Changes for Round 5 v Tigers

[liz]

We have rested a tall who has provided little in Blakey (though the quality of the little he has provided has been pretty good), and brought in a smaller player in his stead (in Rowbottom). Based on where Rowbottom has played in the NEAFL this year, I expect him to be primarily used as a small forward/half-forward, effectively replacing Blakey.

Your argument seems to be that a combination of Cameron/Sinclair would be more effective than a combination of Reid/Sinclair. We can't know for sure, but a combination of experience and mobility would suggest that, at least in the immediate term, Reid is likely to provide more than Cameron.

[liz]

Wasn’t sure where to post this, but this article in the HS may back up Liz’s argument.

Category: | Herald Sun

There’s been a lot of talk about Lance Franklin this week, but the biggest challenge for Sydney is to get their midfield right — because at the moment they’re getting smashed.

They’re ranked 17th for contested possession and 17th at clearance differential.

Their stoppage work has completely fallen away. They’ve only averaged 26.5 points per game from stoppages and that’s ranked 18th in the competition.

Sydney are only averaging four goals, which was a major scoring source for them previously.

They’ve been outscored by nearly three goals per game from stoppages and are ranked 18th on that marker.

Is it personnel? Is it their structure? Is it individuals not playing their role? All questions that Longmire must have the answers for.

As a result of having a poor stoppage game the scoreboard is suffering either side of the ball. The game ends up being played in their back half and that’s not the modern game.

This is a crunch match for Sydney’s season, and it must start in and around stoppages.

I think there are two factors contributing to the net scores from stoppages. One is certainly a drop off in the ability to win clearances ourselves, and score from them. But in past years, we've also been blessed with a defence that was able to prevent the opposition scoring themselves from stoppages. The 6-6-6 change - ie the inability to play a spare man in defence - may be contributing. But we've also seen a marked change in personnel from a defensive group that has been very stable for a number of years. Specifically, we have been without Smith and Reg for most of the season, and McVeigh for the last game. That's over 800 games of experience missing from our backline. I think the effect was noticeable against Melbourne, in particular. Even if you allow for the arsiness of some of the goals they kicked, there were other times when they were able to get a shot at goal away far too easily.

Of course, there's no easy solution given that all three of the missing players are close to the end of their careers. It's up to the newer incumbents to learn how to work together to build a defensive unit as stingy as that we have enjoyed in seasons past. We've been watching a transition of the forward line over a few seasons now, and the midfield over the last couple. But finally that transition has reached our defensive unit too. And while I think part of the answer to our midfield issues is currently playing in defence, I can kinda understand why the coaches are loathe to move him from there.

[Ludwig]

Your argument seems to be that a combination of Cameron/Sinclair would be more effective than a combination of Reid/Sinclair. We can't know for sure, but a combination of experience and mobility would suggest that, at least in the immediate term, Reid is likely to provide more than Cameron.

My question is why can't we 'experiment' with playing Cameron instead of Sinclair. We seem to be fine bringing in rookies like McInerney and Rowbottom, but there seems to be a wall around Cameron, despite his consistent high performances in the reserves.

Sinclair has improved so much since coming to the Swans, but we need someone who can put up a better fight at ruck contests. Cameron does well in the reserves. Why not give him a go in the AFL? He has a size advantage over Sinclair, which alone should help balance the ruck contests.

[liz]

My question is why can't we 'experiment' with playing Cameron instead of Sinclair. We seem to be fine bringing in rookies like McInerney and Rowbottom, but there seems to be a wall around Cameron, despite his consistent high performances in the reserves.

Sinclair has improved so much since coming to the Swans, but we need someone who can put up a better fight at ruck contests. Cameron does well in the reserves. Why not give him a go in the AFL? He has a size advantage over Sinclair, which alone should help balance the ruck contests.

I see Cameron as a very similar kind of ruckman to Sinclair, which is probably part of the problem in playing them together. It also makes "resting" Sinclair in favour of Cameron a big call.

I know that Cameron is listed at 5cm taller than Sinclair but I think he's a little less mobile. I wasn't that impressed by his NEAFL ruck work in his first year at the club. I thought looked more like a tall (but relatively non mobile) forward who might be able to pinch hit in the ruck. He's certainly improved his ruck work since then, and even more so, improved his around the ground contributions, but I'm not convinced he'll prove to be a more effective stoppage ruckman than Sinclair if he ever gets an extended chance at senior level. I thought he was clearly outpointed by Nicholls in ruck contests last week, for example. (Though over the course of the game, he was the more valuable contributor of the two because he played the game out and contributed much more around the ground than Nicholls did.)

I do get that we won't know until Cameron gets a chance. But it would be an incredibly big call to drop Sinclair in favour of Cameron. While he has his limitations, he's one of the few players on the list that almost always gives his all during games, even when up against a bigger and/or more talented opponent. It might take an injury to Sinclair to force the coaches' hand, but I'd never want to hope one of our players gets injured, even for a short time.

