If we bring in Tippo and only go with one of Sam or Toby it may simply come down to who is most capable to ruck for 70% of game time.
If we bring in Tippo and only go with one of Sam or Toby it may simply come down to who is most capable to ruck for 70% of game time.
I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time
agree with that. saw them live on the weekend and their lack of speed against Hawthorn was telling. Hill in particular cut them open.Originally Posted by crackedactor
I was thinking that too. Worth trying for the next 2 games (provided weather is dry).
Doesn't make sense on 3 accounts:
- It's not time to make a major change to the team structure that is working so well. Playing an extra ruckman in lieu of a speedy midfielder (who would you drop?) would slow the team down and if anything we would rather speed it up a bit.
- Both Naismith and Nankervis have been playing under 70% game time. Tippett will be working his way back into game fitness and will also likely have a somewhat reduced game time from normal. So it places an additional burden on the other players that have to take up the load.
- North Melbourne have a tall defence capable of defending well against tall forwards. You beat them with speed and gut running. Hawthorn cut them up on the outside.
No change. Tippet plays neafl.
+1
My contention was that this must be like for like and if Tippett is selected it must be at the cost of either Naismith or Nankervis.
Other selection changes would need to be similarly weighted toward team balance. If Laidler is to be promoted it must be in lieu of a defender perhaps Cunningham although I doubt this will happen as the latter appears fit and has genuine pace. If Towers was omitted it must be to include a player who can play that switch role including going 3rd man up, providing a link as a hit up and as a genuine half forward. Marsh may be capable of such a role but unsure who else fits the bill besides Reid who clearly is unavailable.
Although not quick, in the usual sense, a winning inside midfield combined with Lloyd and the half backs means the ball moves very quickly and I would be loathe to mess with what seems to be working.
I love the work Naismith and Nankervis have done but have no doubt we are a better team with Tippett.
Normally I'd say he should be NEAFL, but given his value, and how close we are to finals, I'd say he needs to play seniors.
Having said that, I say play all three.
Tippo will likely play 70 - 70% of game time, and most of that in the forward line.
I'd begrudgingly omit Richards for this week, and next week probably Nankervis has to move out for Richards back in.
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
We are playing some very good football at the moment. I think other than Tippett we have had our finals side out there the last 3 weeks. The Naismith VS Nanka debate is not just for this weekend but for the rest of this season. Naismith is the far superior ruckman so should get the nod. Players like Laidler are just there in case of injury now.
One of the questions on 360 tonight was "Are the Swans any better with Tippett playing".
Answer was yes. Just.
The problem is not with the question nor the reply but with the respondent. Nothing that arrogant peacock says carries any credibility.
His character was displayed for all to see when Goodes was vilified
"Arrogant peacock". Yep.
Who was it? Dermott is my guess ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks