Changes for Round 5 v Tigers

[O'Reilly Boy]

Sick of this rubbish. Sick of the mantra of the outdated 'Bloods' 'we need to be harder at the ball' narrative, which drags us back to crash and bash, skills-averse, body-smashing, initiative-stunting football. Skills let us down in the first half, when we dominated clearances, contested balls, and inside 50s. Better field kicking, not handballing to teammates wearing a defender, and accurate finishing should have had us seven goals in front.
Kennedy and Parker are so one dimensional. Lloyd accumulates but creates nothing. Papley is busy but ineffective. Aliir is wasted at FB, where his intercept and line-breaking run is constrained. Reid is just so exasperating. A decent mark, but woeful kick.

Honestly, I was worried that Gawn was going to contract leather poisoning and carpal tunnel syndrome last night. I'm sure that I saw Sinclair curled up in the fetal position at the back of the interchange shelter early in the fourth quarter. He needs time to get over the niggles and the PTSD. McInerny shouldn't have been out there last night, Blakey needs time in the NEAFL, as does Ronke. And I wonder whether we could invoke a warranty on Thurlow? Maybe get Gazza back?

For next week . . .

Out: McInerny, Ronke, Blakey, Thurlow, Sinclair
In: O'Riordan, Mellican, Rose, Cameron, Stoddard

Reid to play FB, Aliir to CHB. McCartin forward


Rose McCartin Jack
Franklin Dawson Papley

Florent Kennedy Heeney
Cameron Jones Parker

O'Riordan Aliir Mills
Reid Rampe Mellican

Int Lloyd, Cunningham, Hewitt, Stoddard

Longer term: time to recharge the coaching panel. Is Kirk offering much beyond cro-magnon "Bloods" exhortations? What has Johnson brought to the mix? I'll excuse Cox, as he hasn't had the opportunity to work with a genuine ruck yet.
Get Grundy, Smith and McVeigh off the list at the end of the year.
Look to move Kennedy, Parker, Jack, Franklin off over the next two years. Possibly let go of Lloyd as well.

[caj23]

Think we need to see Sunday's NEAFL game before deciding on who will be called up, there should be a couple of spots open after last night I'd imagine

Mcinenery and Blakey are certain outs for mine as they both need some time at NEAFL, possibly a couple more yet!

[Ludwig]

For next week . . .

Out: McInerny, Ronke, Blakey, Thurlow, Sinclair
In: O'Riordan, Mellican, Rose, Cameron, Stoddard

I agree with these changes, pending what happens in the NEAFL. Bit I don't think these changes, or any changes, will make much of a difference this year.

[ugg]

Those changes won’t make a difference because where we were beaten in the second half last night was in the midfield. Changing Sinclair for an inexperienced Cameron is unlikely to help in this regard. The improvement has to come from the midfielders already in the side, in particular Parker and Hewett (who while I acknowledge was tagging has to do more offensively)

[barry]

I wouldnt throw the young guns out just yet. Last night, the ground and conditions were terrible. Its never going to suit young light bodied players.
Melbourne won because they have stronger bodies and probably a bit more desire to win considering their expectations for the year.

[Swanny40519]

Changes :

In - concentration on improving skills - handballing to a free player not opposition players, kicking for goals, kicking to a leading player just not lobbing it over their heads
Out: - players not prepared to do that or are incapable of doing it.

[Kumarangk]

Changes :

In - concentration on improving skills - handballing to a free player not opposition players, kicking for goals, kicking to a leading player just not lobbing it over their heads
Out: - players not prepared to do that or are incapable of doing it.

I need education .I am not a fan of Mills but a lot are.I think he is slow and suspect under pressure and has been given a golden run since drafted.why am i wrong ?

[barry]

I need education .I am not a fan of Mills but a lot are.I think he is slow and suspect under pressure and has been given a golden run since drafted.why am i wrong ?

The problem is that some people said Mills will be better than Heeney, and that put a lot of misconceptions on him.
Heeney will be a star player. Mills will be a very good player.

If you assess him as a very good player with a few years in the system, he is tracking well.

[Blood Relative]

Tis round V

[troyjones2525]

Tis round VYep! Lol

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Melbourne_Blood]

The problem is that some people said Mills will be better than Heeney, and that put a lot of misconceptions on him.
Heeney will be a star player. Mills will be a very good player.

If you assess him as a very good player with a few years in the system, he is tracking well.

Too early to say mills won’t be a star as well, he’s played most of his afl career in an unfamiliar position and done extremely well . Let’s judge him once he is played where he belongs , in the guts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[troyjones2525]

The problem is that some people said Mills will be better than Heeney, and that put a lot of misconceptions on him.
Heeney will be a star player. Mills will be a very good player.

If you assess him as a very good player with a few years in the system, he is tracking well.The thing is Mills looked like a better pure midfielder than Heeney was bottom age. He accumulated the ball at will! I remember him having a 40 odd possession game as a bottom ager in the NEAFL! I believe it may have been against the Gold Coast, so there was many AFL listed players playing against him.

The problem is that for whatever reason the coaching staff have not given him an opportunity to play a run of games as a pure centre square inside midfielder which is what he was as a junior. We obviously have Parker and Kennedy who fill that role of strong bodied, mid paced midfielder and the coaching staff clearly favor them to do that job over Mills. There lies the problem! The coaches will not make the move the rest of the Swans and footy world want to see, Mills as a pure midfielder!

It probably has more to do with the seeming need for him to play as a half back and he has been decent without being outstanding since his debut. It's also probably due to the fact that both Kennedy and Parker can't really play anywhere else (Parker maybe as a forward) and the coaches don't see another option but play them as it would be pretty embarrassing having your Captains in the 2nds!

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Blood Fever]

The thing is Mills looked like a better pure midfielder than Heeney was bottom age. He accumulated the ball at will! I remember him having a 40 odd possession game as a bottom ager in the NEAFL! I believe it may have been against the Gold Coast, so there was many AFL listed players playing against him.

The problem is that for whatever reason the coaching staff have not given him an opportunity to play a run of games as a pure centre square inside midfielder which is what he was as a junior. We obviously have Parker and Kennedy who fill that role of strong bodied, mid paced midfielder and the coaching staff clearly favor them to do that job over Mills. There lies the problem! The coaches will not make the move the rest of the Swans and footy world want to see, Mills as a pure midfielder!

It probably has more to do with the seeming need for him to play as a half back and he has been decent without being outstanding since his debut. It's also probably due to the fact that both Kennedy and Parker can't really play anywhere else (Parker maybe as a forward) and the coaches don't see another option but play them as it would be pretty embarrassing having your Captains in the 2nds!

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Mills will probably end up in the midfield one day. One of the reasons he isn't, is that I can't remember him ever being beaten by his opponent over the course of a game with the possible exception of the 2016 GF where, like McVeigh that day, he shouldn't have played

[Markwebbos]

Surely if Mills playing in the mids means less inside 50s raining down on the defence that’s a win-win?

Out of the centre square: Parker
Into the centre: Mills

[Melbourne_Blood]

Surely if Mills playing in the mids means less inside 50s raining down on the defence that’s a win-win?

Out of the centre square: Parker
Into the centre: Mills

Yes. And he will probably take a fair few games in their to find his best as he hasn’t played midfield for a few years. Who cares , get him in there , let him find his feet and become the player who was bid on at number 2-3 in the draft. I’m writing this season off, we will finish bottom eight, let’s work on finding the right mix and game style. There will be beltings and hair pulling moments but by seasons end , there may be a spark of hope for the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[liz]

Yes. And he will probably take a fair few games in their to find his best as he hasn’t played midfield for a few years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He led the onball division in the practice game against GWS (the first one, not the official JLT game) in the absence of the AFLXing Kennedy and Parker, and looked like he'd been playing there all his life, notwithstanding that the GWS midfield wasn't at its best that game. I agree with you that we can't expect him to emulate Cripps from day one, but the sooner he starts, the sooner he can find his feet.

I can understand why Longmire is loathe to move Heeney full time into the midfield because he is so effective up forward. And I'm not convinced he's a natural onballer either, though he can certainly take his turn in there. With Mills, I'm curious whether they think he's too valuable down back to move, or if they have reservations about his midfield capabilities, based on what he's done at training. I suspect it's the former. But while he is usually very reliable and courageous overhead in defence (forgetting about yesterday for a minute), I'd have thought they can find someone else who can perform that role nearly as well. It's not as if Mills has breakaway speed that he uses to rebound from defence. And his overhead marking strength will be just as valuable further up the ground, ideally creating turnovers (in our favour) before the ball gets in the defensive 50.

[Ralph Dawg]

He led the onball division in the practice game against GWS (the first one, not the official JLT game) in the absence of the AFLXing Kennedy and Parker, and looked like he'd been playing there all his life, notwithstanding that the GWS midfield wasn't at its best that game. I agree with you that we can't expect him to emulate Cripps from day one, but the sooner he starts, the sooner he can find his feet.

I can understand why Longmire is loathe to move Heeney full time into the midfield because he is so effective up forward. And I'm not convinced he's a natural onballer either, though he can certainly take his turn in there. With Mills, I'm curious whether they think he's too valuable down back to move, or if they have reservations about his midfield capabilities, based on what he's done at training. I suspect it's the former. But while he is usually very reliable and courageous overhead in defence (forgetting about yesterday for a minute), I'd have thought they can find someone else who can perform that role nearly as well. It's not as if Mills has breakaway speed that he uses to rebound from defence. And his overhead marking strength will be just as valuable further up the ground, ideally creating turnovers (in our favour) before the ball gets in the defensive 50.

Jordan Dawson. Height, solid, strong overhead and penetrating boot. Agree he gets lost at times but maybe at AFL level, has not found his best position yet?

[liz]

Jordan Dawson. Height, solid, strong overhead and penetrating boot. Agree he gets lost at times but maybe at AFL level, has not found his best position yet?

Possibly. I think the most important attribute for a defender is confidence, and the mental ability to move on immediately after a mistake. Mistakes often lead directly to goals conceded, meaning they bite more than mistakes delivering the ball forward. They shouldn't, since a mistake moving the ball forward can cost a goal scored, which has the same net impact. But I think psychologically they are different.

Mills seems naturally confident and strong minded. I'm not convinced it comes as naturally to Dawson - he seems to be quite introverted, and we introverts tend to brood.

In any case, I think Dawson has the ability to be the second best field kick* in the Swans' side if and when he finally starts to believe he belongs. He's certainly a more penetrating kick than Mills. While that can be valuable in the backline, it is even more valuable across half-forward so long as the player can find enough of the ball. It's a harder position to play because you have to know where to position yourself to become dangerous, while in defence you can often be lead to the right place by the forward you're defending against. But I think Dawson's most valuable position is across half-forward if he can get used to the reduced time and space at senior level.

