Round 15: Gold Coast Suns Reserves v Sydney Swans Reserves

[Primmy]

I cannot see any captain material in the lineup. Would that lack of direction ON the ground make a big hole? If so, why were the "seniors" not taking charge when they could have made an impression on the coaches. Not time to bring out the stun gun yet, but.....oh for the days of Captain Bligh and the cat-of-nine-tails....

[stellation]

I cannot see any captain material in the lineup. Would that lack of direction ON the ground make a big hole? If so, why were the "seniors" not taking charge when they could have made an impression on the coaches. Not time to bring out the stun gun yet, but.....oh for the days of Captain Bligh and the cat-of-nine-tails....

Not really knowing the numbers of listed players for Gold Coast at all, going up against tougher competition than the last couple of weeks whilst only playing with 12 (and then 11) listed players I think it's kind of understandable to get beaten? Without having seen the game it's hard to say, but I don't really think it's time for Henry to be having them crawl laps of the SCG at training.

[Primmy]

That I do understand Stella, not having the cattle to make it a better contest. I was just responding to liz's laments.....from what she was pointing out, there didn't seem any direction on the ground itself. Guess I am used to seeing Luke organising the midfield, and have taken it for granted. And always trust Doggy to take charge, as he is a natural leader. Its just that there didn't seem to be any other players stepping into the vacancy (on appraisal of the R&W reports), when it was needed, and warranted. Maybe that is why Nipper got into trouble, he was over-trying? she said hopefully?

[Sidney V]

Thankyou Liz - great run down of the day - appreciate your time and effort.

[liz]

That I do understand Stella, not having the cattle to make it a better contest. I was just responding to liz's laments.....from what she was pointing out, there didn't seem any direction on the ground itself. Guess I am used to seeing Luke organising the midfield, and have taken it for granted. And always trust Doggy to take charge, as he is a natural leader. Its just that there didn't seem to be any other players stepping into the vacancy (on appraisal of the R&W reports), when it was needed, and warranted. Maybe that is why Nipper got into trouble, he was over-trying? she said hopefully?

I didn't see the second report for Nipper as it was on the other side of the ground (and they don't show replays on the big screen at reserves games). From where I was sitting it looked to occur in a ground level tackling contest.

The first incident I did get a clear view of, although again, without the benefit of a replay, it is hard to really assess it. Nipper collided with an oncoming opponent and looked to make head high contact. Did he actively go to bump him? I didn't think so at the time. It looked more of a collision. But it was one of those types of incident that the AFL MRP usually looks at, not unlike the ones that Jude, ROK and Jack have all received reprimands for over the last season and a bit. I don't think it was due to "over trying" by Nipper. Maybe just a bit of clumsiness.

[liz]

Not really knowing the numbers of listed players for Gold Coast at all, going up against tougher competition than the last couple of weeks whilst only playing with 12 (and then 11) listed players I think it's kind of understandable to get beaten? Without having seen the game it's hard to say, but I don't really think it's time for Henry to be having them crawl laps of the SCG at training.

I don't think getting beaten was the issue. But I do think that the lack of fight, especially in the second half, would have disappointed Henry.

[ugg]

Currie was absent because he has a case of TDL-itis (i.e. sore foot).

[Triple B]

So looking at sportingpulse, we had 12 listed players line up (they had Parker in there but surely he didn't play?) and hence down to 11 once Nipper got sent off.

liz and TripleB and anyone else who were there, if you could identify the numbers the topups wore it would help the RWOWiki entry.

Spent a few extra days away and got back late last night.

ugg, the moody boys wore #47 and #48, the taller in #47. pretty sure it was Kenny in #49, Tim Wales was in his usual #54, Murphy in #53.

The other toppies I did not recognise. One of them wore #57 and another in #50 or #51. It was certainly not Mitch Thompson. None of the other usual toppie suspects played (Lynch, Potter, Guthrie etc.), although we probably knew they had other committments.

As for the game, we were destined not to win from the time Nipper got his marching orders, but we probably already beaten at that time anyway, as early as it was.

