Changes for R23 v Blues

[S.S. Bleeder]

What should happen:
IN: Naismith - clearly our best ruckman. Newman - We need him playing off the half back line.
OUT: Sinkers - toss of the coin between him and Tippett's ceiling is much higher so give him another week to help him find his best form. Towers - had a few good games but ordinary since then. He will crumble under the pressure of finals footy.

What will probably happen:
IN: Naismith, Newman.
OUT: Sinkers, Hayward.

A difficult decision made more difficult because the two have a bye this week. I suppose whomever misses out could play the NEAFL the following week but then they won't be as fresh for the first final.

[dimelb]

Very disturbed to see Rohan's numbers from the last two GF's. I know he doesn't get a lot of the ball, but 5 & 7 touches
is terrible. 12 touches in two games, he may as well not been there. We all love the guy, and I'm sure he'll get picked if we make it,
but maybe someone needs to have a little word with him beforehand. Something along the lines of.... nothing short of cardiac
arrest from repeated efforts to get to the ball will be accepted.

I think Rohan's numbers as given above need to be seen in the light of:
1. He seemed at times to still be coming to terms with his injury from a season or two back.
2. He was getting moved around all over the park and not to have a sense of where he belonged.
3. Since playing as a forward on a regular basis he has kicked goals and generally frightened the life out of various defenders.

He is now where he belongs and I wouldn't dream of dropping him.

[Ludwig]

I've regained my composure now and can provide some additional analysis to Scottee's original post.

Our match committee seemed to have recommitted to the failed 2 ruckman policy, or at least giving the forward ?dream? trio of Buddy, Tippo and Reid another life. Although Naismith is our best pure ruckman, he hasn?t been anything special this year. He holds up well in the ruck contests, but doesn?t add much around the ground and hasn?t kicked a goal in his 13 games this year.

Tippett offers the best general option of having an adequate ruckman who can go forward and kick a goal. This type of ruckman (Ryder, McEvoy, Kreuzer, Gawn) seems the way to go in 2017. I don?t think Tippett offers enough to play mainly as a key forward, especially with a plethora of other targets, like Buddy, Reid and Rohan. How much more value is added by having Tippett in our forward line? Or is he just clogging up space for others to lead into. As a ruckman drifting forward, he has good value.

An article on the Swans website is talking up the 2 ruckman policy as a benefit in case the primary ruckman gets injured during the game. Making a selection in the expectation of a player injury is laughable. Why not play and extra tall defender in case one of our defenders gets injured? It seems to be playing to our weaknesses rather than our strengths. We are weak in the ruck, so let?s play 2 of them, as if 2 Jesse Whites make 1 Buddy Franklin.

It seems that little was learned from the Adelaide game. We had to limit ourselves to playing one ruckman in the 4th quarter because it was evident that we couldn?t afford to carry both on the ground at the same time. That extra ruckman was taking the place of a much needed key defender. Tom Lynch ran amok, got 24 possession, 7 marks and kicked a goal, which Mitch McGovern was too good for Melican and kicked 4 goals. But we could do nothing about this, because we had no options. Rampe and Grundy were already tied up covering Walker and Jenkins. Adelaide, on the other hand, were able to switch Keith off Franklin after he kicked 2 goals on him, because they had Talia, Lever and Jake Kelly to fall back on. Talia held Buddy to his one miracle goal for the rest of the game.

If we go deep into finals we are likely to come up against both Adelaide and GWS, both teams with tall forward lines. We have repeatedly been caught out in these mismatches, our only solution is to limit the effectiveness of our forward line in the last 3 minutes of quarters by playing Reid in defence.

If we want to play both Naismith and Tippett, we have to resign ourselves to moving Reid into defence. He will effectively be a wingman playing against the likes of Tom Lynch and Rory Lobb. It?s not the worst option, but I believe we would get more value playing one ruckman, keeping Reid in the forward line and bringing Aliir in to bolster the defence and be that player that usually pairs up on the opposition tall wingman. It also gives us the option to have a plan B in case a problem arises where a designated defender is having a bad day with his matchup. He can also provide ruck relief and the option of switching with Reid if thinks aren?t going well; just to give the team a different look.

Dean Towers has improved this year, but he still falls over when the going gets tough. He is skillful and athletic, so he will makes some good plays in most games. But there were many times when we needed him to lay a tackle or at least help putting physical pressure in a contested situation where he let us down. Nic Newman is the kind of player we need for the finals and should replace Towers.