* Possibly 3rd best - depending on how long Blakey takes to develop into a player who can find more of the ball. It's too small a sample yet, but he has given us fleeting indications that he might be a superb field kick.

[Auntie.Gerald]

My assessment of the midfield Mills fiasco is that we can’t play him much in the midfield with Parker and kennedy at the minute because we are already vulnerable to fast exits from the centre clearance

Kennedy, Parker and Mills makes us too heavy inside players without a dominant ruckman

If we had a dominant ruckman and less injuries in the backline it could change the options available

with no smith, macca, Grundy etc we need every bit of cohesion and regular voice/leadership down back

I have always seen Mills as a Luke Hodge style player ie 50/50 midfield HBF

Ps the games where nsw played qld and Heeney was in yr 12 and Mills was in yr11 was the game that a lot of us supporters thought wow check out mills as he dominated the game and was BOG as an inside hunting mid

[Cosmic Wizard]

We are being too negative.

The reason we started to lose in the second half was that Gawn effortlessly pass the ball to his midfield.

Once that started we were always going to be toast!

Find a ruck who doesn't get thrashed by Gawn or Grundy: doesn't have to break even but maybe just lose 40/60.

Our rucks are very ordinary, and i don't think Naismith will ever be good; a bit like Reid, always giving us glimpses but never actually a full game!

[rb4x]

We lost the hit outs 73-13. Preuss their number 2 ruckman had 13 hit outs which was the same as Sinclair and Reid combined. He looked very athletic for his size and his two Q1 Goals were excellent. Naismith will never show that agility. Grundy beat English 58-6 last night and English is probably one of the most promising developing ruckmen around. Just needs a couple more years. Gawn and Grundy are so far ahead of the pack it is not funny. Sinclair had a bad night and needs help. With Naismith still a long way off and Reid too fragile we need to bring in Cameron and give him a run. I know his debut last year was poor but he is all we have so let us use him before Sinclair is broken.

[707]

Ok, everyone settled down yet after Thursday night? I still haven't watched the game yet but the stats tell an obvious story, Blakey is struggling and McInerney shouldn't have been picked. We were basically two down with the numbers produced there.

COR was the obvious inclusion for Macca IMO and must come in this week if he looks good in the NEAFL. Rowbottoms numbers last week were impressive as were the reports on him, should come in for Blakey. Ronke is the other that he could replace.

But they'll probably bring in Clarke :-(

[MattW]

I'm not sure why we're making it difficult for ourselves by playing two specialist tall defenders. It's forcing us to play Heeney and Reid back to stem the tide. It's also constricting Rampe. Melican should play. Blakey needs a break. McCartin play forward.

Sinclair looked a bit injured on Thursday. Certainly gassed. Perhaps it's time to consider playing Cameron, particularly against ruckmen. May not be necessary against Richmond.

Finally, clearly McInerney won't play. Happy for whoever plays better tomorrow out of Rowbottom and Rose to come in.

[Markwebbos]

My assessment of the midfield Mills fiasco is that we can’t play him much in the midfield with Parker and kennedy at the minute because we are already vulnerable to fast exits from the centre clearance

Kennedy, Parker and Mills makes us too heavy inside players without a dominant ruckman

If we had a dominant ruckman and less injuries in the backline it could change the options available

with no smith, macca, Grundy etc we need every bit of cohesion and regular voice/leadership down back

I have always seen Mills as a Luke Hodge style player ie 50/50 midfield HBF

Ps the games where nsw played qld and Heeney was in yr 12 and Mills was in yr11 was the game that a lot of us supporters thought wow check out mills as he dominated the game and was BOG as an inside hunting mid

You might be right about that

[MattW]

I'm not sure why we're making it difficult for ourselves by playing two specialist tall defenders. It's forcing us to play Heeney and Reid back to stem the tide. It's also constricting Rampe. Melican should play. Blakey needs a break. McCartin play forward.

Sinclair looked a bit injured on Thursday. Certainly gassed. Perhaps it's time to consider playing Cameron, particularly against ruckmen. May not be necessary against Richmond.

Finally, clearly McInerney won't play. Happy for whoever plays better tomorrow out of Rowbottom and Rose to come in.

* decent ruckmen

[Merdo5555]

Im happy to take any players that are willing to work their butts off for 4 full quarters. I can put up with the clangers and poor kicking if the effort is consistent over 4 quarters.

[ernie koala]

OUT : Blakey, Mc Inerney, Ronke, Thurlow

IN : Rose, O'riordan, Rowbottom, Cameron

We are an ordinary team, we need to sift through the list to find out what we have.

From the evidence presented, Thurlow and Clarke are right up there with Scotty Russell and Nick Gaffy....

Desperate unnecessary trades, simply because nothing else was on offer to us....We should of kept our powder dry...

Easy in hindsight I know, but hey, we have full time recruiters who should be able to sift through the chaff.

[The Big Cat]

OUT : Nick Gaffy

Even more forgettable than Nick Daffy!

[Nico]

They moved Mills back because of our backline injuries to plug a hole. In the coaches eyes he has the form back there ahead of others.

[Nico]

OUT : Blakey, Mc Inerney, Ronke, Thurlow

IN : Rose, O'riordan, Rowbottom, Cameron

We are an ordinary team, we need to sift through the list to find out what we have.

From the evidence presented, Thurlow and Clarke are right up there with Scotty Russell and Nick Gaffy....

Desperate unnecessary trades, simply because nothing else was on offer to us....We should of kept our powder dry...

Easy in hindsight I know, but hey, we have full time recruiters who should be able to sift through the chaff.

Yep, gone back to the Eade era of recruiting stop gaps. Menzel looks to be the Nick Daffy of this era. Will he play a game is the big question. Probably should have drafted a few more kids.

[Doctor]

I can't see Mills leaving the backline while McVeigh & Smith are out. I agree that McInerney was picked too early and Blakey looks like he needs a break but it's just rearranging the deckchairs beyond that. If someone knocks the doors down in the NEAFL tomorrow then great. Otherwise you can't just make changes for the sake of it.

[Nico]

My assessment of the midfield Mills fiasco is that we can’t play him much in the midfield with Parker and kennedy at the minute because we are already vulnerable to fast exits from the centre clearance

Kennedy, Parker and Mills makes us too heavy inside players without a dominant ruckman

If we had a dominant ruckman and less injuries in the backline it could change the options available

with no smith, macca, Grundy etc we need every bit of cohesion and regular voice/leadership down back

I have always seen Mills as a Luke Hodge style player ie 50/50 midfield HBF

Ps the games where nsw played qld and Heeney was in yr 12 and Mills was in yr11 was the game that a lot of us supporters thought wow check out mills as he dominated the game and was BOG as an inside hunting mid

Too heavy!!!! We have gone from a tough inside team to a timid outside outfit. Too much bull dust about not enough outside run and they flip the team on its head. I don't believe the rhetoric that our style is no longer relevant. You only have to see where Gold Coast have improved. Hardness at the contests and clearances. I would rather see us as a hard inside team than a pack of gimme, gimme gimme players. Up until the last couple of weeks I would say to people, at least we get a run for our money every week. Can't say that anymore.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I wouldnt throw the young guns out just yet. Last night, the ground and conditions were terrible. Its never going to suit young light bodied players.
Melbourne won because they have stronger bodies and probably a bit more desire to win considering their expectations for the year.

We were also coming off a five day break and I think it showed in the second half.

[Foreign Legion]

Rowbottom playing really well in the NEAFL - he has already kicked 2 goals in the first 15 minutes.

[707]

Rowbottom playing really well in the NEAFL - he has already kicked 2 goals in the first 15 minutes.That decison is made then!

Out Blakey, McInerney In Rowbottom COR who both should have come in last week. Lucky to survive Ronke

[Ludwig]

OUT : Blakey, Mc Inerney, Ronke, Thurlow

IN : Rose, O'riordan, Rowbottom, Cameron

We are an ordinary team, we need to sift through the list to find out what we have.

From the evidence presented, Thurlow and Clarke are right up there with Scotty Russell and Nick Gaffy....

Desperate unnecessary trades, simply because nothing else was on offer to us....We should of kept our powder dry...

Easy in hindsight I know, but hey, we have full time recruiters who should be able to sift through the chaff.I agree that Thurlow and Clarke were not the preferred recruits we had hoped for, but they are still better than the alternative, which was to take another couple of picks toward the end of the draft.

I thought Thurlow would be a real chance and he's disappointed with his disposal so far, but was known as a good kick, so let's see if he can regain that part of his game. Clarke always had a question about his disposal skills, but it's still more probable that he will fix up the weaknesses in his game than a pick in 70s in the ND. It's just about probabilities when making these decisions; most won't work out whatever you do, so you just take the more likely alternative.

[MattW]

That decison is made then!

Out Blakey, McInerney In Rowbottom COR who both should have come in last week. Lucky to survive Ronke

I'm not sure we should play COR and Thurlow. Agree with outs and Rowbottom, but I'd bring Melican in.

[stevoswan]

That decison is made then!

Out Blakey, McInerney In Rowbottom COR who both should have come in last week. Lucky to survive Ronke

Maybe not.....Rowbottom very quiet in the second quarter.

[Ralph Dawg]

After viewing NEAFL, here's my thoughts:
In COR, Rowbottom, Stoddart
Out McInerney, Ronke, Thurlow
Rowbottom has looked great. He is hard at the contest, can sniff a goal and play mid and forward unlike Ronke, who's skills have deserted him. Stoddart is more developed than McInerney. He is also fast and a good kick. Thurlow was shocking the other night and COR needs to take his place.

[Blood Relative]

Went very early with selections last week so waited for neafl today.

Getting to the point where i am trying to read what the match committee are going to do.

If Rose did not desrve a game last week, i fear he never will (39 possesions, four goals, 300 tackles etc etc).

Hiscox is the only player i can recall getting dropped after one game, i am happy to be corrected on this though. My point being i doubt Mc Inerny will only get one game. So he stays.

Also, it seems we have had very few of the draftees from Ling's year play many games???

Dawson and Thurlow must stay, Lloyd will not be dropped.

I'm going for a smokey

Out: Papley
In: COR

[aguy]

I think that it is clear that our team is developing and as such we shouldn’t set our expectations too high in terms of wins etc.

The key for us is getting games into the young guys with talent. That will allow them to press in a couple of years

As such. I would definitely bring in rowbottom. He looks too good to develop well in the NEAFL. Accelerate his development in the AFL.

In a few weeks Ling should get a senior game as his conditioning improves but not just yet.

Also I would consider stoddart again. He would allow mills to move into the midfield.

My outs: mcinerney jack
My Ins: rowbottom stoddart

I feel like thurlow Deserves another game but wouldn’t be averse to COR coming in for him.

[stevoswan]

I think that it is clear that our team is developing and as such we shouldn’t set our expectations too high in terms of wins etc.

