Rd 5 v Richmond at the Adelaide Oval

[Scottee]

They are different players. Sheldrick's strength lies in his contested, inside work. Warner's is long hard running, pace, and outside ball use (though that is work in progress, as it is for Stephens).

I guess the coaches decided they wanted another speedy outside player this week (or they are dissatisfied with one or more currently in the team, or one of those already in the team has an injury that we're not yet aware of). If they want to change up the inside mix, it sounds like Roberts has his nose in front of Sheldrick at the moment.

After watching the last VFL match where a beefed up Corey was actually played in the middle, I thought he was surprisingly good in close, as well as on the outside, like his brother.He was especially good in the first half playing as a mid.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[MattW]

They are different players. Sheldrick's strength lies in his contested, inside work. Warner's is long hard running, pace, and outside ball use (though that is work in progress, as it is for Stephens).

I guess the coaches decided they wanted another speedy outside player this week (or they are dissatisfied with one or more currently in the team, or one of those already in the team has an injury that we're not yet aware of). If they want to change up the inside mix, it sounds like Roberts has his nose in front of Sheldrick at the moment.

Judging from Longmire's press conference yesterday, they seem to regard Roberts as having greater positional flexibility than Sheldrick.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Auntie.Gerald]

Got to think JMac is under pressure along with Stephens with young Warner an outside player now in the mix

its go time or NO TIME

[Ludwig]

It must be a first to lose all 6 key defenders in one week.

[Dow]

Going to be interesting time in defence

[Aaron]

SYDNEY
In: H.McLean, C.Warner, M.Roberts
Out: D.Rampe (Injured), T.McCartin (Injured), L.Franklin (Injured), P.McCartin (Injured)
Last week's sub: Robbie Fox
Update:
Emergency: Sheldrick, Gould, Clarke, McAndrew -

Mysteries: Gould - a chance to be fully recovered?? Clarke - fit enough to play some quarters?

[MattW]

What the @@@@.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[chalbilto]

Surely Gould will be the sub.

[Dow]

Gould and emergency? When we need defenders ?…

[MattW]

We have selected a line-up with no genuine key defenders.

Presumably, Mills will play as a key defender.

Gould is an emergency.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[i'm-uninformed2]

So, we have Robbie Fox and Nick Blakey as key defenders. No knock on those two, but not ideal ….

Will be interesting to see if the Tigers throw a Balta forward to try to stretch us, but they ain’t exactly jam packed with key defenders themselves. Also interesting that Gould is named as an emergency, so it’s unlikely but a late switch may be on the cards yet.

Anyway, it’s time for our mids to step up and become contested ball beasts, and to get back the manic forward 50 pressure we were renowned for last year. It’s the best defence we have against such a thin backline. I hope Longmire starts Mills in the middle to win the ball rather than starting behind the ball to shore up things.

Crack in, then run. That’s the game plan.

[jono2707]

Very strange that our 3 key defenders are out yet Gould still can't get a game.

[liz]

Very strange that our 3 key defenders are out yet Gould still can't get a game.

He's injured. I think the fact he's been named is just to fill the emergency list.

I think we just have to accept that if Richmond deliver the ball forward with fluency, their talls are going to mark.

The focus needs to be on limiting their supply via extreme pressure, and - hopefully - more effective use than last week in our own forward line.

[Meg]

Very strange that our 3 key defenders are out yet Gould still can't get a game.

Not very strange when we know he is carrying an injury. Presumably leaving all options open as long as possible.

[Ludwig]

I have a feeling that Gould was put on the plane for a family visit, with no intention of playing him. But there is an alternate theory that he's a long shot to come up for the game, but we will keep the option open in case of a miracle recovery. There's no logic in having a fit Gould as the sub instead of the 22 when we are down so many key defenders.

I'll offer a 3rd theory: We may be down on height, but at least all our defenders have AFL experience in defence and we didn't want to throw an inexperienced Gould into the cauldron having the responsibility of being our sole key defender in his first game. I can see that kind of thinking as part of the Horse-logic repertoire.