We all love Will Hayward and I don?t think there would be an issue if this were 2018, but he is simply not physically developed enough to handle finals football this year. Otherwise, he?s a great addition to the team. If Cunningham is fully fit and ready to resume where he left off before he got injured, he would be the logical replacement, but he hasn?t quite shown that level in the NEAFL so far, although he hasn?t been bad. I would lean slightly to giving Dawson a go, just to see if he can produce something close to his NEAFL form at AFL level. He probably would have been the NEAFL MVP this year had he played the same number of games as the winner. If it doesn?t work, Harry will have another reserves game next week and we can take it from there. Rose also deserves consideration, given his recent form.

[ernie koala]

It would be a brave coach who selected these two for another grand final at the MCG:

2014:
McVeigh: 11 possessions
Rohan: 7 possessions

2016:
McVeigh: 12 possessions
Rohan: 5 possessions

Another failure on the big day , if played, must be meet with dismissal from the club

I don't know what his GF stats are, but I'm pretty sure you could add Tippo to your list.

[Hotpotato]

It's a fairly long road to a Granny just now.

[barry]

I don't know what his GF stats are, but I'm pretty sure you could add Tippo to your list.

Tippet ok in 2014, 16 possessions.
Poor in 2016, 10 possessions.

[707]

I don't know what his GF stats are, but I'm pretty sure you could add Tippo to your list.

Tippo was rushed back last year after the broken jaw, generally has performed well in finals.

Om Naismith, he of all our ruckman gives more taps to advantage meaning we get first use of the ball from a stoppage, big plus. He is also the ruckman most likely to not have his colours lowered by a Gawn, Jacobs, Mummy etc. If he's fit, play him this week.

[KTigers]

What are you talking about HP? We're already in it.... just waiting to find out who we are playing....
I'm hoping for West Coast, after they have disposed of Adelaide & GWS. Yeah, I know, dreaming.

It's a fairly long road to a Granny just now.

[barry]

I think Rohan's numbers as given above need to be seen in the light of:
1. He seemed at times to still be coming to terms with his injury from a season or two back.
2. He was getting moved around all over the park and not to have a sense of where he belonged.
3. Since playing as a forward on a regular basis he has kicked goals and generally frightened the life out of various defenders.

He is now where he belongs and I wouldn't dream of dropping him.

That's a positive spin, but are you seriously prepared to risk another grand final on a perennial poor performer. I'ts like selecting Leon Davis.

[bloodspirit]

An article on the Swans website is talking up the 2 ruckman policy as a benefit in case the primary ruckman gets injured during the game. Making a selection in the expectation of a player injury is laughable. Why not play and extra tall defender in case one of our defenders gets injured? It seems to be playing to our weaknesses rather than our strengths. We are weak in the ruck, so let?s play 2 of them, as if 2 Jesse Whites make 1 Buddy Franklin.

We may not have the strongest ruck division in the AFL but it is far from the weakest. We are, at worst, middling in the rucks. Our best ruck is not that great but our depth is good with three rucks similarly strong with different strengths. Cameron also shows promise but is unavailable currently.

I am attracted to the idea of playing one ruck plus Aliir and proposed this myself a couple of weeks ago. Since then Aliir has continued to perform strongly in the NEAFL and press his case for recall. This helps but it's still hard to see the match committee changing tack so significantly at this late stage. But you never know. If we do play only one ruck, I lean towards Naismith, even though he doesn't offer as much as Tippo forward. He's not that damaging around the ground but he's still a useful marking target when kicking out of defence, as well as his superior tapwork. I tend to think it is more likely they will play Tippo because if we didn't think he belonged in our best 22 we wouldn't have extended his contract to 2020 on a high salary (albeit not so high as it's been).

I don't see it as a problem if Hayward continues to be bottom 6 of our playing 22. After all some of our best 22 have to be there - doesn't mean they are not best 22. I agree that Hayward's weakness is that he is light framed but I think his assets outweigh his weaknesses despite his ordinary performance against the Crows last week. I think he offers more than Cunningham with superior goal kicking and marking. Also, going forward Hayward will benefit and develop faster by having finals experience. If Hayward were replaced, I would take others, like Towers and Robinson, ahead of Cunningham. As it stands Newman would be the obvious replacement if Hayward were dropped this round.

[stevoswan]

I think Rohan's numbers as given above need to be seen in the light of:
1. He seemed at times to still be coming to terms with his injury from a season or two back.
2. He was getting moved around all over the park and not to have a sense of where he belonged.
3. Since playing as a forward on a regular basis he has kicked goals and generally frightened the life out of various defenders.

He is now where he belongs and I wouldn't dream of dropping him.

I agree with these sentiments. Gary could be ready to play a finals blinder or he may have a quiet one.....and then win it for us at the death. No way is he to be dropped. X factor!

