Round 7 prematch thread - vs Brisbane at the SCG, Sunday 4.40 PM

[Faunac8]

If JPK remains the sub, then one of the four you named will have to be in the 22.

It's looking to come down to JPK, Sinclair or Gould for the 22.

Ahh yes Mathematics was not my strong point ok in that case JPK to play Stephens as sub.

[liz]

Last year in R1 vs Lions, we had the following 7 listed as our defence team
B: D.Rampe, H.McLean, H.Cunningham
HB: J.Lloyd, T.McCartin, J.Dawson plus Hewett from the I/C
Against the following 6 Forwards from Lions

HF: Z.Bailey, J.Daniher, L.McCarthy
F: T.Fullarton, E.Hipwood, C.Cameron

This Round , those underlined will not play. We have JMac listed in the back and they have McStay and Rayner listed as replacement in their forward line.

And we won at their Home Ground!

Dawson isn't that tall. So may be we don't need Melican or even Gould to come in after all. Still think that if Gould is debuting, it should be announced earlier so that his family, friends and fans who live in SA can arrange to come here.

Blakey is key position height. He's effectively replaced Dawson in defence since round 1 last year. (He played, but not in defence.) So while he is primarily there for his rebound, he may be asked to more closely mind a tall forward. Given he's relatively inexperienced down back, he's not doing too badly defensively. He's probably better than Dawson was when he (Dawson) first became a mainstay in defence, though Dawson did improve his one-on-one stuff over a couple of seasons.

Allowing for the fact that Reid is capable of playing in the back half - and taking on the intercepting defender role that PMcCartin has been fulfilling, it may make sense that we go in a bit smaller. Having just two talls stationed in the forward line, with Parker, Kennedy and Heeney all rotating through, might make us more dangerous. Maybe the team will be less inclined to bomb long at every occasion.

I've watched a replay of all but the first 10 minutes of the Hawks game. (The second half twice.) I hope the main emotion the team felt when they watched was the same as mine - frustration and irritation. With the midfield dominance that we had for most of the game, the team should have created 50 shots on goal, not the 30 or so they did create. They often start with mindless bombing into the forward line but usually adjust as the game goes on, particularly when they get on top in the middle. Not on Monday. It was relentless.

I realise a lot of the forward entries were repeat entries, with most of the Hawks team stationed in their defensive 50. But surely there still has to be a better way. Maybe just varying the spot to which they bomb it, rather than aiming for the top of the goal square all the time. Or our forwards doing better at bringing the ball to ground, rather than allowing monotonous intercept marking by Sicily and co. We did quite well at creating goals from forward 50 stoppages, with a player (different ones at different times) keeping their distance from the pack and thus creating a decent scoring opportunity (eg Florent, Warner, Ronke).

[liz]

Several footy heads on football panels have suggested the role is sometimes being used as way to implement a tactical substitution ( shock horror )

I suspect it has been used that way on many occasions. But not last week by the Swans, given we're now without two players for this week.

I think they should enforce a 12 day (or at least 1 week) sit-out period for any player subbed out. Other than the GF (and maybe QFs) that should discourage it being used tactically. Alternatively (or in addition to) they could restrict the use of the sub to the first half, to reduce the fresh-legs-factor that can be a disadvantage to the other side. That might erode part of the thought process for having a medical sub - that injured (and especially concussed) players might resist coming off because they didn't want to disadvantage their team. But I reckon club medicos are completely on top of the concussion monitoring, taking players off for testing whenever there's a hint of a head hit, and probably erring on the side of caution when determining whether the players can go back on.

[Ludwig]

Blakey is key position height. He's effectively replaced Dawson in defence since round 1 last year. (He played, but not in defence.) So while he is primarily there for his rebound, he may be asked to more closely mind a tall forward. Given he's relatively inexperienced down back, he's not doing too badly defensively. He's probably better than Dawson was when he (Dawson) first became a mainstay in defence, though Dawson did improve his one-on-one stuff over a couple of seasons.

Allowing for the fact that Reid is capable of playing in the back half - and taking on the intercepting defender role that PMcCartin has been fulfilling, it may make sense that we go in a bit smaller. Having just two talls stationed in the forward line, with Parker, Kennedy and Heeney all rotating through, might make us more dangerous. Maybe the team will be less inclined to bomb long at every occasion.

I've watched a replay of all but the first 10 minutes of the Hawks game. (The second half twice.) I hope the main emotion the team felt when they watched was the same as mine - frustration and irritation. With the midfield dominance that we had for most of the game, the team should have created 50 shots on goal, not the 30 or so they did create. They often start with mindless bombing into the forward line but usually adjust as the game goes on, particularly when they get on top in the middle. Not on Monday. It was relentless.

I realise a lot of the forward entries were repeat entries, with most of the Hawks team stationed in their defensive 50. But surely there still has to be a better way. Maybe just varying the spot to which they bomb it, rather than aiming for the top of the goal square all the time. Or our forwards doing better at bringing the ball to ground, rather than allowing monotonous intercept marking by Sicily and co. We did quite well at creating goals from forward 50 stoppages, with a player (different ones at different times) keeping their distance from the pack and thus creating a decent scoring opportunity (eg Florent, Warner, Ronke).

Bombing it into the forward line drives me crazy too, especially when the result is always the same.

I'm happy with playing a smaller forward line. But let's kick it to someone on a lead, and if no one is leading then kick it along the ground. I don't know why teams don't do this more often. If the opposition have the advantage in the air, then we should have the advantage along the ground. It's not rocket science.

