Changes Round 15 V Melbourne

[Blood Fever]

Towers, Rohan and Mcveigh are different beasts.

Towers is a bottom 10 player. You need to manage your expectations with him. He will be in the bottom 10 of stats, and the coach will assign him a role which reflects his ability.

Rohan, however, should be a top 10 players, but seems stuck in the bottom 4. This is the most irritating thing about him, and it is my belief that its a confidence thing, that an extended run in the 2's would be better for him, and better for the swans when he comes back and plays 4 full quarters racking up 20 possessions.

McVeigh, well its not that i dislike the bloke, its the selection policy that gets him automatically in the team even though he's well past his best. We have lost numerous games from being too slow and too soft, and its no coincidence that he has both those abilities in spades. It is my opinion that the 2016 GF was lost at the selection table (not just McVeigh), and that is hard to forgive or forget.

Unlike some here, I do not view the Swans administration as above critique.

McVeigh has been a great player for us, a premiership co captain. Tend to agree with your comment about selection in last year's GF. Not sure if Mills should have played either. Marsh was unlucky. Can't remember who else made way.

[sprite]

We brought in melican for the tall essendon forward line. Therefore against Melbourne, he will make way for Jones.

Towers is our in and under tagger. Stats don't matter when you are pressuring and tackling. He'll only be replaced like for like... And that ain't McVeigh who is the exact opposite.

Newman could get Hayward a rest. Unlikely though.

Florentine 50/50 to stay.

- - - Updated - - -

Florent. Damn autocorrect.

WTF is an "in and under tagger".

The only thing Towers was in and under on Friday was lack of awareness and composure

[Mel_C]

I was also frustrated with Towers on Friday night...(I was yelling at the tv for him to get off the ground)...but I do feel sorry for him because his errors seem to always happen at the end of the game and they are clear in our memory.

How about Lloyd's kick that went straight to Essendon and gave them their first goal? Or Hanners multiple turnovers? They are forgiven because they are senior players.

I do think he will be dropped for Jones.

[AB Swannie]

Naismith had 61% time on ground. Gawn had nearly 80%. When Naismith is capable of playing 80% we can probably look at one ruckman only.

I'm not sure where you get your stats but Gawn is listed at 71% on the afl.com stats website. Whatever it is, I get your point. However, this is part of our overall problem - Naismith at 61% and Sinclair at 50%. Given that they are never benched at the same time, one of our bench spots is taken up by one of these guys 90% of the time.

As a comparison, Melbourne's ruck combination of Gawn and Pedersen were at 71% and 85% taking up much less bench time and giving their midfielders more rotations.

I think we need to find a way to overcome this and the easiest way is to drop Sinclair and get other players such as Towers to pinch hit.

[Mug Punter]

Naismith had 61% time on ground. Gawn had nearly 80%. When Naismith is capable of playing 80% we can probably look at one ruckman only.

I still think it is preferable to go with two ruckmen but with one proviso and that is that at least one has a second string to his bow.

Usually it will be as a marking target and I think Sinclair does offer that and is a better contested mark than Naismith, whose key strength is his work as a tap ruckman. Sinclair also has greater mobility than Tippo for mine.

At the moment they seem to be working well in tandem and reckon it will be reasonably hard for Tippo to force his way back into the best 22. Having said that I am glad we do have him there in reserve because the chances of a ruckman getting injured is pretty high and he would definitely be the best third ruckman in the league (and also highest paid)

[aardvark]

I'm not sure where you get your stats but Gawn is listed at 71% on the afl.com stats website. Whatever it is, I get your point. Howevjudyer, this is part of our overall problem - Naismith at 61% and Sinclair at 50%. Given that they are never benched at the same time, one of our bench spots is taken up by one of these guys 90% of the time.

As a comparison, Melbourne's ruck combination of Gawn and Pedersen were at 71% and 85% taking up much less bench time and giving their midfielders more rotations.

I think we need to find a way to overcome this and the easiest way is to drop Sinclair and get other players such as Towers to pinch hit.

If Naismith wants to be an AFL first ruck he needs to get fit. Most first rucks last weekend played over 80%. I hate to say it but we need Tippo back fit and firing then Sinkers can get dropped.

[barry]

Sinkers and tippo is a better combo than nainsmith and tippo.

[0918330512]

Sinkers and tippo is a better combo than nainsmith and tippo.

Sinclair can't mark. Can barely tap with any accuracy. If by better, you mean better the opposition, sure I guess he is.

[graemed]

Changes Round 15 V Melbourne

Watched the reserves game closely and whilst Dawson did some good work, his work rate did not impress nor does he exude pace.
This week will be about matching Melbourne's ability to win the ball at stoppages and holding them up when they have the ball and forcing them to kick over the mark.
On Friday, Sinclair contested admirably but we'll need more than players being merely competitive we need them to win the contests, create opportunities through turnovers or impact contests.
Tippett may not be ready, Allir may not be ready (sorry Ludwig), Naismith cannot compete with Gawn all night, so regrettably that only leaves Sinclair, or we use Towers or someone else in the same vein as Richmond.
I didn't think McVeigh showed enough to prove he was ready for Melbourne on the MCG on the contrary, he may have played for the full 100 mins but he did so standing at FF or forward of the square.
On that basis, I cannot see any change except for Florent for Jones.

[barry]

Sinclair can't mark. Can barely tap with any accuracy. If by better, you mean better the opposition, sure I guess he is.

Combo, not individuals.

[mattybloods]

We need a Goodes type to chop out ion the ruck, where can we find one of those?

[waswan]

As far as going with one ruck, this is not the week to be talking about that coming up against Gawn..........We should probably play 3 rucks to try to break even

But tippet with Naismith is the go, as you can see by time on ground, Sink/Naismith give us nothing up fwd. Tippett if fit can at least give us a target

[magic.merkin]

If towers ever plays one more game for this club's seniors it will be one too many. I'm bloody done. Play another kid.

No composure, had long enough. Move on.

[barry]

WTF is an "in and under tagger".

The only thing Towers was in and under on Friday was lack of awareness and composure

An "in and under tagger" is a tagger who is in and under packs as well as tagging.

We need a tagger, and Towers is it. Once cunningham comes back there is a spot for only one of them.

[mattybloods]

But tippet with Naismith is the go, as you can see by time on ground, Sink/Naismith give us nothing up fwd. Tippett if fit can at least give us a target

Agree, Tippett offers more as a forward than the others. His best position might be as ruck but we need him to play primarily as a forward