It's time...

[caj23]

So when Reid gets the best defender and has a shocker it's ok, because he has taken their number 1 defender. But when it's LRT then it's different?

Everyone knows that we have better forward options then LRT. However he is in the team because, unlike any of those other forward options, he adds a versatility that is essential with the new sub rule.

The ability to play as a key defender, ruck or forward is pretty impressive. Not many other teams in the comp boast the luxury of this.

It's not very impressive when his ability as a ruck and forward is sub par. Not many other teams boast this "luxury" because they select proper forwards and leave their 3rd choice key defenders in the reserves

[liz]

Putting aside the individuals, I do think we are too tall with all three of Mumford, Pyke and LRT. The issue seems to be that the coaches know Mumford can't ruck for the time he is used to, so we need another genuine ruck. They know that LRT's ruckwork isn't good enough to be anything more than a fill-in for short periods of time, but I don't think they trust Pyke's ability to play as a key forward when he's not in the ruck. So they are hedging their bets and playing all three. I don't think it is working (as most here don't seem to, either).

If they are going to persist with an unfit Mumford (and if he is fit enough, he needs to get senior match practice so he is hardened for the finals), I think they need to bite the bullet and either trust LRT to ruck for long periods, or trust Pyke to be effective as a forward. That frees up a spot for someone a little more mobile.

Much as I am a fan of Spangher, I think that while we have Goodes playing relatively deep in the forward line (which you'd think will be for another couple of weeks at least), a smaller runner with a bit of pace who can also kick a goal would be more beneficial. TDL is the obvious one, but they wouldn't have re-promoted Cunningham if he wasn't also in the mix at selection table most weeks.

[Dirtyburt]

Burt sometimes stats don't tell the story. For a start in the midfield there is not a knock out of pack statistic. A kick to a contest (pack) in the forward fifty is seen as an effective disposal even if the ball is rebounded the other way. Stats are not the be all and end all of footy. One of those games was the final against the Hawks in which we were killed by bad delivery and an over concentration on Sammy even when everyone could see Gibson was just going to spoil again. I beleive if we had have used Spang on the opposite side or in the coridor we would have done ok. But we didn't. In two games he had very little game time due to injury or because it was his first game. He is much more value in that he can take a contested mark a thing LRT is not capable of except against weaker opposition. LRT has been a backman all his career and he plays like one. He can kick a goal but he is not a forward.

You can make all the anecdotal excuses you like, not fit in two games, didn't get used blah blah blah. The actual facts are his stats don't back up the rose coloured view of his performance thus far.

I actually think he 'could' provide a forward option. However, he has yet to prove it. I hope he does

[Melbournehammer]

Yeah, I agree with your Dad.....I'm sure he'll be thrilled to hear that.
We seem to struggle to stop opposition momentum when our fleet of mids become tired.
What was sorely needed, and was sorely lacking, during the 2nd Half (and the last 1/4 against the Bombers), was a forward who could clunk a mark and kick the goal...and change the momentum of the game.
I agree with others that Spang, even though no world beater as a key forward, would be a better option than LRT. For starters, he's far better on the lead.

i agree with this and tried to make this point on my thread. we dont have anyone who can take a contested markl in the forward line, at least not more than a 10% chance. but if we are going to persist with the long kick to that contest then we absolutely must leave a small there or thereabouts. it is just too far for our players to get from the previous stoppage to chase the 50m long kick where our forward is more or less under instructions to spoil anyway.

if the ball is going to be brought to ground by our forward then we must have someone at the fall of the ball. otherwise we are asking a hell of a lot for players to sprint 50 metrs only to have tio chase back after that - what you will find is that the players will try and cheat, especially on the bigger grounds - they wont chase forward but will sag back inviting more pressure.

the position a lot of people seem to adopt is that we are 9-3 so what the hell are we worrying about. and there might be something to that. maybe i know stuff all. but my instinct is that we are better off having a player or two that can hold the ball in 50 m downfield than relying endlessly on our backline holding things together.

[Jewels]

I think with all the excited plaudits for Spangher, this should be noted:

Spangher 2011 form, which is being spoken about, as if he is going to be a revelation

K Avg H Avg D Avg M Avg HO Avg T Avg FF FA G GAvg
46 7.7 15 2.5 61 10.2 22 3.7 1 0.2 13 2.2 8 6 8 1.3


10 disposals for 1 goal it is not that good guys.
I hope he comes in and kills it, but with that record, and his injury record. I think some red and white glasses are being worn.

From my POV and also from what I take from the other pro Spanger posts, nobody thinks he will be a revelation, and whilst I am an unabashed fan, I don't think he is going to be our forward line savior. But what I do think and the from what I read into the other posts is that he offers more in the forward line then LRT currently does.

