Probably wouldn't use him at centre bounces. Still could be a late change. If anyone came in, surely would have to be Allir.Originally Posted by MattW
Probably wouldn't use him at centre bounces. Still could be a late change. If anyone came in, surely would have to be Allir.
I think the plan must be to �turn� Blicavs and have him tap to us. Games first double agent.
Planning to completely concede the ruck contest is better than going with someone who will compete but get badly beaten. Then at least all your midfielders are setting up to rove the opposition ruckman, and/or blanket their midfielders at ground level - and you just need someone manning the opposition ruckman to force them to tap the ball (ie. prevent them from just taking the ball out of the ruck, they can't do that if someone is right there waiting to tackle them).
We're not skilled enough, and not in good enough form in any case, to play a chip-it-around possession game, so I can't see how it will work unless Sinclair plays forward, being that lead-up option to the wings to provide contests, taking the centre bounces and then going back forward. Around the ground then a combination of players including Parker can be that defensive body at the ball-ups etc.
We're about to find out why he never uses plan B. He might be more astute than I give him credit for.
It's his in game decisions that are the worry. Too slow or won't change players/structure when the game needs it.
Not sure you can praise him for this team selection but i admit i'm interested in what they have planned.
Hopefully even if we lose we can some new perspective on players and team format
I hope poor old Sinkers has his weety bix for breaky. He's going to be a busy boy.
Well the mobile site sucks for editing posts...
Ridiculous that Scott Selwood is even playing. It is as if all the work done on concussions in the last decade has gone out the window over the last week.
The ruck is not as big an issue as people are making it out. They are playing Stanley (who is mediocre at best in the ruck), with Bliclavs as support (who is best suited to 3rd man up). So pinch hitters around the ground are ok. You'd think Sinclair would do every centre clearance.
Very surprised Robinson is in over Newman, Aliir and others. He seems to be a favourite that is in whenever he is fit. He won't be rucking (6ft tall and rather light), so you'd think he is replacing Hanners running capacity. Mills to the middle to allow Parker/Kennedy/Jack more forward time, with Ronke spending most time there too.
GWS are only playing Patton with no recognised ruckman against Brisbane / Stefan Martin this weekend. Interesting times
No Towers???
OMG, I never thought I'd ever say this, BUT, OMG... that's a big loss.
I hope they prove me wrong, but it's not looking good for a win kiddies.
Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.
It's not just the ruck where height will be an issue. According to Cordy in the HS, Geelong have 10 players over 190cm tall in their side, to our three. But that three includes JPK, who is currently listed on the Swans' site at 190cm but might have been standing on tiptoes, because I think he's previously been listed at 188cm.
All those bombed balls out of defence are just going to be marked by Geelong, unless they can all miraculously be aimed at Heeney and he breaks the record for contested marks.
If the team selection gave us the opportunity to blood a few kids (Ronke aside) or get AA back in to re-establish himself, then I would have taken a vastly improved midfield performance and an honourable loss.
Really hope some players put their hands up in the NEAFL this week
- - - Updated - - -
Like the Crows game you mean? Surely they�ll have to use different means to exit defensive 50. If Hawkins is playing that would help.
Good post.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks