Round 16 Changes

[707]

Wait what happened with Smith?

Was hobbling late in the game and very limpy going to the team bus Saturday morning.

Changes will depend on injuries and MRP.

Tippett won't come back for a while, I think Horse would have been happy with the one ruck selection so Tippett would need to be a FF predominantly. Suspect Robinson may be the first in given his strong NEAFL form but really want us to play Dawson who has had a stand out month at NEAFL level, missed Saturday with a corkie.

[stevoswan]

Something tells me that we are preparing for a team without Reid next year. I wonder if we are considering adding AJ to the swingman list?

Maybe.....but I ask: "Why would he want to leave?" To join his brother at a losing team with no premiership window any time soon? I think he's staying......

[YvonneH]

Maybe.....but I ask: "Why would he want to leave?" To join his brother at a losing team with no premiership window any time soon? I think he's staying......

More money.

[stevoswan]

More money.

If that's an issue.....maybe. I know what I'd prefer after being on what he's been on so far. Money shouldn't be an issue, unless he's spent all he's earned at the Swans already......

[top40]

To win, we need to break a curious streak. Our last eight games have all been won by the team lower on the ladder at the start of the round.

Another curious streak: past 5 games (including the Hawthorn loss) the Swans have kicked either 11 or 12 goals.

[barry]

Unless Jones has a broken bone, he'll be fine to play. Black eyes always look far worse than they are.

I would think Mills will be fine to play as well.


Only change I can see, is that Sinclair may get a recall after a strong performance in the 2's. Will be interesting what Longmire thinks of the 2nd ruck position now.

[Ludwig]

One of the key elements is to get the right team balance going into these last 2 months of the Home and Away season. We have nearly a full list to choose from, so it we lose a player like Jones or Mills for a week, we have several reasonable replacements to choose from. If we need some added speed in the team, we should consider elevating Shaun Edwards as our mid season rookie elevation, but we can hold off to see if it's necessary.

We had the right balance for the Melbourne game, the biggest change being the dropping of our second ruckman, which gave us the same team balance as the Demons, with 1 ruckman and 2 KPPs both forward and back. There is not magic number for KPPs, but the 5 played by both sides on Friday are the typical low for a game. Richmond have been playing 5 most of the year due to lack of player availability, using 3 key defending, if we count Grimes, and only Riewoldt as a tall forward, and it seems to have worked quite well, given their current ladder position.

Gold Coast are likely to go into the game with the same 6 KPPs as last game, with 2 very tall forwards in Lynch and Wright along 2 with 3 KPDs, although May can sneak forward. I think we need to match this by bringing in another KPP to keep their defence honest and reducing the potential for mismatches against their tall forwards. I don't think Rampe is suitable to play on either Lynch or Wright, and Witts is capable of taking a mark and kicking a goal.

We should also keep in mind that we play the top 3 teams away from home in the coming weeks, and all of them tend to play tall. The Giants v Cats game was remarkable in that the Giants played 9 KPPs and Geelong played 10. I can't remember a game with so many tall players. Many of them, for both sides, are quite mobile, like Blicavs and Mackie for the Cats, and Haynes and Cameron for the Giants. Adelaide also like to play tall, usually playing 8 KPPs if we count both Lynch and McGovern in that classification. All 4 opponents mentioned play predominantly 1 ruckman, but all have tall backups to give the main ruckman a spell.

It is less important to have extra tall forwards than it is to have tall defenders. When play goes on for a while without a goal being kicked, allowing for a reset, mismatches can occur quite easily. Having an extra tall in defence lessens the chance of this occurring.

I believe this is the week for Aliir to make his way back into the side, which would give us the KPP balance to match GC and prepare us for playing with 3 tall defenders against our most challenging opponents in the coming weeks.

[Mel_C]

After seeing the Jones incident I think he is in trouble. I hope I am wrong.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

[barry]

....

Gold Coast are likely to go into the game with the same 6 KPPs as last game, with 2 very tall forwards in Lynch and Wright along 2 with 3 KPDs, although May can sneak forward. I think we need to match this by bringing in another KPP to keep their defence honest and reducing the potential for mismatches against their tall forwards. I don't think Rampe is suitable to play on either Lynch or Wright, and Witts is capable of taking a mark and kicking a goal.

.....

I believe this is the week for Aliir to make his way back into the side, which would give us the KPP balance to match GC and prepare us for playing with 3 tall defenders against our most challenging opponents in the coming weeks.

I was sure you were going to say its time for Talia!

- - - Updated - - -

After seeing the Jones incident I think he is in trouble. I hope I am wrong.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

That right.
Out: Jones (susp)
In: Sinclair.

Would be my guess. I think Rampe can cover Lynch.

[liz]

After seeing the Jones incident I think he is in trouble. I hope I am wrong.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

It's a toss of the coin. The MRP will consider:

a) was he contesting the ball? (I think he genuinely was.)
b) did he have any other way to contest the ball? That's where they could go either way.

I'm 50/50 on whether he should get suspended (ie whether that kind of contact has to be accepted when a player is contesting the ball or whether he needs to be more careful). Fortunately, the contact was glancing and didn't seem to do more than temporarily shake up Hannan a bit, but it's not hard to see how the outcome could have been more severe. I thought Viney was pretty lucky to escape sanction for contesting a ball against the Eagles in a pretty reckless way, and you could certainly put that Jones action in the same category.

[mattybloods]

After seeing the Jones incident I think he is in trouble. I hope I am wrong.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

I think he'll be fine. He's clearly going for the ball and doesn't deviate from his path

[kangle4]

Jones has been cleared to play

[stevoswan]

Jones has been cleared to play

Yey to that! Here's what the AFL's MRP article said: "Sydney's Zak Jones was cleared of any wrongdoing after a collision with Melbourne's Mitch Hannan, with the MRP deeming Jones was contesting the ball and bracing for contact. " Well judged!

[Hotpotato]

Has Jonesy's cheek been cleared to play ?

[Markwebbos]

Has Jonesy's cheek been cleared to play ?

Never thought he was in MRP trouble but there was a rumour of a facial fracture. How long til the injury update?