Sunday afternoon in Sydney. They have been much better than expected, especially in their ruck division. We will need to win in this area if we are going to be competitive.
Hickey went down with a leg so may be missing. and Fox was subbed off very early.
Only possible outs for us to my mind (injury/illness/need to rest aside) would be Cottrell (for Jack Martin if he is right to come back in alternatively best performing mid in the 2s) and Plowman (for Parks) - oh, and Honey if you count him as in the team this week. Could make a case for all of them to stay. Pittonet looking weary but unless the week off gives Casboult a miraculous boost there is no option to come in. And I did like his effort today (as usual). Jones made errors but that is part of the package and again who do you replace him with? Gibbons and Setterfield (especially late) I thought better this week though not setting the world on fire. Harry and Eddie still managed their couple of goals each despite being quieter generally and Harry seemed to me to be constantly held off the ball which goes a long way to explaining his woes - and if I was seeing things (certainly the umpires gave no indication the holds were there) then it was a top defensive effort rather than Harry being poor. And again, who would come in Cas? Kennedy?
Does Jack Martin need a run in the 2s or will he come straight back to the 1s? I'm inclined to have him in for Cottrell and Parks for Plowman if Parks has a good game tomorrow. If not Plowman may survive again as there's not a lot of options.
If Swans need to replace Fox and Hickey - I am guessing Melican for Fox and either Naismith or Sinclair in the ruck.
I’d probably move Plowman on in favour of Williamson - it’s not like for like but an upgrade in my mind
Honey in for Gibbo or Cottrell.
Hickey went down with a leg so may be missing. and Fox was subbed off very early.
Only possible outs for us to my mind (injury/illness/need to rest aside) would be Cottrell (for Jack Martin if he is right to come back in alternatively best performing mid in the 2s) and Plowman (for Parks) - oh, and Honey if you count him as in the team this week. Could make a case for all of them to stay. Pittonet looking weary but unless the week off gives Casboult a miraculous boost there is no option to come in. And I did like his effort today (as usual). Jones made errors but that is part of the package and again who do you replace him with? Gibbons and Setterfield (especially late) I thought better this week though not setting the world on fire. Harry and Eddie still managed their couple of goals each despite being quieter generally and Harry seemed to me to be constantly held off the ball which goes a long way to explaining his woes - and if I was seeing things (certainly the umpires gave no indication the holds were there) then it was a top defensive effort rather than Harry being poor. And again, who would come in Cas? Kennedy?
Does Jack Martin need a run in the 2s or will he come straight back to the 1s? I'm inclined to have him in for Cottrell and Parks for Plowman if Parks has a good game tomorrow. If not Plowman may survive again as there's not a lot of options.
If Swans need to replace Fox and Hickey - I am guessing Melican for Fox and either Naismith or Sinclair in the ruck.
I think Sinclair will come in for the Swans as he likes playing against us even if Hickey plays, Martin will come straight back in IMO, the next two games might be season and coach defining and I reckon Teague will want his best troops on deck.
Parks wont be playing anytime soon IMO and Plowman is a lock while Teague is coach IMO but might get a holiday this week...prefer Williamson.
Cottrell might swap with Honey as the sub..
Not too sure what our history up at the SCG is like. Not too concerned either. If we do what needs to be done, we are a chance to win this one. Their ability to turn up the heat will test us. Never sure what to expect against the Swans. We win when I don’t expect it, and the wheels fall off when I expect we should win. This game might be a true measure of how our season is going.
I'd be curious to see how we go on that postage-stamp sized pitch. i can't get a read on it tbh. On paper they have better form and should win, although the loss to Freo came as a bit of a surprise.
None of our boys played well enough to come into the ones. Honey and kemp showed a bit but today was crap.
We have a disastrous record against them ... zero confidence with this one as well.
We have a disastrous record against them ... zero confidence with this one as well.
We have a disastrous record against nearly everyone...lol.
This will one of the more difficult, more so given it's in Sydney. Sydney are a young side totally pumped. They'll go all day at 100 mph. It's a game where a lapse will be deadly.
I’d probably move Plowman on in favour of Williamson - it’s not like for like but an upgrade in my mind
Honey in for Gibbo or Cottrell.
Plowman got 2 weeks for the bump on JOM so he is a definite out.
Plowman got 2 weeks for the bump on JOM so he is a definite out.
Am I missing something? He got the ball in a marking contest. Fk me happens to our players every week!
Am I missing something? He got the ball in a marking contest. Fk me happens to our players every week!
Agree...that was accidental contact and Plowman isnt that type of player who goes around head hunting.
Hope we are appealing that decision....
Plowman got 2 weeks for the bump on JOM so he is a definite out.
I wasn’t aware of that, but it did seem that he was attacking the ball in a fair contest
Don’t think he meant to hurt him and imo he was purely attacking the contest the way the fans and coaches expect but the AFL have made a rod for their back in stating if you elect to bump and make any head contact your gone.
Plowman got 2 weeks for the bump on JOM so he is a definite out.
That is the only way Plowman could possibly miss out on playing next week (unless his knee doesn't come up). I really don't understand why folk want him out of the 22 ???
As for the two week suspension, that beggars belief :o We should appeal and show the Tribunal footage of Harbrow's hit on Gibbons.
That is the only way Plowman could possibly miss out on playing next week (unless his knee doesn't come up). I really don't understand why folk want him out of the 22 ???
As for the two week suspension, that beggars belief :o We should appeal and show the Tribunal footage of Harbrow's hit on Gibbons.
I know we worry about our own but if you the the Plowman suspension is bad, have a look at the tackle Holman made on Duncan and got suspended for. That beggars belief.
Docherty to go back to cover plowman being out, please don't bring in willo for this.
Then Martin comes in to cover doc on the wing.
We generally play well against Sydney, I think we’ll win
We generally play well against Sydney, I think we’ll win
I'm usually optimistic but this one will be tough at the SCG and with Buddy on board it's going to make our life more difficult.
Our win vs the Hawks wasn't that impressive so we will need to improve a lot to beat the Swans on the rebound.
We have a disastrous record against them ... zero confidence with this one as well.
Won the last two, including one in Sydney......
Won the last two, including one in Sydney......
No Franklin the last couple, Franklin doesn't generally star against us but he has such an impact on the game it's pretty definitive.
When Franklin has a good game they smash us, but we won't be on our lonesome there!
I often think Sydney, although a very deep midfield, are not super fast, they have heavy bodies but tend to be on the slower side by AFL standards, not sure about them this year. Who takes Papley?
Sydney always seem to play by a well orchestrated and disciplined plan to me, built around some very strong and reliable performers. This doesn't always mean they are good enough to win obviously. We by contrast too often seem like we are flying by the seat of our pants, relying too much on individuals and making heavy weather of trying to get the heart in mouth win. If we can't keep it together v the Swans then I think their system will win it for them.
That is the only way Plowman could possibly miss out on playing next week (unless his knee doesn't come up). I really don't understand why folk want him out of the 22 ???
As for the two week suspension, that beggars belief :o We should appeal and show the Tribunal footage of Harbrow's hit on Gibbons.
Theres one positive to Plowman missing if he does, and that people will notice the work he does to cover for his teamates loose defending.
Theres one positive to Plowman missing if he does, and that people will notice the work he does to cover for his teamates loose defending.
Agree.
6 x dour defenders will see you getting absolutely hammered week in week out.
Won the last two, including one in Sydney......
@tonyo ... What can I tell you? :) I wrote this one down as a loss from the get go. Hope like hell I'm wrong. :)
@tonyo ... What can I tell you? :) I wrote this one down as a loss from the get go. Hope like hell I'm wrong. :)
FWIW, I think we are pretty long odds as well. But there is at least 1 surprise every week this year, and I am hoping that maybe it's our turn....
FWIW, I think we are pretty long odds as well. But there is at least 1 surprise every week this year, and I am hoping that maybe it's our turn....
I think Pittonet's last game was pretty good, and De Koning was also effective.
If Hickey is carrying an injury or is out we might do better than expected.
I think Pittonet's last game was pretty good, and De Koning was also effective.
If Hickey is carrying an injury or is out we might do better than expected.
Naismith did well in the twos for the Swans and Sinclair also likes playing against us, reckon they can cover that ok
Swan might go a bit taller and include wonder boy Logan McDonald too who kicked a few goals in the twos...be a big front half with Buddy, Mclean and McDonald and maybe Sinclair on the bench.
Naismith did well in the twos for the Swans and Sinclair also likes playing against us, reckon they can cover that ok
Swan might go a bit taller and include wonder boy Logan McDonald too who kicked a few goals in the twos...be a big front half with Buddy, Mclean and McDonald and maybe Sinclair on the bench.
Does that play into our hands by making them a slower side?
Does that play into our hands by making them a slower side?
They will either be slower or we wont have enough taller defenders...Jones will have his hands full with Buddy and Weitering would probably get McClean....if they have the 3rd tall forward then that leaves us a taller defender short.
Williamson will probably have to play in place of Plowman and I dont fancy him on taller stronger players, you could try Parks again but his form was very average vs the Hawks twos.
They will either be slower or we wont have enough taller defenders...Jones will have his hands full with Buddy and Weitering would probably get McClean....if they have the 3rd tall forward then that leaves us a taller defender short.
Williamson will probably have to play in place of Plowman and I dont fancy him on taller stronger players, you could try Parks again but his form was very average vs the Hawks twos.
Parks is a trier. For mine, he comes in for insurance and overall team balance.
There is another couple of scenarios. Kemp could come in for his AFL debut as he is a bigger size, but he didnt seem ready either.
We could also play Kennedy as the medium forward, and move SOJ back to defense to play 3rd tall or pinch hitter.
Parks is a trier. For mine, he comes in for insurance and overall team balance.
There is another couple of scenarios. Kemp could come in for his AFL debut as he is a bigger size, but he didnt seem ready either.