The key for us is getting games into the young guys with talent. That will allow them to press in a couple of years

As such. I would definitely bring in rowbottom. He looks too good to develop well in the NEAFL. Accelerate his development in the AFL.

In a few weeks Ling should get a senior game as his conditioning improves but not just yet.

Also I would consider stoddart again. He would allow mills to move into the midfield.

My outs: mcinerney jack
My Ins: rowbottom stoddart


Your reasons for dropping Jack?

[liz]

Some odd suggestions for players to be dropped. Jack was one of our better performers on Thursday and brings much needed experience to the side.

Papley was serviceable against the Dees but amongst the best half dozen against Carlton, and decent in the first two games. He's not going anywhere.

[Hotpotato]

Reid and Aliir should swap places .

[Ludwig]

Out: McInerny, Ronke, Blakey, Thurlow, Sinclair
In: O'Riordan, Mellican, Rose, Cameron, Stoddard
After watching the NEAFL game, I still think these changes are in the mix. Probably not all of them, but certainly a few are called for.

I would really like Cameron to get a run. COR should have been in the side last week. Stoddart improved his chances for selection with a very good performance in the NEAFL.

[aguy]

Your reasons for dropping Jack?
Good question.

Simply because I think we need to invest in games in the future of the club. I know he provides some leadership but I think we have enough on field leadership. Franklin up front Kennedy in the middle and Rampe down back.

As much as I love Jack and what he has done for us he won’t be in our next premiership team

[Blood Fever]

Good question.

Simply because I think we need to invest in games in the future of the club. I know he provides some leadership but I think we have enough on field leadership. Franklin up front Kennedy in the middle and Rampe down back.

As much as I love Jack and what he has done for us he won’t be in our next premiership team

We have always aimed to play finals and that has been admirable. Don't think we'll make it this year. If that becomes apparent, we probably do need to play some young players at the expense of Grundy, Jack and even McVeigh if he only looks to be able to play towards the back end of the season. He is clearly in the best 22 (probably the top 5) and it would be a dilemma but we need to look ahead.

[Ludwig]

Richmond have a small forward line with Riewoldt out, as well as a smallish back line, with Rance out. We could drop both Thurlow and Blakey and not replace them with talls.

It's amazing how Sinclair has now managed to play 35 straight games over 3 seasons, when he was looking so fragile in 2017. I'd be interested in bringing in Cameron and play him along with Sinclair, alternating the 2 in the ruck. Cameron is a good player around the ground, actually not dissimilar to Sinclair, but should be better in the ruck. We should gain some flexibility on how we use Reid and McCartin, depending on the flow of the game, as Buddy and the ruckman playing forward should tie down Asbury and Grimes quite well.

Stoddart defended well against a very quick opponent in the NEAFL game. I'd give him a go playing on one of their small forwards.

[Ralph Dawg]

Richmond have a small forward line with Riewoldt out, as well as a smallish back line, with Rance out. We could drop both Thurlow and Blakey and not replace them with talls.

It's amazing how Sinclair has now managed to play 35 straight games over 3 seasons, when he was looking so fragile in 2017. I'd be interested in bringing in Cameron and play him along with Sinclair, alternating the 2 in the ruck. Cameron is a good player around the ground, actually not dissimilar to Sinclair, but should be better in the ruck. We should gain some flexibility on how we use Reid and McCartin, depending on the flow of the game, as Buddy and the ruckman playing forward should tie down Asbury and Grimes quite well.

Stoddart defended well against a very quick opponent in the NEAFL game. I'd give him a go playing on one of their small forwards.

I don't think Blakey is purely a tall. Yes he is physically tall but is fast and skillful. He can run on a wing and off half back if the coaches didn't want him playing tall. He has showed flashes of brilliance and X factor. I just feel he brings more to the table than Ronke, who can't hit a target or kick reliably for goal at present. He's not really versatile as he has only shown effectiveness as a small forward. I would give his spot to Rowbottom.

[Ludwig]

I don't think Blakey is purely a tall. Yes he is physically tall but is fast and skillful. He can run on a wing and off half back if the coaches didn't want him playing tall. He has showed flashes of brilliance and X factor. I just feel he brings more to the table than Ronke, who can't hit a target or kick reliably for goal at present. He's not really versatile as he has only shown effectiveness as a small forward. I would give his spot to Rowbottom.At this point in the season, I would leave the first year players in the NEAFL for a while and give guys who look more ready to play at AFL level, like COR, Rose and Stoddart, a go at senior level.

I think Rowbottom will get a shot this year, and perhaps it's not too far off, but I would like to see him continue to develop his outside game in the NEAFL.

Blakey is showing that is a talent of the future, but he's not contributing much right now. I'm ambivalent about Ronke. He was a bit better on Thursday, but off his best by some margin. He can dropped and replaced by a midfielder in normal rotation.

[Blood Fever]

At this point in the season, I would leave the first year players in the NEAFL for a while and give guys who look more ready to play at AFL level, like COR, Rose and Stoddart, a go at senior level.

I think Rowbottom will get a shot this year, and perhaps it's not too far off, but I would like to see him continue to develop his outside game in the NEAFL.

Blakey is showing that is a talent of the future, but he's not contributing much right now. I'm ambivalent about Ronke. He was a bit better on Thursday, but off his best by some margin. He can dropped and replaced by a midfielder in normal rotation.

Unless Ronke kicks goals, his inability to hit a target makes him a liability. Burnt Buddy a number of times with kicks that landed in front of him. Chronically poor short passer of the ball. Not AFL standard.

[Ralph Dawg]

At this point in the season, I would leave the first year players in the NEAFL for a while and give guys who look more ready to play at AFL level, like COR, Rose and Stoddart, a go at senior level.

I think Rowbottom will get a shot this year, and perhaps it's not too far off, but I would like to see him continue to develop his outside game in the NEAFL.

Blakey is showing that is a talent of the future, but he's not contributing much right now. I'm ambivalent about Ronke. He was a bit better on Thursday, but off his best by some margin. He can dropped and replaced by a midfielder in normal rotation.

If we played in a reserves competition with consistent strong opposition, then yes, I would agree with playing our first year players in reserves. NEAFL is getting better, but is still no VFL / SAFL. I think Blakey will learn more playing in one's, has skills we need in firsts and is actually playing better than others.

[ugg]

If Lloyd Perris’s comments are any guide, it doesn’t look like Rowbottom will be debuting soon as they think he has aspects to his game he needs to work on.

[Ludwig]

If we played in a reserves competition with consistent strong opposition, then yes, I would agree with playing our first year players in reserves. NEAFL is getting better, but is still no VFL / SAFL. I think Blakey will learn more playing in one's, has skills we need in firsts and is actually playing better than others.Gold Coast put out a pretty good team today. We play mostly the reserves for the other AFL clubs, so the competition should be roughly the same level for both sides. If Lukosius can play for GC reserves, then Blakey can play for ours. GC had a lot of high draft picks in their side.

In any case, if you think the competition is not good enough for our 1st year players, then it would be even worse for out second year players, and even worse for 4th year players like COR. It doesn't make sense to play Blakey in the side and leave out COR, or Melican, for that matter. These guys really need AFL games in them, because they need the game to start feeling comfortable in the AFL; get used to the pace, etc. We know they belong in the AFL when playing in good form.

[707]

COR & Rowbottom for McInerney & Ronke/Blakey all of who contributed little against Melbourne

I don't care what deficiencies Rowbottom has in his game (per Perris) he is highly likely to contribute more than those guys at present, from all accounts a footy smarts ball magnet.

COR was stiff to be dropped and his replacement didn't do too much either, Thurlow not needed this week against a small forward line.

[Ralph Dawg]

Gold Coast put out a pretty good team today. We play mostly the reserves for the other AFL clubs, so the competition should be roughly the same level for both sides. If Lukosius can play for GC reserves, then Blakey can play for ours. GC had a lot of high draft picks in their side.

In any case, if you think the competition is not good enough for our 1st year players, then it would be even worse for out second year players, and even worse for 4th year players like COR. It doesn't make sense to play Blakey in the side and leave out COR, or Melican, for that matter. These guys really need AFL games in them, because they need the game to start feeling comfortable in the AFL; get used to the pace, etc. We know they belong in the AFL when playing in good form.

I'll confess Ludwig, I don't watch SAFL or VFL so only assume it's stronger than NEAFL based on mature age talent that comes out of their competition. NEAFL is definitely getting better but when we play some of the weaker sides like Canberra, Redlands and NT, it doesn't seem to be much of a challenge. The AFL reserve teams are very dependent on injuries so are strong at the start of the season but can deteriorate as the season goes on, with teams full of young academy boys. Look at what happen to our team in the GF v Southport last year. Plus so many byes. But I take your point about our 2-4 year players needing AFL time but only if we are confident they are up to it. 1st year players can also benefit hugely from playing mainly ones straight away - Papley, Heeney and Mills are 3 I can think of.

[stevoswan]

Interesting that we are playing Richmond at Marvel Stadium yet again......why is this so?

Mind you, I am not unhappy about this given our record at this stadium.

[MattW]

For those of us on Horse Presser Hint Watch, he suggested Rowbottom and Stoddart as well-performed reserves players under consideration this week.

[KSAS]

Interesting that we are playing Richmond at Marvel Stadium yet again......why is this so?

Mind you, I am not unhappy about this given our record at this stadium.

My understanding is that as part of the AFL's Marvel - MCG stadium deal, Richmond is required to play one home game at Marvel. Invariably it has been us last 2 seasons, as it's also linked to the AFL's fixturing policy for each Non Vic club to play 2 H&A games at the MCG (otherwise we'd get 3 MCG games). Not sure if the other MCG tenant teams are also bounded by this clause.

[caj23]

I don't think Blakey is purely a tall. Yes he is physically tall but is fast and skillful. He can run on a wing and off half back if the coaches didn't want him playing tall. He has showed flashes of brilliance and X factor. I just feel he brings more to the table than Ronke, who can't hit a target or kick reliably for goal at present. He's not really versatile as he has only shown effectiveness as a small forward. I would give his spot to Rowbottom.

