only for the reason that I don't believe there's been a definitive statement that he will play.

I also feel that Towers will get the nod over Heeney, despite Heeney playing more than well enough to earn a spot. He will certainly get a crack soon.

I would still select Heeney in place towers if mcglynn isn't available. Quite a like for like replacement if you ask me.

[Conor_Dillon]

Mitchell being in the team also means that Hannebery doesn't have to spend as much time on the inside of contests...his real strength is his gut running and ability to burn opponents off aerobically (as evidenced in the 2012 GF) and we've really missed that with him spending more minutes playing a similar role to Kennedy, Parker etc.

It's all good and well to say we can only have 3 'slow' inside mids in Kennedy, Parker and Bird but we can't expect them all to be at every single centre bounce, throw in and ball-up. Mitchell gives us flexibility in this area and as Ludwig says above, Kennedy and Parker are both genuinely good one-on-one forwards, so it gives us the extra dimension there as well, particularly with Tippett expected to play more minutes in the ruck and Reid down back.

[Conor_Dillon]

I would still select Heeney in place towers if mcglynn isn't available. Quite a like for like replacement if you ask me.

This isn't the most conventional thought but I'd love to see Towers pinch hit in the ruck this year...he was genuinely effective in the few centre bounces he attended last season and also gives us that break-away speed to spread if we manage to win the clearance. Also gives us the option to stack for the forward 50 with Tip and Pyke if the opposition is lacking in tall defenders and let Buddy roam on a wing and half-forward.

[wolftone57]

Sorry Matt but this type of economic bottom line thinking is really silly. Every team knows from 2013 on that building percentage in "soft" games is critical to your final ranking. To suggest resting players because the opposition is weak is contrary to "best practice". If they are genuinely unfit or injured then it is up to the fitness and physio depts to say so and deem them unavailable. To not play your best team on the basis of some perceived development policy is the worst possible message to being sending not only to your own side, but more importantly to the opposition: "Look we don't rate you so we'll play our juniors."

Every player you mentioned will be needed against Port in Adelaide the following week.

By playing them against Essendon, a) we find out if they're fit, b) we give them the chance to improve their match fitness and/or c) they get more game time to tune up their skills under match day pressure.

While I essentially agree with you I think our side should be picked on match ups not so called 'Best 22'. We've proven that doesn't work in big matches. When we picked a side in a big match to match up on the opposition we have always won. I don't care how weak 'The Dons' are going to be we need to play a team that can destroy them. In saying this that doesn't mean necessarily playing all our experienced players. For instance Towers might be a better option because of his pace, defensive pressure and sure hands against an attacking Essendon HB.

I am all for 'Horses for Courses' selection. Don't believe in a 'Best 22'. Best match up on the day, certainly. Strategy is the cornerstone of good coaching. We need to upset the balance of other sides by not being predictable. If our selection is predictable then we become predictable in our game plan. Time to keep them guessing. There are plenty of players who could be up for a game not just 22. Towers,Heeney, BJ, Naismith, Jones, Hiscox to name a few. I don't think we should play any player not at least 99% fit either. They let the side down eventually on the day.

[DamY]

While I essentially agree with you I think our side should be picked on match ups not so called 'Best 22'. We've proven that doesn't work in big matches. When we picked a side in a big match to match up on the opposition we have always won. I don't care how weak 'The Dons' are going to be we need to play a team that can destroy them. In saying this that doesn't mean necessarily playing all our experienced players. For instance Towers might be a better option because of his pace, defensive pressure and sure hands against an attacking Essendon HB.

I am all for 'Horses for Courses' selection. Don't believe in a 'Best 22'. Best match up on the day, certainly. Strategy is the cornerstone of good coaching. We need to upset the balance of other sides by not being predictable. If our selection is predictable then we become predictable in our game plan. Time to keep them guessing. There are plenty of players who could be up for a game not just 22. Towers,Heeney, BJ, Naismith, Jones, Hiscox to name a few. I don't think we should play any player not at least 99% fit either. They let the side down eventually on the day.

In principle I do agree with the horses for courses approach however there is some benefit of having as few changes as possible with regard to the on-field "cattle" as that consistency is important for the cohesion between the players. So I'd recommend tinkering with less than 5 players rather than a wholesale "match-up approach

[wolftone57]

I have a feeling that McGlynn may miss out on round 1, only for the reason that I don't believe there's been a definitive statement that he will play.

I also feel that Towers will get the nod over Heeney, despite Heeney playing more than well enough to earn a spot. He will certainly get a crack soon.

I think Mitchell should be a starter. I'm not worried about this 'slowness' chatter about our inside mids. Mitchell allows JPK and Parker to spend more time off the ball and in the forward line where they can both be very damaging. Both are great contested marks. I noticed Kennedy getting a lot of uncontested ball on the wings.

We are a good contested ball team, but we will have to be even better, because without Malceski we can't afford to have the ball coming into our defensive 50 too often. We haven't had the opportunity to see where Macca is likely to play this year, but I think we need someone to get into the right position in our defensive 50 and take those intercept marks. Laidler was very good at this in his one big year at Carlton, but hasn't shown that ability so far with us. I think he just gets squeezed out of our 22.

