Well how's the team for round one going to look then?

[sharp9]

Injured and selectable - Crouch, LRT, Ablett, Doyle, Grundy, Schneider

Certain 19

Bolton, Barry, Dempster, Malceski, Richards, Kennelly
Kirk, Buchanan, Fosdike, Bolton, Goodes, Mathews, Everitt
Davis, Hall, O'Keefe, O'Loughlin, McVeigh, Jolly

Interchange - 2 Talls, 1 Short.... in order (realistic selection possibilities only)

Vogels, White, Rowe
Schmidt, Phillips, Simpkins, Bevan, Moore, Jack

It looks to me as though it will be 3 of Vogels, White, Schmidt and Phillips. We're a bit short on height so you would think that we need two talls...but then again no Schneider no dedicated small forward, plus Phillips is in really good touch...added to which how could you NOT have Schmidt in the team considering where his development is? So in final summation it will be Vogels or White for the final tall and I predict....White, because every now and then Roosey reaches into the bag and does something Dramatic or Romantic. Down the track I can see Mathews being squeezed out if Schmidt and Phillips take their chances and Schneider and Ablett are back.

Very hard to pick Bevan, I'm afraid.

Hard to believe Malceski was a fringe/romantic selection this time 12 months ago!

[gossipcom]

I wouldn't be surprised if Roos goes with speed on the interchange apart from a tall, etc. Because he'll need something to combat the midfield of the Weagles.

[ROK Lobster]

Nick Davis will be named on the bench.

[swantastic]

Bolton, Barry, Dempster, Malceski, Richards, Kennelly
Kirk, Buchanan, Fosdike, Bolton, Goodes, Mathews, Everitt
Davis, Hall, O'Keefe, O'Loughlin, McVeigh, Jolly

As well as Schmidt,Mocca and Vogels.IMHO

"Just here to help"

[liz]

Re: Well how's the team for round one going to look then?

Originally posted by sharp9

Certain 19

Fosdike

Not entirely certain, given that he was reported yesterday. Not exactly sure of the rules but wouldn't be surprised if suspensions received in practice matches can't be served in practice matches.

Didn't see the incident but an umpire was right next to it and blew the whistle and pulled out his book instantly.

I think it's still a bit early to call who will get the spots. The fringe players still have two practice games left to push their cause.

I suspect the "battles" are Schmidt vs Moore, White vs Vogels, and Phillips vs Moore (since he has also played as a small forward).

Moore probably has a bit of work to do to get himself a spot but it's not beyond him to do so over the next couple of weeks.

[stellation]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
Nick Davis will be named on the bench.

Sad but true.

[SimonH]

Re: Well how's the team for round one going to look then?

Originally posted by sharp9
Injured and selectable - Crouch, LRT, Ablett, Doyle, Grundy, Schneider

Certain 19

Bolton, Barry, Dempster, Malceski, Richards, Kennelly
Kirk, Buchanan, Fosdike, Bolton, Goodes, Mathews, Everitt
Davis, Hall, O'Keefe, O'Loughlin, McVeigh, Jolly

Interchange - 2 Talls, 1 Short.... in order (realistic selection possibilities only)

Vogels, White, Rowe
Schmidt, Phillips, Simpkins, Bevan, Moore, Jack

Generally very good analysis. I agree that despite what some might say, at this stage Dempster and Mathews remain selection certainties if fit. I also think (as others have said) that Vogels and White are fighting for the one spot; barring further injury, both won't be played. Roos has a pretty strong track record of playing smalls over talls, even if the team balance seems to demand a tall, if the smalls' form deserves a game. And at the moment, it would seem that both Schmidt and Phillips deserve a game, with Moore knocking on the door.

Rowe and Jack are not realistic selection possibilities at the moment, because they aren't eligible to be selected. They're rookies, and so can't be played unless we have a player placed on the long-term injury list and one of them is promoted.

On the current injury list, LRT is the only one who is even a chance of being listed as a long-term injured player. (They won't do it to Crouch b/c of his extraordinary powers of recovery.) And even then, it's a remote chance-- the rules for listing are quite harsh to prevent teams playing rookies whenever anyone gets injured for a week or two. I think that a player on the long-term injury list must remain on it for 6 or 8 weeks after listing (the detail's in the CBA)-- even if he becomes fit in that time. Sydney won't consider doing it unless, come the end of March, there is absolutely zero chance that LRT could come up before June or so.

