Next Saturday at 1345 at Marvel Stadium.
Maybe Kreuzer will be back. Maybe.
Next Saturday at 1345 at Marvel Stadium.
Maybe Kreuzer will be back. Maybe.
We can only hope.
Don’t bring him back and put the heat on him. One of very few that bleeds blue blood. He really is a tractor. A farmers hardest working machine. Not fast. Not powerful. Just keeps on ticking no matter what.
We're gonna be in for a heavy body on body contest ... so that rules out Garlett.
There are a few guys who have yet to perform at the level we want them to: Gibbons, Garlett, McGovern to mention just a few. Of the returning guys, Jack Silvagni and Kennedy were probably the pick of them in the VFL. Not quite the players to replace 2 small, fast guys and a key forward.
There are a few guys who have yet to perform at the level we want them to: Gibbons, Garlett, McGovern to mention just a few. Of the returning guys, Jack Silvagni and Kennedy were probably the pick of them in the VFL. Not quite the players to replace 2 small, fast guys and a key forward.
Kennedy's grunt could be handy against the Swans though?
Will Cuningham be ready to return against the swans?
Will Cuningham be ready to return against the swans?
Possibly. He would be a welcome return.
The Swans are in a lull at the moment. Both teams do the contested ball quite well, so I reckon with Cripps ,Setters, maybe Kennedy, maybe Krooz, Walsh, Dow etc. we should be able to compete on the inside. Neither team seems to post big scores, so I'm expecting a closely fought, tight, low scoring and fairly dour affair. Swans by 2 goals.
Cuningham is 2-3 weeks away, bruised kidney
The Swans are in a lull at the moment. Both teams do the contested ball quite well, so I reckon with Cripps ,Setters, maybe Kennedy, maybe Krooz, Walsh, Dow etc. we should be able to compete on the inside. Neither team seems to post big scores, so I'm expecting a closely fought, tight, low scoring and fairly dour affair. Swans by 2 goals.
Port beat us up at the clearances......we need to do a lot better for a team who are meant to have a A grade midfield in the making.....if you take Cripps out of the equation the numbers are even worse.
If Swans get us at the clearances then Buddy will finish us off.........
we need to do a lot better for a team who are meant to have a A grade midfield in the making.....
Yep A Grade in 3-4 years time!!! Don’t expect A Grade output from a group of kids with a handful of games under their belt. Their time will come.
Port beat us up at the clearances......we need to do a lot better for a team who are meant to have a A grade midfield in the making.....if you take Cripps out of the equation the numbers are even worse.
If Swans get us at the clearances then Buddy will finish us off.........
Yes, Port did win the clearances and CP's, but this is more the exception IMO.
"In the making" is the key phrase I think. They are young, have smaller bodies, or (like Setters) are basically debutantes, so they will lose intensity from time to time.
We needed our best players fit and available to beat a winless and desperate Swans outfit.
Kruezer and Charlie would be vitally important players this week and as neither will play just cant see us getting it done.
Their midfield is hard and experienced so Kennedy must come in to offer Cripps some protection but still too much is left on Cripps and reckon they will focus heavily on our main man and our second tier midfielders are all kids.
Can’t see us worrying them tbh.
Happy to be proven wrong.
We have no match up for Buddy, we've been his bitch for over a decade now. Just the game to play him back into form.
We have no match up for Buddy, we've been his bitch for over a decade now. Just the game to play him back into form.
Jones is the only player on our list with the size and leg speed, it's probably his moment to shine or stink.
Didn't buddy kick ten on him last time?
Didn't buddy kick ten on him last time?
Yep. I like jones but buddy is not a good match up for him.
Jones can get bamboozled and get caught in no mans land when he has to think....buddy will again get into Jones head and make him look stupid like last time.
Only thing is I’m hoping maybe Newman can pass some tips on as we had seldom few other options.
re Buddy, just need to zone off on him.
Play 2 different players on him.
One for when he is deep - inside 50
One when he wants to go on long leads to the wing.
We don't mind him getting the ball on the wing, we don't want him getting it deep.
re Buddy, just need to zone off on him.
Play 2 different players on him.
One for when he is deep - inside 50
One when he wants to go on long leads to the wing.
We don't mind him getting the ball on the wing, we don't want him getting it deep.
Not just deep mate - anyway inside 60 and his a chance.
Not just deep mate - anyway inside 60 and his a chance.
'deep' was inside 50, where you need to match him in the air.
Outside 50, you need to match him with speed.
Yes, he's a threat outside 50, but a different type of threat, requiring a different type of player.
Realistically, Kennedy is probably the only bloke with the form and match conditioning to come straight in, maybe SOJ but that would be 2 slower blokes, though against the Fluffy Ducks we might get away with it. Charlie is an obvious out, the other not so obvious (if SOJ was to come in). Fas hasn't set the world on fire but has slowly improved. Polson's speed (as Cuningham's replacement) is needed. No small, quick backman to replace Garlett... oh dear... thinking of going, but...
We needed our best players fit and available to beat a winless and desperate Swans outfit.
Kruezer and Charlie would be vitally important players this week and as neither will play just cant see us getting it done.
Their midfield is hard and experienced so Kennedy must come in to offer Cripps some protection but still too much is left on Cripps and reckon they will focus heavily on our main man and our second tier midfielders are all kids.
Can’t see us worrying them tbh.
Happy to be proven wrong.
I reckon Swans are heading through the floor Shawny, real opportunity for the boys this week:-)
Realistically, Kennedy is probably the only bloke with the form and match conditioning to come straight in, maybe SOJ but that would be 2 slower blokes, though against the Fluffy Ducks we might get away with it. Charlie is an obvious out, the other not so obvious (if SOJ was to come in). Fas hasn't set the world on fire but has slowly improved. Polson's speed (as Cuningham's replacement) is needed. No small, quick backman to replace Garlett... oh dear... thinking of going, but...
Baggers, I can't wait to go this week, just need Little Aths Championship day to be washed out again and I'm on the train into Marvel Stadium:-)
Naggers, if you think Fasolo has slowly improved, he might be ready at this rate by round fourteen 2020.
Didn't buddy kick ten on him last time?
Despite his crap DE% Jones has been OK, he's getting to contests and not being out-muscled. Not sure why he reverted to punching instead of marking again this week, it's a very bad habit.
I think he'll be motivated to be better this time, and Buddy is not is such sparkling form.
Buddy had a pretty interrupted pre season, and frankly looks a little lardy. You can never discount a champion, but if there's ever a time when we may get lucky, it's this game.
Buddy had a pretty interrupted pre season, and frankly looks a little lardy. You can never discount a champion, but if there's ever a time when we may get lucky, it's this game.
We'll play him back into form this week.
He looked dangerous on Friday and the umpires hated him.
Has to be a line in the sand and start winning. Enough of the honorable losses. Gold Coast.didnt settle for an honorable loss. They did the job and won. 2 wins in 37 games isn't good enough.
Levi’ for Charlie, then let Harry stay forward for the whole match and let Phillips have a genuine reliever.
........... let Phillips have a genuine reliever.
Then why select Casboult?
It was interesting Saturday night, McKay and McGovern subjectively functioned better after Charlie left the field.
It looks to me like 3 into 2 doesn't go and McKay is not much ruck value, Levi is not much better, while Lobbe was listed by some as BoG at weekends practice match against some reasonable opposition.
We can't concede the stoppages and expect Cripps to keep mopping up the pieces, we will break Cripps and when he fails we will get smashed. We have to offer some resistance in the potential absence of Cripps or we are a club lost! Running a solo ruck with Cripps give us competitiveness only 75% of the time, and that is reflected in our results.
When you see a team like the Dawks running two rucks in McEvoy and Ceglar it's a tell. ;)
I suspect we'll keep running with McKay and a ruck because we need game time into McKay. But under the 666 rule it's robbing Peter to pay Paul when you take your main KPF marking target and put them in the midfield. Even if they help win the clearances it's obviously a faulty strategy as they can't be in two places at once, off the back of a winning clearance you don't want your main KPF languishing behind play!
Then why select Casboult?
It was interesting Saturday night, McKay and McGovern subjectively functioned better after Charlie left the field.
It looks to me like 3 into 2 doesn't go and McKay is not much ruck value, Levi is not much better, while Lobbe was listed by some as BoG at weekends practice match against some reasonable opposition.
We can't concede the stoppages and expect Cripps to keep mopping up the pieces, we will break Cripps and when he fails we will get smashed. We have to offer some resistance in the potential absence of Cripps or we are a club lost! Running a solo ruck with Cripps give us competitiveness only 75% of the time, and that is reflected in our results.
When you see a team like the Dawks running two rucks in McEvoy and Ceglar it's a tell. ;)
I suspect we'll keep running with McKay and a ruck because we need game time into McKay. But under the 666 rule it's robbing Peter to pay Paul when you take your main KPF marking target and put them in the midfield. Even if they help win the clearances it's obviously a faulty strategy as they can't be in two places at once, off the back of a winning clearance you don't want your main KPF languishing behind play!
I thought the same thing. With Charlie's elite running ability and superior marking instincts you'd think he'd be much better on the ball... replace Murphy, who would be a much better small forward than on-baller at this stage of his career. Hopefully Kennedy comes in for Charlie making us less 'top heavy'.
Although I agree with your two ruckman combo scenario, I just don't know who you drop to bring in Lobbe (or Kreuzer in 2028 when he's injury free!!!).
I thought the same thing. With Charlie's elite running ability and superior marking instincts you'd think he'd be much better on the ball... replace Murphy, who would be a much better small forward than on-baller at this stage of his career. Hopefully Kennedy comes in for Charlie making us less 'top heavy'.
Although I agree with your two ruckman combo scenario, I just don't know who you drop to bring in Lobbe (or Kreuzer in 2028 when he's injury free!!!).
To me Baggers it's not just about dealing with losing the ruck, it's about having 2 out of 3 KPFs as beginners who need to spend as much time learning the F50 game as possible. If they are not cutting the mustard as KPFs at AFL level, then surely they are better off playing fulltime KPF in the NBs until we think they are worth another go at AFL!
Fasolo and Curnow out. Kennedy and JSOS in.
1. Murphy out of the midfield and into F50.
2. Ed out of the forward half and tasked with locking down Nick Parker.
3. Kennedy tasked with running against his namesake.
4. Ruck Jones as relief for Phillips. Weiters to slide onto Buddy if required. Defence is a team effort anyways.
If Ed and Matt break even, we win.
4. Put the acid on Garlett - just pick up the pill and stop being scared or F off.
5. Swans don't play tall but they play physical. I think another utility-type option such as JSOS might give us more flexibility against the Swannies' fleet of mid sized, hard bodied players, as opposed to a taller, less mobile type.
Fasolo and Curnow out. Kennedy and JSOS in.
1. Murphy out of the midfield and into F50.
2. Ed out of the forward half and tasked with locking down Nick Parker.
3. Kennedy tasked with running against his namesake.
4. Ruck Jones as relief for Phillips. Weiters to slide onto Buddy if required. Defence is a team effort anyways.
If Ed and Matt break even, we win.
4. Put the acid on Garlett - just pick up the pill and stop being scared or F off.
5. Swans don't play tall but they play physical. I think another utility-type option such as JSOS might give us more flexibility against the Swannies' fleet of mid sized, hard bodied players, as opposed to a taller, less mobile type.
Like it.
Our 3 talls forward line together with inadequate small crumbing forwards severely hamstrings our ability to score. Murphy has shown time and time again that he is dangerous as a small crumbing forward.
I really want to see Fas work as a small forward for us but agree he needs to regain dangerous form in the Magoos.
I recall BB saying we only play 'in form' blokes... talk with forked tongue!
Murphy out of the midfield and into F50.
Not sure he'll play this week, that hit might have taken a bit more out of him than first indicated.
Ruck Jones as relief for Phillips. Weiters to slide onto Buddy if required. Defence is a team effort anyways.
Just don't get why our AFL side hasn't tried this, Fraser was a decent ruck and he rucked Jones in the VFL with great effect. Jones 2nd efforts were extraordinary, almost Kreuzer like and something completely absent from the games of McKay and Levi.
Put the acid on Garlett - just pick up the pill and stop being scared or F off.
Not much more to be said, you have to accept some physical pain at AFL level, either in handing it out or taking it, if you don't you'll be a liability. BB even openly admits this when he states get comfortable with being uncomfortable.
Swans don't play tall but they play physical. I think another utility-type option such as JSOS might give us more flexibility against the Swannies' fleet of mid sized, hard bodied players, as opposed to a taller, less mobile type.
They'll do their best to beat up on Cripps, Fisher and Setterfield. I thought after Port got done with him Fisher looked a little timid late in the game last weekend. Things won't be easier against the Swans unless we can get him into free space. Swans aren't fast so the answer may be to get Ed in their and make it a contest.
It's a pity Dow isn't a better ball user, it leaves him best used inside but he is a bit small and light still. If Dow was a better ball user we could use his pace outside in trio with Fisher and Walsh.
On Weiters, I'd let Buddy drag him up the field, he can hang back so we can then use Weiters as the avenue to goal because he's our best ball user by some margin. We want it in his hands heading inside F50. Let Buddy get all the footy he wants but up on the half back flank.
Fisher was poor against Port, no impact.
Fisher was poor against Port, no impact.
Agree - very low key. I hope he can bounce back this week but his opposition will be tough.
Fisher was poor against Port, no impact.
Tagged..I saw Powell Pepper standing him at some stoppages....bit of Robbo about PP, smartar$e attitude too....has a melon you would like to whack.
Seen Port do this a bit with PP, they play him on smaller player for intimidation, like I said he needs dealing with.
Not sure he'll play this week, that hit might have taken a bit more out of him than first indicated.
Just don't get why our AFL side hasn't tried this, Fraser was a decent ruck and he rucked Jones in the VFL with great effect. Jones 2nd efforts were extraordinary, almost Kreuzer like and something completely absent from the games of McKay and Levi.
Not much more to be said, you have to accept some physical pain at AFL level, either in handing it out or taking it, if you don't you'll be a liability. BB even openly admits this when he states get comfortable with being uncomfortable.
They'll do their best to beat up on Cripps, Fisher and Setterfield. I thought after Port got done with him Fisher looked a little timid late in the game last weekend. Things won't be easier against the Swans unless we can get him into free space. Swans aren't fast so the answer may be to get Ed in their and make it a contest.
It's a pity Dow isn't a better ball user, it leaves him best used inside but he is a bit small and light still. If Dow was a better ball user we could use his pace outside in trio with Fisher and Walsh.
On Weiters, I'd let Buddy drag him up the field, he can hang back so we can then use Weiters as the avenue to goal because he's our best ball user by some margin. We want it in his hands heading inside F50. Let Buddy get all the footy he wants but up on the half back flank.
re: Dow...ball use improving by foot and he is learning to handball more rather than try and break away from packs everytime with his pace, I thought he played well against a Port midfield that was on top. IMO he is learning to do the basics better/play the percentages and not trying to be the tearaway flashy player he was at U18 level where he did a lot of highlight reel stuff but could also turn the ball over, good player to watch and someone is coaching him well IMHO.
re: Buddy...has to be Jones, we have asked JW to build himself up physically to handle bigger players but he wont have the pace to go with Buddy, rather see JW play on Reid/Sinclair etc.
Jones need to take Buddy and see it as a challenge like SOS did when Plugger kicked ten on him...Jones has the mobility and size to go with Buddy just needs to learn and think about how to play him better.
re: Dow...ball use improving by foot and he is learning to handball more rather than try and break away from packs every time with his pace, I thought he played well against a Port midfield that was on top. IMO he is learning to do the basics better/play the percentages and not trying to be the tearaway flashy player he was at U18 level where he did a lot of highlight reel stuff but could also turn the ball over, good player to watch and someone is coaching him well IMHO.
..................
+1. Also a fan of Dow.
Me too, Dow is going nicely I reckon. With respect to rucking Jones as relief for Phillips, I like the idea, and we could send McGovern to defense while Jones is rucking, he can play competent defense, and it might even open up some space for Harry to run into?
Kreuzer ruled out again for this week but club saying Marchbank could be available. But geez, would you risk playing him straight up with no pre-season or VFL games under his belt? I'd still rather play Lobbe and Phillips and leave Mckay as a permanent forward.
I can't see us playing Lobbe and Phillips in the same side, especially against Sydney who use Reid as their second ruck. Neither Lobbe nor Phillips give anything when not rucking
Then play Levi....he can take a mark and kick a goal. For mine, McKay just gets pushed aside too easily in round the ground ball ups and throw ins.
Then play Levi....he can take a mark and kick a goal. For mine, McKay just gets pushed aside too easily in round the ground ball ups and throw ins.