We could also play Kennedy as the medium forward, and move SOJ back to defense to play 3rd tall or pinch hitter.
If we think the Swans are going ultra-tall tall why not bring Meat back in to play CHB, leave De Koning as a very mobile 200cm type who can easily roam at either end and handle 2nd ruck.
I reckon SoJ has also done OK once or twice as a 3rd tall defender, and he is probably strong enough to do it for 4 qtrs now.
If we think the Swans are going ultra-tall tall why not bring Meat back in to play CHB, leave De Koning as very mobile 200cm type and can easily roam at either end and handle 2nd ruck.
I reckon SoJ has also done OK once or twice as a 3rd tall defender, and he is probably strong enough to do it for 4 qtrs now.
Yep forgot Levi (stupidly). The problem I see is that he is another like Jones who tends to misuse the footy a bit coming out of the back. At least he keeps it simple and doesnt bit off more than he can chew.
Yes, despite his limitations I think Levi back into defence for this one.
Plowman got 2 weeks for the bump on JOM so he is a definite out.
Interesting one. Ordinarily, the issue of choosing to bump arises when a player hits an opponent who has the ball rather than tackling, or hits a player trying to gather a ground ball. This was a marking contest. Mitchell had kicked long and it was heading straight towards Plowman who was running towards the ball drop. JOM was running laterally and their paths were destined to intersect at right-angles. Plowman was entitled to sprint towards the ball: JOM had no right of way even though he was presumably Mitchell’s target. It was only in the last 1-2 strides (I.e. in the last split-second) that Plowman’s left arm drops down and he turns his shoulder to brace for impact. He didn’t “choose to bump”. The question really is whether he should or could have put on the brakes to minimise the impact or deviated. And in a football sense, could he really have deviated and allowed JOM to mark on the run and run unchecked into our D50?
Should Plowman be punished for bracing for impact? The main benefit of that choice was enjoyed by Plowman. But he minimised or eliminated the risk of a big head clash by keeping a half-shoulder distance between their heads. We saw with Dangerfield that 2 players crashing into each other at an angle can lead to severe concussion for one or both. And if Plowman had instead put his elbows up in preparation for a chest mark, the impact may have been much worse.
The umpires on field adjudged it a footy collision and no free was paid.
When we rebounded the ball and kicked long inside 50, Betts and Frost were sprinting laterally across the ground but directly towards each other. It could have been a massive collision, but Eddie ran slightly to the right of the incoming Frost and the impact was minimal. If they’d collided, would Frost have been in trouble if Eddie had been concussed?
Unfortunately, marking contests are inherently dangerous when players approach at pace. The guts needed draws admiration but shouldn’t always draw a free kick or a report. I remember a game in which Fev flew into a pack with the knee up (and the stops down) in a classic power forward move. He launched upwards and took the mark. Unfortunately, a Tigers player ran into the pack with the flight of the ball and Fev’s knee went smack into his face. And the umpire paid a free kick against Fev. You shouldn’t get a free kick simply because you show reckless disregard for your own safety and get yourself hurt.
JOM should be lauded for his guts in keeping his eyes on the ball and running in from the side when it was fair to assume there’d be contact. But at best he should have drawn a free.
I think we're appealing the Plowman 2 weeks
I think we're appealing the Plowman 2 weeks
Yep.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/620383/appeals-galore-blues-suns-and-tigers-off-to-the-tribunal
Plowman is also facing two matches for his collision with Hawk Jaeger O'Meara on Saturday afternoon that was graded the same as Holman's – careless conduct, high impact and high contact.
Carlton's football boss Brad Lloyd said the club would appeal the ban.
"A fabric of our game is that we teach players from a young age to keep your eyes on the football... That is exactly what both players have done," Lloyd said.
"Lachie’s sole intent was to contest the football, which he rightfully did in a fair and reasonable manner when he arrived at the point of impact, incidentally at the same time as his opponent.
"Lachie’s eyes remained on the football the entire time and his intention was to spoil the football and any such collision was simply unavoidable, we believe there are sufficient grounds to contest the charge at the tribunal."
Matthew Lloyd on Access All Areas says both Plowman and Holman should be playing next week, 100%.
Matthew Lloyd on Access All Areas says both Plowman and Holman should be playing next week, 100%.
And I agree, farcical that they were cited in the first place. If these two incidents are upheld, may as well put positional bibs on the players and call it netball. The game we once knew is officially dead.
And I agree, farcical that they were cited in the first place. If these two incidents are upheld, may as well put positional bibs on the players and call it netball. The game we once knew is officially dead.
Let's not assert the kids aren't hard though, as some criticism comes across.
The modern kids are hard but not in the brutal way of the past. A BT or Sellers type would have had a heart attack trying to catch or keep up with the modern kids! Even at their fittest they would throw up their ring after 5 minutes of modern football.
we need team defence /need to close the space in syd forward line
MaClure was a bloody good athlete before the knees went and the p1ss got him.
MaClure was a bloody good athlete before the knees went and the p1ss got him.
By the standards of the time, if he ran around in a modern game the way he did back then we'd accuse him of going half-paced.
95% of a CHF's play back then was between 25m and 50m out. I remember watching Maclure stand between CHF and the Centre and signal for the HFFs to get up the ground.
It's all relative.
Let's not assert the kids aren't hard though, as some criticism comes across.
The modern kids are hard but not in the brutal way of the past. A BT or Sellers type would have had a heart attack trying to catch or keep up with the modern kids! Even at their fittest they would throw up their ring after 5 minutes of modern football.
I seriously dont know what youre on about half the time. All I said was, if those to incidents are reportable, may as well make it netball (ie non contact). I said in another post that was as fierce a contest as I have seen in a while. Unlike many, I dont subscribe to the nonsense about AFL players (ie any of them) being soft.
Interesting one. Ordinarily, the issue of choosing to bump arises when a player hits an opponent who has the ball rather than tackling, or hits a player trying to gather a ground ball. This was a marking contest. Mitchell had kicked long and it was heading straight towards Plowman who was running towards the ball drop. JOM was running laterally and their paths were destined to intersect at right-angles. Plowman was entitled to sprint towards the ball: JOM had no right of way even though he was presumably Mitchell’s target. It was only in the last 1-2 strides (I.e. in the last split-second) that Plowman’s left arm drops down and he turns his shoulder to brace for impact. He didn’t “choose to bump”. The question really is whether he should or could have put on the brakes to minimise the impact or deviated. And in a football sense, could he really have deviated and allowed JOM to mark on the run and run unchecked into our D50?
Should Plowman be punished for bracing for impact? The main benefit of that choice was enjoyed by Plowman. But he minimised or eliminated the risk of a big head clash by keeping a half-shoulder distance between their heads. We saw with Dangerfield that 2 players crashing into each other at an angle can lead to severe concussion for one or both. And if Plowman had instead put his elbows up in preparation for a chest mark, the impact may have been much worse.
The umpires on field adjudged it a footy collision and no free was paid.
When we rebounded the ball and kicked long inside 50, Betts and Frost were sprinting laterally across the ground but directly towards each other. It could have been a massive collision, but Eddie ran slightly to the right of the incoming Frost and the impact was minimal. If they’d collided, would Frost have been in trouble if Eddie had been concussed?
Unfortunately, marking contests are inherently dangerous when players approach at pace. The guts needed draws admiration but shouldn’t always draw a free kick or a report. I remember a game in which Fev flew into a pack with the knee up (and the stops down) in a classic power forward move. He launched upwards and took the mark. Unfortunately, a Tigers player ran into the pack with the flight of the ball and Fev’s knee went smack into his face. And the umpire paid a free kick against Fev. You shouldn’t get a free kick simply because you show reckless disregard for your own safety and get yourself hurt.
JOM should be lauded for his guts in keeping his eyes on the ball and running in from the side when it was fair to assume there’d be contact. But at best he should have drawn a free.
Excellent summation
Back in the old days you had to go when the situation demanded and you could get hit, taken out of the game and it was the norm. Now players can pick and choose when to go and it will be highlighted either way, I dont expect every player to be like Robbo and go 110% of the time in a crazy mad dog fashion but there are important times in games when you have to choose to go and put your body on the line. IMHO Plowman and OMeara both decided to go hard and both players had the ball in mind and at no time did either player look to clean the other bloke up like what would have happened in the old days with some contests.
A players good record was always taken into consideration, of course there is a first time for everything but when there was doubt a player with a clean record and good reputation would beat that charge.
Now the player is assumed guilty as soon as the other bloke leaves the ground and is doubtful for the next game, if you want to appeal you are threatened with more games or a 10k bonus penalty if you are not successful.
Players like Robbo will become dinasours as the contact allowed is reduced.....non malicious players are being grouped with thugs like Steven May, Hartigan because its easier to rule on.
Matthew Lloyd on Access All Areas says both Plowman and Holman should be playing next week, 100%.
Sellars work here is done then isn’t it ?
Kemp could come in for his AFL debut as he is a bigger size, but he didnt seem ready either.
Why?? We play the long game with this kid. Let him find his feet (and strength) in the twos for the bulk of the year and give him a taste towards the end and get him cherry ripe for 2022. No hurry!!
Why?? We play the long game with this kid. Let him find his feet (and strength) in the twos for the bulk of the year and give him a taste towards the end and get him cherry ripe for 2022. No hurry!!
I agree. Kemp impressed first up but he was playing limited minutes. He had almost no pre-season and I reckon it will take him another couple of games to get anywhere near match fitness.
I'd like to see him given opportunities to play different roles in the VFL and, if his form demands it, several AFL games in the back half of the season.
Kemp impressed because it was his first game.
Kemp did not impress enough to make his afl debut after 1 game regardless of his (lack of) fitness.
Check your expectations.
Kemp impressed because his teamates were awful.
