Round 11 teams

[midaro]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Chambers for four quarters >>>> Doyle for four minutes.

Maybe... just.
Although, it certainly doesn't warrant more than one "greater than" sign. Perhaps just a "greater than or equal to" sign.

I don't believe that if we were playing a GF on Saturday night we would carry Chambers.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by midaro
Maybe... just.
Although, it certainly doesn't warrant more than one "greater than" sign. Perhaps just a "greater than or equal to" sign.

I don't believe that if we were playing a GF on Saturday night we would carry Chambers.

Who would you replace him with?

[midaro]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Who would you replace him with?

If it was a GF, I'd replace Chambers with Vogels or our next midfielder. Let Jolly take as much ruck as he can--and rotate with Goodes.

I appreciate that the current philosopy of protecting Goodes from the ruck, prohibits this.

[Claret]

Originally posted by midaro
If it was a GF, I'd replace Chambers with Vogels or our next midfielder. Let Jolly take as much ruck as he can--and rotate with Goodes.

I appreciate that the current philosopy of protecting Goodes from the ruck, prohibits this.

Therefore Chambers is part of our best 22.

[midaro]

No, he's a placeholder.

[Claret]

Originally posted by midaro
No, he's a placeholder.

Using your theory, if the best 22 players at the club just happened to all be midfielders then you would select all 22 midfielders in your best 22. Even the Saints would beat us in the ruck. Possibly.

[midaro]

I don't know where you got that from.

I'm just saying, if we wanted to field our best team, Chambers wouldn't be in it. Goodes and Jolly would ruck.

However, the match committee refuses to play out Rising Star\All Australian\Brownlow Medalist ruckman in the ruck. So Chambers provides Jolly with the necessary relief.

IMO If Doyle--or even Ericksen--weren't injured, they would be in the team ahead of Chambers. I don't beleve this "Roos putting faith in him" bit at all. He's just a neccessary evil.

[liz]

Originally posted by midaro
I don't know where you got that from.

I'm just saying, if we wanted to field our best team, Chambers wouldn't be in it. Goodes and Jolly would ruck.

However, the match committee refuses to play out Rising Star\All Australian\Brownlow Medalist ruckman in the ruck. So Chambers provides Jolly with the necessary relief.

IMO If Doyle--or even Ericksen--weren't injured, they would be in the team ahead of Chambers. I don't beleve this "Roos putting faith in him" bit at all. He's just a neccessary evil.

There was an interesting short interview with Adam Goodes on Saturday Central a short while ago (by Brad Seymour) and one of the things they discussed was the importance of Goodes' current role versus his 2003 role. Adam certainly seems to think that the role he is currently playing is more important than his 2003 role (though he qualified this by pointing out that he had to play in the ruck in 2003 because there was no-one else to do so).

Even last year there seemed to be a question over exactly how best to use Goodes. Similar questions raged for years over Carlton's use of Koutoufides. But this year the club really seems to have nailed it.

As for Erikson displacing Chambers if he were fit...methinks you have never seen Erikson, let alone seem him play. He is still a relative stick insect and doesn't look comfortable with the physical nature of ruck contests. He's certainly improved but I doubt he's that close to senior football.

[midaro]

Originally posted by liz
As for Erikson displacing Chambers if he were fit...methinks you have never seen Erikson, let alone seem him play.

That's true--and should only be taken as a reflection of how lowly I rate Chambers.

As for Goodes' comments; they surprise me.
When I've heard him speak of the issue (admittedly not this year), I'd always inferred that he saw himself moving back into the ruck. It dissapoints me if he doesn't. Sure he looks good in his current role--but everyone looks good playing Labrador without an opponent.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by midaro
Sure he looks good in his current role--but everyone looks good playing Labrador without an opponent.

Yep!

[giant]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Yep!

It's fascinating to see the list of top kick-getters in AFl this season:

Ben Johnson CW 178 17.8
Heath Scotland CA 170 17
Nick Dal Santo SK 165 16.5
Luke Power BL 158 15.8
Joel Bowden RI 158 15.8
Ryan Houlihan CA 156 15.6
Adam Goodes SY 156 15.6
Joel Corey GE 154 15.4
Andrew McLeod AD 153 15.3
Lance Whitnall CA 151 15.1

Hardly a who's who of footy and virtually all of them playing the loose player of half back. At least in Goodesy case, you could argue he covers a lot of miles to get his kicks. I mean the fact that Scotland & Houlihan are top 10 certainly shows the diminished value of getting a kick these days!