Changes for Rd. 3 vs North Melbourne

[AB Swannie]

The meltdowns on this board have certainly hit top gear quickly after the break.

We lost by 6 points. People played poorly for their first game in months. I understand that everyone is passionate and has a right to their own opinion but I think some need to take a breath and be grateful that we aren’t doing an autopsy as Crows, Bulldogs, or Weagles fans.

I’m not one for wholesale changes after one week. People deserve a chance to redeem. If they continue to struggle then you make a change. Therefore, for me, no change.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Sinclair had 27 hitouts, 11 to advantage, won on those stats. Goldy a bigger test as is the Norf midfield

Where do the "to advantage" stats come from?

[707]

Where do the "to advantage" stats come from?

AFL/Champion Data, in this mornings paper

[MattW]

Our one-on-one defence was really poor and our defensive coordination poor, unfortunately. Not Swans 'brand'.

Rampe was excellent; Lloyd was very good.

Aliir was good with ball in hand, but is prone to a dropped mark off a high ball.

Mills is prone to a clanger, generally - reckon he would have above average unforced errors in defensive 50 leading to turnover and goal conceded (holding the ball, kicking errors etc). He also needs to win a higher proportion of one-on-one defensive contests to be an elite defender.

O'Riordan doesn't win nearly enough one-on-one contests.

Brand is a good defensive mark, but slowish.

I think at least either Melican or Gould is in our best 22, ultimately. We need another tall who can kill the high ball and has a touch of pace. I think we could accommodate one with Brand, Aliir and Rampe. It's hard to know whether either comes in this week without any idea of how the rest of the squad is performing.

I am not sure we need both Gray and Taylor, particularly given they are low possession winners, on current evidence. Taylor looks sharp in the forward 50. One third of his possessions were in the defensive part of the ground and I don't think there needs to be any.

Suspect they're worried that including Stephens for Gray might leave us too inexperienced. If that's the case, I think I'd prefer Clarke - at least he wins the ball.

[Ludwig]

A problem with proposing changes for the next match is that we have little info on the form and fitness of players not selected for the Essendon game. I gather that Stephens, Gould and Warner are all doing well enough to be given a shot. It was reported that Melican was training well. I would like to see the 3rd year players, Bell, Ling and Stoddart, given a crack first, form permitting. I would put development ahead of winning when making decisions involving a single player, i.e. I'm not calling for wholesale changes, but rather getting development into a player or two who are reafy for AFL level.

I wouldn't be dropping either McCartin or Blakey. We don't know how much more we will be getting out of Franklin and Reid and need to prepare for the future. Same for Rowbottom, who has gotten off to a slow start, but we know he can play.

Sam Gray would be the first on my list to drop.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Didn't Clarke do particularly well against North last year?
On the other hand Rowbottom had 24 possessions against the Dons last year.
But I can't see Horse not giving Clarke a crack at Higgins.

Nor can I see any reason to give up on Rowbottom, he's 19 for goodness sake.

[dimelb]

He's reliant on having a dominant ruckman in Naismith, but hasn't been able to configure the midfield to cope when we have Sinclair at the centre bounces.

The worst thing about yesterday was Jobe Watson in pre-game pointed out that someone needs to be on the goal side of Shiel at the centre bounce and we completely ignored that all day. Either our coaching staff didn't have the smarts to provide that instruction, or they did provide the instruction and it was ignored. Not sure which is worse to be honest.

I couldn't believe the open grass we laid out for Shiel.

[Scottee]

He's reliant on having a dominant ruckman in Naismith, but hasn't been able to configure the midfield to cope when we have Sinclair at the centre bounces.

The worst thing about yesterday was Jobe Watson in pre-game pointed out that someone needs to be on the goal side of Shiel at the centre bounce and we completely ignored that all day. Either our coaching staff didn't have the smarts to provide that instruction, or they did provide the instruction and it was ignored. Not sure which is worse to be honest.

I got the strong feeling watchimng the game that we were grossly undercoached. This was reinforced by not seeing anyone other than Horse and Cox in the coaching box.