In a situation where you must make a change next week, he would be the first picked based on the 4 quarters I saw and you could play him as a sub.
To me given his size Kemp looked light and lacked power needed to go head to head with bodies of equivalent size in AFL.
Was inconsistent but kicked the ball reasonably well though quite a few times, looks to be a nice ball user but VFL offers a lot more time and space than AFL.
Needs quite a few more VFL games before we make a call.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bagging him, he looks a very likely type that we should not rush. I'd love to see him build a few VFL games then get a VFL midfield rotation, to me this is his long term role.
To me given his size Kemp looked light and lacked power needed to go head to head with bodies of equivalent size in AFL.
Was inconsistent but kicked the ball reasonably well though quite a few times, looks to be a nice ball user but VFL offers a lot more time and space than AFL.
Needs quite a few more VFL games before we make a call.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bagging him, he looks a very likely type that we should not rush. I'd love to see him build a few VFL games then get a VFL midfield rotation, to me this is his long term role.
Agree, I thought he was a very good player the times I saw him at U18 level and the ideal swingman type that every club needs.
Against the Box Hill Hawks he looked thin, lacking in power to break tackles and was attempting to crash through packs like he could at u18 level where he often had a size advantage but was often getting caught in the game on the weekend.
I thought he did as well as could be expected but he isnt ready for senior footy and we have to be careful how he is managed.
Got no doubt he will make a very fine senior player but this season is about building his body and adjusting from the U18 comp to playing vs men and thats going to take time.
We saw Parks do ok early but when we ran into the heavyweight teams he looked like a SANFL player with only 15 games to his name and was badly exposed. Both he and Kemp need that body of work in the VFL to set themselves up for next season.
Pretty sure this will be Walsh's 50th game.
Agree, I thought he was a very good player the times I saw him at U18 level and the ideal swingman type that every club needs.
Against the Box Hill Hawks he looked thin, lacking in power to break tackles and was attempting to crash through packs like he could at u18 level where he often had a size advantage but was often getting caught in the game on the weekend.
I thought he did as well as could be expected but he isnt ready for senior footy and we have to be careful how he is managed.
Got no doubt he will make a very fine senior player but this season is about building his body and adjusting from the U18 comp to playing vs men and thats going to take time.
We saw Parks do ok early but when we ran into the heavyweight teams he looked like a SANFL player with only 15 games to his name and was badly exposed. Both he and Kemp need that body of work in the VFL to set themselves up for next season.
I thought that Kemp showed a good step and the strength to dispose of the ball quite well when tackled but, you’re right, he needs VFL game time to prepare him for an AFL debut later in the season.
You’re right about Parks too. He could be a regular in the 22 but he needs a lot of work in the VFL before he will be able to perform consistently at AFL level. I think that relatively unknown players can get a couple of games’ grace before the opposition analysts work out how to exploit them.
That leaves us with two options to replace Plow; Casboult and Williamson, neither of whom would be first choice in an ideal world. Seeing as we have plenty of run out of defence, I would go for Casboult with his ability to play at both ends of the ground and in the ruck.
Docherty has to stay on the wing - that’s one positional change that has paid off - and he couldn’t play Plow’s role.
I would bring Martin in for Gibbons and make Dow the sub.
Kemp seemed free to rotate and pivot on the knees with no impedement. No strapping either so it seems he is well and truly (fingers and toes crossed) over the injury. From the highlights that I saw, I liked what I saw, a lot. He hits targets repeatedly though which is a worry, that wont be tolerated at senior level so he needs to work on that.
I thought that Kemp showed a good step and the strength to dispose of the ball quite well when tackled but, you’re right, he needs VFL game time to prepare him for an AFL debut later in the season.
You’re right about Parks too. He could be a regular in the 22 but he needs a lot of work in the VFL before he will be able to perform consistently at AFL level. I think that relatively unknown players can get a couple of games’ grace before the opposition analysts work out how to exploit them.
That leaves us with two options to replace Plow; Casboult and Williamson, neither of whom would be first choice in an ideal world. Seeing as we have plenty of run out of defence, I would go for Casboult with his ability to play at both ends of the ground and in the ruck.
Docherty has to stay on the wing - that’s one positional change that has paid off - and he couldn’t play Plow’s role.
I would bring Martin in for Gibbons and make Dow the sub.
Agree, I'd keep Docherty on the wing, he seemed comfortable as did Williams at half back.
Martin has to come back in, not sure about Dow vs the Swans who have a very close checking midfield, think I would run him in the twos and maybe look at playing him vs West Coast.
Swans have some decent size up in the front half and I agree that Casboult might be more handy although selectors dont often pick three rucks in the one team.
JSOS is my number 1 selection for the Plowman role. I think he is possibly the best one to move back particularly if he is a chip off the old block.
Kemp seemed free to rotate and pivot on the knees with no impedement. No strapping either so it seems he is well and truly (fingers and toes crossed) over the injury. From the highlights that I saw, I liked what I saw, a lot. He hits targets repeatedly though which is a worry, that wont be tolerated at senior level so he needs to work on that.
