Change to team vs Brisbane [Archive] - RWO

Jeffers1984

26th August 2006, 02:10 PM

Yep dont think it would be mathews unless the swans watned to cop the fine.

Plus the fact that it is an insane decision to bring back Mathews in the first place.

Schmidt would be the one in i'd think.

alison.z

26th August 2006, 02:12 PM

very weird ..... hoping it's a joke!!! please....

hammo

26th August 2006, 02:13 PM

I thought Mathews needed another week in the 2's. Surely Roos wouldn't have lied during the week?

adnar

26th August 2006, 02:42 PM

Surely Matthews hasn't gone from to underdone and needing a second game in the 2s to being in the best 22? Isn't this why he was out in the first place, because he was played underdone?

Zlatorog

26th August 2006, 04:22 PM

Mathews and Roos must be very good friends.

NMWBloods

26th August 2006, 04:35 PM

I would have thought Schmidt would be a better inclusion.

giant

26th August 2006, 04:43 PM

I guess Mathews is more likely to be playing in the finals & it shouldn't make a difference vs Brissie.

anne

26th August 2006, 05:29 PM

Yet another boo boo by Roos. What is up with him?he

Gary

26th August 2006, 06:08 PM

Giant...I hope you are right...but IMO this is a poor decision...I would prefer to have Spriggs...which is saying something on what we saw last year!

swantastic

26th August 2006, 07:35 PM

Jason Dunstall on Fox Footy
Losing Ablett not a big deal when you have some one of the elk of Ben Mathews into the side JD you are a tossa.

elroy67

26th August 2006, 07:44 PM

Its official, Ablett out Mathews in.

giant

26th August 2006, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Gary
Giant...I hope you are right...but IMO this is a poor decision...I would prefer to have Spriggs...which is saying something on what we saw last year!

Don't get me wrong - I'd prefer to be watching Schmidt run around. But you can understand from the coaching perpsective that if a change is necessary then they may as well get some game time into a likely finals player.

giant

26th August 2006, 07:55 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Losing Ablett not a big deal when you have some of the elk of Ben Mathews into the side
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, he is a deer thing.

NMWBloods

26th August 2006, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by giant
Don't get me wrong - I'd prefer to be watching Schmidt run around. But you can understand from the coaching perpsective that if a change is necessary then they may as well get some game time into a likely finals player. But if Mathews wasn't ready to come into the side when it was put together during the week, how is he suddenly ready now?

ROK Lobster

26th August 2006, 08:07 PM

Bevan in, not Mathews?

swantastic

26th August 2006, 08:10 PM

No LRT either foot injury

ROK Lobster

26th August 2006, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by swantastic
No LRT either foot injury Bevan and mathews in. Wont Nico be happy!

Glenn

26th August 2006, 08:28 PM

Safe to say who will be getting the blame from Nico, if heaven forbid Sydney loses.

swantastic

26th August 2006, 08:45 PM

Paul and Benny have been ok SO FAR.:rolleyes:

NMWBloods

26th August 2006, 08:46 PM

Mathews doing okay against Power. Fortunately Mathews also hasn't touched the ball much.

Bevan showing how useless he is on a couple of occasions.

Zlatorog

26th August 2006, 08:52 PM

I still don't understand our game strategy. Why making a game slower by using Mathews and Bevan, instead of making it faster? I hope the public at TS will still be awake by the end of the game.;)

Piobaireachd

26th August 2006, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I would have thought Schmidt would be a better inclusion. no :rolleyes:

Piobaireachd

26th August 2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Gary
Giant...I hope you are right...but IMO this is a poor decision...I would prefer to have Spriggs...which is saying something on what we saw last year! I'm the same.

Piobaireachd

26th August 2006, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by giant
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Losing Ablett not a big deal when you have some of the elk of Ben Mathews into the side
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, he is a deer thing. what? A no eyed deer? :D

Piobaireachd

26th August 2006, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Mathews doing okay against Power. Fortunately Mathews also hasn't touched the ball much.

