Changes for Rnd 7 v Bulldogs (Nipper Gordon to debut!)

**stellation** · 5th May 2011, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by liz

I think Playfair did with his post reserves-game comments.

Ahh, of course.

If Jed Lamb debuts I will wet my pants.

**ugg** · 5th May 2011, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Doctor

So who's everyone in the Forum going to complain about now?

I don't think there's any chance that all the usual suspects will be dropped in one go. Failing that, we can always blame the umpires of course.

**ShockOfHair** · 5th May 2011, 02:45 PM

And the stewards.

**Brettb** · 5th May 2011, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Scottee

Can't understand the perception of Pyke not pulling his weight. It dosen't add up. Here are the stats from the game with a few comparisons:

Disp K H M Tackles HO Cl I50 CP 1% G
Pyke 7 2 5 1 6 20 2 1 8 6 0
Mummy 11 5 4 4 7 34 1 4 9 8 2
White 3 2 1 0 4 0 0 1 3 3 0
Jetta 6 4 2 1 2 0 0 2 6 3 0

I havn't got the TOG stats but I would imagine that he only spent about 60% of the time on the ground that Mummy did. This makes his stats very impressive for a big man on a wet night. The goals that Mummy got was because Pyke was taking the load in the ruck.

Let me get this right, you are comparing him to some of the worst performers on the night (aside from Mumford) to whom he had a comparable night in terms of stats and argue at the same time that he was impressive?

Mike had the following:

7 Disposals, of which he had a 43% disposal effeciency.
4 Clangers
1 Mark
3 Frees against ( 0 for)
3 Tackles

I have never questioned his ruck work, however his ability around the ground is not up to standard.

As a footnote, the only two players on the ground who played with a worse disposal effeciency than Mike, were Paul Bevan (40% from 5 disposals) and Andrejs Everitt (40% from 5 disposals) who have both been condemned for their respective performances.

**S120** · 5th May 2011, 03:07 PM

Last year his work around the ground really improved as the year wore on but he is at somewhat of a disadvantage this year as he is forced to play at FF due to the new sub rule. I think if he stays in the seniors we won't see (statistically anyway) the same input as last year simply because he will not be playing the same amount of time in the ruck as in 2010.

I thought he did OK last week though in and around the forward 50. The conditions certainly didn't help him, but his movement was pretty sound and he made contests every time. Ball didn't just lurch back out on the rebound after he got near it I thought.

**laughingnome** · 5th May 2011, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Brettb

Originally Posted by Scottee

Name	D	K	H	M	T	HO	Cl	I50	CP	1%	G
Pyke	7	2	5	1	6	20	2	1	8	6	0
Mummy	11	5	4	4	7	34	1	4	9	8	2
White	3	2	1	0	4	0	0	1	3	3	0
Jetta	6	4	2	1	2	0	0	2	6	3	0

[edited for easier reading]

Let me get this right, you are comparing him to some of the worst performers on the night (aside from Mumford) to whom he had a comparable night in terms of stats and argue at the same time that he was impressive?

I think the stats say that Pyke put in a much greater effort than White did, both on the night and in past weeks when White has backed up the ruck. Considering Pyke spent 12% less time on the ground than Mumford (74% to Mummy's 84%) I think his numbers add up quite well. His disposal effeciency was bad, yes, but he was hardly alone on Friday. With his less time taken into account, he equals Mumford in tackles and contested possessions, and no one is questioning his ruckwork. We know Mumford can't ruck all day, why is there a question over playing Pyke?

**Kirkari** · 5th May 2011, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by ugg

Just keep this between you and me: Bevo and White have been dropped.

In: Reg and Seaby?

**Frog** · 5th May 2011, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Brettb

As a footnote, the only two players on the ground who played with a worse disposal effeciency than Mike, were Paul Bevan (40% from 5 disposals) and Andrejs Everitt (40% from 5 disposals) who have both been condemned for their respective performances.

Comparable, comparable ... Bevan had a whole match for this, Everitt a quarter ... and I would like it known I am not in the "condemn Everitt for his performance" camp. That doesn't mean I am in Bevan's per s?. What it does mean is that I allow Everitt some leeway for coming in from the cold being a sub. I really hate the AFL for that specific rule. Not Everitt for not being able to cope with it, nor Longmire for not being able to see that.

**liz** · 5th May 2011, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by S120

Last year his work around the ground really improved as the year wore on but he is at somewhat of a disadvantage this year as he is forced to play at FF due to the new sub rule. I think if he stays in the seniors we won't see (statistically anyway) the same input as last year simply because he will not be playing the same amount of time in the ruck as in 2010.

I thought he did OK last week though in and around the forward 50. The conditions certainly didn't help him, but his movement was pretty sound and he made contests every time. Ball didn't just lurch back out on the rebound after he got near it I thought.

I don't really understand the logic of this. Once they have decided to play a second specialist ruckman, why does it follow that they will spend less time in the ruck due to the sub rule? It means that they will probably spend less time on the bench but unless Pyke is substantially worse in the ruck than Mumford, why wouldn't you split them more evenly and give them both time up forward, down back or anywhere else they can add value. With White as a pinch hit ruckman it obviously made sense to use him very sparingly (because he's not very good at it). But that doesn't really apply to Pyke. As much as anything, I am looking forward to seeing how the combination gives them the chance to use Mumford more in the forward line and whether he can be consistently dangerous down there.

**Mr Magoo** · 5th May 2011, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Kirkari

In: Reg and Seaby?

I hope not. Our biggest weakness at the moment is our lack of decent goal kickers/ proper forwards and adding a ruckman to that mix is not going to help.

Seaby , Pyke and Mummy are a waste in the same side. We wouldnt have played three ruckman when the sub rule didnt exist so why would you do it now.

**dimelb** · 5th May 2011, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Triple B

... As for Nipper, what you will get is a ferocious attack on the ball, a ferocious attack on the man (he's an excellent tackler) and a pretty damn good overhead mark. You won't get super silky skills however, so I'll be watching with immense interest as well. I just hope he doesn't get crucified if he makes a few clangers as he will no doubt be nervous and one's skills rarely improve under pressure. ...

Sounds less like KJ, more like Jude's successor. The best of luck to him.