@Gointocarlton I heard Kemp was over the knee issues a long time back, it was some other injury which kept him out more recently.
I heard Kemp was over the knee issues a long time back, it was some other injury which kept him out more recently.
syndesmosis injury to his left ankle
@Gointocarlton I heard Kemp was over the knee issues a long time back, it was some other injury which kept him out more recently.
Syndesmosis I believe. He had a good re-season prior to that and the Terrier would have ensured that he was right to go as far as his knee is concerned.
@Gointocarlton I heard Kemp was over the knee issues a long time back, it was some other injury which kept him out more recently.
Yep, it was an ankle earlier this year which kept him out.
@Gointocarlton I heard Kemp was over the knee issues a long time back, it was some other injury which kept him out more recently.
True but the knee is always the more serious one and causes initial concern when making a comeback. He looked as comfortable as all get out the way he moved. It was very pleasing to see.
True but the knee is always the more serious one and causes initial concern when making a comeback. He looked as comfortable as all get out the way he moved. It was very pleasing to see.
Im not sure. You see plenty do knees and come back (plenty only just come back, and then do it again).
Syndesmosis seems to render some blokes completely useless even if they do come back.
Syndesmosis seems to render some blokes completely useless even if they do come back.
Lots in our family suffer ankle problems, to some it may seem trivial but it can be a plague when you play a contact sport like footy. I would suffer with a hot spot just in front of the outside ankle bone, and many also seem to get bone chips or fragments of scar tissue becoming a problem.
Kicking the footy, and other actions that require you to extend your foot can aggravate recovery, and often if there is permanent damage you end up with some pronation that leaves you susceptible to further ankle rolls.
It's a bastard as you get older because you roll your ankle so easily. Back in my day strapping was the only solution, now they operate for a better long term fix.
Coming back too soon is a real risk, for some reason the tendons and ligaments in that area seem slow to heal and regain strength.
Ed Curnow ain’t the fastest guy going around and his disposal isn’t elite. But the interchange cap sure has given him the opportunity to showcase his endurance. I thought he was really good when fatigue slowed down a lot of players against the Hawks. But perhaps the smaller SCG isn’t ideal from that point of view.
Ed Curnow ain’t the fastest guy going around and his disposal isn’t elite. But the interchange cap sure has given him the opportunity to showcase his endurance. I thought he was really good when fatigue slowed down a lot of players against the Hawks. But perhaps the smaller SCG isn’t ideal from that point of view.
@Mav Do you think the reduced cap plays into Walsh's hands as well?
Makes me wonder if we are using Cottrell correctly, isn't he the kid who smashed Ed's record?
Ed Curnow ain’t the fastest guy going around and his disposal isn’t elite. But the interchange cap sure has given him the opportunity to showcase his endurance. I thought he was really good when fatigue slowed down a lot of players against the Hawks. But perhaps the smaller SCG isn’t ideal from that point of view.
Swans like it contested and then the long bomb to a one on one with Buddy in space. I think Ed can do a job on one of their mids and the facts are that we only have Cripps, Walsh and then Ed as our frontline mids. The rest are unreliable and not be trusted in a game where its going to be stoppage after stoppage more than likely.
Possible a win can put us in the 8 this week. Just need us to win and 4 sides above us to lose.
Swans like it contested and then the long bomb to a one on one with Buddy in space. I think Ed can do a job on one of their mids and the facts are that we only have Cripps, Walsh and then Ed as our frontline mids. The rest are unreliable and not be trusted in a game where its going to be stoppage after stoppage more than likely.
Stocker
@Mav Do you think the reduced cap plays into Walsh's hands as well?
Yep, he’s an energiser bunny. About time the Craig Bradley types get rewarded for their stamina.
Stocker
I'd give him a go in the midfield as a rotation and see how he goes, he isnt quick but Sydney play a game a gamestyle
that might suit him. If Martin plays I think they will run him in the midfield too..
Based on the extended bench I think it has to be De Koning, Murphy, Parkes and Martín
Based on the extended bench I think it has to be De Koning, Murphy, Parkes and Martín
Parks doesn't deserve it after his VFL form.....not many people do TBH.
I'd have TDK, Murphy, Martin and......Casboult if fit
I'd have Newnes / Gibbons as the sub.....need bigger bodies against the swans.
Extended interchange:
Levi Casboult
Tom De Koning
Michael Gibbons
Josh Honey
Jack Martin
Marc Murphy
Jack Newnes
Luke Parks
I'd say we'll be staying in Sydney and playing West Coast there. That or we will have a one week early bye given Carlton and the Eagles have their bye on the same weekend.
Extended interchange:
Levi Casboult
Tom De Koning
Michael Gibbons
Josh Honey
Jack Martin
Marc Murphy
Jack Newnes
Luke Parks
I'm guessing the four to get the nod will be Tom DK, Murph, J Martin and Josh Honey.