[liz]

Re: Re: Well how's the team for round one going to look then?

Originally posted by SimonH
Rowe and Jack are not realistic selection possibilities at the moment, because they aren't eligible to be selected. They're rookies, and so can't be played unless we have a player placed on the long-term injury list and one of them is promoted.

Except for the "nominated rookie" system? Does this still exist? It was how Paul Bevan got to play in 2004, without there being a long term injury to cover. But haven't heard anything about players being so nominated since then.

The Swans have no "inside" veterans so theoretically should be able to nominate two rookies to play senior football.

If it does still exist - and assuming those players have to be nominated at the start of the year - Jack seems to me to be the most likely. His commendable job on Aker as a small tagger suggests he could provide cover for Crouch, either in the midfield or in defence.

None of the rest look close to senior selection, notwithstanding a few notable marks from Rowe.

[penga]

Re: Re: Re: Well how's the team for round one going to look then?

Originally posted by liz
Except for the "nominated rookie" system?

Wasn't that because we had 37 on the list? So the 38th spot could be utilised for a rookie.

[hammo]

White has impressed so far, and I didn't see the game on the weekend, but I would be very surprised if Roos selected him in round 1. Just too inexperienced.

[SimonH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well how's the team for round one going to look then?

Originally posted by penga
Wasn't that because we had 37 on the list? So the 38th spot could be utilised for a rookie.

I thought that now the CBA required a minimum of 38 players on senior lists (there was an exception for 2004, when only 37 were required), the 'nominated rookie' had gone the way of the dodo. However, looking at the CBA (warning: long PDF), it's still with us. Any club that doesn't have any 'outside' veterans may nominate 2 eligible rookies; any club that has one may nominate one eligible rookie (clause 14.6).

The only catch is that half of the rookie's payments then count towards the salary cap; and the AFL won't accept the eligible rookie nomination until satisfied that the sums of money involved won't take the club over the cap. This explains the relative unpopularity of the concept; too many clubs are hard up against the salary cap, so that even $20-25,000 would tip them over.

Originally posted by liz
The Swans have no "inside" veterans so theoretically should be able to nominate two rookies to play senior football.

It turns out that what you probably meant was right, but you have to replace 'inside' with 'outside'. (Liz doesn't get much wrong, so I have to be all over this like a rash.)

The system is complicated as all buggery, but the upshot is relatively simple: each club must have at least 38 players eligible to be selected for its team each week, and may (by using the outside veteran and/or nominated rookie systems) have up to 40. Ignoring injuries, o' course.

PS I've just gone to the bother of looking it up, and the rules for long-term injury lists are as follows:
a) Must be done with player's consent (so Crouch won't be on it)
b) The AFL's doctor must share the club doctor's opinion that the person will be unable to play for at least 8 weeks
c) Can't play firsts or seconds for 8 weeks from the date you are placed on the list
d) No limitation on how early someone may be placed on the long-term injury list (although the AFL must consent to the listing). They just can't be put on (or removed) after round 18.

So if Sydney are serious about playing Rowe or Jack in the first few rounds (and we have no space in the cap allowing them to be nominated), they would be better off long-term injury listing LRT now, because that would mean he could still play in about round 5 if he comes up.

[giant]

Re: Re: Well how's the team for round one going to look then?

Originally posted by liz
Not entirely certain, given that he was reported yesterday. Not exactly sure of the rules but wouldn't be surprised if suspensions received in practice matches can't be served in practice matches.

As I understand it, they can't - certainly that's the implication from those who were suspended from Round 1 NAB Cup (rather than Challenge) games last week.

With (I imagine) the lack of footage of the incident, the umpire on the spot's version of events is likely to stand & nws a good record, it's a pretty good chance that for striking behind the play Fossie will do 1 week at least.

[penga]

Balanced and researched post on RWO - well I never. Thanks Simon.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by penga
Balanced and researched post on RWO - well I never. Thanks Simon.

If I recall the RWO rules correctly, a balanced and researched post carries an automatic one-week suspension.

It's a fair cop, guv. I did the crime; I'll do me time.

[liz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well how's the team for round one going to look then?

Originally posted by SimonH


It turns out that what you probably meant was right, but you have to replace 'inside' with 'outside'.

You're right of course. I got my "inside" and "outside" confused.