Bevan showing how useless he is on a couple of occasions. very true

NMWBloods

26th August 2006, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
no :rolleyes: Why the :rolleyes: ?

ROK Lobster

26th August 2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Why the :rolleyes: ? I think he is rolling his eyes and saying "no schmidt" - as in "no schmidt sherlock".

NMWBloods

26th August 2006, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
I think he is rolling his eyes and saying "no schmidt" - as in "no schmidt sherlock". Shame Sherlock didn't get a game either...

Piobaireachd

26th August 2006, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Why the :rolleyes: ? because it's a ludicrous notion. derr :rolleyes:

Piobaireachd

26th August 2006, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Shame Sherlock didn't get a game either... Exactly why didn't sherlock play? :)

swantastic

26th August 2006, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
Exactly why didn't sherlock play? :) Cause he was having no @@@@.......

NMWBloods

26th August 2006, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
because it's a ludicrous notion. derr :rolleyes: To give Schmidt a run?

Piobaireachd

26th August 2006, 11:32 PM

-over matthews at this time of the year.... a resounding YES!!!!

NMWBloods

26th August 2006, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
-over matthews at this time of the year.... a resounding YES!!!! Roos had said Mathews wasn't ready yet. Therefore Schmidt actually makes more sense.

Piobaireachd

26th August 2006, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Roos had said Mathews wasn't ready yet. Therefore Schmidt actually makes more sense. I can not believe that someone of your nouse and understanding would believe something that the coach of the Sydney Swans would feed the media. Surely you are better than that :confused:

NMWBloods

26th August 2006, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
I can not believe that someone of your nouse and understanding would believe something that the coach of the Sydney Swans would feed the media. Surely you are better than that :confused: If he was ready why was he named in the reserves rather than the seniors?

Piobaireachd

26th August 2006, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
If he was ready why was he named in the reserves rather than the seniors? the old rope a dope move in my books. You conspiracy theorists are all the same, all puff and nonsense. :frown

NMWBloods

26th August 2006, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
the old rope a dope move in my books. You conspiracy theorists are all the same, all puff and nonsense. :frown Right... so Roos was playing games with the Lions by pretending Mathews was out, but really planned to play him all along, but wanted to keep it such a surprise he didn't even name him as an emergency? Wow - masterstroke there. Can see that made all the difference and must have really had the Lions' coaching box scratching their heads...

I have no idea what "conspiracy theory" you are referring to.

swantastic

27th August 2006, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I have no idea what "conspiracy theory" you are referring to. I dunno either,maybe ask Mel Gibson.

Damien

27th August 2006, 12:06 AM

I was going to come on here and bag out the team for a pretty boring and lucklustre game, but you know what, somehow we are probably going to finish 3rd or 4th and have a major shot at going back to back.

I am reasonably unsure of how we remain a top 4 side, but I have decided that despite following footy since I was a kid, I know nothing and I am just going to let the next month play out and whatever is going to happen, well, is going to happen.

Piobaireachd

27th August 2006, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Right... so Roos was playing games with the Lions by pretending Mathews was out, but really planned to play him all along, but wanted to keep it such a surprise he didn't even name him as an emergency? Wow - masterstroke there. Can see that made all the difference and must have really had the Lions' coaching box scratching their heads...

correct.

no conspiracy theory really. I'm just passing time. But my theories hold true in that what the coaching staff know, and what we know is millenia apart. You know NOTHING, I know NOTHING, we can SPECULATE all we like but I'd bet that they know more than we do for the reasons of selecting who they select. And I'd also bet that the selection is NOT based on playing favourites, but based football knowledge.

It really is a simple universe I live in. why do u not conform?

edit: there are those that are in the know, and those that think they know. Which one are you? (rhetorical question, not directed at you NMW but to be answered by all and sundry on these boards.)

