Here is the question, do we need to risk Harry on a road trip recovery just a few weeks after surgery, or would we be better to give him an extra week to front up against GWS?
If we do not pick Harry, is it hurting / overloading Charlie?
Do we pick Harry and SoJ then give Charlie a week off, or does the Coleman really matter too much?
I doubt we'll go with one ruck against Witts just a couple of weeks out from finals the risk is too great that the overloaded solo ruck breaks down.
Coming off knee surgery I doubt our MC will risk Harry rucking anywhere even at boundary line throw ins.
I suspect if Harry comes in it will be for Ed, and perhaps Boyd in for Doc, that will be the only changes. It's possible that Harry comes in for Hollands or Cottrell simply because Harry covers so much ground and demands opposition attention, they'll run a tall and a crumber against him at contests as he gets up the ground, so the loss of a pure wing like Hollands or Cottrell is not so critical.
Bring H and SOJ back. SOJ as starting sub to replace H. These guys need game time.
Before changing the rules, Cripps used to be quite effective as the third man up in ruck contests around the ground. I'm not sure why we have smaller players trying to out muscle larger ruckmen in the ruck. Is there any reason why we can't have our ruckman running in from the side when contesting at stoppages around the ground? If anything it could nullify the effect of the bigger opposition ruckman and lead to an even contest. Of course, if we set up for such a play, it could be advantageous to us. This strategy wouldn't be used for centre ruck contests, which TDK should be capable of handling (with some assistance), but around the ground, I think it can help.
The Doggies couldn’t kick straight in the last because they were fatigued. Why were they fatigued? BECAUSE WE SMASHED THEM in the first 2 and a bit quarters. We always struggled in the past to get that extra goal to create that psychological gap. Great signs all round. LOB’s tackle best since Fraser Brown?
We often highlight the fact that opposition teams "couldn't kick straight". We do it, the media does it. Granted, the doggies may have won had they kicked straight in the last... but wasn't it also our poor disposal in the last quarter, especially the kick ins, that gave them the opportunity to do so?
I've been having think lately about how our early season games have impacted us over the past couple of years. Generally Richmond is a given for round 1 (or 2 for 2014), but it's the flanking game that seems to impact us the most.
Port Adelaide: PA finished 2013 in the 8, but were eliminated in the first week of the finals. In 2012 they were the laughing stock of the AFL. We played them in round 1 2014 with high expectations of the win. We lose, we have a crappy year the rest is history. PA Win and end up 5th for the season (including winning 9 of their 1st 10 games).
West Coast: WCE finished 2014 just outside the 8 and 2013 was a fairly poor season finishing 13th. Our rd 2 match this year was an expected win as they "didn't have a back line". We lost, we've had a crappy year, the rest will be history. WCE win. They've now won 12 of 15 games and sit 2nd on the ladder.
So my question is, are losses to the early season "surprise packets", in games we expected to win, having an impact on the rest of our season? Would we rather play teams from the top 4 the previous year to remove these expectations? We lose round 2 this year and then immediately after that match "we're re-building"! Would that have been mentioned had we have know what WCE were going to produce so far this year? Let other teams work out who the surprise packets are and then we can play them in later rounds. Thoughts?
Sooo, does this mean under Ratten we were too attacking and now under MM we are too defensive? Can't we just play bl**dy football. Boys today... see ball get ball... let the boys play.
Under MM they seem in two minds as to what to do with the ball, hence making the wrong decision a fair bit of the time. I can't remember a time when we have kicked it straight to an opposition player. Not just an over kick or a kick just wide of our player but primary school stuff of passing straight to them. Jeez if we hit up our forwards as well as we lace out oppo players they would be talking up or kicking skills.
Why can't we have two or three stay at home forwards ALL THE TIME
I've been wondering that for a while now. Since we're so slow at getting the ball in the forward line why don't we start a few of our forwards in the square then all lead out into space? It's a forward line huddle! Manning up creates space, not manning up leaves a strong marker (Cas, Hendo, etc) free.
We beat Freo by 70 points in last year's pre-season comp, see how both teams fared in 2013. There are some glaring deficiencies in our forward line, but as someone mentioned earlier, with the delivery the way it was even Tony Lockett would have struggled to get a goal. It's not the end of the world, let the team structure settle as it would in the season proper (especially in the mid) and then make judgement.
I have't seen this mentioned anywhere, but it seems as thought Andrew Walker won this year's Goal of the Year with 52% of the votes. http://goaloftheyear.afl.com.au/
I know some will feel that it doesn't matter how you get there as long as you do.
I don't reckon that we deserve to be there. Forget the Essendon saga, we haven't done enough to be there. Don't get me wrong, as much as the media are bunking up North Melbourne, either have they, and the other so called hopes, Crows, Lions and Eagles, deserve to be there even less than us.
Essendon will rightly get the Tijuana Brass because of their infractions. But they have been a better team than us all year.
For those who want to say, well that's coz of the drugs, I urge you to read Doctor Reids letter, which condemns in the strongest possible terms, Hirds use of these drugs, not only coz they may be illegal, but because they don't actually work[/size][/size]. And he stresses that the use of the players own blood, which all clubs do, works a lot better.
WE have so many weaknesses in our team due to a lack of key position players, that in some ways, it's remarkable that we are where we are.
Another reason I don't want us in the finals, is because a clean out has been virtually promised by the Coach and CEO, and if we make the finals, albeit by default, that may cloud the issue and reduce the desire to get rid of the players that we know need to go.
Placebo effect? Players think they're getting stronger, work harder at the gym, think they're invincible on the field, etc, etc, etc. How often do we say most of our player's problems are between the ears?
This week's changes are the sort of changes that would have been made between rounds 1 and 10, a stage when we were fighting for a top 8 position. Scotland comes in straight away... I have no issue with that. Swapping Cas and Rowe... that's happened a couple of times this year already. The only other change should have been to replace Waite with another tall and having Scotland displace a small (Cas probably should have stayed in in that regard). But by not trying the newbies (Menzel, Graham, etc.) this suggest that we haven't as yet "put the cue in the rack". We're still picking a team that's close to what we would have picked at the start of the season.