[Faunac8]

It will be you lot , not me , thats all i will say

Intriguing you appear to have some good inside knowledge so who knows what information you have secured.
I have this in reserve for when for whatever reason a certain player is not selected.

[Faunac8]

Bombing it into the forward line drives me crazy too, especially when the result is always the same.

I'm happy with playing a smaller forward line. But let's kick it to someone on a lead, and if no one is leading then kick it along the ground. I don't know why teams don't do this more often. If the opposition have the advantage in the air, then we should have the advantage along the ground. It's not rocket science.

Yes I am a big fan of the so called chaos ball and I think we have the players to take advantage of it

[giant]

Extremely surprised that Melican is not an in.Gould won't be able to handle their talls whereas Melican would have a better chance.

Also can't understand why Sinclair is listed when he missed the last reserves game and would serve the role already being played by McLean.

Papley and Reid would be certainties I think but Reid will need to spend a lot of time down back.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

Genuine question as I haven't seen him play - if Gould can't play the talls what sort of defender is he? A flanker, coz we've got plenty of those?

- - - Updated - - -

Blakey is key position height. He's effectively replaced Dawson in defence since round 1 last year. (He played, but not in defence.) So while he is primarily there for his rebound, he may be asked to more closely mind a tall forward. Given he's relatively inexperienced down back, he's not doing too badly defensively. He's probably better than Dawson was when he (Dawson) first became a mainstay in defence, though Dawson did improve his one-on-one stuff over a couple of seasons.

Very good point, Blakey was matched up against Gunston at various times last week and certainly seemed to cover for PMc when he was subbed out. Might be a good match up for a McStay.

[Aprilbr]

It looks to me that the Ghoul is coming into the side to replace Paddy with Reid playing forward to replace McDonald and provide ruck relief for Ladhams. Also great to see Papps back in the side wearing a muzzle to ensure he does not give away any 50s for umpire abuse.

P S. I love that Ghoul avatar from Ludwig!

[giant]

I've watched a replay of all but the first 10 minutes of the Hawks game. (The second half twice.) I hope the main emotion the team felt when they watched was the same as mine - frustration and irritation. With the midfield dominance that we had for most of the game, the team should have created 50 shots on goal, not the 30 or so they did create. They often start with mindless bombing into the forward line but usually adjust as the game goes on, particularly when they get on top in the middle. Not on Monday. It was relentless.

I realise a lot of the forward entries were repeat entries, with most of the Hawks team stationed in their defensive 50. But surely there still has to be a better way. Maybe just varying the spot to which they bomb it, rather than aiming for the top of the goal square all the time. Or our forwards doing better at bringing the ball to ground, rather than allowing monotonous intercept marking by Sicily and co. We did quite well at creating goals from forward 50 stoppages, with a player (different ones at different times) keeping their distance from the pack and thus creating a decent scoring opportunity (eg Florent, Warner, Ronke).

Oh God, I watched some of the 2nd and 3rd qrs again today and then found myself asking why I was doing it to myself - it was excruciating. Although generally he had an OK game, McDonald was one of the prime offenders on failing to compete and I'm forced to join the Jimmy Bell pile-on and agree he too gave us far too little.

[TheBloods]

Bombing it into the forward line drives me crazy too, especially when the result is always the same.

I'm happy with playing a smaller forward line. But let's kick it to someone on a lead, and if no one is leading then kick it along the ground. I don't know why teams don't do this more often. If the opposition have the advantage in the air, then we should have the advantage along the ground. It's not rocket science.

Cmon., you defend the worst culprit for this every time . Cant have it both ways

[Faunac8]

Cmon., you defend the worst culprit for this every time . Cant have it both ways

Opinion or factually based ?

[Markwebbos]

Isn’t there a separate thread pacifically for this?

[Ludwig]

Cmon., you defend the worst culprit for this every time . Cant have it both ways

Ollie Florent? Ben Ronke?

Oh. Must be the one with the most inside 50s. Eh. That would be Callum Mills. I'll stop saying nice things about him.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Just a clarification on Paddy's concussion test. What the doctors do is test a player's cognitive function after a knock by asking them a pre-determined set of questions that they should know the answers to. If they get these answers correct, and they are not feeling dizzy, unwell etc then they are said to have passed the test. From what I read, Paddy was feeling fine but got one or more of the questions wrong. He claims it was due to nervousness in answering them. The doctors took a more cautious view and "failed" him. I think they did the correct thing in the circumstances.

Interesting example of an early concussion test here

Not just that , they are better at preparing them for life after footy as a whole . i know of a fair few former champions who absolutely lost it once their playing days were over , this was back in the days when an outstanding career in the VFL was only half a dozen or so years . Some of them would be wrapped up by 27/28 , no clue what to do with their life , no money to their name as they 'd pissed it all away on drink while they were listed . Now they go to university , get a trade , whatever . Much better

Cmon., you defend the worst culprit for this every time . Cant have it both ways

One step forward, then one back. Sigh.

[Ralph Dawg]

Cal Sinclair has flown a bit under the radar this year. Has done very well as a ruck / forward and it was his absence that really cost the VFL team in their last start v Bullants. It wouldn't surprise me if he is picked as ruck / forward with Reid playing defence, Papley in for Bell. That's not to say I agree as I think we might be a bit slow with this setup.