[rb4x]

Sam Reid
Disposals Tackles Score HO
WB 10 0 2.1 0
Ade 9 5 1.0 4
Car 14 5 0.1 6
Mel 11 2 0.1 4

Ave 11 3 0.5 3.5

Sam is averaging eleven disposals, three tackles, 3.5 hit outs and less than one goal per game. Cameron would not have to exactly star to match those numbers. We have dropped Blakey and have gone a little shorter this week so there is a bit more room for another tall. No tipster at the AFL has us beating Richmond anyway so perhaps we have little to lose. I did not name Reid to be dropped as thre are other talls not going great guns as well. McCartin does not have big numbers, either and either Franklin or Sinclair might actually benefit from a rest.

Just a bit frustrated that we have these guys like Cameron and Rose burning it up in the NEAFL yet they are not considered for a game. Don't know what Clarke did to get a recall ahead of COR and if match ups were being looked at then Melican might have been the player to sit on Lynch. Easter is the time for miracles and the Swans will need one this weekend.

[Blood Fever]

Sinclair has been one of our best players this year and was arguably BOG v Carlton. His mobility makes him a threat near goal. He does get worn down by the likes of Gawn and Grundy but so does Nankervis who gets monstered by bigger opponents. In the first half last week, our midfield was on fire but faded. That's our biggest concern. Our collective midfield group is not nimble enough for long enough.

[liz]

Sam is averaging eleven disposals, three tackles, 3.5 hit outs and less than one goal per game. Cameron would not have to exactly star to match those numbers. We have dropped Blakey and have gone a little shorter this week so there is a bit more room for another tall. No tipster at the AFL has us beating Richmond anyway so perhaps we have little to lose. I did not name Reid to be dropped as thre are other talls not going great guns as well. McCartin does not have big numbers, either and either Franklin or Sinclair might actually benefit from a rest.

Your earlier comment referred specifically to picking Cameron so as to give Sinclair a rest in the forward line, which means picking both in the team, not resting Sinclair entirely.

The idea of "resting" Franklin just to play Cameron has no merit in my eyes. You're talking about one of the all time greats who attracts huge attention from the opposition, compared to a guy who has one game of AFL under his belt. If Franklin is injured, sure, he shouldn't be in the team but I don't think there's any suggestion he is.

McCartin is currently playing in defence. His raw disposal numbers are irrelevant, and his inclusion is even less relevant to a discussion about whether Cameron and Sinclair should be picked in the same team. Unless you're suggesting Cameron should be selected to play as a key defender, a position I've never seen him play in his time in the NEAFL team. The relevant discussion around McCartin is between him and Melican (or Grundy, as and when Grundy has recovered from injury).

So effectively, a call to replace "an underperforming tall" with Cameron has to come down to a choice between him and Reid.

]

[wolftone57]

I see Cameron as a very similar kind of ruckman to Sinclair, which is probably part of the problem in playing them together. It also makes "resting" Sinclair in favour of Cameron a big call.

I know that Cameron is listed at 5cm taller than Sinclair but I think he's a little less mobile. I wasn't that impressed by his NEAFL ruck work in his first year at the club. I thought looked more like a tall (but relatively non mobile) forward who might be able to pinch hit in the ruck. He's certainly improved his ruck work since then, and even more so, improved his around the ground contributions, but I'm not convinced he'll prove to be a more effective stoppage ruckman than Sinclair if he ever gets an extended chance at senior level. I thought he was clearly outpointed by Nicholls in ruck contests last week, for example. (Though over the course of the game, he was the more valuable contributor of the two because he played the game out and contributed much more around the ground than Nicholls did.)

I do get that we won't know until Cameron gets a chance. But it would be an incredibly big call to drop Sinclair in favour of Cameron. While he has his limitations, he's one of the few players on the list that almost always gives his all during games, even when up against a bigger and/or more talented opponent. It might take an injury to Sinclair to force the coaches' hand, but I'd never want to hope one of our players gets injured, even for a short time.

I would not be calling for Sinclair to be dropped either. My take is Cameron and Sinclair can survive in the same team at the expense of Reid. Cameron does a few things well. His defensive 50 work is very good. He gets plenty around the ground. He goes forward and kicks goals. My only objection to him as an AFL player is that I think he needs to attack the contest harder. Crash packs, protect the smalls by blocking and shepherding.

