Jack has been a very fine player for us but he really shouldn't be in the team on form. Longmire has been admirably loyal to his senior players but I think he needs to bite the bullet on this one.Originally Posted by barry
Jack has been a very fine player for us but he really shouldn't be in the team on form. Longmire has been admirably loyal to his senior players but I think he needs to bite the bullet on this one.
Out: Hanners, Jack, Rohan Heeney
In: Reid, Towers, Marsh, Papley
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
This from Mark Robinson on Hanners (in the Dislikes funnily enough): Category: | Herald Sun
After Round 4, we said of Hannebery: �Jack Dyer used to say, �It�s no good being where the ball ain�t�, and Hannebery isn�t finding anywhere near the amount of ball he used to.�� Not much has changed in 10 weeks. You could argue Hannebery is in a two-season form slump. The animalistic attitude at contests and gut-busting running have dissipated and his possessions are run of the mill. In 2016, he had 802 disposals from 26 games. In 2017 it was 569 from 23. This year he averages 19 disposals a game (rated below average); seven contested possessions (poor); 199m gained (poor); two clearances (poor); zero goals (poor); three score involvements (poor); and 31 pressure points (poor). His drop has been astonishing and you have to wonder if the knee injury he suffered in the 2016 Grand Final against the Bulldogs is part of the reason.
Liz (aka the voice of reason) I think you are right about Jack. But it's not what we think that counts. It's whether Horse thinks the same. Having said that, there was a moment in the post game press conference when one of the journos asked Horse if he'd have a word with Buddy about giving away the free kick when he "struck" Rance. And Longmire said something like "I've got a few other things on my mind" And I wondered if he meant other players. Wishful thinking probably!
I really wanted Rose to do well and cheered him on through the game. He got a couple of helpful handballs away and there has at least one pretty good tackle. I also get it that it's hard to come from NEAFL to Richmond. But I didn't really see anything that suggested he would step up to the standard. He still seemed to be following game.
Noting he came in for Papley and that he has done damage with his marking inside 50 at NEAFL level, I kind of expected him to play a little more forward. Longmire indicated that some of the younger forwards got a bit high, and I wondered who he meant. Rose only had one possession in the forward 50 and only 1 more in the forward half - he didn't seem to be playing as a forward. I wonder if he'd be better served playing in the forward half.
I think Rohan and Jack should go out next week. I wouldn't be too upset if Rose stayed in, but have seen more from Towers, Fox and (obviously) Papley.
I don�t know what they were all on but the game was turbo charged over the weekend, quicker , slicker and more goals .
The number of players speeding past a stationary mark taker to gain substantial metres and simply catching the opposition napping was impressive . I like that. Do it Swans.
Some of our older folk would have trouble doing that now.
After the Tigers audit , I would expect some changes in the ones.
You can only be given so many goes at it.
I�d give Rose another crack .
Haners and Jack ?
Probably not.
Rohan, he�s just a mystery.
I have reluctantly arrived at the necessity of sending Hanners back to the Seconds, or putting him on the injured list. He is no longer the player he once was but deserves the chance to change this. Kieren likewise is no longer what he was and should be given the chance to finish his time as a kind of player-cum-onfield leader in the Twos. Heeney is far too important to take chances with, so he takes another day off.
A fit Papley is a must play; he and Rose can rotate through mid and forward. Dawson (Swans potential answer to Bontempelli?) is due for a run in the Firsts. Towers can do the kind of things Hanners did as an outside mid, is quicker and a much better kick.
Out: Hannebery, Heeney, Jack
In: Papley, Dawson, Towers
PS I'm assuming Melican is not quite fit to play firsts. And I'd put COR in before Marsh - his potential outweighs Harry's - but not with all the other changes.
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
I think our 22 will get a chance to respond this week
Last line in the sand for a few
My guess paps in for rose
Reid and Melican the week after for 2 of Rohan , McCartin or AA?
Papley will not be playing and I very much doubt Heeney will either. Hanners needs to be rested until his body is right and Rohan needs to go to the NEAFL to learn how to get the footy again. Suspect that the three in's will be Towers, Fox and Robinson who were rested from the NEAFL for this game. That will be enough changes so Jack will hang on by a thread and Aliir and Rose will get another chance. Emergencies from Rohan, Marsh, Newman, Cameron, O'Riordan and Dawson. Scathing article on Hannebury on the AFL site today. Hope there are no more injuries to come out of the woodwork.
I think that changes will be minimal (ie Papley for Rose), but the writing must be on the wall for numbers 4, 15 and 16, who must be close to having spells in the NEAFL. I've reached my tipping point with Rohan, I'm afraid.
The bigger response would be:
Mellican in for Jack, with Jones moving into midfield rotation.
Time for Dawson to have a run in place of Hannebery?
Robinson in for Heeney (concussed)
Towers in for Rohan
Reid in for McCartin (who has done nothing wrong)
Papley in for Rose
The team I'd like to have a look at would be:
Backs: Grundy, Rampe, Smith, McVeigh, Lloyd, Mellican, Aliir
Mids: Sinclair, Kennedy, Parker, Hewitt, Florent, Cunningham, Jones, Dawson, Robinson
Forwards: Franklin, Reid, Towers, Papley, Hayward, Ronke
Franklin to play further up the ground HFF; Reid, Towers, Sinclair starting deeper as more conventional FFs.
I suspect that Reid and Mellican will not be considered this week, but we need to start shaping up the team for the end of the season.
Papley, Melican and Reid have already been ruled out of the side and Heeney close to ruled out.
That means there will be one forced change (Heeney) and a pool of just three viable replacements - the three who didn't play NEAFL last weekend. So we're not going to see Dawson come in this week.
So at best (or worst, depending on how you look at it), only two of Jack, Hanners, Rohan and Rose will be omitted. And Rose should get another chance, regardless (and even more so if both Heeney and Papley are unavailable).
In the longer term, I'll be very surprised if all of Grundy, Rampe, Aliir and Melican play in the same side. When they deem Melican ready to return to the senior side, Aliir will almost certainly make way unless Rampe or Grundy gets injured. Even though Aliir theoretically provides a chop-out ruck option, they've shown no inclination to actually use him as such, not even last week with Richmond's shorter than usual forward line.
Horse has already said that Paps, Reid, Melican won’t be playing and Heeney is in doubt. That limits significantly what he can do this week, as does the 5 day break from the NEAFL game, so you’d think it’s unlikely anyone outside the 3 NEAFL restees would be considered.
I also think Horse likes to let players atone after a poor one. With Jack and above all Hanners, who has been singled out by the media this week (and it turns out the worst kicking midfielder in the comp), the question is whether they are physically capable.
Rohan is surely on very very thin ice.
There have been times when the club has fessed up and rested an underperforming player who was injured.
That’s a very long winded way of saying I have no idea what will happen at selection except that Hewett’s name will be one of the first on the board.
OUT: Rohan, Jack, Heeney
IN: Towers, Robinson, Fox
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks