Changes for Rnd 5 V West Coast

**liz** · 19th April 2016, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by WauchopeAnalyst

So he should have played NEAFL, if it was good enough for GOODES its good enough for every player on our list.

McVeigh and Longmire used it as a practice game for him. 8 tackles but he was second to every ball. Easy to tackle when you arrive late or wrestling for a ball.

Goodes didn't start in the reserves. He dropped down because he was struggling for form and he and the coaches agreed he was more likely to regain touch and fitness playing a couple of 120 games in the reserves than sitting on the pine for three quarters wearing a fluorescent green jacket.

I don't have a problem with McVeigh coming straight back into the senior team and nor do I think that's why we lost the game. I don't think that Jones or Hewett would have made the difference. I also strongly believe that McVeigh remains an important cog in the team, and that the team will be stronger when he's fully into the senior groove. He is not going to pick up the pace of senior footy running around in the NEAFL beating Redlands by close to 100 points.

One rule for the experienced and one for the kids? Certainly that's the case. He's earned the right by winning a couple of B&Fs and an AA, and for playing 250 odd senior games. Nor is he still learning the game, the game-plan, or honing his endurance - all things that younger players can benefit towards playing at a lower level.

**graemed** · 20th April 2016, 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by liz

I don't have a problem with McVeigh coming straight back into the senior team and nor do I think that's why we lost the game. I don't think that Jones or Hewett would have made the difference. I also strongly believe that McVeigh remains an important cog in the team, and that the team will be stronger when he's fully into the senior groove. He is not going to pick up the pace of senior footy running around in the NEAFL beating Redlands by close to 100 points.

One rule for the experienced and one for the kids?

I do not disagree that McVeigh is a key player. As I have noted in earlier posts I believe he is our best distributor and certainly our best decision maker. And now he is back in the team it makes no sense to send him to the NEAFL.

I do however have genuine concerns about whether he was fit enough to play in the round 4 game for which he was selected.

Like McGlynn and Richards, the week before and to a lesser extent last week his timing was off, he was being led to the ball and he looked to be tentative to take a lead role when we needed him in the clearances.

At this time we are being stretched by teams with genuine leg speed. GWS threatened whenever they had the ball and it was pressure by Parker in particular but not exclusively that got us into a winning position. Last week saw a similar situation with slick defensive/midfield types running at us from the deep defensive 50 and seeking and hitting leading options.

This week we will be confronted by a team that set the standard for running aggressive defence last year. Without Jones or Towers in the team we lose important speed to counter leading players or to create pressure on ball carriers and force errors that may lead to turnovers.

I do not advocate wholesale sackings but Sinclair must come into the team if fit, that means like for like Nankervis must go out. Reality is catching up to Ted but if he can get some form back he is a quality player.

So how can I fit Jones into the team?

I think McGlynn is still a capable player but we cannot continue to use Heeney as a key position marking forward and two small forwards is one too many. So Papley or McGlynn? My vote is for McGlynn at this time but let him know he must improve to keep his spot.

That means:
Ins Jones, Sinclair
Out Nankervis, Papley

I would use McVeigh in the forward 50, Jones off H/B and Mills on the wing

**707** · 20th April 2016, 12:23 PM

Towers did bugger all last week, low numbers of everything including pressure acts, doesn't deserve another chance. Must reward those with strong NEAFL form be that Rose or Jones.

McVeigh was good last week and deserved to come straight in, will be better for the run.

Sinclair for Toby is a given if he is fit, will want to play against the old side.

**Matimbo** · 20th April 2016, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by liz

If we were to move every player out of our defence who makes the occasional (or more than occasional) clanger, we would literally have no defenders. For all the great work they do, Smith, Rampe, Reg, Ted and Laidler are all guilty of some really awful disposals at times.

Yes, I agree with your point here Liz. I think the reason I see Mills differently is that Smith, Rampe, etc are all experienced defenders, whereas Mills is not. Just thought a change of role for a bit would be a good thing for him - but not at the expense of overall team balance.

**Matimbo** · 20th April 2016, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by barry

McVeigh must be on notice that another poor performance against a good side will not be acceptable.