I'm guessing the four to get the nod will be Tom DK, Murph, J Martin and Josh Honey.
Or maybe Parks for Plow and Martin or Honey get the nod with the other the emerg sub.
For me I'd have
De Koning
Martin
Murphy
and Honey (because I don't want the other 3 Casboult, Gibbons and Parks)
Emergency : Jack Newnes
Sydney don't have an overly big forward line so think we can cover Plowman. Maybe someone like Cottrell? Worse case scenario would be to have Doc go back, but he's found a bit of form on the wing so prefer him not to go back. Time for Weitering to have a crack on Buddy. I think Jones $h!ts himself when he plays on Bud.
Hickey being out is a big plus for us.
Parks doesn't deserve it after his VFL form.....not many people do TBH.
I'd have TDK, Murphy, Martin and......Casboult if fit
I'd have Newnes / Gibbons as the sub.....need bigger bodies against the swans.
Agree on Parks, looked very ordinary vs the Box Hill Hawks and needs more VFL time to adjust his game from the less physical and slower SANFL gamestyle.
I'm not a Newnes basher and see him as a reasonable player who does a reasonable job most weeks. I think he is well suited to the Swans game style and he provides a solid battle hardened body which is what you need vs the Swans.
Kennedy was probably the one who comes in on vfl form. We'll probably get sps
Parks doesn't deserve it after his VFL form.....not many people do TBH.
I'd have TDK, Murphy, Martin and......Casboult if fit
I'd have Newnes / Gibbons as the sub.....need bigger bodies against the swans.
It would send the wrong message if Parks gets a game. I'm not sure why he's even named in the extended squad, Williamson was much better against the Hawks.
I would go with De Koning, Murphy, Martin and Casboult on the bench and Newnes as the sub. Gibbons needs to have a run in the VFL to get back into form.
Was at the VFL game. I like Parks, but he lowered his colours on the weekend. Saw him continually spray and blame his team mates. Even if they were complete crape, it wasn't a good look and don't think rewarding that behaviour is the way to go.
Gibbons needs to have a run in the VFL to get back into form.
Agree, but no VFL this week though, he'd be nowhere man again!
I hope he can turn his form around at AFL level, he's too good of a footballer to wither and fade!
In: Levi Casboult, Jack Martin
Out: Lachie Plowman (suspended), Marc Murphy
BANG!!! Too top heavy!!!
Has sMurph stayed in Melbourne with the missus, she is due to have their 2nd any day now I believe?
They’ve taken a bucket load of players up, don’t be surprised if there are last minute changes!! Or Levi used as the extra tall down back.
Has sMurph stayed in Melbourne with the missus, she is due to have their 2nd any day now I believe?
Reporting Murphy omitted on the CFC website.
They’ve taken a bucket load of players up, don’t be surprised if there are last minute changes!! Or Levi used as the extra tall down back.
They have, because there is no game in the VFL and we might be playing our next game in a mini-hub in sydney.
Reporting Murphy omitted on the CFC website.
Omitted normally means dropped due to poor form, that's harsh, far from our worst last week.
Has sMurph stayed in Melbourne with the missus, she is due to have their 2nd any day now I believe?
He's named as an emergency
Haven't been a huge fan of Murphy's form this year but thought he was pretty good last week and he kicked one and set up another when things were tight in the third quarter....one of our better ball users for sure. As someone else suggested, far from our worst last week. It's a small ground at the SCG and thought Martin could easily play on a wing instead of Cottrell......although Cottrell might get a bit of a run with job on someone like Florent.
Reporting Murphy omitted on the CFC website.
Although Murph has had some good qtrs his 4 qtr efforts have not been good - BUT, he's not Robinson C. in that regard. If his missus is due to have a littlun this w/e it would make sense for him to be an emergency. Now I'll stop jumping at shadows.
I suspect the sMurph omission is contingency in case they go into the mini-hub given his missus is due.
Hard to understand him being dropped after his efforts in the 3rd Qtr last game, the "omitted" line might be a bit of privacy concerns given the trolls that would come to play if he said he was staying or going home to his pregnant missus.
I wish them both the very best, it's a million times more important than footy!
I suspect the sMurph omission is contingency in case they go into the mini-hub given his missus is due.
Hard to understand him being dropped after his efforts in the 3rd Qtr last game, the "omitted" line might be a bit of privacy concerns given the trolls that would come to play if he said he was staying or going home to his pregnant missus.
I wish them both the very best, it's a million times more important than footy!
There was news in February this year that Murph's wife was expecting. It was stated at the time that they weren't revealing the due date. If he has been dropped for poor form, it's a first, at least to my knowledge.
If Murphy has been omitted on form, what photographs does Gibbons have? :o
Apart from Murphy's absence, I'm happier with our forward line than I have been for a while. I think that we have set Sydney's defenders a challenge, and we have the capacity to help out our defence if necessary.
Murphy's 3rd quarter against hawthorn was massive last week.
Id be gobsmacked if he's dropped on the back of that. Its the pregnancy stuff IMHO.