I think going forward that is true, but at the moment he isn't offering anything at AFL level and needs a run in the NEAFL (Blakey)

Not sure whether Ronke should be dropped or not, but even out of form he is giving us more than Blakey

[wolftone57]

Your reasons for dropping Jack?He was @@@@e. Is that a good enough reason? Had plenty aof trial at NEAFL level and came in as an experienced player. You expect more than what was delivered. He's gone. Time to move on and play youth.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[wolftone57]

I'll confess Ludwig, I don't watch SAFL or VFL so only assume it's stronger than NEAFL based on mature age talent that comes out of their competition. NEAFL is definitely getting better but when we play some of the weaker sides like Canberra, Redlands and NT, it doesn't seem to be much of a challenge. The AFL reserve teams are very dependent on injuries so are strong at the start of the season but can deteriorate as the season goes on, with teams full of young academy boys. Look at what happen to our team in the GF v Southport last year. Plus so many byes. But I take your point about our 2-4 year players needing AFL time but only if we are confident they are up to it. 1st year players can also benefit hugely from playing mainly ones straight away - Papley, Heeney and Mills are 3 I can think of.It is not the SANFL it is the SANFL

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[wolftone57]

My understanding is that as part of the AFL's Marvel - MCG stadium deal, Richmond is required to play one home game at Marvel. Invariably it has been us last 2 seasons, as it's also linked to the AFL's fixturing policy for each Non Vic club to play 2 H&A games at the MCG (otherwise we'd get 3 MCG games). Not sure if the other MCG tenant teams are also bounded by this clause.They are

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[Melbourne_Blood]

He was @@@@e. Is that a good enough reason? Had plenty aof trial at NEAFL level and came in as an experienced player. You expect more than what was delivered. He's gone. Time to move on and play youth.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

He kicked two goals playing as a small forward , more than a pass I would say. No one is expecting the jack of 2013-14, just that he can still contribute at a reasonable level, while adding some hardness and experience. Ticked all those boxes on the weekend I think , played better than Parker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stevoswan]

He was @@@@e. Is that a good enough reason? Had plenty aof trial at NEAFL level and came in as an experienced player. You expect more than what was delivered. He's gone. Time to move on and play youth.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

OK, keep your hair on! He kicked two goals.....in a team that can't kick more than ten a game, that stands for something. Time to stop dropping players after one game back.....Ronke's played four crap games in a row now and Keiren played better than him on Thursday.

[chalbilto]

Steve, I agree with you. Jack did ok. You are right Ronke has played 4 crap games. I was looking forward to seeing him using his speed to harass and put forward pressure and crumb but this hasn't eventuated very successfully. But in fairness we have been poor with our clearances from the centre. We need another ruckman to help out Sinclair who is getting battered. Maybe give Cameron another go or Allir perhaps, but that would weaken our backline? Is it time to bring back Melican?
I guess the selection committee will sort out all the pros and cons.

[Ludwig]

.Ronke's played four crap games in a row now


You are right Ronke has played 4 crap games.

But Ronke has only played 3 games this year. He didn't play round 1.

Now we have to keep him in the side this week. We don't want to make liars out of you. :tongue:

[dimelb]

Kieren obviously played his way back into the Firsts.

Ronke is not back to his best, but don't forget what he did to Hawthorn. I'd give him time, perhaps encourage him to work hard and not to be afraid of not running out the game.

[aguy]

Ok I’ve been thinking an but more about this.

Ruck situation is clearly bad for us. Sinkers has toiled away terrifically over the last couple of years but he got toweled up on Thursday night. I think we are lucky it hasn’t happened more often.

I think we need to give the two ruckman structure another go.

Bring in Cameron. And not use him as a forward primarily like we did in his only game so far at senior level. Bring Cameron in to play centre main ruck. Then let sinkers go play forward and ruck while in the forward half. Cameron can play main ruck and drop back as defensive ruck. At least he will see a bit of it around the ground and get to compete rather than feeling out of the game as deep forward. We are loosing the clearances dramatically so we need to try something different.

I think that in order to make room for Cameron I would let Blakey have a rest in the NEAFL. Love the guy and his promise but let him have a rest.

I would also play rowbottom as I’ve mentioned before and stoddart

Ronde to stay in but on notice. Needs to apply more pressure. He stays probably until Menzel is fit.

Richmond are a perfect team to try two rucks against because nank won’t be dominant like gawn was so it gives Cameron a chance to show his wares and us to see how the structure works.

IN: Cameron Rowbottom Stoddart
OUT: Blakey Jack McInerney

[neilfws]

I don't think the problem is so much individual players, as how they are interacting with each other.

I hesitate to use terms like "team balance", as I'm not sure precisely how that would be defined or if it is even a real thing. I just get a sense, this season and much of last year, that the team is struggling to "gel". Perhaps it's a function of shared experience, how many games players have played together. Seems we've had a lot of debutants, some key outs due to injury, formerly-reliable veterans suffering lack of form.

Maybe it all just adds up to a team that just isn't functioning as it should, and time will sort things out.

[Ludwig]

Ruck situation is clearly bad for us. Sinkers has toiled away terrifically over the last couple of years but he got toweled up on Thursday night. I think we are lucky it hasn’t happened more often.

Bring in Cameron. And not use him as a forward primarily like we did in his only game so far at senior level. Bring Cameron in to play centre main ruck. Then let sinkers go play forward and ruck while in the forward half. Cameron can play main ruck and drop back as defensive ruck. At least he will see a bit of it around the ground and get to compete rather than feeling out of the game as deep forward. We are loosing the clearances dramatically so we need to try something different.

I agree we should bring in Cameron, whether we keep Sinclair in the side or not. We can look at that as a separate issue on its own merits.

Your point is right, that we are just getting killed trying to control the ruck contests and need to find another solution. Unfortunately, we really can't count on Naismith, this year or even in the future. His body just hasn't held up. If he comes good, well that's a bonus.

That just leaves Cameron as the only one who has a realistic chance of challenging the better ruckmen in the competition, but he will need time to develop at AFL level. He's a ruckman who added forward craft, as opposed to Sinclair, who was a forward who has tried to add ruck craft to his arsenal. Cameron is the more natural ruckman, in both size and technique.

What are we waiting for?

[aguy]

I agree we should bring in Cameron, whether we keep Sinclair in the side or not. We can look at that as a separate issue on its own merits.

Your point is right, that we are just getting killed trying to control the ruck contests and need to find another solution. Unfortunately, we really can't count on Naismith, this year or even in the future. His body just hasn't held up. If he comes good, well that's a bonus.

That just leaves Cameron as the only one who has a realistic chance of challenging the better ruckmen in the competition, but he will need time to develop at AFL level. He's a ruckman who added forward craft, as opposed to Sinclair, who was a forward who has tried to add ruck craft to his arsenal. Cameron is the more natural ruckman, in both size and technique.

What are we waiting for?

It’s become super clear to me this week. Cameron has to be given a go. And not just a single game. He has to get a run of games.

[stevoswan]

I don't think the problem is so much individual players, as how they are interacting with each other.

I hesitate to use terms like "team balance", as I'm not sure precisely how that would be defined or if it is even a real thing. I just get a sense, this season and much of last year, that the team is struggling to "gel". Perhaps it's a function of shared experience, how many games players have played together. Seems we've had a lot of debutants, some key outs due to injury, formerly-reliable veterans suffering lack of form.

Maybe it all just adds up to a team that just isn't functioning as it should, and time will sort things out.

Well, they certainly weren't gelling well at the start of the 2017 season but eventually got their act together.....that experience (and the first half of last Thursdays game) gives us hope that you might be right.:smile:

[gazza]

some have to go. out ronke Thurlow blakey in rowbottom melican oriordon give mcinerney 1 more go

[Ralph Dawg]

I agree we should bring in Cameron, whether we keep Sinclair in the side or not. We can look at that as a separate issue on its own merits.

Your point is right, that we are just getting killed trying to control the ruck contests and need to find another solution. Unfortunately, we really can't count on Naismith, this year or even in the future. His body just hasn't held up. If he comes good, well that's a bonus.

That just leaves Cameron as the only one who has a realistic chance of challenging the better ruckmen in the competition, but he will need time to develop at AFL level. He's a ruckman who added forward craft, as opposed to Sinclair, who was a forward who has tried to add ruck craft to his arsenal. Cameron is the more natural ruckman, in both size and technique.

What are we waiting for?
I watched the NEAFL game and the impression I had about Cameron was that he was good around the park but got soundly beaten by Nicholls in the ruck (he also seem to smash Amartey and Maclean as well in the ruck). Is Nicholls renown as a good tap ruckman? I know Cameron has racked up some huge hit out numbers on non AFL listed ruckmen but is he effective against AFL quality ruckmen? Maybe that's why Horse is reluctant to play him (I am speculating, the above are genuine questions).

[Blood Fever]

I watched the NEAFL game and the impression I had about Cameron was that he was good around the park but got soundly beaten by Nicholls in the ruck (he also seem to smash Amartey and Maclean as well in the ruck). Is Nicholls renown as a good tap ruckman? I know Cameron has racked up some huge hit out numbers on non AFL listed ruckmen but is he effective against AFL quality ruckmen? Maybe that's why Horse is reluctant to play him (I am speculating, the above are genuine questions).

Haven't seen a lot of him and I'm sure he's stronger than Sinclair but doesn't look particularly mobile enough for AFL.

[neilfws]

Well, they certainly weren't gelling well at the start of the 2017 season but eventually got their act together

Just looking at 2017-18, amazing how different those seasons were.

2017: 7 losses in the first half of the year, 7 weeks until a home win. Only 2 losses in the second half, margins rising steadily, all looking good for finals until crushed at the hands of Geelong.

2018: only 3 losses in the first half, all at home. Then 6 losses in the second half, margins really fell away, never looked like finals contenders and so it proved to be.

I suppose it does look more like 2017 right now, so who knows.

https://i.postimg.cc/cL5Q47xn/sydney17-18.png (https://postimg.cc/TKgytDWd)

[Ludwig]

I watched the NEAFL game and the impression I had about Cameron was that he was good around the park but got soundly beaten by Nicholls in the ruck (he also seem to smash Amartey and Maclean as well in the ruck). Is Nicholls renown as a good tap ruckman? I know Cameron has racked up some huge hit out numbers on non AFL listed ruckmen but is he effective against AFL quality ruckmen? Maybe that's why Horse is reluctant to play him (I am speculating, the above are genuine questions).I don't have the stats, but Cameron has played a fair few games against Nicholls and has generally had the better of him. He's also beaten every ruckman he's come up against, except perhaps McInerney from Brisbane (can't recall). Cameron was the dominant player in the NEAFL last year. Racked up the most Fantasy points by a long way. He's mobile, plays defense and is a good mark and shot for goal. By all accounts, he should become a good AFL player.

[Odysseus]

For next week . . .

Out: McInerny, Ronke, Blakey, Thurlow, Sinclair
In: O'Riordan, Mellican, Rose, Cameron, Stoddard


I agree with these changes, pending what happens in the NEAFL. Bit I don't think these changes, or any changes, will make much of a difference this year.

O'Reilly boy started the thread with a pretty comprehensive list of suggested changes - five, no less. I was a bit surprised to see Ludwig endorse all suggestions, given that he's been cautioning against setting our hopes too high this year. If another strand to the discussion is the need for players to gel as a team, surely five changes is too many, even though any one of the five might be justifiable.