McVeigh really provides a lot of on-field direction for players around him. Sometimes its not so obvious on TV but if you're at the game - particularly if close to the fence - you can really notice it. For this alone, he is right at the top of my team list when fit, even if his personal stats look a little down.

**Meg** · 20th April 2016, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Matimbo

McVeigh really provides a lot of on-field direction for players around him. Sometimes its not so obvious on TV but if you're at the game - particularly if close to the fence - you can really notice it. For this alone, he is right at the top of my team list when fit, even if his personal stats look a little down.

I agree. And it is obvious from many comments made by John Longmire that Longmire values McVeigh's on-field (and off-field) leadership very highly.

**snajik** · 20th April 2016, 03:37 PM

Has it been mentioned that Papley only had 51% game time against the Crows. Not sure how that compares with his earlier games but doesn't sound like a lot of time in which to shine. Perhaps they couldn't get the right match ups. I'd rather he had another crack at it, particularly on the SCG. Weaker opposition this weekend. I'm thinking we'll win fairly comfortably.

**Mug Punter** · 20th April 2016, 11:17 PM

I actually would make no changes at all. Towers needs a run to make or break his career, sure we cannot carry games like last week long term but I think confidence is his issue and faith and loyalty (to a point) is what he needs. Plus a giant sized rocket up his clacker at about 1.20pm on Saturday.....

What would we be saying if we had won? Because we lost a 50/50 match by one kick really and we had the rub of the green go against us. It was actually a pretty solid effort and Towers is the only one who deserves dropping but I think we need to throw down the gauntlet to him to prove he is a senior footballer for this club.

**Ludwig** · 21st April 2016, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Mug Punter

I actually would make no changes at all. Towers needs a run to make or break his career, sure we cannot carry games like last week long term but I think confidence is his issue and faith and loyalty (to a point) is what he needs. Plus a giant sized rocket up his clacker at about 1.20pm on Saturday.....

What would we be saying if we had won? Because we lost a 50/50 match by one kick really and we had the rub of the green go against us. It was actually a pretty solid effort and Towers is the only one who deserves dropping but I think we need to throw down the gauntlet to him to prove he is a senior footballer for this club.

Gary Rohan comes off the LTIL after this game, so Papley will be dropped next week anyway. I don't think we will be that quick to reinstate him to the senior list in place of AJ, but rather wait to see what our specific needs are on a week by week basis. For example, we may have a need for a halfback due to injury, and we have 3 of them on our rookie list, including Marsh and Newman, who would have a reasonable case for senior upgrade. We all agree that Papley has done well, but his value needs to be measured against others available for selection. McGlynn makes it a bit hard for Papley to hold his spot at this point in time. I doubt that going back to the reserves will hurt his long term chances at all. In fact, I see him as a replacement for McGlynn, even perhaps later this year.

I have suggested Sinclair, Jones and Hewett come in for Nanka, Papley and Towers this week. I don't think the result of the Adelaide game influenced my opinion, but rather who I think will give better value in this very important game against a tough opponent. I'm a big supporter of developing players by selecting suitable games for them to appear during the year. I know many others disagree and say we should always select our best 22. For this week though, I think we should select our best 22. I don't expect everyone to agree with my suggested changes, but we each have our opinions on what various players have to offer, which is fair enough.

**Maltopia** · 21st April 2016, 12:22 AM

Hey Ludwig, good post there.

I agree with most of your post, except think that three changes seems a lot for a team that only just lost with some crappy calls against us at crucial times (e.g., push in the back by Betts). With WC strong running/pace, I'd be inclined to give Towers another chance due to his speed and endurance. If he fails again, then Brisbane in the next round would be a good opportunity to blood Aliir or Abe Davis?

**dimelb** · 21st April 2016, 09:34 AM

The only change I'd make is send Nanka back to the ressies, even though he had a decent game against the Crows, simply because Callum the Large is the best partner for Tippo.

I agree with others that it's make or break season for Towers and we need to back him in with some tough love to get the most from him. Jones and Hewett have earned their place and I expect will be back in soon.