Geeeeeeezus. Not a huge fan of Murph, but Gibbons??! When he finally gets dropped he certainly can't complain about not getting a FEW chances. Still scratching my head.
Levi back. Yipee. :(
Levi has been average all year. Lets rush him back and put him in a forward line with 3 200cm+ key forwards.
TDK and McKay got in each others way last week. Competed for the same ball. With time it will become less of an issue.
Murphy is one of very few that can hit a target inside 50.
Bizarre selections for mine.
I gave Murphy a vote last game, thought he had some handy touches, maybe he wanted out for family reasons.
Levi has been average all year. Lets rush him back and put him in a forward line with 3 200cm+ key forwards.
TDK and McKay got in each others way last week. Competed for the same ball. With time it will become less of an issue.
Murphy is one of very few that can hit a target inside 50.
Bizarre selections for mine.
Levi has been injured all year. I don't know if he is fit now, but i think we need him simply for insurance purposes.
We have 2 key backs....with Williams as our 3rd tall??
We have 1 key forward and a ruck/forward in TDK....with....Silvagni as our 3rd tall.
We have 1 ruck in Pittonet. (with help from TDK).
If any one of them goes down, our structure is out the window.
Levi can cover any of those areas nicely.
Personally i'd station him at CHB and say don't move from there. Don't worry about an opponent, just sit there. Weiters and Jones will do the rest.
Casboult won't win us the game based on his efforts.
But his inclusion in the side could stop us from losing it if we get an injury.
Could we use him as the sub instead? Possibly.
Levi has been injured all year. I don't know if he is fit now, but i think we need him simply for insurance purposes.
We have 2 key backs....with Williams as our 3rd tall??
We have 1 key forward and a ruck/forward in TDK....with....Silvagni as our 3rd tall.
We have 1 ruck in Pittonet. (with help from TDK).
If any one of them goes down, our structure is out the window.
Levi can cover any of those areas nicely.
Personally i'd station him at CHB and say don't move from there. Don't worry about an opponent, just sit there. Weiters and Jones will do the rest.
Casboult won't win us the game based on his efforts.
But his inclusion in the side could stop us from losing it if we get an injury.
Could we use him as the sub instead? Possibly.
Don't typically pick guys just incase someone else gets injured.
If he plays back then I guess Weiters can play smaller. Franklin and a resting ruckman (Sinclair/McLean) typically an ideal match up for Jones.
If Pittonet is in the ruck and Levi is played forward then it's McKay, TDK and Levi all in the forward line at times. I don't see the need for it unless Levi is in super form.
An extra runner for mine. This is a winnable game. Hopefully the match committee have this one right.
Don't typically pick guys just incase someone else gets injured.
If he plays back then I guess Weiters can play smaller. Franklin and a resting ruckman (Sinclair/McLean) typically an ideal match up for Jones.
If Pittonet is in the ruck and Levi is played forward then it's McKay, TDK and Levi all in the forward line at times. I don't see the need for it unless Levi is in super form.
An extra runner for mine. This is a winnable game. Hopefully the match committee have this one right.
We don't typically pick a balanced lineup most weeks.....which i think is our downfall.
Smaller ground where runners can not excel like bigger grounds. Its more contested and marking related compared to other grounds.
But yes, i'd give Casboult the job down back guarding space if no matchup exists, otherwise as you said, let Weitering either zone off or take the 3rd tall/small.
I gave Murphy a vote last game, thought he had some handy touches, maybe he wanted out for family reasons.
Yes. me too, he basically gave us back the momentum!
We have been officially told we staying in Sydney for a week. Playing West Coast at the SCG too.
We have been officially told we staying in Sydney for a week. Playing West Coast at the SCG too.
That seriously sucks. I'd have us favourites against WC here with a crowd. Back to 50-50 now.
That seriously sucks. I'd have us favourites against WC here with a crowd. Back to 50-50 now.
Dunno....west coast don't travel well....here or in sydney is still a win for us in terms of home ground advantage
Jeza....WCE have a very poor record at the SCG in recent years. If anything, I reckon the fact we're in one place for a week or more and they're travelling, with Kelly and Allen out, gives us a real chance. Which makes today's game even bigger IMO...win today and next week and the season could be back on track leading into the bye.
We need to pinch a few unexpected wins to make finals - that's why the doggie's games hurt so badly. If, if, if....
Murphy the medical sub
When your win loss ratio is negative almost every game becomes do or die and today is no exception. We have lost to all of the top teams we have played but have beat mid table sides such as the Bombers and Freo. We have to Sydney and West Coast if we want to make finals.
When your win loss ratio is negative almost every game becomes do or die and today is no exception. We have lost to all of the top teams we have played but have beat mid table sides such as the Bombers and Freo. We have to Sydney and West Coast if we want to make finals.
Yep exactly. Next 2 weeks with define our season. Simple as that.
I just hope Buddy doesnt get a hold of us
Gibbons on Heeney, clueless.
2 minutes of footy and we havent touched it