Changes for Prelim final V North

[liz]

Shaw didn't "break down" from the injuries he'd been trying to overcome all year. He did a knee. It would only be guessing to suggest the latter was related to the earlier injuries, given how easily some players rupture their ACLs.

Why on earth would Harry, who has played in the midfield/wing and half-forward, and has done some great stopping jobs on very dangerous opponents suddenly be shifted to the half-back flank, where he's not played all year, to "mind" one of the less damaging players in the North team (neither of whom even plays in their forward line on a regular basis) when they have the likes of Wells - to whom he is ideally suited - who can really cut a team apart if he's not sat on?

Not sure playing a "resting mid" on Dal Santo makes much sense eiher. If they're minding Dal Santo (who runs hard, when he's in the mood), they would hardly be "resting".

[Ludwig]

Shaw did an ACL last year that was totally unrelated to his earlier abdominal injury and can't see how his ankle injury this year might lead to another injury this week.

I would like to see Harry take Dal Santo as he's the second best kick after Boomer, and could also expose him with his speed on the rebound.
Wells had a poor game v. The Cats, perhaps he was a bit worn down coming back from a long injury layoff.

I don't think we will take North lightly. They have good personnel and have played some quality football this year. I would expect that they will come out firing. Yet it's hard to imagine how they only beat Geelong by 6 points. Geelong only had 3 players, Selwood, Hawkins and Caddy, that played decent footy. All the rest were crap.

[ernie koala]

Who wears the dreaded green vest ?

Lloyd was fabulous against Freo, so doubt he comes into calculations.

Bird was sub against Freo, came on and did well. He's such a smart player, excellent finals player.

The other candidate is Gaz who had a poor first half against Freo.....

Though on a dry fast track, his pace, defensive pressure, and willingness to break the lines, would be an asset against a hard running attacking team like North.

I'm on the fence on this one.

[liz]

Though on a dry fast track

It's amazing that, after a few days of wringing our hands over the prospect of yet another wet, soggy game, we are now able to look forward to a fast dry track. A nice amazement. And I wouldn't put it past the Sydney weather gods to have something unpleasant up their sleeves.

[Matt79]

It's amazing that, after a few days of wringing our hands over the prospect of yet another wet, soggy game, we are now able to look forward to a fast dry track. A nice amazement. And I wouldn't put it past the Sydney weather gods to have something unpleasant up their sleeves.

I'm confident for no rain Liz, however, a cool night is forecast so dew could be an issue?

[Ampersand]

I thought Wells looked pretty dangerous in patches against the Cats and he set up a few important goals with some cool-headed disposals around the middle. Definitely think Harry should lock him down.

As for the sub -- if Joel Tippett doesn't play it's clear that the Kangas will try to expose our height advantage in the forward line in exchange for speed and rebound footy. Like Fremantle, they'll probably play an extra man back too.

With that in mind, I'd prefer to start the game with a faster side and a crumbing small forward like Parker or McGlynn. Therefore I think Goodes should be sub. We've already noted his poor defensive pressure and we can't afford to have the ball come out of our forward 50 easily.

Do I think this will actually happen? Absolutely not.

[Auntie.Gerald]

I suspect Birdy will get the green vest with his knee most likely still not 100%.......yet good enough to play

I think that Lloyd truly deserves his spot and so much so because his delivery and vision is just spot on for our forwards to capitalise on

[Untamed Snark]

I thought Wells looked pretty dangerous in patches against the Cats and he set up a few important goals with some cool-headed disposals around the middle. Definitely think Harry should lock him down.

As for the sub -- if Joel Tippett doesn't play it's clear that the Kangas will try to expose our height advantage in the forward line in exchange for speed and rebound footy. Like Fremantle, they'll probably play an extra man back too.

With that in mind, I'd prefer to start the game with a faster side and a crumbing small forward like Parker or McGlynn. Therefore I think Goodes should be sub. We've already noted his poor defensive pressure and we can't afford to have the ball come out of our forward 50 easily.

Do I think this will actually happen? Absolutely not.

I think Goodes would be an excellent sub-the perfect impact player and intimidating for the opposition coaches
But I doubt it would happen-this year-if he plays on he may be an impact sub for most or all games

[mcs]

I thought Wells looked pretty dangerous in patches against the Cats and he set up a few important goals with some cool-headed disposals around the middle. Definitely think Harry should lock him down.