As for mine, Sinkers looked knackered last week, and must have either support or a break; I'd be dropping Blakey before Ronke, but don't look to either of them in the short term as the player critical for revival. As for McInerny, the coaches will have to weigh up whether he played a role better than was apparent to us punters in the stands; my own sense is that he was brought in too early, but perhaps the coaches are already conceding this as a development year.

I'm warming to aguy's favouring McCartin in the backline; and I'm still wanting Mills to play more time in the midfield, where our being hammered does nothing to the apparent stature of our defence. Surely we could be pro-active on this, even if it is with an expectation that it may not gel at first. In sum, I want to see not more than three changes but do want to see an eye to our future, because I agree with Ludwig and others that this year isn't the one where we threaten for a flag.

[Ralph Dawg]

I don't have the stats, but Cameron has played a fair few games against Nicholls and has generally had the better of him. He's also beaten every ruckman he's come up against, except perhaps McInerney from Brisbane (can't recall). Cameron was the dominant player in the NEAFL last year. Racked up the most Fantasy points by a long way. He's mobile, plays defense and is a good mark and shot for goal. By all accounts, he should become a good AFL player.
If that's the case, nows the time to get him in. Sinclair is looking buggered and Naismith's body is literally falling apart before our eyes!

[Steve]

It is surprising we haven’t come in for more criticism I think, given Adelaide are getting caned in the media, and prior to last week Melbourne had legitimate question marks over them, including having conceded 20 goals each in their previous two games.

And we were pretty easily brushed aside by both those teams in the end.

To me we are purposely building for a couple of years from now, but trying to cling on to a level of competitiveness where we might be able to play finals.

I said it last year, but I don’t understand why you have Rose on the list if you’re not going to play him and push up the next intake of youngsters anyway.

And it is puzzling why you would re-sign Grundy if the plan was to experiment with McCartin in defence.

All our older players are injury-plagued or barely offering anything more than younger alternatives - McVeigh aside. But even then we would probably have been better giving O’Riordan a year in that role than a few games in-and-out of the side.

I would play Rowbottom every week from here on - that would be an investment in a type of player we definitely need to fast-track.

We do seem to favour giving young players an ‘encouragement award’ of a senior game or two, even if they don’t deserve it (or at least that others are outperforming them in the reserves), so I expect that will continue with a few more in the coming couple of months. None of whom will really do anything to make us a better team for now.

Not saying that’s good or bad, I can see the logic in giving them a taste, rewarding attitude and training efforts etc - but it does leave better options for a given week in the NEAFL.

[dejavoodoo44]

I don't have the stats, but Cameron has played a fair few games against Nicholls and has generally had the better of him. He's also beaten every ruckman he's come up against, except perhaps McInerney from Brisbane (can't recall). Cameron was the dominant player in the NEAFL last year. Racked up the most Fantasy points by a long way. He's mobile, plays defense and is a good mark and shot for goal. By all accounts, he should become a good AFL player.

The hit out numbers from that game were, Nicholls: 35, Cameron: 25, McLean: 6, Amartey: 3, Day: 2. Unfortunately, the Live Footy app doesn't seem to list hit outs to advantage, or the stat that I wished was recorded, hit outs to disadvantage.

[chalbilto]

It is surprising we haven’t come in for more criticism I think, given Adelaide are getting caned in the media, and prior to last week Melbourne had legitimate question marks over them, including having conceded 20 goals each in their previous two games.

And we were pretty easily brushed aside by both those teams in the end.

To me we are purposely building for a couple of years from now, but trying to cling on to a level of competitiveness where we might be able to play finals.

I said it last year, but I don’t understand why you have Rose on the list if you’re not going to play him and push up the next intake of youngsters anyway.

And it is puzzling why you would re-sign Grundy if the plan was to experiment with McCartin in defence.

All our older players are injury-plagued or barely offering anything more than younger alternatives - McVeigh aside. But even then we would probably have been better giving O’Riordan a year in that role than a few games in-and-out of the side.

I would play Rowbottom every week from here on - that would be an investment in a type of player we definitely need to fast-track.

We do seem to favour giving young players an ‘encouragement award’ of a senior game or two, even if they don’t deserve it (or at least that others are outperforming them in the reserves), so I expect that will continue with a few more in the coming couple of months. None of whom will really do anything to make us a better team for now.

Not saying that’s good or bad, I can see the logic in giving them a taste, rewarding attitude and training efforts etc - but it does leave better options for a given week in the NEAFL.

I think the reason that we haven't come to more criticism is the fact that the experts and the majority of critics have come to the conclusion that we are in a decline and are in a transition phase.

[MattW]

I agree we should bring in Cameron, whether we keep Sinclair in the side or not. We can look at that as a separate issue on its own merits.

Your point is right, that we are just getting killed trying to control the ruck contests and need to find another solution. Unfortunately, we really can't count on Naismith, this year or even in the future. His body just hasn't held up. If he comes good, well that's a bonus.

That just leaves Cameron as the only one who has a realistic chance of challenging the better ruckmen in the competition, but he will need time to develop at AFL level. He's a ruckman who added forward craft, as opposed to Sinclair, who was a forward who has tried to add ruck craft to his arsenal. Cameron is the more natural ruckman, in both size and technique.

What are we waiting for?

Agreed, aguy and Ludwig - time to bring Cameron in. On aguy's original post: agree with the ins, but Stoddart to replace Ronke, not Jack whose experience we need.

[longmile]

I wouldn't be dropping Sinclair. He got monstered by gone on thursday but in the first 3 weeks he's been a shining light for us. He plays with high energy and will be coming off a 9 day break. I'd bring in Cameron to play ruck, move Sinclair forward and drop Blakey, with Franklin to play higher up the ground/wing

For me I'd have -

In: O'Riordan, Cameron, Rowbottom
Out: Thurlow, Blakey, McInerney

Tempted to swap Rose for Ronke too

[aguy]

Agreed, aguy and Ludwig - time to bring Cameron in. On aguy's original post: agree with the ins, but Stoddart to replace Ronke, not Jack whose experience we need.

I’m actually quite fascinated to see what horse does this week. He pretty emphatically stated this week that “we are going to fix the problem at the stoppages” ( my paraphrase). As far as I can see it can’t be fixed by doing the same thing over and over. Hence why we all think Cameron should be given a go. But who knows what will actually happen on selection day

[Markwebbos]

I’m actually quite fascinated to see what horse does this week. He pretty emphatically stated this week that “we are going to fix the problem at the stoppages” ( my paraphrase). As far as I can see it can’t be fixed by doing the same thing over and over. Hence why we all think Cameron should be given a go. But who knows what will actually happen on selection day

I think not rucking against Gawn will be a huge help in the stoppages. Horse said:

“We’ve been really poor at scores against from stoppages. It’s been a consistent theme and it’s an all-over team structure we need to get right.”

That doesn’t scream a change in personnel to me.

But I am also very interested how the match committee responds this week.

[Foreign Legion]

I wouldn't be dropping Sinclair. He got monstered by gone on thursday but in the first 3 weeks he's been a shining light for us. He plays with high energy and will be coming off a 9 day break. I'd bring in Cameron to play ruck, move Sinclair forward and drop Blakey, with Franklin to play higher up the ground/wing

For me I'd have -

In: O'Riordan, Cameron, Rowbottom
Out: Thurlow, Blakey, McInerney

Tempted to swap Rose for Ronke too

I agree Rose needs to be given a go - but at least 3 weeks otherwise why is he on the list still? Having said that, his game on Sunday was only average. I reckon Rowbottom needs at least 2 more weeks to be promoted - he did not do as much in the second half last week.

[Scottee]

I agree Rose needs to be given a go - but at least 3 weeks otherwise why is he on the list still? Having said that, his game on Sunday was only average. I reckon Rowbottom needs at least 2 more weeks to be promoted - he did not do as much in the second half last week.

Rewatched the reserves game and Rose was again very effective and is a naturally attacking player now, particularly with his handball bringing others into the game. He also terams well with Rowbottom. The only reason that he wouldn't get a game is because Horse might think he is not defensive enough. Personally, the best form of defence is attack in the new rules regime and he fits the bill.

[Blood Fever]

Rewatched the reserves game and Rose was again very effective and is a naturally attacking player now, particularly with his handball bringing others into the game. He also terams well with Rowbottom. The only reason that he wouldn't get a game is because Horse might think he is not defensive enough. Personally, the best form of defence is attack in the new rules regime and he fits the bill.

Understand your viewpoint, bus pretty sure scores are on average lower than last year.

[Markwebbos]

Understand your viewpoint, bus pretty sure scores are on average lower than last year.

They are, as are inside 50s. I'm not sure this is entirely the new rules. I think teams are copying West Coast and playing possession football

[Sandrevan]

McInerney looked lost against the Demons so he can go back to the NEAFL. Not sure who i'd bring in - perhaps Stoddart.

I can only see 1 defender being able to nullify Tom Lynch and that's Aliir. Rampe just isn't big enough.

But as we all know the biggest problem is the ruck and clearances. I'm happy to bring on Cameron to share the ruck duties with Sinclair. I don't want to see both Parker and Kennedy in the centre at the same time. For mine, we need Heeney, Mills, Jones and Papley. Parker and JPK can alternate midfield time with forward time - they're both pretty good around the goals.

Ins: COR, Cameron, Rose
Outs: McInerney, Thurlow, Ronke

[jono2707]

Maybe I'm Robinson Crusoe here but I'd like to see Mcinerney stay in for at least a few weeks. He looks like he'll be a really good long termer for us and I reckon he's better off getting exposure in the 1s now. I think things will click for him pretty quickly.

[Ludwig]

Maybe I'm Robinson Crusoe here but I'd like to see Mcinerney stay in for at least a few weeks. He looks like he'll be a really good long termer for us and I reckon he's better off getting exposure in the 1s now. I think things will click for him pretty quickly.It's not so much that McInerney would benefit from a run in the seniors, but rather that selection is a zero sum game, so if McInerney stays in, then another player, who would also benefit from time in the seniors, stays out of the senior side. Players like COR, Rose and Stoddart are currently more ready to contribute to the team's success at AFL level than is McInerney.

[Ralph Dawg]

After reading all the arguments from fellow posters, watched both AFL and NEAFL games and analysed the stats, the Dawg match committee is making its final call:
Ins: COR Cameron Rowbottom Stoddart
Outs: Thurlow Ronke Blakey McInerney

[Melbourne_Blood]

After reading all the arguments from fellow posters, watched both AFL and NEAFL games and analysed the stats, the Dawg match committee is making its final call:
Ins: COR Cameron Rowbottom Stoddart
Outs: Thurlow Ronke Blakey McInerney

The ‘Dawg’ has spoken haha! Agree with all except stoddart , would give Rose that spot. Has earned a chance , get him in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[liz]

There may be arguments for playing two ruckmen, but I doubt it will happen this week. Not against a side known for its speed and fast ball movement and without their own dominant ruckman, and at Marvel Stadium.