I wouldn't be worried about the 'slow' tag either. Mitchell has a lot of 'Diesel' about him. he is a wonderful young extractor. His HB is super and the sooner the older players, who haven't played much footy with him, get used to it the better. It is lightning and sets play up so quickly. Against dockers I saw one HB that set up a goal simply because it was so quick the opposition had no time to react, the same with several v GWS. He is class just like Diesel.

Graeme I thought Jetts kicking was pretty good, especially his kick outs. I didn't like Laidler kicking in at all. Even though his long kicks were good his short ones were disastrous. He has never been the best at short kicking or HB. Reid needs to be third man in the backline to learn his trade there. Agree re Towers & Heeney. They are both looking very dangerous players. We haven't had a medium/small forward since Sneiderman. I think Towers could fill that role, he is very good in the contest & his HB is super and he gets to the fall of the ball to crumb really well. Heeney is classy and his delivery is super, his marking is elite already. This is the future forward and outside/inside mid. Both are really quick as well as get hands dirty. Both are really good tacklers.

Nice to have a pretty healthy list and to be talking about choices. Last year we played a few injured players when we had no reason to and it was disastrous early. We also didn't seem to recognise when to pull the plug on older players. I don't want to see the same happen this year.

[wolftone57]

In principle I do agree with the horses for courses approach however there is some benefit of having as few changes as possible with regard to the on-field "cattle" as that consistency is important for the cohesion between the players. So I'd recommend tinkering with less than 5 players rather than a wholesale "match-up approach

Generally you wouldn't even have to change that many. It would be more of a matching up on a Stephen Hill, Ballantyne, Walters (Dockers), Bradley Hill, Burgoyne, Suckling, Smith, Lewis, Hodge, Bruest, Birchell (Hawks).

Most of the match ups would come from within the already so called best 22 but sometimes we need to match up on a player like Suckling or Birchell and Towers or Heeney would be preferable to say Benny simply because they are taller and can outmark their opponents. They are also both good defensive players and Towers proved he can keep offensive defenders quiet against both GWS & Dockers. He also hurt them in return with goal assists and goals. So the main nucleus of the side stays the same just but we just bring different players in to do specific jobs. Those players could play several weeks running and other players go out and the players they replaced come back. It is a matter of balance on the day. But as I say there need not be wholesale changes, maybe between one and five. But even five would be quite drastic I would think.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I wonder how Towers would go in the backline. He Has good reach, speed and seems good defensively. Does anyone know if he's been used in that role before?

[Melbourne_Blood]

I wonder how Towers would go in the backline. He Has good reach, speed and seems good defensively. Does anyone know if he's been used in that role before?

With Rohan, Rampe and Jetta down there I think he'd be better suited to a half forward role.

[Nico]

Towers wont get a game Round 1 because he doesn't get near enough of the footy. Might doa few cameos in a game but not enough to consistency so far.

People rap up Cunningham but he is a very, very soft outside footballer. When caught in traffic a few times against GWS he went for the Sorbent rather than the footy. Is unfavourable to body contact. When playing half forward was easily beaten one on one and lacked second efforts.

[ugg]

I wonder how Towers would go in the backline. He Has good reach, speed and seems good defensively. Does anyone know if he's been used in that role before?

That's where he played in the VFL and probably the position we recruited him for

[Ampersand]

Towers wont get a game Round 1 because he doesn't get near enough of the footy. Might doa few cameos in a game but not enough to consistency so far.

People rap up Cunningham but he is a very, very soft outside footballer. When caught in traffic a few times against GWS he went for the Sorbent rather than the footy. Is unfavourable to body contact. When playing half forward was easily beaten one on one and lacked second efforts.

That's pretty harsh. He was one of our most consistent performers last year, earned a well deserved Rising Star nomination and has loads more potential given he's only 21. His exceptional roving ability plugs a vital gap in our forward line given all the tall timber we have planted down there. IMHO he has excellent composure and toughness, not to mention his endurance.

I'll also add that he was given a number of crucial tagging roles in the latter half of 2014 and performed excellently. Hardly consistent with someone who is "soft".

[S.S. Bleeder]

With Rohan, Rampe and Jetta down there I think he'd be better suited to a half forward role.

I'd prefer Rohan in the forward line actually.

- - - Updated - - -

That's where he played in the VFL and probably the position we recruited him for

Thanks Ugg. Wasn't aware of that. We should swap him and Rohan. I Think Rohan is far better as a fwd.

[liz]

Rohan and Towers are very similar players - both quick, good overhead and a bit outside (though with the ability to stick run down tackles). Both float in and out of games a bit at the moment. They add value because their explosive efforts, when they do get involved, add some unpredictability to the forward set up. But I am not sure there is currently room in the side for both of them. If either can learn to do a bit more of the "bread and butter stuff", the team might be able to carry the other one too, for his ability to create a few game changing moments. But two players who can only add the odd spark leaves a lot of work for the rest of the team.