Round 1: Brisbane v Swans @ the Gabba

[liz]

Hayward hopefully will see this as the kick up the butt he may well need. He is a player that needs to produce more at the point he is beginning to get to in his career.

I don't think he needs a kick up the butt, but rather a role to play that works to his abilities.

In the first half against the Giants he was asked to play as the deepest forward, effectively a tall forward role. He had an opponent taller, bigger and stronger than he was, and was effectively worked under the ball every time those high loopy kicks came deep into the forward line. In the second half he was able to move a bit more and did have a few scoring chances, albeit not easy ones and not ones he made the most of.

Put Hayward in a functioning forward line that has a clue how to make space, lead and block for each other and I think he could be an very effective third marking forward.

Alternatively, give him more time roaming around the ground, a role he was reasonably effective at for parts of last year. Or let him work just outside the forward 50, the role that Reid was largely playing in the first half last time out.

That said, I think he's probably the right player to omit for this game, given it is expected to be wet. He's not that big body we need to bring the ball to ground and let the likes of Wicks, Gulden, Warner, Rowbottom, Heeney and Papley do their ground level work, and he's probably not as nifty at ground level as any of those players. His marking ability (not against a tall, key defender), either in packs or on the lead, is his main way of contributing on the scoreboard, and that's not especially suited to a wet weather game.

[mcs]

I don't think he needs a kick up the butt, but rather a role to play that works to his abilities.

In the first half against the Giants he was asked to play as the deepest forward, effectively a tall forward role. He had an opponent taller, bigger and stronger than he was, and was effectively worked under the ball every time those high loopy kicks came deep into the forward line. In the second half he was able to move a bit more and did have a few scoring chances, albeit not easy ones and not ones he made the most of.

Put Hayward in a functioning forward line that has a clue how to make space, lead and block for each other and I think he could be an very effective third marking forward.

Alternatively, give him more time roaming around the ground, a role he was reasonably effective at for parts of last year. Or let him work just outside the forward 50, the role that Reid was largely playing in the first half last time out.

That said, I think he's probably the right player to omit for this game, given it is expected to be wet. He's not that big body we need to bring the ball to ground and let the likes of Wicks, Gulden, Warner, Rowbottom, Heeney and Papley do their ground level work, and he's probably not as nifty at ground level as any of those players. His marking ability (not against a tall, key defender), either in packs or on the lead, is his main way of contributing on the scoreboard, and that's not especially suited to a wet weather game.

As always Liz, your far more eloquent then me. I should have framed it more around 'its time for him to find a role and make it his own' - he's the one I'm really unsure of how he clearly fits into the puzzle, or what clearly his role will be. You make some good points, but I do feel like crunch time is beginning to approach, if he is to fulfill his potential. But he is still young and plenty of time to develop too - but he (and Florent) are starting to reach that sweet point where they should really take off as AFL players if they are going to.

[jono2707]

Our first ever sub was a former West Coast ruckman. I just wonder if history might repeat itself tomorrow. Cmon down Sinkers!

I guess one way to outdo what was considered by many at the time to be the dumbest ever use of the sub would be to make an even dumber decision this time...????

[Ralph Dawg]

As many of you might remember, I live up in Brisbane and will be going to the game. The weather looks like it's clearing and the Gabba generally drains pretty well. I'm predicting it should be dry enough.

Looks like George is playing, so final team selection will come down to "The" Chad and Wilbur. I'm predicting Wilbur but hoping for Chad.

OK, I should stick to my day job. Weather has closed over, currently lightly raining. Looks soggy. Plus I got the Wilbur / Chad prediction wrong........

[stellation]

I'm really excited to watch tonight's game.

My prediction- Tom Papley does something cheeky and Stella junior and I erupt in rapturous guffaws.

[liz]

OK, I should stick to my day job. Weather has closed over, currently lightly raining. Looks soggy. Plus I got the Wilbur / Chad prediction wrong........

Still many hours for the weather to have a chance at clearing.

I'm normally irritated that we don't seem to very often get a home game to start the season. But today I am very glad that we are not scheduled to play in Sydney. Good luck Giants - bring your flippers!

[KSAS]

These people are not very knowledgeable about football history. 19th and 20th players often did not take the ground in past decades but these were still counted as games.

The 19th & 20th man system was in place for some 80 years before the interchange system was introduced in 1978 with the purpose to allow injured players to receive treatment and return to the ground. It gradually got manipulated over the decades to where we are now with high rotations and being a 22 v 22 instead of 18 v 18.

It's interesting that the 19th & 20th man system would the simplest and fairest system to deal with the concussion and serious injury issues the AFL is currently trying to address. I think it would also reduce the risk of concussions and serious injuries because the increase of fatigue also means less high speed collisions/congestion.