Agree re H, he needs time to build up a frame that can withstand and go against ruckmen. How long did it take Levi to be big enough and fit enough to ruck?
With Sinclair being Sydney's #1 ruck option, we need to have 2 rucks. That way we can give back what we've been receiving lately.
There's merit in trying Casboult ... you never know what might ensue. Good call :)
Swans looking at bringing in Kieran Jack and Tom McCartin this week......McCartin would give them a tallish forward line with Buddy, Reid and the young kid Blakey if he plays...
With Sinclair being Sydney's #1 ruck option, we need to have 2 rucks. That way we can give back what we've been receiving lately.
Sinclair has hurt us a few times when he rests forward, need to make sure he has a suitable opponent when not rucking.
Swans look like bringing in Kieran Jack and Tom McCartin...the latter will make their forward line taller especially if Blakey keeps his spot.
Darcy Cameron is another option for them if they want to play the two ruckman and gang up on Philips but I think they will go Jack and McCartin and rely on Reid as the spare parts ruckman.
Levi might get a game this week but I'd rather SOSOS and Kennedy as my ins......
Me too, Dow is going nicely I reckon. With respect to rucking Jones as relief for Phillips, I like the idea, and we could send McGovern to defense while Jones is rucking, he can play competent defense, and it might even open up some space for Harry to run into?
Dow is looking good - still only 19. Definitely a 10+ year player. I'm still certain that once he fills out with an AFL ready body he's going to be a star.
Like it.
Our 3 talls forward line together with inadequate small crumbing forwards severely hamstrings our ability to score. Murphy has shown time and time again that he is dangerous as a small crumbing forward.
I really want to see Fas work as a small forward for us but agree he needs to regain dangerous form in the Magoos.
I recall BB saying we only play 'in form' blokes... talk with forked tongue!
More our ability to get the ball into our f50 is the issue. If our game plan, whatever it is, allowed alot more efficient ball movement into the f50 then the 3 taller forwards would work so much better.
More our ability to get the ball into our f50 is the issue. If our game plan, whatever it is, allowed alot more efficient ball movement into the f50 then the 3 taller forwards would work so much better.
In patches, I thought our ball movement was quite good against Port. Best I've seen in more than a season or two.
Agree re H, he needs time to build up a frame that can withstand and go against ruckmen. How long did it take Levi to be big enough and fit enough to ruck?
Levi’s first senior game was as first ruck :)
It is a hard ask for a young, developing tall to compete against hardened, experienced ruckmen. I guess the issue is how long the first ruck can maintain his performance on the ball. Kreuzer seems to be able to spend 90% of the game on the ball, Phillips considerably less. Harry in the ruck for 10% of the game is probably a reasonable ask and we won’t lose too much momentum.
First priority will be to play the full 4Qs. If we do that we are in with a chance.
If Kreuz is available all well and good but if he isn't would Lobbe be a reasonable option to replace Phillips and minimise the amount of time Harry has to spend in the ruck?
I'll be especially interested to see if Fas gets another gig this week. Kennedy definitely needs to come in for this this one to support Cripps. It'll be very tough in the clinches!
Dropping Fasolo would be just admitting he is underdone and should never have been selected in the first place.
Unfortunately they have to stick with him for at least 4 games to get his match fitness up.
Unfortunately they have to stick with him for at least 4 games to get his match fitness up.
He can regain that match fitness at any level, I thinks it's clear Fasolo and Gibbons are not ready for the AFL level for whatever reasons they have be it fitness, focus or experience.
I'm not surprised by Gibbons struggling, he does need time in the AFL system to get it sorted, I suspect if he can hold his spot he'll come good in a 2nd or 3rd season, maybe even the second half of this season. But the club has to retain him through a period when a lot of external noise will be telling them "I told you so" type messages.
Dropping Fasolo would be just admitting he is underdone and should never have been selected in the first place.
Unfortunately they have to stick with him for at least 4 games to get his match fitness up.
I had this convo last week, he was poor in week 1 it was a mistake to pick him.
Picking him in week 2 simply because we picked him in week 1, is yet another mistake.
Continuing to pick a bloke that should never have been picked does not make up for your initial mistake.
Admit it, bite the bullet and drop him. No use continuing to pick a sub-par lineup to save face.
FWIW, i don't even think its about fitness, i'm just not sure he is as good as many people think....or hope.
I had this convo last week, he was poor in week 1 it was a mistake to pick him.
Picking him in week 2 simply because we picked him in week 1, is yet another mistake.
Continuing to pick a bloke that should never have been picked does not make up for your initial mistake.
Admit it, bite the bullet and drop him. No use continuing to pick a sub-par lineup to save face.
FWIW, i don't even think its about fitness, i'm just not sure he is as good as many people think....or hope.
Again, why make him the scapegoat for the whole team's failings?
Plenty of others MIA thus far....
Again, why make him the scapegoat for the whole team's failings?
Plenty of others MIA thus far....
Fasolo, Gibbons and Ed had some clear margin between them and the next worst option.
Ed I don't blame, poorly selected and coached in my opinion, we've taken a borderline A-Grade run with player and turned him into a C-Grade small forward. I can't see a place for him in the team in the current role they have him playing.
Gibbons is just not ready, looks lost and confused, needs time in the system it's that simple.
Fasolo I'm not sure what his problem is, he has all the experience in the world, but jogging behind play like an observer won't fix what is broken. He may well be fit having trained the house down, but he clearly has something going wrong!
A lot of fans lambaste Daisy, but fit or unfit, mentally focussed or not, he always has a crack! That is all we ask, have a genuine crack!
Again, why make him the scapegoat for the whole team's failings?
Plenty of others MIA thus far....
Did i say he was?
I was responding to a question relating to him.
Gibbons isn't going to get better in the VFL, he needs a solid run to prove his worth just like we would give any 18 year old we draft.
Fasolo, Gibbons and Ed had some clear margin between them and the next worst option.
Ed I don't blame, poorly selected and coached in my opinion, we've taken a borderline A-Grade run with player and turned him into a C-Grade small forward. I can't see a place for him in the team in the current role they have him playing.
Gibbons is just not ready, looks lost and confused, needs time in the system it's that simple.
Fasolo I'm not sure what his problem is, he has all the experience in the world, but jogging behind play like an observer won't fix what is broken. He may well be fit having trained the house down, but he clearly has something going wrong!
A lot of fans lambaste Daisy, but fit or unfit, mentally focussed or not, he always has a crack! That is all we ask, have a genuine crack!
Playing devils advocate all 3 have the exact same problem.
They are all simply doing something a little bit alien to what they are used to.
1. Fasolo. Has just joined from the mortal enemy and may be doing what is asked of him but the way that we use the footy, and the actions of others could be contributing to making him look poor when he might be the only one in the right place at the wrong time, and hasn't played AFL footy for a while. All we can ask for is an upward trend in performance.
2. Gibbons is still trying to pick up the speed of AFL footy and is improving in this facet. Using Kane Lambert as a basis for comparison (given size and type of player its a pretty good basis for comparison) we shouldn't expect a lot from him this season. https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/K/Kane_Lambert.html His first year was playing a finals bound team surrounded by much more mature recruits, and Lambert didnt exactly set the world on fire from the get go. In fact he didnt really hit his strides until his third year of AFL footy.
3. Ed. Learning a new role he is unsuited to. Now we can point at that and state that its a bad idea, however, we don't see what that allows us to do up the field. i.e. playing Ed forward might mean we get more midfield minutes into the likes of Dow, SPS, Setterfield, Fisher. That is arguably better for the team in the long term, than playing Ed at the coal face and when they can do it for longer, Ed might become proficient (enough) forward to give us a couple of different looks to that resting midfielder.
We are still a work in progress, and are going to be for the next couple of seasons IMHO, and that will only be exacerbated by the retirement of elder statesmen who still make up the bulk of our better performers most weeks. Until they become Jarrad McVeigh types who are contributers without being key to our teams fortunes, we arent going to be much better than we are now.
Gibbons isn't going to get better in the VFL, he needs a solid run to prove his worth just like we would give any 18 year old we draft.
Gibbons needs exposure to AFL to go to the next level...as a result he should earn an exemption thus far.
Fasolo knows whats required at AFL, he has experienced plenty. He should not receive the same exemption as a result.
Surely Ed Curnow gets a run with role on Josh Kennedy this week? Kennedy was outstanding against Adelaide and will punish us if left to run unchecked. Ed's finishing was never a strong point so not sure why they're trying to make him into a forward option at this stage of his career....the guy can run all day.
Gibbons needs exposure to AFL to go to the next level...as a result he should earn an exemption thus far.
Fasolo knows whats required at AFL, he has experienced plenty. He should not receive the same exemption as a result.
I agree with you.
Fasolo should have automatically missed the first 4 games for match fitness and punishment for why he was injured in the first place. I'm not sure how he pushed himself ahead of Jack Silvagni based on his preseason?
My thing is we may as well play him another couple of games and see if it's a fitness issue or he's a dud.
Surprise, surprise, sMurph is/was an absentee from training, it wasn't April Fools!
I agree with you.
Fasolo should have automatically missed the first 4 games for match fitness and punishment for why he was injured in the first place. I'm not sure how he pushed himself ahead of Jack Silvagni based on his preseason?
My thing is we may as well play him another couple of games and see if it's a fitness issue or he's a dud.
Why though?
Why let this experiment play out in the 1's?
If he is NOT a dud, surely we will see from his efforts in the 2's.
If fitness is NOT an issue, surely he will run rings around those in the 2's.
There has been a bit of a push for a while now in regards to players NOT being gifted games. Why is Fasalo being gifted games when playes like SOS and bam bam are tearing it up in the 2's?
https://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2019-04-01/marchbank-in-the-mix
Why though?
Why let this experiment play out in the 1's?
If he is NOT a dud, surely we will see from his efforts in the 2's.
If fitness is NOT an issue, surely he will run rings around those in the 2's.
There has been a bit of a push for a while now in regards to players NOT being gifted games. Why is Fasalo being gifted games when playes like SOS and bam bam are tearing it up in the 2's?
Gibbons has just been the VFL equivalent of the Brownlow two years running. Whats the point of dropping him to the VFL when we already know what he is capable of at that level?
Its clear as day that the issue isn't one particular player but a team synergy issue and that will only improve by making fewer changes to personnell or roles.
Gibbons has just been the VFL equivalent of the Brownlow two years running. Whats the point of dropping him to the VFL when we already know what he is capable of at that level?
Its clear as day that the issue isn't one particular player but a team synergy issue and that will only improve by making fewer changes to personnell or roles.
Just to be clear, i was talking about Fas, and saying the opposite about Gibbons.
Playing devils advocate all 3 have the exact same problem.
They are all simply doing something a little bit alien to what they are used to.
1. Fasolo. Has just joined from the mortal enemy and may be doing what is asked of him but the way that we use the footy, and the actions of others could be contributing to making him look poor when he might be the only one in the right place at the wrong time, and hasn't played AFL footy for a while. All we can ask for is an upward trend in performance.
2. Gibbons is still trying to pick up the speed of AFL footy and is improving in this facet. Using Kane Lambert as a basis for comparison (given size and type of player its a pretty good basis for comparison) we shouldn't expect a lot from him this season. https://afltables.com/afl/stats/players/K/Kane_Lambert.html His first year was playing a finals bound team surrounded by much more mature recruits, and Lambert didnt exactly set the world on fire from the get go. In fact he didnt really hit his strides until his third year of AFL footy.
3. Ed. Learning a new role he is unsuited to. Now we can point at that and state that its a bad idea, however, we don't see what that allows us to do up the field. i.e. playing Ed forward might mean we get more midfield minutes into the likes of Dow, SPS, Setterfield, Fisher. That is arguably better for the team in the long term, than playing Ed at the coal face and when they can do it for longer, Ed might become proficient (enough) forward to give us a couple of different looks to that resting midfielder.
We are still a work in progress, and are going to be for the next couple of seasons IMHO, and that will only be exacerbated by the retirement of elder statesmen who still make up the bulk of our better performers most weeks. Until they become Jarrad McVeigh types who are contributers without being key to our teams fortunes, we arent going to be much better than we are now.
Good post...Kane Lambert is actually mates with Gibbons and has helped him over the years as he struggled to get drafted, same type of footballer and IMO Gibbons is ahead of Lambert in terms of development at the same stage.
Agree with MBB on Fasalo very lucky to be picked round 1 on the basis of fitness and his pre season activities and Jack Silvagni should have been rewarded for his efforts instead...
Agree with MBB on Fasalo very lucky to be picked round 1 on the basis of fitness and his pre season activities and Jack Silvagni should have been rewarded for his efforts instead...
We know from Russell's recent injury report that SoJ has a calf injury.
Surely Ed Curnow gets a run with role on Josh Kennedy this week? Kennedy was outstanding against Adelaide and will punish us if left to run unchecked. Ed's finishing was never a strong point so not sure why they're trying to make him into a forward option at this stage of his career....the guy can run all day.
I know our coaching staff are not that fond of the 'run with player'. I things were otherwise, we would have more of them on our list. However, on thing we have been very poor with over the last few years is stopping the oppositions' best players. Granted we need first shot at the ball if we are really going to get somewhere with our midfield, but turning a champion into a spud can change the game.
Take last year's game against Hawthorn, for example. We allowed Hawthorn's to mid to run around on his own, without even a token attempt to control his output. He managed 40+ possessions. Granted that a half fit Cripps got well over 30, but that was a lethal mistake. Ruining Mitchell's game would have given us a huge boost, not just from the 30 less possessions he may have got.
We do NOT have to closely tag all of an oppositions' mids, but taking out a key player could be crucial.
I think it is a better use of Ed Curnow to squash a danger player, rather than expect him to kick numerous goals.
However, as I said, we do not appear to be fans of close tags these days.
I know our coaching staff are not that fond of the 'run with player'. I things were otherwise, we would have more of them on our list. However, on thing we have been very poor with over the last few years is stopping the oppositions' best players.
I presume it's because young players really don't learn very much watching an opponent instead of monitoring the general play, and usually all you make the kid is an easy target for their opponent's team-mates to pick off around stoppages.
But what are we teaching the soon to be 30 year old Ed Curnow?
I don't think our small forward setup has benefited from losing Cunningham. He was the one setting things up - and kicking them himself in the JLT.
Polson did give off 2 nice handballs, kicked one and grazed the inside of the post with another. Gibbo missed a gettable one but did play a pretty reasonable game I thought.
Fas is the one. He is off the pace and needs to build confidence and match fitness in the VFL.
I'd love to see Jack back in this week in place of CC. His tackling is first rate and is generally good for a couple of goals if given half a chance.
CARLTON
Player
Injury
Estimated Return
David Cuningham Bruised kidney 2-3 weeks
Charlie Curnow Knee 2-3 weeks
Tom De Koning Knee 7-9 weeks
Sam Docherty Knee Indefinite
Matthew Kreuzer Knee 1 week
Darcy Lang Foot 2-4 weeks
Harrison Macreadie Back 1-2 weeks
Caleb Marchbank Back Test
Jarrod Pickett Knee Indefinite
Tom Williamson Back 2-4 weeks
Updated: Tuesday, April 2
Early prognosis
The Blues believe Marchbank will be available for selection this week after a summer hampered by a back problem, but Kreuzer remains another week or two away. Curnow and Cuningham will miss most of the next month, with Lang, Macreadie and Williamson a little bit behind them. - Riley Beveridge
SYDNEY
Player
Injury
Estimated Return
Heath Grundy Back Test
Matthew Ling Toe Indefinite
Jack Maibaum Knee Season
Daniel Menzel Groin 3-4 weeks
Sam Naismith Knee TBC
Nick Smith Hamstring TBC
Durak Tucker Knee Indefinite
Updated: Tuesday, April 2
Early prognosis
Grundy looks unlikely to be fit to play Carlton this week so could miss his second game in a row, while Menzel and Smith are continuing to train with no set date on their returns. The Swans are hopeful the pair could play in the next 2-3 weeks. - Adam Curley
The whisper network is still saying sMurph 50/50 for this week.
The season is a write off if we don't win this week (not that our expectations are that high anyway). The boys have all been pumped up over the off season. They are playing very nicely in patches, but not for 4 quarters.
I'm calling it. This is the game they're going to fight like mad for the full 4 quarters. That's what I want to see. Not just pride, but commitment to the cause, from start to end.
Blues by 34 points.
P.S. - I must be off my nut.
The season is a write off if we don't win this week (not that our expectations are that high anyway). The boys have all been pumped up over the off season. They are playing very nicely in patches, but not for 4 quarters.
I'm calling it. This is the game they're going to fight like mad for the full 4 quarters. That's what I want to see. Not just pride, but commitment to the cause, from start to end.