I've read some comments that Sinclair appeared injured in the second half of last week's game. I've no idea whether he was, or was just worn down by the much taller (and very skilful) Gawn. If he needs a rest, sure, bring in Cameron in his place. But not both of them. Not this week.

I expect to see Stoddart named this week. He was very good in the NEAFL game. But if he comes in he should play in defence, not on the half-forward line where he played his two games last year. I think it's a more natural position for him, and it's where he showed such good form last week.

[crackedactor]

Rewatched the reserves game and Rose was again very effective and is a naturally attacking player now, particularly with his handball bringing others into the game. He also terams well with Rowbottom. The only reason that he wouldn't get a game is because Horse might think he is not defensive enough. Personally, the best form of defence is attack in the new rules regime and he fits the bill.

Rose' s aggression around the ball was impressive last week. I think we need something like that he our side. I would take the gamble. Cameron has to be given a chance also.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[aguy]

We will know in 24 hours.

Match committee usually make less changes than we all want. So with most of us here calling for 3-4 changes I am predicting that they make 2 changes at most

[Markwebbos]

There’s a fair bit of chatter about Heeney not playing too

[Mel_C]

With regards to Sinclair, I read Longmire say on Monday that he was sick during the Melbourne game. So that would explain why he seemed to struggle and not be able to keep up with Gawn.

[aguy]

There’s a fair bit of chatter about Heeney not playing too
I’ve heard that too.

I guess that is good for my fantasy team as I don’t have Heeney

[wolftone57]

With regards to Sinclair, I read Longmire say on Monday that he was sick during the Melbourne game. So that would explain why he seemed to struggle and not be able to keep up with Gawn.Well why play him? This is something I believe lost us a grand final. Playing players who were not fit enough to play

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[wolftone57]

After reading all the arguments from fellow posters, watched both AFL and NEAFL games and analysed the stats, the Dawg match committee is making its final call:
Ins: COR Cameron Rowbottom Stoddart
Outs: Thurlow Ronke Blakey McInerneyGood ins but I would add Bell. I think he has the X factor and has looked impressive at NEAFL level

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[TheMase]

Good ins but I would add Bell. I think he has the X factor and has looked impressive at NEAFL level

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

Are we able to promote Bell? He is a Cat B rookie so we would have to promote him to the senior list to be able to be selected. McLean has replaced Maibaum on the LTIL. Tippett isn’t an option as he is on the rookie list.

I am not sure if we have the ability to promote him right now?

[Hotpotato]

There’s so many selection committees on here, I get discombobulated.

[liz]

Are we able to promote Bell? He is a Cat B rookie so we would have to promote him to the senior list to be able to be selected. McLean has replaced Maibaum on the LTIL. Tippett isn’t an option as he is on the rookie list.

I am not sure if we have the ability to promote him right now?

It's an interesting question. Is McLean on the senior list or the rookie list? If he's on the rookie list (to replace the inactive Tippett), then maybe Bell could play (with Maibaum on the LTIL).

In any case, I don't think Bell is ready for senior football yet. His progression in the early stages of the season has been encouraging - he's stayed far more involved in the play throughout games, rather than drifting in and out as he was prone to do last year. A large part of this is, I suspect, greater responsibility and the chance to play around the ball now that the likes of Towers, Robinson and Foote are no longer in the team. He moves very smoothly and is capable of executing skills well. But I think, at times, he is prone to dispose of the ball without thinking, or looking for an option. That's sometimes necessary when under pressure, but he still needs to get a better feel for how much pressure he is under in each situation, and to still retain some composure when he is under pressure (recognising that the pressure at senior level will be more constant and more intense).

I think he's tracking reasonably well but I remain agnostic about whether or not he is a senior player in the making. He has some competition from other players seemingly best suited to playing predominantly outside, in Ling and Stoddart (and McInerney and maybe Tucker when we get to see him). It's an area where the senior team could do with an injection of class, but only in time, when these players are ready. And they're unlikely to all find a place in the same senior team in the near future.

[stevoswan]

Well why play him? This is something I believe lost us a grand final. Playing players who were not fit enough to play

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

Because he got sick "during the game", not before it.....:hmmm :smile:

[TheMase]

It's an interesting question. Is McLean on the senior list or the rookie list? If he's on the rookie list (to replace the inactive Tippett), then maybe Bell could play (with Maibaum on the LTIL).

In any case, I don't think Bell is ready for senior football yet. His progression in the early stages of the season has been encouraging - he's stayed far more involved in the play throughout games, rather than drifting in and out as he was prone to do last year. A large part of this is, I suspect, greater responsibility and the chance to play around the ball now that the likes of Towers, Robinson and Foote are no longer in the team. He moves very smoothly and is capable of executing skills well. But I think, at times, he is prone to dispose of the ball without thinking, or looking for an option. That's sometimes necessary when under pressure, but he still needs to get a better feel for how much pressure he is under in each situation, and to still retain some composure when he is under pressure (recognising that the pressure at senior level will be more constant and more intense).

I think he's tracking reasonably well but I remain agnostic about whether or not he is a senior player in the making. He has some competition from other players seemingly best suited to playing predominantly outside, in Ling and Stoddart (and McInerney and maybe Tucker when we get to see him). It's an area where the senior team could do with an injection of class, but only in time, when these players are ready. And they're unlikely to all find a place in the same senior team in the near future.

Interesting point you make there about who McLean replaced. Certainly it was put forward that it was Maibaum, a least from an availability sense, however it would have made greater sense for us to have him as a rookie replacement for Tippett given he is inactive.
On that note I just checked the Swans website and McLean is listed as a rookie therefore we perhaps do have a senior list spot available should we wish to use it assuming it is accurate (and therefore potentially logical to assume McLean actually replaced Tippett on the list).

As for your thoughts on Bell, 100% agree. You’d want to see him put those performances up consistently.

[wolftone57]

Are we able to promote Bell? He is a Cat B rookie so we would have to promote him to the senior list to be able to be selected. McLean has replaced Maibaum on the LTIL. Tippett isn’t an option as he is on the rookie list.

I am not sure if we have the ability to promote him right now?Naismith isn't able to play until round 8 we could use his lti to promote Bell. I think so anyway

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[ugg]

Clarke and Rowbottom for Blakey And McInerney

Emg: Blakey McInerney Fox Melican

Richmond: Houli and Martin for Graham and Menadue

[707]

Clarke and Rowbottom for Blakey And McInerney

Emg: Blakey McInerney Fox Melican

Richmond: Houli and Martin for Graham and Menadue

Rewarding form but would have preferred COR to Clarke who I reckon is a bust

[Ludwig]

The Swans are more concerned with player development than winning, which is okay by me.

We may have made a commitment to Thurlow and Cllarke that we would give them a fair shot at making the senior side and not just a game or 2 and out.

COR and Rose are both more deserving of spots, based on performance.

[Markwebbos]

Is it just me, or could Ryan Clarke be RWO's new Dean Towers v1.0? Keeps getting picked because of NEAFL form, can't replicate it in the seniors.

[Ralph Dawg]

Is it just me, or could Ryan Clarke be RWO's new Dean Towers v1.0? Keeps getting picked because of NEAFL form, can't replicate it in the seniors.
IMHO, he wasn't that good in NEAFL. Rose, COR, Cameron and Stoddart were all more influential than Clarke. His vision, ball use and general decision making just stinks. DT was a far superior players who prior to his poke in the eye, was finally starting to get use to the pace and pressure of the AFL.

[Foreign Legion]

I personally think it is 2 weeks early for Rowbottom but we need pace against the Tigers clearly. He also may be the type of player who 'rises to the level' quickly. He is physically strong enough, good tackler etc.

I think the call on Blakey is a good one - he just needs to get his consistency up a bit and a few weeks in the NEAFL will help.

Pressure is on Sam Reid to perform. He has been just OK - gotta consider how much footy he has missed - but this is a critical year for Sam.

[AB Swannie]

I’m ok with the changes. However, it tells me that Mills isn’t moving to the mids anytime soon.

Rowbottom will likely play mostly forward and apply some more pressure than Blakey. For the future, this game may be a Rowbottom vs Ronke showdown. Whoever plays best stays next week.

Clarke will run from contest to contest and hopefully shuffle the ball out in an ungamely fashion to someone who can actually kick. McInerney couldn’t possibly remain after getting only one possession. I would’ve preferred to see COR in with Mills pushing into the kids but as ordinary as Clarke was a couple of weeks ago, I can’t question his will and effort.

In a way it seems like we are shuffling our bottom 4/6 throughout the season. We just need a few of them to make us stop the shuffling.

[Mel_C]

I'm surprised about Clarke getting a game based on comments by the NEAFL watchers. But we need help in the midfield so I can understand why he was selected. He got a lot of the ball in the JLT but struggled against the dogs and crows. Hopefully we see his preseason form return.

[Foreign Legion]

I would’ve preferred to see COR in with Mills pushing into the kids but as ordinary as Clarke was a couple of weeks ago, I can’t question his will and effort.



Imagine how lopsided the umpiring would be then:p

[AB Swannie]

Imagine how lopsided the umpiring would be then:p

Oops.

[Foreign Legion]

Hehe maybe the umps thought the Bulldogs were kids in 2016??? Clarke I think is played to apply pressure and outside run - we know his disposal is very average but again, at Marvel, and against Richmond, pace will matter and he is pretty quick with great endurance. Cameron, O'Riordan and Rose must be on the cusp.

[Scottee]

Clarke and Rowbottom for Blakey And McInerney

Emg: Blakey McInerney Fox Melican

Richmond: Houli and Martin for Graham and MenadueMy God, what has Rose what has Rose got to do to get a game?

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[aguy]

Well. I think I can 100% say that Longmire is now a 1 ruckman coach. Amazing how times change. All their years playing two ruckmen. Eg tippett / Sinclair. And before that Mumford / Pyke. In the latter years Naismith / Sinclair we all called for one ruck only which was how the competition was going. Eventually we caught on. Now when two ruckmen are back in vogue ( unless you have Brodie Grundy) then we are reluctant to change structure again.

[Melbourne_Blood]

I personally think it is 2 weeks early for Rowbottom but we need pace against the Tigers clearly. He also may be the type of player who 'rises to the level' quickly. He is physically strong enough, good tackler etc.

I think the call on Blakey is a good one - he just needs to get his consistency up a bit and a few weeks in the NEAFL will help.

Pressure is on Sam Reid to perform. He has been just OK - gotta consider how much footy he has missed - but this is a critical year for Sam.

On Rowbottom - He’s played well all preseason and so far in the NEAFL, we aren’t killing it in the seniors , might be two weeks too late really !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Markwebbos]

Well. I think I can 100% say that Longmire is now a 1 ruckman coach. Amazing how times change. All their years playing two ruckmen. Eg tippett / Sinclair. And before that Mumford / Pyke. In the latter years Naismith / Sinclair we all called for one ruck only which was how the competition was going. Eventually we caught on. Now when two ruckmen are back in vogue ( unless you have Brodie Grundy) then we are reluctant to change structure again.