[Ludwig]

Putting aside the individuals, I do think we are too tall with all three of Mumford, Pyke and LRT. The issue seems to be that the coaches know Mumford can't ruck for the time he is used to, so we need another genuine ruck. They know that LRT's ruckwork isn't good enough to be anything more than a fill-in for short periods of time, but I don't think they trust Pyke's ability to play as a key forward when he's not in the ruck. So they are hedging their bets and playing all three. I don't think it is working (as most here don't seem to, either).

If they are going to persist with an unfit Mumford (and if he is fit enough, he needs to get senior match practice so he is hardened for the finals), I think they need to bite the bullet and either trust LRT to ruck for long periods, or trust Pyke to be effective as a forward. That frees up a spot for someone a little more mobile.

Much as I am a fan of Spangher, I think that while we have Goodes playing relatively deep in the forward line (which you'd think will be for another couple of weeks at least), a smaller runner with a bit of pace who can also kick a goal would be more beneficial. TDL is the obvious one, but they wouldn't have re-promoted Cunningham if he wasn't also in the mix at selection table most weeks.

Totally agree with this. I would like to see Spangher come into the side once Goodes is fit enough to play in the midfield. Hopefully both Mummy and Goodes can get back to their best over the next two matches, which should be winnable even without them playing their best footy.

Would also consider Nipper for a LRT replacement, as his elite fitness should see him play out the game, and hopefully moderate the 4th qtr fadeouts. But also happy to see either TDL or Cunningham in the seniors. And would leave Drey as the sub.

[Nico]

It's not very impressive when his ability as a ruck and forward is sub par. Not many other teams boast this "luxury" because they select proper forwards and leave their 3rd choice key defenders in the reserves

But those sides are not second on the ladder.

[Rod_]

LRT must really hate that Bevo was traded. :~ And before him was Ben Matthews and list goes on...

Agree 100% that LRT has offered more in the back line in the past. By playing him forward he has assisted Reid. (By taking one of the better backman and made them accountable). BTW Reid is suffering from 2nd year player - he will improve! We need someone to be the key forward are trying Reid that player. LRT is a defending forward. I can accept that he won't kick a bag of goals. However will take some heat.. Also agree that LRT can't ruck. At the moment we don't have any other tall forwards ready to replace him. White needs to force his hand or Spangher are the 2 that come to mind. Then I am in favor of replacing LRT.


Agree that LRT could have assisted against Tom Hawkins..

Stays at the moment is my vote

Rod_

[Captain]

But those sides are not second on the ladder.

Spot on!

[bloodsman]

If you want to talk stats, LRT has kicked 6 goals for the year playing as a key forward in a team currently 2nd on the ladder. That's extremely poor anyway you cut it. Fact is if he plays finals we can't go deep in September unless Reid or Goodes go beserk. Seriously I like his effort most of the time but he is so outclassed it is becoming embarrassing to watch.

[woo]

I was just about to start a thread and no need, this is about LRT and everyone has said what I want to say. At 3/4 time I was threatening that if LRT didn't get subbed I would hunt down longmire and have words....I do agree he has had some good and even some great games in the past. However.....he is not a forward, never has been, never will be. His lack of talent was so obvious on fri night it was killing me to watch as the team had no one to kick to in the forward line. He HAS to do some time in the reserves. As someone else has said , any other team would drop him...why do we keep playing him????

[caj23]

But those sides are not second on the ladder.

So what? It round 13, not round 24 and we have a tough run home. You sound like a Collingwood supporter

We are carrying a player in the player in the forward line when there are better options in the reserves. If we are arrogant enough to think that other sides won't improve and push us as the year goes on then we'll bomb out of the finals in straight sets, second on the ladder or not.

[Go Swannies]

So what? It round 13, not round 24 and we have a tough run home. You sound like a Collingwood supporter

We are carrying a player in the player in the forward line when there are better options in the reserves. If we are arrogant enough to think that other sides won't improve and push us as the year goes on then we'll bomb out of the finals in straight sets, second on the ladder or not.

By your logic it's easily solved - we drop Sam Reid.

[Doctor]

This thread seems quite harsh. LRT has played wherever the coach has asked him and given it his all. He was beaten on Friday night but has contributed well on many other occasions, most recently & notably against Fletcher last match. Our problem on Friday was balance. We had too many talls and weren't mobile enough with Goodes back and clearly not ready. He'd have been off having another week or having a run in the ressies and then coming back against GWS rather than Geelong. TDL or Morton provide contrast and would have been handy.

[Go Swannies]

LRT was beaten by a Scarlett-led team of Cat's backs! Well, that's never happened to a forward before so he should be dropped. Likewise he let that newbie Fletcher get some touches the week before. Loser!

Right now, the Swans forward line is an experiment. We have a raw talent being developed and he needs experience around him, whether they are decoys or not. Hopefully, he'll keep working and will come good, and stay that way for the next decade for us. Meanwhile, LRT will be there, at least until one of our defence team gets injured.