Changes for Rnd 5 V West Coast

[CureTheSane]

As established in another thread, if Nankervis is in the best 22, then he plays, alongside Tippett and Sinclair.

Personally I'd give Papley a game off.
Let him sit and watch the game with a different viewpoint and add some learning to what he took out of the Crows game.
So don't drop him as a punishment, but as a favor to him.
Keep McGlynn, and while I've been a critic of McVeigh, he's only had the one game, so I'm giving him a hall pass for a couple more games.

[barry]

McVeigh must be on notice that another poor performance against a good side will not be acceptable.

[Nico]

He has played 1 game and no pre season games. You cant be serious.

[Matimbo]

Is anyone else concerned about Mills doing clangers from defence in the last 2 games that directly cost us goals? I really like him and for a rookie he has really shown great skill and courage so far. So I'm not for a minute suggesting he be dropped. But I understand he hasn't played much in defence prior to being promoted to the top grade with the Swans. The Crows pressure on our backs was intense on Sat and I'd hate his confidence to be dented as a result of those couple of clangers. I'm thinking I'd prefer him up in the mids for a game or two where his obvious strengths will be better leveraged.

[Matimbo]

Now have just read the various posts in the Crows Match Day thread about the Mills clangers. So I do see there is concern out there, but also heaps of support. So my question really is how about he get moved into the mids? What would that mean for the balance of the team ... who moves into the HB line?

[bungwahl]

Is anyone else concerned about Mills doing clangers from defence in the last 2 games that directly cost us goals? I really like him and for a rookie he has really shown great skill and courage so far. So I'm not for a minute suggesting he be dropped. But I understand he hasn't played much in defence prior to being promoted to the top grade with the Swans. The Crows pressure on our backs was intense on Sat and I'd hate his confidence to be dented as a result of those couple of clangers. I'm thinking I'd prefer him up in the mids for a game or two where his obvious strengths will be better leveraged.

I think this type of experience is crucial for young guys like Mills. Sure we could hide him somewhere where he doesn't need to assume so much responsibility, but long term he'll learn a lot more from making a few mistakes in defence. He's only 19 so he's going to make some mistakes but I wouldnt be rushing to hide him.

[liz]

If we were to move every player out of our defence who makes the occasional (or more than occasional) clanger, we would literally have no defenders. For all the great work they do, Smith, Rampe, Reg, Ted and Laidler are all guilty of some really awful disposals at times.

[Flying South]

Speaking of slow, i reackon mitchell did a lot of harm to his next contact in adelaide.

They played him predominantly in the half forward line. He's probably our leading clearance player and they played him mostly off the ball. Go figure? No wonder they beat us in the clearances.

[iigrover]

Is anyone else concerned about Mills doing clangers from defence...

I think his team mates let him know in no uncertain terms they were concerned about his botched kick in from a behind.

[rojo]

If we were to move every player out of our defence who makes the occasional (or more than occasional) clanger, we would literally have no defenders. For all the great work they do, Smith, Rampe, Reg, Ted and Laidler are all guilty of some really awful disposals at times.

+1

[WauchopeAnalyst]

He has played 1 game and no pre season games. You cant be serious.

So he should have played NEAFL, if it was good enough for GOODES its good enough for every player on our list.

McVeigh and Longmire used it as a practice game for him. 8 tackles but he was second to every ball. Easy to tackle when you arrive late or wrestling for a ball.

[churry]

They played him predominantly in the half forward line. He's probably our leading clearance player and they played him mostly off the ball. Go figure? No wonder they beat us in the clearances.

Was frustrating to watch him played predominantly in the forward line. He's far too good in the middle to spend most of his time up forward. It looked like he was given Hewett's role of the previous round.

So he should have played NEAFL, if it was good enough for GOODES its good enough for every player on our list.

McVeigh and Longmire used it as a practice game for him. 8 tackles but he was second to every ball. Easy to tackle when you arrive late or wrestling for a ball.

Harsh but a pretty fair assessment. I hope that Reid and Rohan spend time in the NEAFL unless there is a bizarre injury toll.

[liz]

So he should have played NEAFL, if it was good enough for GOODES its good enough for every player on our list.

McVeigh and Longmire used it as a practice game for him. 8 tackles but he was second to every ball. Easy to tackle when you arrive late or wrestling for a ball.

Goodes didn't start in the reserves. He dropped down because he was struggling for form and he and the coaches agreed he was more likely to regain touch and fitness playing a couple of 120 games in the reserves than sitting on the pine for three quarters wearing a fluorescent green jacket.

I don't have a problem with McVeigh coming straight back into the senior team and nor do I think that's why we lost the game. I don't think that Jones or Hewett would have made the difference. I also strongly believe that McVeigh remains an important cog in the team, and that the team will be stronger when he's fully into the senior groove. He is not going to pick up the pace of senior footy running around in the NEAFL beating Redlands by close to 100 points.

One rule for the experienced and one for the kids? Certainly that's the case. He's earned the right by winning a couple of B&Fs and an AA, and for playing 250 odd senior games. Nor is he still learning the game, the game-plan, or honing his endurance - all things that younger players can benefit towards playing at a lower level.

[graemed]

Changes for Rnd 5 V West Coast

I don't have a problem with McVeigh coming straight back into the senior team and nor do I think that's why we lost the game. I don't think that Jones or Hewett would have made the difference. I also strongly believe that McVeigh remains an important cog in the team, and that the team will be stronger when he's fully into the senior groove. He is not going to pick up the pace of senior footy running around in the NEAFL beating Redlands by close to 100 points.

One rule for the experienced and one for the kids?

I do not disagree that McVeigh is a key player. As I have noted in earlier posts I believe he is our best distributor and certainly our best decision maker. And now he is back in the team it makes no sense to send him to the NEAFL.

I do however have genuine concerns about whether he was fit enough to play in the round 4 game for which he was selected.

Like McGlynn and Richards, the week before and to a lesser extent last week his timing was off, he was being led to the ball and he looked to be tentative to take a lead role when we needed him in the clearances.

At this time we are being stretched by teams with genuine leg speed. GWS threatened whenever they had the ball and it was pressure by Parker in particular but not exclusively that got us into a winning position. Last week saw a similar situation with slick defensive/midfield types running at us from the deep defensive 50 and seeking and hitting leading options.

This week we will be confronted by a team that set the standard for running aggressive defence last year. Without Jones or Towers in the team we lose important speed to counter leading players or to create pressure on ball carriers and force errors that may lead to turnovers.

I do not advocate wholesale sackings but Sinclair must come into the team if fit, that means like for like Nankervis must go out. Reality is catching up to Ted but if he can get some form back he is a quality player.

So how can I fit Jones into the team?

I think McGlynn is still a capable player but we cannot continue to use Heeney as a key position marking forward and two small forwards is one too many. So Papley or McGlynn? My vote is for McGlynn at this time but let him know he must improve to keep his spot.

That means:
Ins Jones, Sinclair
Out Nankervis, Papley

I would use McVeigh in the forward 50, Jones off H/B and Mills on the wing

[707]

Towers did bugger all last week, low numbers of everything including pressure acts, doesn't deserve another chance. Must reward those with strong NEAFL form be that Rose or Jones.

McVeigh was good last week and deserved to come straight in, will be better for the run.

Sinclair for Toby is a given if he is fit, will want to play against the old side.