Changes for Rnd 10 V Hawthorn.

[AB Swannie]

He wouldn't want to embarrass his mate Clarko by playing Aliir and having proper matchups for their forwards.

Which match-up are you worried about?

[Auntie.Gerald]

Could Heeney man up against Mitchell and tag him and win ?

Reason being if hawks can't get that first pass out of the contest they maybe a little vulnerable

[rb4x]

Puopolo at CHF. LOL.

[Ludwig]

Which match-up are you worried about?

Hawthorn are taking 4 tall forwards into the game: Roughead, Gunston, Vickery and Willsmore, and although Sicily is not particularly tall, he plays tall because of his high marking capability. Additionally, McEvoy likes to go forward and would have to be picked up by Sinclair, who is a poor defender.

It's a clever ploy by Clarko, as trying to get us with height mismatches in their forward line is probably their only chance of winning. I doubt it will work because we have too much class around the ground, but no need to provide an opening for them.

I suppose we could always throw Reid down back if it's a problem.

[Industrial Fan]

It's not a problem for the same reason we don't play 6 tall forwards.

Watch the ball rebound out of their 50 when it hits the ground.

Longmire can't help it if Clarko has lost the plot.

[707]

I'm backing our back six against any combination of forwards Hawthorn deploys.

Puopolo thoroughly backed on the Hawks chat sites as one of several who has done little this year. Not surprised as the head high rule change means he's no longer getting the frees for ducking.

[AB Swannie]

Hawthorn are taking 4 tall forwards into the game: Roughead, Gunston, Vickery and Willsmore, and although Sicily is not particularly tall, he plays tall because of his high marking capability. Additionally, McEvoy likes to go forward and would have to be picked up by Sinclair, who is a poor defender.

It's a clever ploy by Clarko, as trying to get us with height mismatches in their forward line is probably their only chance of winning. I doubt it will work because we have too much class around the ground, but no need to provide an opening for them.

I suppose we could always throw Reid down back if it's a problem.

I have to agree with Industrial Fan. It would play unto our hands if Clarkson played all those talls together in the forward line. As soon as the ball hits the deck, we would be away.

[Thunder Shaker]

I have to agree with Industrial Fan. It would play unto our hands if Clarkson played all those talls together in the forward line. As soon as the ball hits the deck, we would be away.

Yes ... especially if we use the same tactics that Collingwood used to destroy the Hawks in the second half last week: move the ball as fast as they can and expose the Hawks' lack of pace.

[bloodspirit]

No Glouftsis. She's umpiring Melbourne v Suns. We've got Rosebury, Fisher & Donlon. Their names don't mean much to me. But I daresay someone has some bitter memories they can bring out?

[bloodspirit]

Ludwig, dare I say you are becoming Barry-like in your devotion to no-ruck-theory? Perhaps we can ditch Horse's whims for proper modern ruck-free footy next time we play at the glorious ANZ?

[Scottee]

It was very kind of Longmire to give the Hawks a fighting chance by burdening our side with 2 lumbering ruckmen. But even with their extra man advantage, we should still win easily.

He wouldn't want to embarrass his mate Clarko by playing Aliir and having proper matchups for their forwards. Maybe Longmire thinks playing with a handicap will help his chances of winning another Coach of the Year Award.

I really admire Longmire for his charity.

McEvoy and Vickery?

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[Ludwig]

McEvoy and Vickery?

Hawthorn are a poor example, because they're not a strong side. But we should go with Tippett and Reid v McEvoy and Vickery, which ought to be a better than breakeven situation for us, and we can easily take them on most other positions around the ground.

My qualm is with Longmire's insistence on playing 2 ruckmen, with the mistaken notion that this will somehow lead to a stoppage dominance. It's been shown quite consistently in recent times that this is not the case. So it warrants questioning whether we would be better served by having an extra midfielder or tall defender in lieu of the weaker of the 2 ruckmen, in our case this would be Sinclair.

The extra tall in our forward line only clogs things up and often Sinclair just gets in the way, or draws a defender to the contest. Tippett has been most effective playing in the ruck and drifting forward, often getting a mismatch. McEvoy is quite good at this tactic as well.

The only thing that will save the ruckman is the end of the centre bounce, which would give a greater advantage to taller ruckmen. All the recent rule changes have been detrimental to the ruckman position and we need change our thinking on how the stoppages should be handled. Longmire is an intelligent coach and I think he will get it right in the second half of the season.

I'm not too concerned about this game. We could play Derickx and Galloway in the ruck and still win by 10 goals.

[CureTheSane]

So just play Tippett in the forward line all day.
Problem solved.

[Bloody Hell]

The only thing that will save the ruckman is the end of the centre bounce, which would give a greater advantage to taller ruckmen. All the recent rule changes have been detrimental to the ruckman position and we need change our thinking on how the stoppages should be handled.

Give it time.

If we were playing Bulldogs this weekend with Dunkley as the second ruck, and Sinclair was putting his knee in Dunkley's throat and fisting the ball forward 30m, things would quickly change.

[liz]

The third man up rule change hasn't been detrimental to ruckmen.