Barry Who?

[Nolie]

Do we need him (BBBH)? Do we want him?

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Not as much as we once did & Yes.

[Bloody Hell]

Do we need him (BBBH)? Do we want him?

Stick him on a wing!

[NMWBloods]

Gerard Healy observed it gives us great flexibility now - we should be able to recognise we don't always need to go through Hall and Hall can moved to different positions if necessary.

[satchmopugdog]

Stick him on a wing!

Hall on Richo.....dumb and dumber

[liz]

I think some people's memories are failing them if they think we won't be a better team with Hall in the forward line, so long as he is reasonably fit. The last three weeks are a little misleading. The Port win was full of merit but Port aren't the best team defensively and didn't flood our forward line at all. Richmond gift wrapped us goal after goal after goal in the first half, while Essendon fell to pieces in the final term.

On the other hand, against the Dogs, our midfield was better for longer than their's. Sure, they blew us away in the second quarter but for the rest of the game we were the better ball winning game. Who knows if the ball usage would have been better, or conversion rate more palatable, had Hall been there, but it is hard to imagine it would have been worse. It's the Hawthorns, Geelongs and Dogs of this world we have to beat to be a contender, and I think that Dogs game was eminently winnable. Hall might have made the difference.

Similarly, against the Roos, the obvious difference between the two teams was that they had a leading, marking forward in Thompson and we didn't. I think both teams played well below what they are capable of that night, and from midway through the second quarter, it looked all the way like the Roos' forward structure was what was going to differentiate the two teams in the end. That final 5 minute flurry, when we bombarded them, came from almost nowhere, and was against the run of the second half. Had Hall been there, I believe we'd have had the game under control on the scoreboard by the end of the first half, when the Swans were just about winning contests across the ground.

[cruiser]

Hall should be treated as just another forward and option when going for goal, not THE forward and option. And we do want and need him.

[Big Al]

The fact he will attract the best defender means it could free up our other forwards even more. However we need to careful not to always go to Hall as we have done in the past. I think the the last 7 weeks have taught us that always go to the best option and not necessarily be looking for the gun forward.

[hot potato]

The fact he will attract the best defender means it could free up our other forwards even more. However we need to careful not to always go to Hall as we have done in the past. I think the the last 7 weeks have taught us that always go to the best option and not necessarily be looking for the gun forward.

MMMmmm, the seven weeks without Hall, I agree have been really beneficial for the other forwards to have the freedom to use many different options and they certainly appear to have thoroughly enjoyed it.
The Hall return will be watched with great interest, he was going very well prior to Stakergate, I hope the forward structure will be even more potent with him back.

[Plugger46]

I think some people's memories are failing them if they think we won't be a better team with Hall in the forward line, so long as he is reasonably fit. The last three weeks are a little misleading. The Port win was full of merit but Port aren't the best team defensively and didn't flood our forward line at all. Richmond gift wrapped us goal after goal after goal in the first half, while Essendon fell to pieces in the final term.

On the other hand, against the Dogs, our midfield was better for longer than their's. Sure, they blew us away in the second quarter but for the rest of the game we were the better ball winning game. Who knows if the ball usage would have been better, or conversion rate more palatable, had Hall been there, but it is hard to imagine it would have been worse. It's the Hawthorns, Geelongs and Dogs of this world we have to beat to be a contender, and I think that Dogs game was eminently winnable. Hall might have made the difference.

Similarly, against the Roos, the obvious difference between the two teams was that they had a leading, marking forward in Thompson and we didn't. I think both teams played well below what they are capable of that night, and from midway through the second quarter, it looked all the way like the Roos' forward structure was what was going to differentiate the two teams in the end. That final 5 minute flurry, when we bombarded them, came from almost nowhere, and was against the run of the second half. Had Hall been there, I believe we'd have had the game under control on the scoreboard by the end of the first half, when the Swans were just about winning contests across the ground.

Agree with all of that.

[SCGonasunnyday]

Hall has been a matchwinner for us time and time again, particularly in 05 and 06. It is human nature for us to think of his 2007 form as it was recent form, but there were signs this year that he was back to 2006 form.

Definitely want and need him. But yes, we don't need the Carlton/Fevola problem where we are too one dimensional in attack and thus easier to negate. But that's not Hall's fault.

I might say I hope he can tone down his remonstrations to the umps for the second half of the year, it does him no favours. I saw Mickey O get dudded last week when the umps missed an obvious free, yet within a moment he again appeared on his feet, short passing to a player for a shot at goal. At the time I wondered whether Hall would have done that or would have been busy abusing the ump.

[T-bag]

If he was in tonight I can guarantee you we wouldn't be playing this @@@@

[is2SWaNz]

Yes, we do need him.