Blues by 34 points.
P.S. - I must be off my nut.
I fell for the hype.
Originally I had set more realistic expectations, and failed to listen to my gut. We have roughly a quarter of our senior list in the medical room, and not likely to play for a few weeks (although we might rush Marchbank in this week), and sure enough all the blokes that Russell told us were fine (are actually not) who are playing, and their time on ground combined with their effectiveness is reason enough to believe that they have sold us false hope AGAIN.
CARLTON
Player
Injury
Estimated Return
David Cuningham Bruised kidney 2-3 weeks
Charlie Curnow Knee 2-3 weeks
Tom De Koning Knee 7-9 weeks
Sam Docherty Knee Indefinite
Matthew Kreuzer Knee 1 week
Darcy Lang Foot 2-4 weeks
Harrison Macreadie Back 1-2 weeks
Caleb Marchbank Back Test
Jarrod Pickett Knee Indefinite
Tom Williamson Back 2-4 weeks
Updated: Tuesday, April 2
Early prognosis
The Blues believe Marchbank will be available for selection this week after a summer hampered by a back problem, but Kreuzer remains another week or two away. Curnow and Cuningham will miss most of the next month, with Lang, Macreadie and Williamson a little bit behind them. - Riley Beveridge
Sure, a few of these have gone down recently, but there are rumours that Murphy and Jack Silvagni have both got injuries too.
Fasolo and McGovern are not exactly cherry ripe irrespective of what they told us before the season started.
I'd wager we have a few more that have question marks over their fitness too based on Time on Ground percentages. Sam Walsh is showing us similar time on ground percentages to blokes that have had more years in the system meaning that our previous work was either rubbish or that they all have question marks. Paddy Dow is one of them who is staying on the ground for less time than walsh, and he has played 22 AFL games already.
I'm with you Thryleon....maybe over estimated us. Two bad quarters and two good quarters against Richmond and pretty much the same against Port....that form won't win us too many games. Yes we're missing a few from first choice 22 (Kreuzer, Marchbank, Williamson, Docherty and maybe Pickett and Cunningham) but most teams are always without players. Sydney are gettable this week especially if Grundy misses again. But a poor showing here will put the spotlight on the team and the coach again. We're probably lucky in the first two games that Melbourne and Essondon have been so poor along with North....all of whom were talked about as top 8 contenders.
The season is a write off if we don't win this week (not that our expectations are that high anyway). The boys have all been pumped up over the off season. They are playing very nicely in patches, but not for 4 quarters.
I'm calling it. This is the game they're going to fight like mad for the full 4 quarters. That's what I want to see. Not just pride, but commitment to the cause, from start to end.
Blues by 34 points.
P.S. - I must be off my nut.
I'll join you and be off my nut too...Blues by 17 points, not based on us being that good but more based on the Swans being on the decline and Buddy is due for a bad game against us sooner or later.....
Rest Murphy if he is still dodgy, concussion wise, and give O’Brien a go who is the heir apparent to that role anyway.
Sydney by 30. Too strong and better work rate.
Most of all, Longmire will out coach Bolton.
Rest Murphy if he is still dodgy, concussion wise, and give O’Brien a go who is the heir apparent to that role anyway.
Think I would rather Kennedy than Obrien...Kennedy is more of a contested ballwinner and might help us at the clearances given were were beat up by Port around the ball
and the Swans play a more contested style. I'm not confident Obrien has the contested ball winning skills or tackling ability that we need for this game.
Think I would rather Kennedy than Obrien...Kennedy is more of a contested ballwinner and might help us at the clearances given were were beat up by Port around the ball
and the Swans play a more contested style. I'm not confident Obrien has the contested ball winning skills or tackling ability that we need for this game.
Agree, Kennedy would be a good in v. the Swans. Move Fisher out to the Murphy role.
Think I would rather Kennedy than Obrien...Kennedy is more of a contested ballwinner and might help us at the clearances given were were beat up by Port around the ball
and the Swans play a more contested style. I'm not confident Obrien has the contested ball winning skills or tackling ability that we need for this game.
x100.
I'd give Lobbe a crack or even play two rucks....even if they only play 1. Worked for Port after all?
Lobbe in good form seemingly.
x100.
I'd give Lobbe a crack or even play two rucks....even if they only play 1. Worked for Port after all?
Lobbe in good form seemingly.
Worked for Port?
Who was Ports 1 ruckman?
Think I would rather Kennedy than Obrien...Kennedy is more of a contested ballwinner and might help us at the clearances given were were beat up by Port around the ball
and the Swans play a more contested style. I'm not confident Obrien has the contested ball winning skills or tackling ability that we need for this game.
Out: Curnow, Fasolo, Murphy if still unfit
In: Kennedy, Silvagni, O’Brien
Worked for Port?
Who was Ports 1 ruckman?
They had 2,we had 1.....
They had 2,we had 1.....
OK, so worked 'against' Port *insert sarcasm here*.
Sydney are not port though.
They have Callum Sinclair as their only ruck. Phillips can take him.
OK, so worked 'against' Port *insert sarcasm here*.
Sydney are not port though.
They have Callum Sinclair as their only ruck. Phillips can take him.
Wasnt Sinclair BOG last time?......vs Kreuzer?
OK, so worked 'against' Port *insert sarcasm here*.
Sydney are not port though.
They have Callum Sinclair as their only ruck. Phillips can take him.
Are you smoking something tonight Kruddler - how hard is it to understand? ::) ::)
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/blues-may-call-on-forgotten-forward-20190403-p51ag5.html
https://www.carltonfc.com.au/video/2019-04-03/carlton-coaches-corner-matt-kennedy
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/blues-may-call-on-forgotten-forward-20190403-p51ag5.html
Well I guess to be fair, if one KPF goes out, another KPF should come in.
x100.
I'd give Lobbe a crack or even play two rucks....even if they only play 1. Worked for Port after all?
Lobbe in good form seemingly.
Port's rucks were dominate around the ground. Our's, outside of Kreuzer and eventually De Koning, are not good around the ground. That's 2 of your 22 not touching it much for the sake of a few tapouts. If I did go two rucks it'd be with De Koning but he's injured.
First possession is worth more than possessions around the ground. Control the centre clearances, like Port did on the weekend, and you're well on the way to winning. Centre clearances correlate with inside F50 entries.
Port's rucks were dominate around the ground. Our's, outside of Kreuzer and eventually De Koning, are not good around the ground. That's 2 of your 22 not touching it much for the sake of a few tapouts. If I did go two rucks it'd be with De Koning but he's injured.
Lobbe or Phillips are no less mobile than Lycett - perhaps they're following some weird coaching instruction (or simply don't get to the right places in time) - has been a bug bear of mine forever and a day (Kreuzer aside) - the lack of influence our rucks have in around the ground play but I tend to agree with the Prof - control the centre square you're very likely to win the game....
https://www.carltonfc.com.au/video/2019-04-03/carlton-coaches-corner-matt-kennedy
Nice video this, the guy can play and when fit should be in the team ahead of some of the 1st or 2nd years.
First possession is worth more than possessions around the ground. Control the centre clearances, like Port did on the weekend, and you're well on the way to winning. Centre clearances correlate with inside F50 entries.
Not sure that is correct, while it helps in scoring one of the big things for good rucks is to get defensive side and cut off some space by taking marks. If they don't do that the opposition have too man easy avenues to goal.
Also around the ground includes stoppages in our D50, I think Port scored a couple of their goals from stoppages inside 50 as a result of Ryder being dominant.
Fans on this forum complained for years about us running with two rucks, yet we hear crickets when two rucks do a job on us like Port's did at the weekend, and for the second week running opposition rucks have been in the BoG!
Not sure that is correct, while it helps in scoring one of the big things for good rucks is to get defensive side and cut off some space by taking marks. If they don't do that the opposition have too man easy avenues to goal.
Also around the ground includes stoppages in our D50, I think Port scored a couple of their goals from stoppages inside 50 as a result of Ryder being dominant.
Fans on this forum complained for years about us running with two rucks, yet we hear crickets when two rucks do a job on us like Port's did at the weekend, and for the second week running opposition rucks have been in the BoG!
Phillips isn't Kreuzer to start with.
Both opposition rucks dominated around the ground. Tell me, what are ours going to do there. They won't be touching it much. Means two blokes on the ground barely getting a kick. That's why 2 rucks fails us every time. Think about it. If we pick 2 rucks it's something like Kreuzer and De Koning.