The Suns had a pretty strong side in and all these guys who are just getting rotated thru the seniors for a game or two have quite obviously improved in leaps and bounds. Krakouer tore us a new one early, but even then spent a huge amount of time on the bench as they swung the changes to their side continuously. It was criminal watching just 1 guy on the bench for us. The GC kids all stood up with guys like Patrick and Liddy having days out.

We obviously missed Parker and co. getting the ball in the middle. Bulldogs greatest talent in the slower ressies level is organising the troops and we missed him bigtime as well.

The backs were under seige and LJ was really having a poor one, even before rolling the ankle just before halftime.

As for leadership, it was worth noting that Campbell Heath did all the 'C'mon, let's do it for the gipper' stuff in the circle pre-quarter and when coming off at halftime, but we just didn't have the cattle on the day and what we did have were cramping and buggered due to no rotations.

Agree with Liz about Jesse. Whilst he didn't put in a performance that said 'give me another chance', his endeavour when clearly knackered in the last quarter was outstanding and deserves full credit for that, if nothing else.

ugg, any news on nipper on the tribunal front? The second report was soft as a pudding and given it forced him from the ground and cost us any chance of making it a contest, the umpy sure did stuff that one up.

[ugg]

ugg, the moody boys wore #47 and #48, the taller in #47. pretty sure it was Kenny in #49, Tim Wales was in his usual #54, Murphy in #53.

The other toppies I did not recognise. One of them wore #57 and another in #50 or #51. It was certainly not Mitch Thompson. None of the other usual toppie suspects played (Lynch, Potter, Guthrie etc.), although we probably knew they had other committments.

That throws a spanner in the works. Eric is the taller one (or so we've assumed) and he's been wearing #48. BSA5 had Stephen Wray in #51 and Mitch Crawford in #52 the week before so I assumed they kept those numbers.

ugg, any news on nipper on the tribunal front? The second report was soft as a pudding and given it forced him from the ground and cost us any chance of making it a contest, the umpy sure did stuff that one up.

I sent a tweet to @NEAFL_Eastern asking about Nippa and about an hour ago I received a reply from @mastersjack who is the manager of AFL Canberra "nippa and sumner free to play"

[Triple B]

I sent a tweet to @NEAFL_Eastern asking about Nippa and about an hour ago I received a reply from @mastersjack who is the manager of AFL Canberra "nippa and sumner free to play"

Good work.

I was not at all worried about Nippers second one, but I thought they may have deemed the first one clumsy and worth a week. That said, it may well have gotten him a week (or more) in AFL seniors, as is the madness known as the MRP.

Sumners I missed because I had my head down tweeting . From the lack of any real remonstrations from Suns players, I was hoping it was nothing too serious.

[Triple B]

ugg, there are a fair few little highlights on the Ressies report video with Henry, you may get some toppie help from that, including which Moody wore which.

[ugg]

Yep thanks. 48 definitely the smaller one, i.e. Andrew and 57 actually looks like Wray

[BSA5]

That throws a spanner in the works. Eric is the taller one (or so we've assumed) and he's been wearing #48. BSA5 had Stephen Wray in #51 and Mitch Crawford in #52 the week before so I assumed they kept those numbers.

Actually, Wray was in 53 last week.

Eric is definitely the taller one, I guess they just swapped numbers this week?

EDIT: Looking at the footage on the Swans website, Andrew is definitely still in 47, Eric in 48. Don't know what you're seeing Ugg. At 41 seconds you get a good glimpse of 48, definitely Eric. At 1 minute you can see 47, and it's definitely the shorter, stockier Andrew. At the 1:59 mark you can clearly see again 48 is Eric. At 2:27 once again it's definitely Eric.

[liz]

I am almost certain the Moodys were wearing their normal guernseys.

And I think 57 was Pryor - a big solid lad, though maybe not quite as solid as big brother was at the same age. He did a couple of useful things in the game.

[BSA5]

I am almost certain the Moodys were wearing their normal guernseys.

And I think 57 was Pryor - a big solid lad, though maybe not quite as solid as big brother was at the same age. He did a couple of useful things in the game.

57 looks like Wray in the ressies report. Difficult to tell though.