If Lewis Stevenson plays, will this game set a record for the most number of players named Lewis to take part in a match?
Changes for Rnd 16 V The Eagles
Collapse
X
-
I reckon they are just taking him over to give him some experience preparing with the senior team. He has had a pretty continuous last couple of months playing with the reserves so maybe they judge he doesn't need the extra training session the reserves will do over the weekend as much as some other players. And his form has been good enough to suggest that if he is required to come into the side for a late injury, he can play his role.Interesting that Walsh has been named on the extended bench. Could they be considering dropping Pykey for Walsh and using LRT as second ruck? Mummy has been working up close to full fitness. I don't wish to see this happen, ( im a big fan of the moose) but it may be an option they are considering.. Could also just be to show Walsh he is doing everything right in the 2's and is in line for a call up if a spot arises.Comment
-
Did we ever have all three of our Lewises play in the same game last year? I think Johnston only played a couple of games, so quite likely we didn't.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
My money is that there will be no change to last weeks team.
Makes no sense to have Mattner on the bench and then the person who replaced him last week in the side. Unless Mattner is a no go.
If anyone came in I would hope that its TDL.Nothing like a good light bulb moment.Comment
-
Comment
-
I suspect so too.
If they play Pike, Sam and Goodes up forward then there's no need for LRT, but the temptation to utilise him down back (if Ted/Reg can't handle the resting ruckman) or up forward (if Goodes moves onto the ball) will see him keep his place.
Will this make us top heavy?Comment
-
I think they will not allow cox to drop back into the whole. I suspect that LRT will assigned the task of manning him when he is not in the square. Similar role he played on Gardiner in 2005I suspect so too.
If they play Pike, Sam and Goodes up forward then there's no need for LRT, but the temptation to utilise him down back (if Ted/Reg can't handle the resting ruckman) or up forward (if Goodes moves onto the ball) will see him keep his place.
Will this make us top heavy?Comment
-
Comment
-
I don't think we will put LRT back on Cox, not from the start anyway. Whoever is on Cox or NicNat while they are playing as forward will require help and we may try and engineer a loose man, or the "plus one" as Rodney Eade likes to call it, in Mattner or Johnson to assist.Comment
-
THis is what I think will be occupying the minds of the match committee most - to LRT, or not to LRT. Would be a very handy back up defender if the resting rucks become a handful for Grundy/Ted, but may be exposed at Subi as one tall too many if played as a forward. Not easy.I suspect so too.
If they play Pike, Sam and Goodes up forward then there's no need for LRT, but the temptation to utilise him down back (if Ted/Reg can't handle the resting ruckman) or up forward (if Goodes moves onto the ball) will see him keep his place.
Will this make us top heavy?Comment
-

Comment