I think Longmire sees himself as a coach who only has one ruckman. Don't think he trusts Cameron.

[ernie koala]

Is it just me, or could Ryan Clarke be RWO's new Dean Towers v1.0? Keeps getting picked because of NEAFL form, can't replicate it in the seniors.

At least Towers occasionally did something dynamic.

How Clarke gets a run ahead of O'Riordan or Rose is perplexing to say the least.

He was dropped after 2 really poor performances and gets rewarded with a recall for some ok form in the NEAFL...Really poor selection IMO.

[crackedactor]

I'm surprised about Clarke getting a game based on comments by the NEAFL watchers. But we need help in the midfield so I can understand why he was selected. He got a lot of the ball in the JLT but struggled against the dogs and crows. Hopefully we see his preseason form return.

He was average up to three quarter time with his usual shocking kicking. Then he had a good last quarter and actually found some targets with his kicking. Maybe they believe he has ironed out his kicking issue. I hope so. COR is very unlucky to be overlooked again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Auntie.Gerald]

It appears so far most neafl to snr selections are about roles required in snrs.......ie rose, COR etc would be should selected immediately on form

McInerney played 65% game time in the forwards last week which seemed crazy after his strong pre season HBF Wing performances

Clarke will no doubt tag / run with role on the wing because there is no way he should be in the team playing loose and by himself. He also played half his games in snrs at north off HB

Rowbottom seemed to play reasonable minutes upfront last neafl game and maybe required to play a small forward shut down roll against the Tigers ? His hunt and explosiveness will be welcome and no matter who we select we are pushing up hill against Richmond anyway with our terrible form so far as a team ........lastly it feels like Rowbottom is picked because Heeney is looking not likely

On the positive - I’m super stoked we get a chance at the tigers without rance, reiwoldt, cochin etc

[aguy]

I think Longmire sees himself as a coach who only has one ruckman. Don't think he trusts Cameron.
That was part of my point. For years he persisted as a two ruck coach. I agree now he is definitely a one ruck coach and unwilling to experiment

[lwjoyner]

wrong decision to continue with i1 ruckman. Cameron needs to be played.

[Ralph Dawg]

wrong decision to continue with i1 ruckman. Cameron needs to be played.
I can see the logic in not playing 2 ruckmen this week. Tigers only have one ruck and their team is full of fast, 180-190cm types. If we had both Sinclair and Cameron in, we may be too slow. On the flip side, I do remember a game v St Kilda where Sinclair dominated as a tall forward, using his height and size to smash the Saints. Problem with this is we are not winning the ball at the contest, so there would be a good chance he would catch a cold. On the Clarke selection, yes he is fast and has good endurance. But so does the Kenyan runner Kipchoge! Stoddart has pace, endurance and much
better skills.

[liz]

wrong decision to continue with i1 ruckman. Cameron needs to be played.

I'm with Ralph Dawg. Does anyone really think that against the Tigers, at Marvel Stadium, is the time to be switching to two ruckmen?

[rb4x]

So mis it better to save Cameron for Collingwood and Port Adelaide and have him monstered by the best ruckmen going around or play him against Ricmond where he would be a decent chance of getting on top of Nankervis/Balta and give Sinclair a break in the forward lines. We have enough other non performing talls that we could easily rest one.

[Markwebbos]

That was part of my point. For years he persisted as a two ruck coach. I agree now he is definitely a one ruck coach and unwilling to experiment

I’m sure if Naismith was available he’d consider playing 2.

[Markwebbos]

Wasn’t sure where to post this, but this article in the HS may back up Liz’s argument.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/sydney/mick-mcguane-column-why-josh-kennedy-is-the-man-to-stop-richmond-superstar-dustin-martin/news-story/90ea0c11fdab19af4d5c7b38f8cc89f9

There’s been a lot of talk about Lance Franklin this week, but the biggest challenge for Sydney is to get their midfield right — because at the moment they’re getting smashed.

They’re ranked 17th for contested possession and 17th at clearance differential.

Their stoppage work has completely fallen away. They’ve only averaged 26.5 points per game from stoppages and that’s ranked 18th in the competition.

Sydney are only averaging four goals, which was a major scoring source for them previously.

They’ve been outscored by nearly three goals per game from stoppages and are ranked 18th on that marker.

Is it personnel? Is it their structure? Is it individuals not playing their role? All questions that Longmire must have the answers for.

As a result of having a poor stoppage game the scoreboard is suffering either side of the ball. The game ends up being played in their back half and that’s not the modern game.

This is a crunch match for Sydney’s season, and it must start in and around stoppages.

[liz]

We have rested a tall who has provided little in Blakey (though the quality of the little he has provided has been pretty good), and brought in a smaller player in his stead (in Rowbottom). Based on where Rowbottom has played in the NEAFL this year, I expect him to be primarily used as a small forward/half-forward, effectively replacing Blakey.

Your argument seems to be that a combination of Cameron/Sinclair would be more effective than a combination of Reid/Sinclair. We can't know for sure, but a combination of experience and mobility would suggest that, at least in the immediate term, Reid is likely to provide more than Cameron.

[liz]

Wasn’t sure where to post this, but this article in the HS may back up Liz’s argument.

Category: | Herald Sun (https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/sydney/mick-mcguane-column-why-josh-kennedy-is-the-man-to-stop-richmond-superstar-dustin-martin/news-story/90ea0c11fdab19af4d5c7b38f8cc89f9)

There’s been a lot of talk about Lance Franklin this week, but the biggest challenge for Sydney is to get their midfield right — because at the moment they’re getting smashed.

They’re ranked 17th for contested possession and 17th at clearance differential.

Their stoppage work has completely fallen away. They’ve only averaged 26.5 points per game from stoppages and that’s ranked 18th in the competition.

Sydney are only averaging four goals, which was a major scoring source for them previously.

They’ve been outscored by nearly three goals per game from stoppages and are ranked 18th on that marker.

Is it personnel? Is it their structure? Is it individuals not playing their role? All questions that Longmire must have the answers for.

As a result of having a poor stoppage game the scoreboard is suffering either side of the ball. The game ends up being played in their back half and that’s not the modern game.

This is a crunch match for Sydney’s season, and it must start in and around stoppages.

I think there are two factors contributing to the net scores from stoppages. One is certainly a drop off in the ability to win clearances ourselves, and score from them. But in past years, we've also been blessed with a defence that was able to prevent the opposition scoring themselves from stoppages. The 6-6-6 change - ie the inability to play a spare man in defence - may be contributing. But we've also seen a marked change in personnel from a defensive group that has been very stable for a number of years. Specifically, we have been without Smith and Reg for most of the season, and McVeigh for the last game. That's over 800 games of experience missing from our backline. I think the effect was noticeable against Melbourne, in particular. Even if you allow for the arsiness of some of the goals they kicked, there were other times when they were able to get a shot at goal away far too easily.

Of course, there's no easy solution given that all three of the missing players are close to the end of their careers. It's up to the newer incumbents to learn how to work together to build a defensive unit as stingy as that we have enjoyed in seasons past. We've been watching a transition of the forward line over a few seasons now, and the midfield over the last couple. But finally that transition has reached our defensive unit too. And while I think part of the answer to our midfield issues is currently playing in defence, I can kinda understand why the coaches are loathe to move him from there.

[Ludwig]

Your argument seems to be that a combination of Cameron/Sinclair would be more effective than a combination of Reid/Sinclair. We can't know for sure, but a combination of experience and mobility would suggest that, at least in the immediate term, Reid is likely to provide more than Cameron.My question is why can't we 'experiment' with playing Cameron instead of Sinclair. We seem to be fine bringing in rookies like McInerney and Rowbottom, but there seems to be a wall around Cameron, despite his consistent high performances in the reserves.

Sinclair has improved so much since coming to the Swans, but we need someone who can put up a better fight at ruck contests. Cameron does well in the reserves. Why not give him a go in the AFL? He has a size advantage over Sinclair, which alone should help balance the ruck contests.

[liz]

My question is why can't we 'experiment' with playing Cameron instead of Sinclair. We seem to be fine bringing in rookies like McInerney and Rowbottom, but there seems to be a wall around Cameron, despite his consistent high performances in the reserves.

Sinclair has improved so much since coming to the Swans, but we need someone who can put up a better fight at ruck contests. Cameron does well in the reserves. Why not give him a go in the AFL? He has a size advantage over Sinclair, which alone should help balance the ruck contests.

I see Cameron as a very similar kind of ruckman to Sinclair, which is probably part of the problem in playing them together. It also makes "resting" Sinclair in favour of Cameron a big call.

I know that Cameron is listed at 5cm taller than Sinclair but I think he's a little less mobile. I wasn't that impressed by his NEAFL ruck work in his first year at the club. I thought looked more like a tall (but relatively non mobile) forward who might be able to pinch hit in the ruck. He's certainly improved his ruck work since then, and even more so, improved his around the ground contributions, but I'm not convinced he'll prove to be a more effective stoppage ruckman than Sinclair if he ever gets an extended chance at senior level. I thought he was clearly outpointed by Nicholls in ruck contests last week, for example. (Though over the course of the game, he was the more valuable contributor of the two because he played the game out and contributed much more around the ground than Nicholls did.)

I do get that we won't know until Cameron gets a chance. But it would be an incredibly big call to drop Sinclair in favour of Cameron. While he has his limitations, he's one of the few players on the list that almost always gives his all during games, even when up against a bigger and/or more talented opponent. It might take an injury to Sinclair to force the coaches' hand, but I'd never want to hope one of our players gets injured, even for a short time.

[rb4x]

Sam Reid
Disposals Tackles Score HO
WB 10 0 2.1 0
Ade 9 5 1.0 4
Car 14 5 0.1 6
Mel 11 2 0.1 4

Ave 11 3 0.5 3.5

Sam is averaging eleven disposals, three tackles, 3.5 hit outs and less than one goal per game. Cameron would not have to exactly star to match those numbers. We have dropped Blakey and have gone a little shorter this week so there is a bit more room for another tall. No tipster at the AFL has us beating Richmond anyway so perhaps we have little to lose. I did not name Reid to be dropped as thre are other talls not going great guns as well. McCartin does not have big numbers, either and either Franklin or Sinclair might actually benefit from a rest.

Just a bit frustrated that we have these guys like Cameron and Rose burning it up in the NEAFL yet they are not considered for a game. Don't know what Clarke did to get a recall ahead of COR and if match ups were being looked at then Melican might have been the player to sit on Lynch. Easter is the time for miracles and the Swans will need one this weekend.

