Changes for Rnd6 v Crows

[Wardy]

I wonder what acting school the Selwood brothers all went to? They can't all be naturally talented footballers and that good at acting, surely? Ducking, diving, these are all separate sports for mine

My mad FreoMan loving mate in Perth reckons that the Selwoods dad had the lads out in the back yard at an early age teaching them the Limbo.

[Lucky Knickers]

Waiting for calls by the dickheads in the media that Thomas is a dirty and undisciplined player..

Don't think that but it's surely same message that Goodes got ie get it out of your game.

[Big Al]

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and......dodge.

Better known as a night out with Matthew Newton.

[GongSwan]

Waiting for calls by the dickheads in the media that Thomas is a dirty and undisciplined player..

Call me a dickhead then, he's got the message that it's all ok for him, he'll keep doing it. Protected species anyone?

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Call me a dickhead then, he's got the message that it's all ok for him, he'll keep doing it. Protected species anyone?

I think some wires got crossed somewhere along the line.

[Bleed Red Blood]

i am very confident longmire will get the best out of reid. we have seen other players such as jude bolton fix their goal kicking. some posters have called for sam to play in defense sometimes, i remember saying the same last year, there is precedent everywhere, no ones saying it has to be career long but it"ll give him a better all round understanding of the game. and the game plan. and that kind of versatility is valuable. longmire knows this, he played next to carey for his entire career. the king is considered one of the best ever centre half forwards, didnt stop him from playing in defense at times, and excelling at it.

[wolftone57]

I think I was right about LRT getting cut by the guard on the headwear. I loathe that style of headwear and think it more dangerous than protective. What is more if you have a helmet on it seems to attract undue attention. If his injury was not completely healed he should not have played. There was no need as Jesse could have done the job. If he needs to wear the helmet this week then he shouldn't play as it is still tender. Wait until it is healed completely.

Mal is fit and I would put him as sub this week and Smithy into the starting line up. If LRT doesn't come up then Jesse back in. Crows will play two ruckmen but I think Jesse is good enough to take the second ruck and hold his own.

[Far Reach]

I think I was right about LRT getting cut by the guard on the headwear.

The head protection probably did the job intended - just a secondary backup if a knock sustained to healed fracture area. The incidental cut if caused by the gear is of little consequence. He looks good in the head gear anyway.

[Dosser]

I think I was right about LRT getting cut by the guard on the headwear. I loathe that style of headwear and think it more dangerous than protective. What is more if you have a helmet on it seems to attract undue attention. If his injury was not completely healed he should not have played. There was no need as Jesse could have done the job. If he needs to wear the helmet this week then he shouldn't play as it is still tender. Wait until it is healed completely.

Mal is fit and I would put him as sub this week and Smithy into the starting line up. If LRT doesn't come up then Jesse back in. Crows will play two ruckmen but I think Jesse is good enough to take the second ruck and hold his own.

At the moment Mal is too valuable delivering into the forward line to leave him out of the starting lineup. Before the hawks game, their supporters saw him as their biggest threat and were hoping they could nullify him.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Mal has been in pretty good form this year, the sub is a tough one. Someones gotta do it though...

[blumtsdan]

How about Pyke for Everitt?

[Swansongster]

Mal has been in pretty good form this year, the sub is a tough one. Someones gotta do it though...

As compelling as Smiffy's 2nd half performance was and perhaps it deserves elevation from the bench but arguably he has been the best sub exchange we've seen since the rule's introduction.

Should he be given that role again? Is there room in the modern game for a high quality player to be selected as a specialist sub? Someone who can come on and, through the advantage of fresh legs, leverage their class to command the ball and stretch the opposition?

Just thinking.

Obviously we need bigs against Adelaide so Jesse for LRT (if he doesn't come up) would appear to be a no-brainer and a repeat of Smith's sub role from last week could also be the go. A slick, hard at it little whipper-snapper could leave them clutching at thin air in the 2nd half as were the Hawks.

[Danzar]

As compelling as Smiffy's 2nd half performance was and perhaps it deserves elevation from the bench but arguably he has been the best sub exchange we've seen since the rule's introduction.

Should he be given that role again? Is there room in the modern game for a high quality player to be selected as a specialist sub? Someone who can come on and, through the advantage of fresh legs, leverage their class to command the ball and stretch the opposition?

Just thinking.

Obviously we need bigs against Adelaide so Jesse for LRT (if he doesn't come up) would appear to be a no-brainer and a repeat of Smith's sub role from last week could also be the go. A slick, hard at it little whipper-snapper could leave them clutching at thin air in the 2nd half as were the Hawks.

This has merit but I think it's the position that will evolve not the player. Coaches will have an advance plan for the position before each game (if they don't already), rather than using it only as a mechanism by which they replace an underforming or injured player with a fresh player.

Assume Malceski didn't get injured. Who would Smith have replaced? The least performing (or most tired) player on the ground, a player in an equivalent or commiserate position or a player who had become redundant due to the flow of the game at the time or the coaches intended strategy for the remainder of the game.

Sometimes a poor performing player can suddenly lift if there is a fundamental shift in strategy or game flow, which can often be influenced by the sub.

[liz]

As compelling as Smiffy's 2nd half performance was and perhaps it deserves elevation from the bench but arguably he has been the best sub exchange we've seen since the rule's introduction.

Should he be given that role again? Is there room in the modern game for a high quality player to be selected as a specialist sub? Someone who can come on and, through the advantage of fresh legs, leverage their class to command the ball and stretch the opposition?

Just thinking.

Obviously we need bigs against Adelaide so Jesse for LRT (if he doesn't come up) would appear to be a no-brainer and a repeat of Smith's sub role from last week could also be the go. A slick, hard at it little whipper-snapper could leave them clutching at thin air in the 2nd half as were the Hawks.

Which player on our list would you back to have the most impact coming on with fresh legs midway through the 3rd quarter?

For me the clear and obvious answer is Adam Goodes. Is he going to be picked as sub? No, of course not, because he is capable of having that kind of impact for a whole four quarters, so why would you just use him for one and a half.

While Smith may not be quite at Goodsey's level, arguably he came on and had such a big impact because he is a very good player. And we want our very good players out there for substantially all the game.

That's why any discussion around who the best sub is can't focus just on potential to have an impact. It needs to disregard the first 18 or so players picked in the side for the very reason why they are the first 18 or so players picked in the side.

[Dosser]

Which player on our list would you back to have the most impact coming on with fresh legs midway through the 3rd quarter?

For me the clear and obvious answer is Adam Goodes. Is he going to be picked as sub? No, of course not, because he is capable of having that kind of impact for a whole four quarters, so why would you just use him for one and a half.

While Smith may not be quite at Goodsey's level, arguably he came on and had such a big impact because he is a very good player. And we want our very good players out there for substantially all the game.

That's why any discussion around who the best sub is can't focus just on potential to have an impact. It needs to disregard the first 18 or so players picked in the side for the very reason why they are the first 18 or so players picked in the side.

I think the best thing that came out of this situation is that now the coaches know they can throw Smooch in the midfield if they ever need to.