How would we pick 2 rucks in rounds 1 and 2 anyway when we already have Charlie, Harry and McGovern in the side. Who goes out?...lol.
Part of the art of ruck work is around the ground positioning- the classic sitting "one kick behind the play" at CHB. Similarly, knowing when and where to push forward as a marking option without destroying the structure and clogging it up.
Phillips isn't Kreuzer to start with.
Both opposition rucks dominated around the ground. Tell me, what are ours going to do there. They won't be touching it much. Means two blokes on the ground barely getting a kick. That's why 2 rucks fails us every time. Think about it. If we pick 2 rucks it's something like Kreuzer and De Koning.
How would we pick 2 rucks in rounds 1 and 2 anyway when we already have Charlie, Harry and McGovern in the side. Who goes out?...lol.
That is a defeatist attitude, you can't just bend over and let the opposition have their way with you!
Besides, it's contradictory to state their two rucks dominate us while ours fail, the problem isn't having two rucks, it's having guys like Levi or McKay as the supporting ruck. We need SpecialK in the top job and some genuine 2nd ruck like Lobbe or Phillips as the support.
As for having McKay, McGovern and Charlie in the team, ultimately until McKay is a useful 2nd ruck I doubt it can work. The only alternative is to have Charlie move into the midfield rotations, and I'm not sure that helps us either. I can see 3 into 2 doesn't go, and we will eventually drive one of them out of that role. It was pretty clear when Charlie got injured things seemed to improve in our F50, not because Charlie is having an ordinary start to the season, but because it's much easier for the F50 and Midfield to get themselves organised around two KPF options.
Ultimately we may be able to run with all three assuming McKay becomes a useful ruck rotation, which he really isn't at the moment. Even so, I'm sure there are fans not so happy, maybe never happy, to see McKay in the ruck purely for PCL injury reasons.
Anyway, Harry is far too good of a contested mark to waste him around the ground.
As for managing two rucks with two or more KPFs, plenty of sides are doing it via the limited rotations already. We just need to get our head around the process, which I concede may be harder with our kids/midfields apparent lack of aerobic capacity. But as it stands, the center break has become so important to winning it is now inevitable.
No club can ignore the effect of the new rules, even if total scores have not changed, scores from center breaks are up by about 500%. I think one of the Pudding Face Twins stated this week that last season direct scoring from center breaks averaged about 8 pts per game, so far this season and through the JLT it's 43 pts per game.
https://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2019-04-03/vfl-player-review-v-north-melbourne
So, based on that, and our needs, ins will be Kennedy and Jack.
Lobbe should be in too, but I think the'll pick Levi or no one (in terms of talls).
Wasnt Sinclair BOG last time?......vs Kreuzer?
Correct. It was probably Sinclair's best ever game. Granted Kreuzer was not close to 100%, but Sinclair used his athleticism to break contact and get the ball.
With Charlie out, Levi might get the nod over Lobbe just for his ability to go forward for a mark/goal. Assuming Murphy is fit I'd have Levi in with Silvagni and Kennedy and Charlie out injured and drop Fasolo and Garlett.
Ch7 reporting Fas dropped SOS an emergency.
In Marchy Cas O'Brien
Out Fas Charlie Garlett
EMERG SOS Stocker Garlett Lobbe
I don't know how everyone else is feeling but this is a really important game as far as I'm concerned.
A win is desperately needed just to break the cycle and give everyone a sense that this season is about progress and improvement.
Surprisingly many commentators have been supportive of our efforts so far.
But it won't take much for that to turn.
Another honorable loss and it starts to sound like a bit of a broken record.
The worst possible scenario would be a bad loss....it would just suck the life out of the place.
I'm staggered that Kennedy isn't in for this week? And do we need 3 tall defenders against Sydney? Rapt that Levi gets a crack at it though.
Don't like that size, too big and slow.
Are you smoking something tonight Kruddler - how hard is it to understand? ::) ::)
Its not when you indicate tone, and proper grammar. ;)
Agreed Prof....especially at Etihad (or whatever it's called these days). I would've thought Marchbank would be given at least a week in the VFL and Kennedy has done more than enough to warrant a game? He might not be quick but he's exactly the sort of bloke who can give Cripps a breather in the middle and let him push forward. O'Brien makes me nervous too....saw too many games last year where he absolutely butchered the footy.
I'm staggered that Kennedy isn't in for this week? And do we need 3 tall defenders against Sydney? Rapt that Levi gets a crack at it though.
Marchbank is more your 3rd tall/medium defender. Its a luxury to have his type available and our backline will be better for it.
I do not like the team balance though. Overall, too big, tall and slow.
So:-
Levi replaces Charlie
O'Brien replaces Fas
Marchbank replaces Garlett
Ed looks to remain as DF?
Does not turn me on tbh.
Cookie....I'd put money on Ed returning to a tagging role this week on Josh Kennedy.
It's hard pleasing everybody, and it's hard finding a happy medium. Many times on here I read we are lightweights and brushed off too easily, boys v men etc.
Swans are slow and big, especially in the midfield. We either try and match them, or try going the opposite, and blowing them off for pace and agility. It's hard to know sometimes.
But with those "ins" we're not matching them in the midfield by any stretch?
Love to see Levi really dig in and throw his weight around and crash some packs up forward and around the ground. I know he's dropped right down the pecking order in terms of tall forwards but I think he can bring something to the team this week and Charlie has really struggled to date this year.
It's hard pleasing everybody, and it's hard finding a happy medium. Many times on here I read we are lightweights and brushed off too easily, boys v men etc.
Swans are slow and big, especially in the midfield. We either try and match them, or try going the opposite, and blowing them off for pace and agility. It's hard to know sometimes.
So a wooden spoon team is going to match it with a premiership winning team at their own game?
Personally i think its pretty clear what we should be trying to do....and its not that.
But with those "ins" we're not matching them in the midfield by any stretch?
................
That's true. But with Setters, Cripps and Curnow, there's already size there. Marchy is quite versatile IMO, and ObiOne is pacy, so maybe the MC figure he gives us an advantage on the outside ? Dunno their reasoning......
So a wooden spoon team is going to match it with a premiership winning team at their own game?
Personally i think its pretty clear what we should be trying to do....and its not that.
What does ladder position have to do with team selection ?
Cookie....I'd put money on Ed returning to a tagging role this week on Josh Kennedy.
Mate, I really hope you are right.
cookie....it's easy sitting back in our lounge chairs screaming at the TV getting frustrated but for the life of me I can't see why they're trying to change Ed's role at this stage of his career? He's an elite runner and the best games he's played for us have been in the midfield and running with opposition players...he's done it on Cotchin, Selwood and those types before and I can't understand why it wasn't Cotchin in Round 1 and Rockliff last week. Last week we had Gibbons, Fasolo and Polson up forward and in Round 1 it was Gibbons, Fasolo and Cunningham....Curnow was surplus in that role and finishing around goals has never been his strong point. You can argue that type of role is redundant these days but look at what Hutchings did on Sidebottom in the GF and he'll likely get that tag, if not another, this week again. Hutchings runs all day but isn't known for his goalkicking or finishing skills either but you can guarantee West Coast won't be trying to turn him into a small/medium forward anytime soon.
A lot has been said about Ed's role as a defensive forward and I really don't understand the criticism of the role or his performances.
For a start, he has been all over the ground doing his normal "make it hard for the opposition" work and collecting plenty of his own ball. Yes, some of his disposals haven't been the best, but that's generally what you get from Ed, no matter where he plays.
I would expect him to continue as a defensive forward and take a minor part in the midfield rotations this game.
cookie....it's easy sitting back in our lounge chairs screaming at the TV getting frustrated but for the life of me I can't see why they're trying to change Ed's role at this stage of his career? He's an elite runner and the best games he's played for us have been in the midfield and running with opposition players...he's done it on Cotchin, Selwood and those types before and I can't understand why it wasn't Cotchin in Round 1 and Rockliff last week. Last week we had Gibbons, Fasolo and Polson up forward and in Round 1 it was Gibbons, Fasolo and Cunningham....Curnow was surplus in that role and finishing around goals has never been his strong point. You can argue that type of role is redundant these days but look at what Hutchings did on Sidebottom in the GF and he'll likely get that tag, if not another, this week again. Hutchings runs all day but isn't known for his goalkicking or finishing skills either but you can guarantee West Coast won't be trying to turn him into a small/medium forward anytime soon.
