Changes for Round 10 v Pies

[RogueSwan]

I don't think Blakey should be dropped. Maybe just move him to the midfield (or a wing?), a position that was talked about a lot in the lead up to us drafting him.
Don't make any unforced changes and give the team a chance to redeem themselves.

[Markwebbos]

Bring Buddy back.
Let him stand in the goal square and do nothing but just stand there.
He'll draw four defenders - leaves Paps, et al to goal to their hearts' content.

Your wish may yet come true in a few weeks

[jono2707]

Bring Buddy back.
Let him stand in the goal square and do nothing but just stand there.
He'll draw four defenders - leaves Paps, et al to goal to their hearts' content.

Does he still play for us? Cool....

[dejavoodoo44]

To me, possibly the best thing about the Saints game, was that we got out of it without any new injuries. It seems that Rampe pulled up okay and Cunningham wasn't mentioned in the injury report, so I assume that he only had a sprain, rather than anything serious. So, since we don't have to make any forced changes, I'd prefer to keep changes to a minimum, and hope that some improvement comes from a stable squad developing more cohesion.

That being said, I don't really like the prospect of Sinclair, with a bit of help from Aliir, going up against Grundy, who has a bit of help from Cameron. So I wouldn't mind seeing Amartey this week. As well spending a bit of time in the ruck, he's played both defence and attack in the NEAFL, so he could either mark Cameron, who plays largely forward, or occasionally present a large target forward himself. While I definitely don't expect him to beat Grundy in the ruck, I expect that he would make us more competitive. Possibly Blakey goes out, as he probably needs to go back to the scratch match league, to regain his confidence, by either kicking a bag, or having a 20 plus possession game.

Though one thing that I find slightly odd from our last game, is the general perception that we got smashed in the ruck and smashed in the clearances. However, the stats from the game, say that we won the hitouts 37-35 and lost the clearances 35-38. So what's going on? While I haven't seen the hitouts to advantage stat for the game*, I suspect that Ryder and Marshall often put the ball on to the chest of their mids. Whereas, I recall a few of Sinclair's taps going straight to Jones. Also, even though the stats say that the clearances were almost even, I'm sure St Kilda got a few more clean breaks than us. That is, a handball to someone in space, who then hit a leading forward. Whereas we probably had more clearances, that were dump kicks, which often didn't advantage us.

Anyway, back to changes. Like many others, I've been a bit underwhelmed by Gray, so I'd replace him with a youngster. Either Foot or Wicks, both of whom have probably earned a promotion. Foot comes in if we want a bit more creative flair and speed. Wicks if we want more defensive pressure and toughness.

*I still don't think that anyone is gathering the slightly narky stat that I'd like to see: hitouts to disadvantage.

[Markwebbos]

I agree that the stats don't appear to match the reality of the game. Hit outs to advantage even more so (in brackets, after hit outs)

AA: 10(1)
Sinkers: 27(11)
Marshall: 14(3)
Ryder: 19(8)
King: 2(1)

So according to that, Sinkers matched the two Saints ruckmen for HO to advantage...

There's also a piece in "the Age" ranking ruckmen https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...30-p55h24.html

In terms of Hitouts to advantage Sinkers has a percentage of 27.6% (I presume this is as a %age of his Hitout wins), which puts him above, would you believe: Grundy, Goldstein, Nankervis, Lobb, Witts, Ceglar, NicNat and Soldo.

Makes you wonder how they determine if a hitout is to advantage or not? according to afl.com.au its "A hit-out that reaches an intended teammate"

Lies, damned lies and statistics!

[dejavoodoo44]

I agree that the stats don't appear to match the reality of the game. Hit outs to advantage even more so (in brackets, after hit outs)

AA: 10(1)
Sinkers: 27(11)
Marshall: 14(3)
Ryder: 19(8)
King: 2(1)

So according to that, Sinkers matched the two Saints ruckmen for HO to advantage...

There's also a piece in "the Age" ranking ruckmen https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...30-p55h24.html

In terms of Hitouts to advantage Sinkers has a percentage of 27.6% (I presume this is as a %age of his Hitout wins), which puts him above, would you believe: Grundy, Goldstein, Nankervis, Lobb, Witts, Ceglar, NicNat and Soldo.

Makes you wonder how they determine if a hitout is to advantage or not? according to afl.com.au its "A hit-out that reaches an intended teammate"

Lies, damned lies and statistics!

It's strange, isn't it? I think even Longmire in his post-match press conference, said something along the lines of: we got smashed in the clearances. But statistically, we didn't? Though I suppose that's a quantitative assessment, rather than a qualitative one.

[caj23]

I agree he looked well beaten on Saturday, but maybe Sinkers is copping the wrap for our poor midfield??

[Captain]

I know some might find this risible, but I think Harry Cunningham is ready to be an on-baller. He's now a tough strong player who plays solid 2-way football. He can win the ball and we know he has a real burst of speed. He's not much different from Zak Jones, except Harry is a better kick. Harry isn't leaving the Swans, but we realise now that we made a mistake by not playing Jones more at stoppages.

Harry is the lock down defender, Nick Smith replacement. He must stay there.

[crackedactor 01]

Bring Buddy back.
Let him stand in the goal square and do nothing but just stand there.
He'll draw four defenders - leaves Paps, et al to goal to their hearts' content.

Notice how they never mentioned Buddy on the Injury update last night.? Just wonder if he will be a surprise inclusion this week?

[Markwebbos]

Notice how they never mentioned Buddy on the Injury update last night.? Just wonder if he will be a surprise inclusion this week?

I’d say no. Think we’ll see him at some point after the bye

[Ralph Dawg]

I agree he looked well beaten on Saturday, but maybe Sinkers is copping the wrap for our poor midfield??

I think many are obsessed by our lack of a dominant ruckman. Richmond and WB have shown in recent times you can win a flag without one if you have a strong midfield, the ability to rebound efficiently out of defence and unpredictability up forward. Strong tackling was a feature in these two teams flag winning years.

Conversely, Melbourne, Collingwood and North have shown that a dominant ruckman will not compensate for weaknesses in other areas around the park sufficiently to win a flag.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's easy to blame Sinclair and / or our lack of a dominant ruckman (especially one good at the tap). The fact that we are puny relative to our opponents, can't stick tackles like we once did and do the physical stuff to create space when we have the ball seem to be bigger issues to me.

[barry]

You can win a flag without a dominant ruckman, but you do need a competitive one. Sinclair is not a ruckman, and wont be a premiership ruckman.

[Syd76]

You can win a flag without a dominant ruckman, but you do need a competitive one. Sinclair is not a ruckman, and wont be a premiership ruckman.

Correct.. we let one go in Nank the Tank... and one in Mummy. Anyway, no use crying over spilt milk.

Looking forward to see what Michael Knoll has to offer one he is sufficiently fit.

Anyway this is not really about this season but the next one....

[caj23]

Harry is the lock down defender, Nick Smith replacement. He must stay there.

I think a stronger midfield is more important than a lockdown defender, I’m on the Harry to mids bandwagon

[707]

Other teams making lots of changes to rest players, wonder if we'll have a few extra changes accordingly.