Changes for Rnd 14 V The Giants

[ugg]

Davis was there, played on Reid

[Mountain Man]

Changes from Round 1

US: Shaw, O'Keefe, Pyke and Armstrong in place of Malceski, Parker, Cunningham, Rohan

THEM: Power, Edwards, Scully, Treloar, Patton, Brogan in place of Folau, Conglio, Hoskins-Elliott, Hombsch, Townsend, Tyson

[Nico]

LRT has pictures!

Ah yes, but surely they are not the same ones that Ben Mathews had.

[bennyfabulous]

I can't see last weekends team dishing out a 100 point belting to GWs, can anyone here? It just doen't seem to be part of our nature. Unless the opposition plays completely unaccountable/defence free football

I hope im not taking you out of context but I tell ya what, if Melbourne can smack them by 78, i would surely hope we could do similar if not better, considering we are a top 4 aspirant and Melbourne are a bottom 4 certainty.

[Beerman]

It will be hard to flog GWS - if the game goes as expected, we will skip out to a nice lead, and then they will likely stack all their players back inside their own 50. This is what they did in the first game and we found it difficult to score. If they do it this time we'll have to work our way through the flood, and a noted goal kicker like TDL (first choice) or Morton (second) would be the only in I could see from last week's mob.

No problem. Just give it to Jett's or dre and let them kick it from 60 :-)

[stellation]

Ah yes, but surely they are not the same ones that Ben Mathews had.

Perhaps they are? Roosy and Horse?

[CJK]

When do all of us who said 'no change' earlier get to lord it over the rest of you?

Is it now?

OK.

Told you so!

/pats self on back

[Ruck'n'Roll]

When do all of us who said 'no change' earlier get to lord it over the rest of you?
Is it now?
OK.
Told you so!
/pats self on back

I's asssumed that this thread was about what changes we think should be made. If it's right, and it's just what changes will be made, I reckon the changes thread will be hard pressed getting over the first page.
Our selections are very easy to predict: Horse does tend towards the unaventurous, tends to pick his predetermined best 22 through thick and thin. Changes are more often determined by the the medical staff and the lunatics that make up the match review panel than lack of form or team balance.
PS
Congratultions

[grarmy]

I's asssumed that this thread was about what changes we think should be made. If it's right, and it's just what changes will be made, I reckon the changes thread will be hard pressed getting over the first page.
Our selections are very easy to predict: Horse does tend towards the unaventurous, tends to pick his predetermined best 22 through thick and thin. Changes are more often determined by the the medical staff and the lunatics that make up the match review panel than lack of form or team balance.

Love the line of thought. However, when you are winning e.g. 9-3, it would natural to stay the course (also gives the "lunatics" some cred). That said, it is a bit stiff for players like TDL who don't get a game, and the much maligned LRT gets to keep his spot in spite of some obvious deficiencies over the past month.

[GongSwan]

Keeping the same team on the park as much as possible allows the combination to build momentum, in 2005 we used the least amount of players in the season. I doubt our success was coincidental to that. Yr best 22 is probably yr best 22

[Ludwig]

I was trying to think of a reason why the match committee went with an unchanged side, other than being unadventurous and unimaginative. Perhaps they were thinking of what would happen if due to form or fitness we could only play one ruck, for instance Mummy got injured again, and we needed to use LRT as a ruck forward again. I could see the point in that. It also seems that with Lockyer and Brown looking good defender prospects for next year, they may be trying to develop LRT in this backup ruck role for the balance of his career. May also mean that they've given up hope on White. Maybe I'm reading too much into this and the match committee is simply just unadventurous and unimaginative.

I've used Collingwood a few times as a contrast to how they use younger players. Well once again, they've dropped Marty Clarke after on poor game and brought in a first gamer in Caolan Mooney, another Irishman.

Perhaps it's just a difference in how various coaches approach the game. I think there's merit in both ways.

[jono2707]

I'm all for boring and unadventurous when you're sitting 2nd on the ladder! Doesn't seem like any of the talent in the 2's is really smashing down the door so fair enough to be unchanged - of course the likes of TDL, Morton, Malceski etc are unlucky not to be in the 1's, but virtually all successful sides have a few unlucky guys waiting in the wings.

I dunno what it is about Collingwood but they seem to be able to produce these promising youngsters. I think their facilities and staff are second to none, because of their money, so I guess there are certain off-field things that can get teams ahead of their competitors. Collingwood seem to be doing that stuff very well.

On Marty Clarke - he's pretty much exceeded expectations in playing well after a couple of years away from the AFL. I'd say he needs a rest and will be back in their 22 soon.

[aardvark]

I dunno what it is about Collingwood but they seem to be able to produce these promising youngsters. I think their facilities and staff are second to none, because of their money, so I guess there are certain off-field things that can get teams ahead of their competitors. Collingwood seem to be doing that stuff very well.

Having a "Stand alone" team in the VFL helps too.

[GongSwan]

Having a "Stand alone" team in the VFL helps too.

I daresay if we had a vfl standard comp up here for our ressies, we'd be a much better side

[jono2707]

Having a "Stand alone" team in the VFL helps too.

Oh yeah, I forgot that one - not being in the VFL has been a long-time bugbear of mine too....