The only thing I can think of is that often miss push forward to break a tag. Ed cant play back so if theres no one else to tag he needs a plan B.
We are currently not going to win much, so may as well get the L platers to play in the guts and tag, and get our tagger (who has copped a lot of physicality over the years) a gap year and try give him another dimension in case of emergency.
In Marchy Cas O'Brien
Out Fas Charlie Garlett
EMERG SOS Stocker Garlett Lobbe
CARLTONB: Liam Jones, Lachie Plowman, Kade Simpson
HB: Dale Thomas, Jacob Weitering, Nic Newman
C: Marc Murphy, Patrick Cripps, Sam Petrevski-Seton
HF: Ed Curnow, Harry McKay, Sam Walsh
F: Zac Fisher, Mitch McGovern, Michael Gibbons
R: Andrew Phillips, Will Setterfield, Paddy Dow
Int: Cameron Polson, Caleb Marchbank, Lochie O'Brien, Levi Casboult
Emg: Liam Stocker, Jarrod Garlett, Matthew Lobbe, Jack Silvagni
IN: Caleb Marchbank, Lochie O'Brien, Levi Casboult
OUT: Alex Fasolo (Omitted), Charlie Curnow (Injured), Jarrod Garlett (Omitted)
Perhaps not as quick as I would like, but having Casboult gives us some flexibility and ruck option. O'Brien has been getting the ball, but I'd like him to get more inside ball. I probably wouldn't have played Marchbank without a game in the VFL.
Anyway, this is what we have chosen. How they line up ... who knows?
SYDNEY SWANS
B: Jake Lloyd, Dane Rampe, Callum Mills
HB: Zak Jones, Aliir Aliir, Jarrad McVeigh
C: Oliver Florent, Isaac Heeney, George Hewett
HF: Tom Papley, Lance Franklin, Will Hayward
F: Tom McCartin, Sam Reid, Ben Ronke
R: Callum Sinclair, Luke Parker, Josh P. Kennedy
Int: Nick Blakey, Jackson Thurlow, Harry Cunningham, Jordan Dawson
EMG Lewis Melican, James Rowbottom, Robbie Fox, Ryley Stoddart
IN: Tom McCartin, Jackson Thurlow, Jordan Dawson
OUT: Lewis Melican (Omitted), Colin O'Riordan (Omitted), Ryan Clarke (Omitted)
Agree to an extend DJC but I can't think of another player that we've got who can play that run-with role on the best opposition midfielders? If you've got the best midfield in the competition like Collingwood you just back your blokes in to win it more than the opposition and don't bother tagging their blokes...but we're miles off being that and blokes like Cotchin and Rockliff just towelled us up in the first two weeks running unchecked and racking up possessions. Not having a go at Ed as he's been one of my favourite players for years...just questioning what they're trying to achieve as it doesn't look to be working.
What does ladder position have to do with team selection ?
Really? Do i need to spell it out? I thought i just did.
Sydney have (kinda) recently won a flag, and more recently played off in a grand final. Their style over a long period of time has been using bigger bodied players (mids mainly) and being strong at the contest. Given they have had the ultimate success and been near the top for a while you'd think they are very successful at it.
Alternatively, we have a young, largely inexperienced, smaller bodied list. We are struggling to find our 'style' but being bullies is about as far from our style as you can get given our list makeup.
So given the above, what makes you think we can match them at their own game? Surely we'd be better off trying to beat them in another manner rather than playing to their strengths?
One of Marchbank or Casboult, not both.
On a side issue, have you checked out the coaches' Northern Player review EB? Some very interesting roles outlined for some younger players, I'd have never considered Owies a medium forward or Stocker a close checking half back. I think that's called....development ? Its just so long since we've had any I'm struggling with the concept.
Really? Do i need to spell it out? I thought i just did.
Sydney have (kinda) recently won a flag, and more recently played off in a grand final. Their style over a long period of time has been using bigger bodied players (mids mainly) and being strong at the contest. Given they have had the ultimate success and been near the top for a while you'd think they are very successful at it.
Alternatively, we have a young, largely inexperienced, smaller bodied list. We are struggling to find our 'style' but being bullies is about as far from our style as you can get given our list makeup.
So given the above, what makes you think we can match them at their own game? Surely we'd be better off trying to beat them in another manner rather than playing to their strengths?
Sydney last won a flag in 2012. We've turned over 8000 players since then. They started last season at 0-6, and like us, have started this season at 0-2.
Who would be in your 22 ?
Something must be up for Kennedy not to be named an emergency
Sydney last won a flag in 2012. We've turned over 8000 players since then. They started last season at 0-6, and like us, have started this season at 0-2.
Who would be in your 22 ?
And won a flag the year before Bolton was coach.
Finished 1st in his 1st year as coach.
Haven't missed the finals in 10 years.
Are very consistent.
...and yes, they started 0-6.....and finished 6th.
How are you missing this??
My 22....
Instead Kennedy (in form) allows Murphy to play forward
I'd have kept Garlett, suited to the ideal conditions of Marvel.
Then its a tossup for who takes the last spot, I'd probably reward Jack if fit before giving Obrien a go.
So from the listed team...
In: Garlett, Kennedy (Jack?)
Out: Casboult, Obrien/Ed
Confused.
Kennedy must be injured again.
Marchbank has no match conditioning.
Meat has been playing as a defender.
Two talls in, one tall out. Two smalls out. One medium in.
Confused.
And won a flag the year before Bolton was coach.
Finished 1st in his 1st year as coach.
Haven't missed the finals in 10 years.
Are very consistent.
...and yes, they started 0-6.....and finished 6th.
How are you missing this??
My 22....
Instead Kennedy (in form) allows Murphy to play forward
I'd have kept Garlett, suited to the ideal conditions of Marvel.
Then its a tossup for who takes the last spot, I'd probably reward Jack if fit before giving Obrien a go.
So from the listed team...
In: Garlett, Kennedy (Jack?)
Out: Casboult, Obrien/Ed
Forget the abstract collection of facts. In our last three games, we have matched them on the inside. One of those games we actually won, and the other was when Buddy kicked 10.
https://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2018/11/syd-v-carl
https://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2017/6/carl-v-syd
https://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2017/23/syd-v-carl
I can see merits in your list, but I can also see why the club has made its choice.
The 'abstract collection of facts' backs up my contention.
Alternatively, you provide..... ?
Swans are ripe for the picking, but picking a side like we did works in their favour, not ours.
Yes, we may have won once against them (in their worst period in 10 years no less) but any club can beat any other on any given day. Cellar dwellers Saints and Swans beat the unbeatable '95 blues for example. An one game, does not constitute a pattern.
Who knows, Casboult may end up with 8 shots and goal and kick them all.
He might end up with 8 shots on goal and kick 4 behinds and 4 out on the full.
He might end up with less than 8 possessions. (....this the most likely option from this list)
Everyone has their chance, but run this game 100 times over with the best 22 picked vs 100 times over with a different 22 (mine for example) and i'd be very surprised if this one wins more than the alternative......and thats my point in a nutshell.
Really? Do i need to spell it out? I thought i just did.
Sydney have (kinda) recently won a flag, and more recently played off in a grand final. Their style over a long period of time has been using bigger bodied players (mids mainly) and being strong at the contest. Given they have had the ultimate success and been near the top for a while you'd think they are very successful at it.
Alternatively, we have a young, largely inexperienced, smaller bodied list. We are struggling to find our 'style' but being bullies is about as far from our style as you can get given our list makeup.
So given the above, what makes you think we can match them at their own game? Surely we'd be better off trying to beat them in another manner rather than playing to their strengths?
I agree. Sydney are very hard to beat when the game is played on their terms.
Would prefer to see us take the match on like we did for 2 quarters last week then try and beat this mob playing a in tight contested contest. They can beat anyone if played on those terms and we are not good enough to try that game plan against them.
Just can’t see us getting the points unless we run ultra hard, take some smart risks when needed and take the game on.
The 'abstract collection of facts' backs up my contention.
Alternatively, you provide..... ?
Swans are ripe for the picking, but picking a side like we did works in their favour, not ours.
Yes, we may have won once against them (in their worst period in 10 years no less) but any club can beat any other on any given day. Cellar dwellers Saints and Swans beat the unbeatable '95 blues for example. An one game, does not constitute a pattern.
Who knows, Casboult may end up with 8 shots and goal and kick them all.
He might end up with 8 shots on goal and kick 4 behinds and 4 out on the full.