[barry]

I too like the idea of one ruckman and Allir, but this should have been trialled way before round 23 if we are to take it to finals.

We are stuck with 2 rucks and best we can hope for is tippet plays to his salary.

[dimelb]

That's a positive spin, but are you seriously prepared to risk another grand final on a perennial poor performer. It's like selecting Leon Davis.

Wrong Davis.

[Southern Swan15]

I've regained my composure now and can provide some additional analysis to Scottee's original post.

Our match committee seemed to have recommitted to the failed 2 ruckman policy, or at least giving the forward ?dream? trio of Buddy, Tippo and Reid another life. Although Naismith is our best pure ruckman, he hasn?t been anything special this year. He holds up well in the ruck contests, but doesn?t add much around the ground and hasn?t kicked a goal in his 13 games this year.

Tippett offers the best general option of having an adequate ruckman who can go forward and kick a goal. This type of ruckman (Ryder, McEvoy, Kreuzer, Gawn) seems the way to go in 2017. I don?t think Tippett offers enough to play mainly as a key forward, especially with a plethora of other targets, like Buddy, Reid and Rohan. How much more value is added by having Tippett in our forward line? Or is he just clogging up space for others to lead into. As a ruckman drifting forward, he has good value.

An article on the Swans website is talking up the 2 ruckman policy as a benefit in case the primary ruckman gets injured during the game. Making a selection in the expectation of a player injury is laughable. Why not play and extra tall defender in case one of our defenders gets injured? It seems to be playing to our weaknesses rather than our strengths. We are weak in the ruck, so let?s play 2 of them, as if 2 Jesse Whites make 1 Buddy Franklin.

It seems that little was learned from the Adelaide game. We had to limit ourselves to playing one ruckman in the 4th quarter because it was evident that we couldn?t afford to carry both on the ground at the same time. That extra ruckman was taking the place of a much needed key defender. Tom Lynch ran amok, got 24 possession, 7 marks and kicked a goal, which Mitch McGovern was too good for Melican and kicked 4 goals. But we could do nothing about this, because we had no options. Rampe and Grundy were already tied up covering Walker and Jenkins. Adelaide, on the other hand, were able to switch Keith off Franklin after he kicked 2 goals on him, because they had Talia, Lever and Jake Kelly to fall back on. Talia held Buddy to his one miracle goal for the rest of the game.

If we go deep into finals we are likely to come up against both Adelaide and GWS, both teams with tall forward lines. We have repeatedly been caught out in these mismatches, our only solution is to limit the effectiveness of our forward line in the last 3 minutes of quarters by playing Reid in defence.

If we want to play both Naismith and Tippett, we have to resign ourselves to moving Reid into defence. He will effectively be a wingman playing against the likes of Tom Lynch and Rory Lobb. It?s not the worst option, but I believe we would get more value playing one ruckman, keeping Reid in the forward line and bringing Aliir in to bolster the defence and be that player that usually pairs up on the opposition tall wingman. It also gives us the option to have a plan B in case a problem arises where a designated defender is having a bad day with his matchup. He can also provide ruck relief and the option of switching with Reid if thinks aren?t going well; just to give the team a different look.

Dean Towers has improved this year, but he still falls over when the going gets tough. He is skillful and athletic, so he will makes some good plays in most games. But there were many times when we needed him to lay a tackle or at least help putting physical pressure in a contested situation where he let us down. Nic Newman is the kind of player we need for the finals and should replace Towers.

We all love Will Hayward and I don?t think there would be an issue if this were 2018, but he is simply not physically developed enough to handle finals football this year. Otherwise, he?s a great addition to the team. If Cunningham is fully fit and ready to resume where he left off before he got injured, he would be the logical replacement, but he hasn?t quite shown that level in the NEAFL so far, although he hasn?t been bad. I would lean slightly to giving Dawson a go, just to see if he can produce something close to his NEAFL form at AFL level. He probably would have been the NEAFL MVP this year had he played the same number of games as the winner. If it doesn?t work, Harry will have another reserves game next week and we can take it from there. Rose also deserves consideration, given his recent form.

Love your thoughts ludwig. I feel if we play adelaide again and offer up the same game plan we are in a world of hurt. I hope ur thoughts are echoed by our coaching staff but sadly i feel this will be another so close year.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[CureTheSane]

Our match committee seemed to have recommitted to the failed 2 ruckman policy,

Not sure how you can say this given the last 3 weeks team performance.
Two top 4 teams at their home grounds - the hardest tasks for AFL teams.
And Freo by 104 points.
I'm ok with what we are doing.