NMWBloods

27th August 2006, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
correct.

no conspiracy theory really. I'm just passing time. But my theories hold true in that what the coaching staff know, and what we know is millenia apart. You know NOTHING, I know NOTHING, we can SPECULATE all we like but I'd bet that they know more than we do for the reasons of selecting who they select. And I'd also bet that the selection is NOT based on playing favourites, but based football knowledge.

It really is a simple universe I live in. why do u not conform?

edit: there are those that are in the know, and those that think they know. Which one are you? (rhetorical question, not directed at you NMW but to be answered by all and sundry on these boards.) Nothing you've said addresses my query. If Mathews wasn't ready why play him in the seniors? If he was ready to play in the seniors why say he's not ready and name him in the reserves. It makes no sense.

ugg

27th August 2006, 12:44 AM

The only reason Mathews played instead of Schmidt or Vogels was that he had to replace the Ablett in the role he was earmarked for - tagging Luke Power.

ugg

27th August 2006, 12:46 AM

O'Keefe probably deserves the 3 but Goodes will get it because his play is very noticeable. Whereas ROK works his butt off around the ground, Goodes's possessions are just simply breathtaking and would attract the umpires' attention.

NMWBloods

27th August 2006, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by ugg
The only reason Mathews played instead of Schmidt or Vogels was that he had to replace the Ablett in the role he was earmarked for - tagging Luke Power. Fair point, but if Mathews really needed a run in the reserves, I'm sure we could have covered Power.

We seem overly obsessed with shutting down the opposition. We play most of the game like this when we could have blown them away.

Piobaireachd

27th August 2006, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Nothing you've said addresses my query. If Mathews wasn't ready why play him in the seniors? If he was ready to play in the seniors why say he's not ready and name him in the reserves. It makes no sense. Mate, it does address your query. You know nothing about the team and the whyfors and whatnots. Neither do I. but I can speculate this... Matthew was brought into the team as a ready made, experienced seniors player to play a role on probably one of the lion's most decorated players. How simple is that??? Beggars belief your line of questioning.

edit: and don't bother trying to extrapulate any more "reasons" for my beliefs from me. That's what I think and you can just live with disagreeing. ok?

JudesaGun

27th August 2006, 12:58 AM

So how did Matthews actually do? Better than Davis? ;)

swantastic

27th August 2006, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by ugg
Mathews to replace Ablett in the role he was earmarked for - tagging Luke Power. I thought Benny did a good job.

Piobaireachd

27th August 2006, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Fair point, but if Mathews really needed a run in the reserves, I'm sure we could have covered Power.

We seem overly obsessed with shutting down the opposition. We play most of the game like this when we could have blown them away. We did blow them away. 50 odd points is nothing to sneeze at in my books. On the other hand some people are just never happy.

ugg

27th August 2006, 01:00 AM

Yes, amazingly Benny is very good at stopping jobs as long as he doesn't have to touch the ball. The inclusion that I was unhappy about was Bevan ahead of Schmidt.

Piobaireachd

27th August 2006, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by JudesaGun
So how did Matthews actually do? Better than Davis? ;) I think both played their respective roles. Matthews probably addressed his role better, but thats just from the perspective of looking at the whole match and not the individual performances.

Piobaireachd

27th August 2006, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by ugg
Yes, amazingly Benny is very good at stopping jobs as long as he doesn't have to touch the ball. The inclusion that I was unhappy about was Bevan ahead of Schmidt. Look bevan is a fringe player at best, but at this stage of the year, I don't think schmidt would have offered anymore in terms of short term value. ie looking towards finals.

edit: don't take that "Look" bit as condescending. Iwas in a sighing "yeah I agree with you but" kind of mood.

hell this thread is has got the most out of me in my whole time on RWO. generally I don't feel obliged to share my thoughts :)

ugg

27th August 2006, 01:07 AM

If Bevan was there to do a job on someone that it would be understandable. To me it seemed he wasn't assigned to anyone in particular and played mostly in the midfield, a position I think Schmidt would have offered much more.