As for the sub -- if Joel Tippett doesn't play it's clear that the Kangas will try to expose our height advantage in the forward line in exchange for speed and rebound footy. Like Fremantle, they'll probably play an extra man back too.

With that in mind, I'd prefer to start the game with a faster side and a crumbing small forward like Parker or McGlynn. Therefore I think Goodes should be sub. We've already noted his poor defensive pressure and we can't afford to have the ball come out of our forward 50 easily.

Do I think this will actually happen? Absolutely not.

Trying to expose our height would be an absolutely huge risk for the Kangas if it does indeed remain dry and we use the ball well. If that is the case, we would absolutely rip them apart. It would be a massive gamble to take, but I guess the Roos have nothing to lose per say.

[Ampersand]

Trying to expose our height would be an absolutely huge risk for the Kangas if it does indeed remain dry and we use the ball well. If that is the case, we would absolutely rip them apart. It would be a massive gamble to take, but I guess the Roos have nothing to lose per say.

I don't think it's a massive gamble at all. In fact, I'll almost guarantee it will be their tactic from bounce to final siren. Flood back, turn the one-on-ones into two-on-ones, spoil hard, get the ball on the deck, run rings around Goodes and Tippett, rebound end to end.

The way to counteract that would be to leave Goodes on the bench and get a small forward up front to apply some defensive/crumbing pressure. Again, I don't think it will happen but that's what I would do.

[bondy]

Goodes won't be sub for his 350th. I think he'll have a big game actually

[mcs]

I don't think it's a massive gamble at all. In fact, I'll almost guarantee it will be their tactic from bounce to final siren. Flood back, turn the one-on-ones into two-on-ones, spoil hard, get the ball on the deck, run rings around Goodes and Tippett, rebound end to end.

The way to counteract that would be to leave Goodes on the bench and get a small forward up front to apply some defensive/crumbing pressure. Again, I don't think it will happen but that's what I would do.

It is a massive gamble for them - a gamble by nature is that (generally anyway) you either win or you lose.

If, as you suggest, they are able to use it to rebound well, then it might be a win for them.

But on the other hand, if it doesn't work, and our big forwards are given good delivery, then its reasonable to assume someone from our forwards will kick a multiple of goals, which would go a long way towards winning the game for us.

North are very good in this area generally - but it doesn't mean such tactics aren't fraught with danger!

[Ampersand]

Goodes won't be sub for his 350th. I think he'll have a big game actually

I know he won't but I certainly hope it's not the fact that it's his 350th that's keeping him in the starting 18. There's no room for sentimentality in finals footy. I thought Longmire was pretty slow to react to Fremantle's extra man so I hope he has something up his sleeve if he goes out with the exact same lineup and faces similar tactics.

Another thing to watch out for will be North attempting to keep the contest a low scoring affair early. Denying us possession and momentum, lots of short kicks and switches from one side of the ground to the other. They'll be happy to win slow and ugly so we need to be tight in defence.

[Ampersand]

It is a massive gamble for them - a gamble by nature is that (generally anyway) you either win or you lose.

If, as you suggest, they are able to use it to rebound well, then it might be a win for them.

But on the other hand, if it doesn't work, and our big forwards are given good delivery, then its reasonable to assume someone from our forwards will kick a multiple of goals, which would go a long way towards winning the game for us.

North are very good in this area generally - but it doesn't mean such tactics aren't fraught with danger!

Doesn't matter how good the delivery is if you end up sandwiched between two opposition players.

One thing I always admired about the Hawks was their ability to find an alternative target 40-50m from goal when the opposition flooded back to the goal square. Hope we lower the eyes and do the same.

[Matimbo]

I don't think it's a massive gamble at all. In fact, I'll almost guarantee it will be their tactic from bounce to final siren. Flood back, turn the one-on-ones into two-on-ones, spoil hard, get the ball on the deck, run rings around Goodes and Tippett, rebound end to end.

Yes, their selected team does suggest this will be their strategy. But any way I look at it they are in trouble if we can get our usual amount of inside 50s. They don't have the height to stop Goodes, Tippett and Sam taking some overhead marks each. So they will have to spoil hard as you say, which is likely to end up in some free kicks to us inside 50. And Buddy is way better now than when he was beaten by Thompson in round 4. Ditto for Benny, Harry and Jetts. That's a lot of strike power they need to keep shutting down via flood backs and two-on-ones.