I'm more excited...

[sharp9]

about planning for the future team after we lose this week than trying to work out how few changes will be made for this week.

Every year at this time I reissue the same thread..."We need a PROPER midfield," you know, one with flair and class

Great midfielders don't grow on trees....they grow in the back pocket or the first ten draft picks (except when Sydney has top ten draft picks in the two weakest drafts of the last 20 years!)

Every team needs 2 Ruckmen and 8 midfielders all up, of which two can be PRIMARILY (but not only) taggers.

It's easier to introduce new players to other parts of the groud.

As attacking midfielders so far we have

Goodes (out of form)
Buchanan (out of form)
Ablett (not playing too badly but needs to be freed up)

As taggers we have Kirk (in reasonable TAGGING form)
Mathews (in reasonable TAGGING form)

So it could be worse. The three other attacking midfielders should be, IMHO,

Davis (in form...PUT HIM IN THE MIDDLE!)
O'Keefe (in form...PUT HIM IN THE MIDDLE!)
Malceski (in form...PUT HIM IN THE MIDDLE!)

I'm tempted to suggest (for the third year in a row) Kennelly, but I have to admit we need at least one super talent (with experience) off half back.

Replacing Malceski at the back (with Kennelly playing) we have Laidlaw (or Thornton or whoever of the newbies would do that job best)

Also at the back we have Barry and C. Bolton leaving two spots up for grabs because Richards and Crouch have been in woeful form, neither negating their respective dangerous forwards. Personally I would put Jack in there ahead of Crouch, plus Dempster = six.

Forward we only have two reliably good forwards in Hall and O'Loughlin..so we need four more of them!!!!!

The obvious one for mine is Vogels, who has looked good but ONLY up forward. So we need three medium/small forwards or half forwards. Most importantly we NEED a proper crumbing forward. Right now I would give this job to Schneider and make sure he plays an A. Davey type role...really defend in the forward fifty and really crumb for goal.

So, two other forwards would be Fosdike and Schmidt who have really shown ability to actually kick goals when given the opportunity.

That leaves one place on the bench for a tall...Plonk the Donk!

So in the wash up we have a BIIIIIG hole where a tall defender should be, No LRT and Richards not defending well enough, so we end up with 3 190ish defenders + Barry, Jack and Laidlaw. Could be worse.

Going through the team this way also sees me drop J. Bolton, Crouch and Richards - but leave Mathews and Fosdike. Go figure.

Moore and Phillips are not there either.

Thoughts?

[tez]

Bit hard on Buchanan. He missed two games with injury.

[hammo]

I'm not going to write the season off just yet - the 2005 season highlights DVD showed how poor we were for most of that season before hitting our straps.

However, if we do lose touch and Roos decides to mix things up, what is obvious is the lack of tall defenders on our list.

This must be the major focus of recruiting for us. I reckon if Craig Bolton or Leo Barry missed games we'd be well and truly stuffed.

[Claret]

Bit hard on Buchanan. He missed two games with injury.

Although prior to that he was fairly ordinary (am I being generous?).

Ever since he copped that knock against the Eagles he has rarely hit a target.

That being said, however, he is still in our best 22.

[Legs Akimbo]

Although prior to that he was fairly ordinary (am I being generous?).

Ever since he copped that knock against the Eagles he has rarely hit a target.

That being said, however, he is still in our best 22.

6 clangers last week against the aints.

[liz]

6 clangers last week against the aints.

Does that include his 3 HTBs?

One was a nonsense decision by the umpires - absolutely no prior opportunity and he didn't dive on it.

The other two were plum but I don't mind it always when someone gets caught HTB when they're trying to create something. Ones where someone is just unaware are cringeworthy (like McVeigh's against the Wiggles) but if you want players to take a few risks and take the opponent on, you have to accept that it won't always come off.

Compared to some of the other cringeworthy clangers we witnessed (like from Fosdike and Teddy) these were "acceptable" IMO.

[Jeffers1984]

Does that include his 3 HTBs?

One was a nonsense decision by the umpires - absolutely no prior opportunity and he didn't dive on it.

.

Was that the one where 2 Aints players had Bucky in some roman wrestling type headlock that remarkably wasn't called too high?

[hammo]

Was that the one where 2 Aints players had Bucky in some roman wrestling type headlock that remarkably wasn't called too high?

And then 5 minutes later a carbon copy tackle saw a free kick awarded to the Saints

[barry]

Was that the one where 2 Aints players had Bucky in some roman wrestling type headlock that remarkably wasn't called too high?

Buchanon has a reputation amoung the umpy's as someone who purposely puts his head down to milk "too high" tackles. he rarely gets away with it, and would be better to just play normally and avoid risking his neck.

[tez]

IIRC Didn't the Davis goal come from a Monty handpass?

[reigning premier]

Think Buchy should be given a break.... He's a quality player who whilst off his game a little at the moment, deserves his place.

[liz]

Was that the one where 2 Aints players had Bucky in some roman wrestling type headlock that remarkably wasn't called too high?

No, that was one of the two that I assessed as being valid. He definitely ducked into that tackle. It looks instinctive with him (it probably is for most players who do it) and I don't know that he was necessarily trying to milk a free for high. Sometimes they do pay them as high but I can understand why that one wasn't.

The one I thought was ridiculous was when he took possession and was taken to ground almost straight away. The umpire must have deemed that despite half the Saints team jumping on top of him, he wasn't making a reasonable attempt to dispose of the ball because there certainly was no prior opportunity in that case.

[TheMase]

You know what really gets to me? This 'you ducked into it' bull@@@@ the umpires go on with. I am a level 2 umpire. A few years ago they decided that ducking your head would still be considered as high.

After having a look at the 2007 rules, there is NO PROVISION for the umpire to judge that a player has 'ducked' his head into a tackle.

The rules are black and white, if it is high..it is high.

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
(a) makes contact with any part of his or her body with an
opposition Player;
(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders
or bump to the head); or
(ii) below the knees.


It really annoys me when the umpire says "you ducked into that one mate".

[liz]

It really annoys me when the umpire says "you ducked into that one mate".

Is it not a case of common sense prevailing though? If there was never any allowance made for illegal contact instigated by the "victim" it would be possible for players to validly milk all sorts of free kicks when their opponent had not done anything wrong.

[ROK Lobster]

You know what really gets to me? This 'you ducked into it' bull@@@@ the umpires go on with. I am a level 2 umpire. A few years ago they decided that ducking your head would still be considered as high.

After having a look at the 2007 rules, there is NO PROVISION for the umpire to judge that a player has 'ducked' his head into a tackle.

The rules are black and white, if it is high..it is high.

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
(a) makes contact with any part of his or her body with an
opposition Player;
(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders
or bump to the head); or
(ii) below the knees.


It really annoys me when the umpire says "you ducked into that one mate".

There would be a free at every stoppage if that was applied literally.