If he steps up the attack in the contest he could be a very good AFL player because everything else is in place. I think the person he probably bmneed to talk with is Jason Ball. They have similar physique, similar qualities, it's just Jason's attack on the contest was fierce in an unassuming way.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[Ludwig]

It's not a knock on Sinclair, who I think has been super since he took over the sole ruck duties. I just wonder how long this can go on without Sinclair getting injured and being forced to make a ruck change. Why don't we give Cameron a go while we still have 2 walking ruckman on the list. I just wonder when would be a better chance to give Cameron a few games than at the same time Naismith is injured. Let's find out what our ruck stocks are like.

[Markwebbos]

I liked Liz's earlier suggestion which was Blakey out, Cameron in - a tall for a tall, even if Cameron might be less mobile than Blakey. I also think it would be better to give Cameron a run against a weaker ruck combo such as Richmond.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Interestingly I thought the changes made against us when we played melb last week was what killed us.......ie when melb went small in the forward line and lead fast and hard for Marks we stumbled

Maybe we feel we should be doing similar this week

[liz]

I liked Liz's earlier suggestion which was Blakey out, Cameron in - a tall for a tall, even if Cameron might be less mobile than Blakey. I also think it would be better to give Cameron a run against a weaker ruck combo such as Richmond.

I don't agree with the suggestion that the time to try Cameron is against a weaker opponent. If he is to come into the side it's either got to be because his inclusion can make the side stronger, or because he's the last ruckman standing.

Richmond are weak, relative to other clubs, in the ruck. (Not saying that Nankervis isn't a competent player, but he's no better than Sinclair, no taller than Sinclair, and the Tigers don't have a strong relief ruckman.) They are strong relative to other clubs in the small, quick man stakes. If we were in imperious form, with all aspects of the team functioning well, there might be an argument for trying to exploit an opposition weakness by loading up in that direction. But only if the club were confident it could dictate the way the game is played. With our current mix of young players struggling for four quarter consistency, and experienced stalwarts not in top form, that would be a recipe for disaster. The best hope is to be able to match Richmond in the way they will try to play the game.

There may be other teams against whom playing two ruckmen won't make us relatively weaker in other aspects of team make up.

To suggest that "finding out about how players might go" should take precedence over putting out a team with the greatest chance of winning a game is, for me, throwing in the towel for the season. And after just four rounds, that's not something I support.

[Ludwig]

To suggest that "finding out about how players might go" should take precedence over putting out a team with the greatest chance of winning a game is, for me, throwing in the towel for the season. And after just four rounds, that's not something I support.

But isn't throwing in McInerney last week, and now Rowbottom, sort of just finding out how players might go? We haven't been picking the best team, but I understand that player development is part of the process, so we can't put our best team on the park every week.

There must be something the coaches don't think is right about Cameron, but I don't know what it is. I can't understand why it never seems his turn to have go, despite stellar performances in the reserves.

[liz]

But isn't throwing in McInerney last week, and now Rowbottom, sort of just finding out how players might go? We haven't been picking the best team, but I understand that player development is part of the process, so we can't put our best team on the park every week.

There must be something the coaches don't think is right about Cameron, but I don't know what it is. I can't understand why it never seems his turn to have go, despite stellar performances in the reserves.

To an extent. I'd give Rose a go ahead of either McInerney or Rowbottom, but Rose is a marginal player at best. Similarly, I'm not quite sure why COR isn't getting a better run (unless he's being punished still for making that bad 50m penalty blue a couple of weeks ago).

But both of those players are pretty inexperienced themselves, and still fringe players. I don't think there's a huge difference in the likely outcome of a game by choosing one of them over a first gamer. On the other hand, switching to a two ruckman structure, something that's only been tried once in recent seasons (and with a bad outcome) is a pretty big structural change. And picking Cameron over either Sinclair or Reid would be a much bigger call than selecting Rowbottom or McInerney over COR or Rose (or Stoddart, who I thought would have been a good inclusion this week).

I do think Cameron deserves a decent go at senior level, and maybe experimenting with two ruckmen (and leaving one of them forward for extended periods) has some merit. But only if it increases the chances of the team winning. I don't think it would against Richmond at Marvel Stadium.

[Ralph Dawg]

I'm on the fence about Cameron and Sinclair playing together. Happy enough that it's not happening this week given our opposition and current midfield form but would like to see it happen at some stage. Those centre bounces and playing on ball in general play would really take it out of you, especially when you are circa 200cm and 100kg in size.
Re. Midfield we need to just be harder at the contest. There are too many standing off the ball watching and waiting, a bit like my U9 team's last game. They were still a little uncertain at the contest with the introduction of tackle post Auskick! When I ask my kids at half time why, they either said they were worried they would get tackled and give away a penalty or that they would miss a tackle and give up possession. I told them just to crash into the pack and go hard for the ball. They turned around a 6 goal half time deficit to lose by only a goal (not that scores are kept....). It wouldn't surprise me if the swans midfield has a similar mindset to the kids although I do recognise U9s is not AFL and I'm not Longmire ????