[Scottee]

A problem with proposing changes for the next match is that we have little info on the form and fitness of players not selected for the Essendon game. I gather that Stephens, Gould and Warner are all doing well enough to be given a shot. It was reported that Melican was training well. I would like to see the 3rd year players, Bell, Ling and Stoddart, given a crack first, form permitting. I would put development ahead of winning when making decisions involving a single player, i.e. I'm not calling for wholesale changes, but rather getting development into a player or two who are reafy for AFL level.

I wouldn't be dropping either McCartin or Blakey. We don't know how much more we will be getting out of Franklin and Reid and need to prepare for the future. Same for Rowbottom, who has gotten off to a slow start, but we know he can play.

Sam Gray would be the first on my list to drop.

Really annoying that the club couldn't even manage a one paragraph report on the scratch match with GWS.I also wonder about the value of the extra short quarters in the scratch match as preparation for senior selection.They will all be underdone.Agree on Gray. We need another tall (McLean, Maibuam,Gould - who would know is in form based on no info?).

[Meg]

I got the strong feeling watchimng the game that we were grossly undercoached. This was reinforced by not seeing anyone other than Horse and Cox in the coaching box.

McVeigh was in the coaching box.

[Markwebbos]

I do wonder how prepared they can be given a 3 week preseason with very restricted contact.

I think that probably counts against the younger players/sides.

But they surely should have done better with Sheil at centre bounces than they did.

[barry]

I was thinking the shorter quarters were the biggest influence on results, since sides who are good at close tight pressure can maintain it through a whole game. So maybe suits mature bodies better.

[Mr Magoo]

I was thinking the shorter quarters were the biggest influence on results, since sides who are good at close tight pressure can maintain it through a whole game. So maybe suits mature bodies better.

Like Gold Coast ?

[caj23]

Unless they want to add another tall I think they'll keep the same team.

It's too hard without match practice for anyone else to be selected, and the incumbents have the advantage of already having played one game at AFL level. To bring someone new in against the Roos will disadvantage us

FWIW we could've won that game if we'd simply held a few uncontested marks and been a bit smarter with our decision making.

[Mr Magoo]

Unless they want to add another tall I think they'll keep the same team.

It's too hard without match practice for anyone else to be selected, and the incumbents have the advantage of already having played one game at AFL level. To bring someone new in against the Roos will disadvantage us

FWIW we could've won that game if we'd simply held a few uncontested marks and been a bit smarter with our decision making.

Yep our decision making was ordinary and our forward fifty entries still too slow and stilted which enabled Essendon to just block up the space. Players then played safely by bombing to the square rather than looking for a short kick sideways or to take the chance on a short lead which might then turnover and lead to quick rebound down field. Unfortunately this just allowed Essendons talls to clunk marks all night.

There was too much reliance on too few and these were basically the senior group of Kennedy, Parker, Rampe, LLoyd etc .

I thought Florent was okay in patches but some of his stoppage work was unforgivable in letting his man get goal side.

Heeney struggled to get into the game and there is no way he can be relied on as a spearhead forward on that performance.

Blakey, Dawson and Hayward had collectively very ordinary games. Blakey struggled to get into the game and when he did was trying to be too cute with the ball, Dawson couldnt catch and Hayward well , I cant think of that much he did well.

The new guys didnt do much for me that says " Wow we have unearthed a gem". Brand looks a little slow, Gray ok , Taylor was probably the one with most upside considering his fitness levels and did kick three but they just need to work out a better system going forward if they are going to have the likes of Papley, Taylor, Gray in the forward line with undersized keys like McCartin , Heeney and Blakey.

Shows the signs of a very young team but the biggest worry for me is that the second level of players below the Kennedies , Rampes etc are not yet rising to a level that allows the real young guys like McInerny , Rowbottom etc to play useful bit parts, rather than us trying to work out why they arent dominating in their first twenty games.

Will be a rollercoaster season I think, we will look really good at times and terrible at others. I feel for the players as it would be hard to get into a rythym straight up without the benefit of a month or two of trial games etc. Its not the case that every player just is at 100% from game one in a normal season let alone with the disruption they have had.