I finally thought the AFL was on right path in heading towards reducing rotations & increasing fatigue, to a point I hoped it may also eventually reduce the number of players on the bench and more towards a 18 v 18. But this 23rd man (Clarko) rule they've suddenly introduced flies in the face of that. It shows coaches (Clarko) were panicking the reduced rotations was going to stifle their strategies and had to combat it by trying to justify the need for a 23rd man, which the AFL (Hocking) sadly fell for.

Don't know why the AFL continually consults coaches with rules changes, who are primarily paid to win games and do not give a stuff how the game looks.

[The Runner]

I'm still yet to come to terms with the McLean over Melican selection. If it turns out that Reid is playing down back, and McLean is a forward/ruck, I'll be slightly more at ease, but still surprised.
But, if as selected, McLean is our Round 1 fullback, that has to be one of the least expected selections from a rather conservative match committee in recent memory.

From all the snippets in pre season matches, McLean was kicking goals. This doesn't sound like it was the plan through the off season.

[KSAS]

I'm still yet to come to terms with the McLean over Melican selection. If it turns out that Reid is playing down back, and McLean is a forward/ruck, I'll be slightly more at ease, but still surprised.
But, if as selected, McLean is our Round 1 fullback, that has to be one of the least expected selections from a rather conservative match committee in recent memory.

From all the snippets in pre season matches, McLean was kicking goals. This doesn't sound like it was the plan through the off season.

I'd be also surprised if Reid plays down back for entire game as I don't ever recall him doing so as he's been used as a swing man down back when required. It is strange like you said when you consider both Reid and McLean have been played primarily as forwards during the off season. Hoping it turns out to be a master stroke with McLean playing down back like it has with McCartin. The coaches (Pyke?) may've seen something?

[liz]

I'm still yet to come to terms with the McLean over Melican selection. If it turns out that Reid is playing down back, and McLean is a forward/ruck, I'll be slightly more at ease, but still surprised.
But, if as selected, McLean is our Round 1 fullback, that has to be one of the least expected selections from a rather conservative match committee in recent memory.

From all the snippets in pre season matches, McLean was kicking goals. This doesn't sound like it was the plan through the off season.

I think it has to be a forced change (ie Melican must have injured himself).

It seems logical, despite where the players have been named, to expect Reid to help out in defence, rather than McLean. But I'm not sure I've ever seen Reid play as a proper key defender as opposed to a spare down back towards the end of quarters. Still, his greater experience suggests it makes sense for him to play an unfamiliar role than for McLean. And if the main job of the tall forward line target is to crash packs and bring the ball to ground in wet conditions, rather than to take clean marks, McLean might be better equipped to do that than Reid.

[dejavoodoo44]

I'm really excited to watch tonight's game.

My prediction- Tom Papley does something cheeky and Stella junior and I erupt in rapturous guffaws.

I think Tom is going to be very important to our chances. If he kicks, say, 4-1, we should be right in it. On the other hand, if he kicks 1-4, it might be a frustrating night. And at the other end, we probably need to put the clamps on Charlie Cameron. Which is easier said than done.

[The Runner]

Injury is the most logical, as Melican isn't an emergency. Without Fox available, there aren't a lot of other options to play tall down back - except Brand, but this would suggest he's a long way down the pecking order

[dejavoodoo44]

I think it has to be a forced change (ie Melican must have injured himself).

It seems logical, despite where the players have been named, to expect Reid to help out in defence, rather than McLean. But I'm not sure I've ever seen Reid play as a proper key defender as opposed to a spare down back towards the end of quarters. Still, his greater experience suggests it makes sense for him to play an unfamiliar role than for McLean. And if the main job of the tall forward line target is to crash packs and bring the ball to ground in wet conditions, rather than to take clean marks, McLean might be better equipped to do that than Reid.

Yes, I seem to recall that last season, we got into the habit of naming teams, that didn't bear that much resemblance to the starting positions. This one is probably continuing in that tradition. Other oddities that haven't really been commented on, are: Papley named as a follower; Mills and Kennedy starting on the bench; while Warner and the three debutants are all listed as starters. Which I don't think will happen. So, since I don't think McLean has ever played defence for us, it's likely that he'll play as our big bodied forward and Reid will play defence.

Although another possibility, is that both McLean and Reid play forward, Dawson plays as a key defender and Mills drops back to Dawson's defensive flanker role. But I think that would disappoint quite a few people.

[liz]

Although another possibility, is that both McLean and Reid play forward, Dawson plays as a key defender and Mills drops back to Dawson's defensive flanker role. But I think that would disappoint quite a few people.

I think we'll see Rampe play as a key back. Having both Melican and McCartin in the team would, we hoped, allow him to play more of a 'third tall' role and control the distribution from the backline. But of the players available (or at least, those named), he's the most experienced key defender (nay, the only experienced key defender). Reid and Dawson then will probably rotate as that third tall / intercepting defender. Or yes, Mills may get sent back.

I don't think we'd want all three of Reid, McLean and McDonald clogging up the forward line at the same time. Not on a wet night.

[Markwebbos]

It would be nice for the club to offer an explanation for the non-selection of Melican