[Blood Fever]

Sinclair has been one of our best players this year and was arguably BOG v Carlton. His mobility makes him a threat near goal. He does get worn down by the likes of Gawn and Grundy but so does Nankervis who gets monstered by bigger opponents. In the first half last week, our midfield was on fire but faded. That's our biggest concern. Our collective midfield group is not nimble enough for long enough.

[liz]

Sam is averaging eleven disposals, three tackles, 3.5 hit outs and less than one goal per game. Cameron would not have to exactly star to match those numbers. We have dropped Blakey and have gone a little shorter this week so there is a bit more room for another tall. No tipster at the AFL has us beating Richmond anyway so perhaps we have little to lose. I did not name Reid to be dropped as thre are other talls not going great guns as well. McCartin does not have big numbers, either and either Franklin or Sinclair might actually benefit from a rest.

Your earlier comment referred specifically to picking Cameron so as to give Sinclair a rest in the forward line, which means picking both in the team, not resting Sinclair entirely.

The idea of "resting" Franklin just to play Cameron has no merit in my eyes. You're talking about one of the all time greats who attracts huge attention from the opposition, compared to a guy who has one game of AFL under his belt. If Franklin is injured, sure, he shouldn't be in the team but I don't think there's any suggestion he is.

McCartin is currently playing in defence. His raw disposal numbers are irrelevant, and his inclusion is even less relevant to a discussion about whether Cameron and Sinclair should be picked in the same team. Unless you're suggesting Cameron should be selected to play as a key defender, a position I've never seen him play in his time in the NEAFL team. The relevant discussion around McCartin is between him and Melican (or Grundy, as and when Grundy has recovered from injury).

So effectively, a call to replace "an underperforming tall" with Cameron has to come down to a choice between him and Reid.

]

[wolftone57]

I see Cameron as a very similar kind of ruckman to Sinclair, which is probably part of the problem in playing them together. It also makes "resting" Sinclair in favour of Cameron a big call.

I know that Cameron is listed at 5cm taller than Sinclair but I think he's a little less mobile. I wasn't that impressed by his NEAFL ruck work in his first year at the club. I thought looked more like a tall (but relatively non mobile) forward who might be able to pinch hit in the ruck. He's certainly improved his ruck work since then, and even more so, improved his around the ground contributions, but I'm not convinced he'll prove to be a more effective stoppage ruckman than Sinclair if he ever gets an extended chance at senior level. I thought he was clearly outpointed by Nicholls in ruck contests last week, for example. (Though over the course of the game, he was the more valuable contributor of the two because he played the game out and contributed much more around the ground than Nicholls did.)

I do get that we won't know until Cameron gets a chance. But it would be an incredibly big call to drop Sinclair in favour of Cameron. While he has his limitations, he's one of the few players on the list that almost always gives his all during games, even when up against a bigger and/or more talented opponent. It might take an injury to Sinclair to force the coaches' hand, but I'd never want to hope one of our players gets injured, even for a short time.I would not be calling for Sinclair to be dropped either. My take is Cameron and Sinclair can survive in the same team at the expense of Reid. Cameron does a few things well. His defensive 50 work is very good. He gets plenty around the ground. He goes forward and kicks goals. My only objection to him as an AFL player is that I think he needs to attack the contest harder. Crash packs, protect the smalls by blocking and shepherding.

If he steps up the attack in the contest he could be a very good AFL player because everything else is in place. I think the person he probably bmneed to talk with is Jason Ball. They have similar physique, similar qualities, it's just Jason's attack on the contest was fierce in an unassuming way.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[Ludwig]

It's not a knock on Sinclair, who I think has been super since he took over the sole ruck duties. I just wonder how long this can go on without Sinclair getting injured and being forced to make a ruck change. Why don't we give Cameron a go while we still have 2 walking ruckman on the list. I just wonder when would be a better chance to give Cameron a few games than at the same time Naismith is injured. Let's find out what our ruck stocks are like.

[Markwebbos]

I liked Liz's earlier suggestion which was Blakey out, Cameron in - a tall for a tall, even if Cameron might be less mobile than Blakey. I also think it would be better to give Cameron a run against a weaker ruck combo such as Richmond.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Interestingly I thought the changes made against us when we played melb last week was what killed us.......ie when melb went small in the forward line and lead fast and hard for Marks we stumbled

Maybe we feel we should be doing similar this week

[liz]

I liked Liz's earlier suggestion which was Blakey out, Cameron in - a tall for a tall, even if Cameron might be less mobile than Blakey. I also think it would be better to give Cameron a run against a weaker ruck combo such as Richmond.

I don't agree with the suggestion that the time to try Cameron is against a weaker opponent. If he is to come into the side it's either got to be because his inclusion can make the side stronger, or because he's the last ruckman standing.

Richmond are weak, relative to other clubs, in the ruck. (Not saying that Nankervis isn't a competent player, but he's no better than Sinclair, no taller than Sinclair, and the Tigers don't have a strong relief ruckman.) They are strong relative to other clubs in the small, quick man stakes. If we were in imperious form, with all aspects of the team functioning well, there might be an argument for trying to exploit an opposition weakness by loading up in that direction. But only if the club were confident it could dictate the way the game is played. With our current mix of young players struggling for four quarter consistency, and experienced stalwarts not in top form, that would be a recipe for disaster. The best hope is to be able to match Richmond in the way they will try to play the game.

There may be other teams against whom playing two ruckmen won't make us relatively weaker in other aspects of team make up.

To suggest that "finding out about how players might go" should take precedence over putting out a team with the greatest chance of winning a game is, for me, throwing in the towel for the season. And after just four rounds, that's not something I support.

[Ludwig]

To suggest that "finding out about how players might go" should take precedence over putting out a team with the greatest chance of winning a game is, for me, throwing in the towel for the season. And after just four rounds, that's not something I support.But isn't throwing in McInerney last week, and now Rowbottom, sort of just finding out how players might go? We haven't been picking the best team, but I understand that player development is part of the process, so we can't put our best team on the park every week.

There must be something the coaches don't think is right about Cameron, but I don't know what it is. I can't understand why it never seems his turn to have go, despite stellar performances in the reserves.

[liz]

But isn't throwing in McInerney last week, and now Rowbottom, sort of just finding out how players might go? We haven't been picking the best team, but I understand that player development is part of the process, so we can't put our best team on the park every week.

There must be something the coaches don't think is right about Cameron, but I don't know what it is. I can't understand why it never seems his turn to have go, despite stellar performances in the reserves.

To an extent. I'd give Rose a go ahead of either McInerney or Rowbottom, but Rose is a marginal player at best. Similarly, I'm not quite sure why COR isn't getting a better run (unless he's being punished still for making that bad 50m penalty blue a couple of weeks ago).

But both of those players are pretty inexperienced themselves, and still fringe players. I don't think there's a huge difference in the likely outcome of a game by choosing one of them over a first gamer. On the other hand, switching to a two ruckman structure, something that's only been tried once in recent seasons (and with a bad outcome) is a pretty big structural change. And picking Cameron over either Sinclair or Reid would be a much bigger call than selecting Rowbottom or McInerney over COR or Rose (or Stoddart, who I thought would have been a good inclusion this week).

I do think Cameron deserves a decent go at senior level, and maybe experimenting with two ruckmen (and leaving one of them forward for extended periods) has some merit. But only if it increases the chances of the team winning. I don't think it would against Richmond at Marvel Stadium.

[Ralph Dawg]

I'm on the fence about Cameron and Sinclair playing together. Happy enough that it's not happening this week given our opposition and current midfield form but would like to see it happen at some stage. Those centre bounces and playing on ball in general play would really take it out of you, especially when you are circa 200cm and 100kg in size.
Re. Midfield we need to just be harder at the contest. There are too many standing off the ball watching and waiting, a bit like my U9 team's last game. They were still a little uncertain at the contest with the introduction of tackle post Auskick! When I ask my kids at half time why, they either said they were worried they would get tackled and give away a penalty or that they would miss a tackle and give up possession. I told them just to crash into the pack and go hard for the ball. They turned around a 6 goal half time deficit to lose by only a goal (not that scores are kept....). It wouldn't surprise me if the swans midfield has a similar mindset to the kids although I do recognise U9s is not AFL and I'm not Longmire 😉

[Blood Fever]

I'm on the fence about Cameron and Sinclair playing together. Happy enough that it's not happening this week given our opposition and current midfield form but would like to see it happen at some stage. Those centre bounces and playing on ball in general play would really take it out of you, especially when you are circa 200cm and 100kg in size.
Re. Midfield we need to just be harder at the contest. There are too many standing off the ball watching and waiting, a bit like my U9 team's last game. They were still a little uncertain at the contest with the introduction of tackle post Auskick! When I ask my kids at half time why, they either said they were worried they would get tackled and give away a penalty or that they would miss a tackle and give up possession. I told them just to crash into the pack and go hard for the ball. They turned around a 6 goal half time deficit to lose by only a goal (not that scores are kept....). It wouldn't surprise me if the swans midfield has a similar mindset to the kids although I do recognise U9s is not AFL and I'm not Longmire 😉

Need you in the box RD. On a serious note, not sure we can have Kennedy and Parker on ball together any more. Whenever there is a loose ball to run onto, we are often beaten to it by quicker off the mark players. Hewitt not that quick either.

[Aaron]

Fox, McInerney, McLean and Cameron did not play in the NEAFL win. So possibly some late changes to the Senior Team.

[Faunac8]

Is it just me, or could Ryan Clarke be RWO's new Dean Towers v1.0? Keeps getting picked because of NEAFL form, can't replicate it in the seniors.

That’s harsh but probably because much as I appreciated Delano I know it’s true😀

[Bexl]

Franklin practicing RIGHT foot snaps from 35 out in the warm up.
And kicking them .

[ugg]

Franklin practicing RIGHT foot snaps from 35 out in the warm up.
And kicking them .

Where is Rowbottom warming up? Mids or forwards?

[Bexl]

So is mccartin

- - - Updated - - -

Rowbottom forward

- - - Updated - - -

Clark looks like playing backline

- - - Updated - - -

Mills taking shots at goal so maybe more mid time

- - - Updated - - -

Mills taking shots at goal so maybe more mid time

[ugg]

Friend says Mills warming up with the mids?

[Nico]

2 tackles inside our forward 50 tells it all. Almost all their goals have come from our turnovers. Goodness knows how many out of our forward 50. Florent is officially a dumb footballer. What he did at the end of that quarter was very poor football. Held on to it way too long then tries to finness. Jones runs into an open goal and short passes. Dumb. Parker is clear in the middle and handballs to a Richmond player. We are playing really dumb footy all round.

[Nico]

Florent again. What an ordinary footballer. Will he ever learn?

[Blood Fever]

Florent again. What an ordinary footballer. Will he ever learn?

Are you serious? One of our most promising players and courageous to boot.