swantastic

27th August 2006, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by ugg
The inclusion that I was unhappy about was Bevan ahead of Schmidt. I wasnt,i thought Bevan did a pretty good job last night his best IMO.

nomae

27th August 2006, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
We play most of the game like this when we could have blown them away.
57 points seems like a 'blowing away' to me... :rolleyes:

NMWBloods

27th August 2006, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
We did blow them away. 50 odd points is nothing to sneeze at in my books. On the other hand some people are just never happy. That was unnecessary... my point was why did we play such a long-down, slow build up game for most of the time. We could have blown them away early.

Which goes back to my point on Mathews and Roos' comments during the week.

edit: and don't bother trying to extrapulate any more "reasons" for my beliefs from me. That's what I think and you can just live with disagreeing. ok?You were the one who seemed to have a problem with my view.

NMWBloods

27th August 2006, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by nomae
57 points seems like a 'blowing away' to me... :rolleyes: Yes, in the last quarter, but it was a struggle to get there.

swansrule100

27th August 2006, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Yes, in the last quarter, but it was a struggle to get there.

they cant serve that @@@@@@ up in the finals and win thats for sure. But hopefully its a sluggish win that wakes them up

Piobaireachd

27th August 2006, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by ugg
If Bevan was there to do a job on someone that it would be understandable. To me it seemed he wasn't assigned to anyone in particular and played mostly in the midfield, a position I think Schmidt would have offered much more. I thought he was quite promising in that last quarter. Set up a few plays. I think the schmidt/bevan scenario is a rwo pipedream, and in reality we are looking at finals, and experience counts for a lot when contesting finals.

But again I can not really comment on schmidt v bevan. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I can only go on what I saw from bevan. Yeah he wasn't great, but, he was there and presenting himself.

Personally, I don't think he'll make it as a great player, but then again, who the @@@@ is schmidt and what has he done?

swantastic

27th August 2006, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by nomae
57 points seems like a 'blowing away' to me... :rolleyes: IMO that flatered the Lions a fair bit,we realy should have toweled them up by more.

NMWBloods

27th August 2006, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by swansrule100
they cant serve that @@@@@@ up in the finals and win thats for sure. But hopefully its a sluggish win that wakes them up Every week has been a case 'hopefully this is the week that wakes them up'. Our form is way below this time last year.

Piobaireachd

27th August 2006, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
my point was why did we play such a long-down, slow build up game for most of the time. We could have blown them away early.

That's called "opposition pressure". I knew when I saw the stats of 24 or something tackles by brisbane to 12 (first quarter) or so to sydney that brisbane were playing the tough game. No team can uphold that amount of pressure for such a long time. It was an awesome first quarter tackle count by brisbane. they came here to really show us up, but the young bodies just couldn't sustain it.

swansrule100

27th August 2006, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Every week has been a case 'hopefully this is the week that wakes them up'. Our form is way below this time last year.

agreed

its so frustrating when you know what they can do and they wont do it.

Piobaireachd

27th August 2006, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by swantastic
IMO that flatered the Lions a fair bit,we realy should have toweled them up by more. how much more? there was two teams out there. I can not believe how much people here are belittleing (god that is crap spelling :)) the efforts of the lions tonight.

Piobaireachd

27th August 2006, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Every week has been a case 'hopefully this is the week that wakes them up'. Our form is way below this time last year. we're not as good as this time last year

edit: I really do love how the mods are reading this one. good job :)

NMWBloods

27th August 2006, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
edit: I really do love how the mods are reading this one. good job :) LOL! :rolleyes:

swantastic

27th August 2006, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
how much more? there was two teams out there. I can not believe how much people here are belittleing (god that is crap spelling :)) the efforts of the lions tonight. We played @@@@ and we still beat them by 57,so they were a lot worse than us why not belittle them they did it for years towards every one else.