He might end up with less than 8 possessions. (....this the most likely option from this list)
Everyone has their chance, but run this game 100 times over with the best 22 picked vs 100 times over with a different 22 (mine for example) and i'd be very surprised if this one wins more than the alternative......and thats my point in a nutshell.
Us vs them is the relevant comparison. If you want to compare our recent overall record to other clubs, we may as well not bother showing up. We have matched them at their own game, and that's the point I'm making.
One of Marchbank or Casboult, not both.
On a side issue, have you checked out the coaches' Northern Player review EB? Some very interesting roles outlined for some younger players, I'd have never considered Owies a medium forward or Stocker a close checking half back. I think that's called....development ? Its just so long since we've had any I'm struggling with the concept.
I did see that review Prof.....wouldnt be my choice to play Stocker half back but he must have shown he needs some education in defending players rather than just being a ball winner.
Owies probably doesnt have a position as yet and starting off down forward on a flank etc isnt a bad way to get exposure to the game without having a lot of responsibility and allows him to have a look
at how the game is played and to pick up the pace.
Obrien had nine contested disposals which is a good sign and maybe why he got picked this week, important year for him and he needs to justify that pick 10 being used on him.
I guess we asked for development/education and thats what Fraser is giving us, I do like that kerr is being used forward and back and I like the way that kid plays his footy...strong/physical and in the old fashioned way you and I both like it.
CARLTON
B: Liam Jones, Lachie Plowman, Kade Simpson
HB: Dale Thomas, Jacob Weitering, Nic Newman
C: Marc Murphy, Patrick Cripps, Sam Petrevski-Seton
HF: Ed Curnow, Harry McKay, Sam Walsh
F: Zac Fisher, Mitch McGovern, Michael Gibbons
R: Andrew Phillips, Will Setterfield, Paddy Dow
Int: Cameron Polson, Caleb Marchbank, Lochie O'Brien, Levi Casboult
Emg: Liam Stocker, Jarrod Garlett, Matthew Lobbe, Jack Silvagni
IN: Caleb Marchbank, Lochie O'Brien, Levi Casboult
OUT: Alex Fasolo (Omitted), Charlie Curnow (Injured), Jarrod Garlett (Omitted)
Perhaps not as quick as I would like, but having Casboult gives us some flexibility and ruck option. O'Brien has been getting the ball, but I'd like him to get more inside ball. I probably wouldn't have played Marchbank without a game in the VFL.
Anyway, this is what we have chosen. How they line up ... who knows?
SYDNEY SWANS
B: Jake Lloyd, Dane Rampe, Callum Mills
HB: Zak Jones, Aliir Aliir, Jarrad McVeigh
C: Oliver Florent, Isaac Heeney, George Hewett
HF: Tom Papley, Lance Franklin, Will Hayward
F: Tom McCartin, Sam Reid, Ben Ronke
R: Callum Sinclair, Luke Parker, Josh P. Kennedy
Int: Nick Blakey, Jackson Thurlow, Harry Cunningham, Jordan Dawson
EMG Lewis Melican, James Rowbottom, Robbie Fox, Ryley Stoddart
IN: Tom McCartin, Jackson Thurlow, Jordan Dawson
OUT: Lewis Melican (Omitted), Colin O'Riordan (Omitted), Ryan Clarke (Omitted)
Swans are tall up forward with McCartin into the team and Blakely still on the bench, think thats why Marchbank got picked...we would have been exposed for size down back.
Swans dont have much size down back either maybe Levi and Harry can work them over..
Cas in for Charlie allows Harry our most potent fwd a full game up front. Cas can also take marks around the ground when he's rucking and might snag a goal. Would rather have Charlie in fine form but he's not and he's injured. A win all things considered.
L'OB in for Garlett - who many have noted has squibbed it at times and deserves to be dropped. L'OB I rate. Better runner and ball getter already and I believe his kicking will become a real weapon when he matures a bit and gains some more composure. Nice action and can deliver a long ball to advantage. He'll be a nice distributor for us who can run all day.
Marchy in for Fas. Not too dissimilar really. Mid/taller sized marking players. If the swans have 3 tall fwds then we need 3 taller defenders. Fas out of the fwd line (in his current form) is a win as it allows a smaller pressure player like Fisher to play fwd. He's a natural terrier and goal kicker and can play some time in the middle too.
Maybe i'm just an optimist.
I'd wager o brien will go wing, marchbank fills in for garlett and Murphy goes forward to replace fasolo, and Levi is a straight swap for Charlie.
Rumours are saying Murphy is a question mark. Garlett as emergency suggests marchbank might not come up either.
"Murphy doubtful" may not necessarily be a result of that collision last week.
Even before that I was wondering if he'd been carrying an injury both games.
Agree to an extend DJC but I can't think of another player that we've got who can play that run-with role on the best opposition midfielders? If you've got the best midfield in the competition like Collingwood you just back your blokes in to win it more than the opposition and don't bother tagging their blokes...but we're miles off being that and blokes like Cotchin and Rockliff just towelled us up in the first two weeks running unchecked and racking up possessions. Not having a go at Ed as he's been one of my favourite players for years...just questioning what they're trying to achieve as it doesn't look to be working.
I really don’t think that Cotchin and Rockliff towelled us up. Rockliff got a lot of the ball but did nothing with it and Cotchin was only marginally more effective. Cripps was clearly the best midfielder in terms of the impact/effectiveness of his possessions but neither opposition coach thought it necessary to tag him. The tagging role seems to have been consigned to the history books.
I see Ed’s role as an evolution that reflects the growth in our midfield talent; he is still a valuable contributor but the new blokes are better. If he can make a contribution as a forward, that is a huge win for an evolving forward line.
I will be at the game and I will be paying particular attention to Ed’s role and performance. Hopefully I will be able to give a positive response.
Lods, the way Murphy is moving I'd suggest his back is sore.
Lods, the way Murphy is moving I'd suggest his back is sore.
Yep, he looked to me to be restricted and as though it was also affecting his kicking.
I really don’t think that Cotchin and Rockliff towelled us up. Rockliff got a lot of the ball but did nothing with it and Cotchin was only marginally more effective. Cripps was clearly the best midfielder in terms of the impact/effectiveness of his possessions but neither opposition coach thought it necessary to tag him. The tagging role seems to have been consigned to the history books.
I see Ed’s role as an evolution that reflects the growth in our midfield talent; he is still a valuable contributor but the new blokes are better. If he can make a contribution as a forward, that is a huge win or an evolving forward line.
I will be at the game and I will be paying particular attention to Ed’s role and performance. Hopefully I will be able to give a positive response.
I'd disagree on Rockliff, he led the clearance possies with Cripps....we should have been well on top with Wines out but didnt take advantage....Rockliff went at 70%DE and Cripps at 64%...
Cotchin I agree didnt have much effect...we needed to stop Rockliff though.
I'd disagree on Rockliff, he led the clearance possies with Cripps....we should have been well on top with Wines out but didnt take advantage....Rockliff went at 70%DE and Cripps at 64%...
Cotchin I agree didnt have much effect...we needed to stop Rockliff though.
If Rockliff missed a target I can't remember it. I thought he was particularly effective and was the difference between the two teams.
Swans are tall up forward with McCartin into the team and Blakely still on the bench, think thats why Marchbank got picked...we would have been exposed for size down back.
Swans dont have much size down back either maybe Levi and Harry can work them over..
Hopefully it's that and they don't run off us.
Who do we play on J Lloyd? Very important player for them - can't be left to his own devices.
"Murphy doubtful" may not necessarily be a result of that collision last week.
Even before that I was wondering if he'd been carrying an injury both games.
sMurph was playing pretty well before he got smashed last week, but afterwards he couldn't hit a barn with a zepplin!
Interesting all the pre-game chat about Kennedy then we name O'Biren instead, I'd expect Kennedy to come in rather than us bring Garlett back.
Bit surprised Marchbank comes in, is he going to run with Buddy?
sMurph was playing pretty well before he got smashed last week, but after wards he couldn't hit a barn with a zepplin!
Interesting all the pre-game chat about Kennedy then we name O'Biren instead, I'd expect Kennedy to come in rather than us bring Garlett back.
Bit surprised Marchbank comes in, is he going to run with Buddy?
Nah at quarter time I said he was rubbish by good players standards.
Who do we play on J Lloyd? Very important player for them - can't be left to his own devices.
Cameron polson.
Interesting comments about Cotchin in Round 1 not being very effective even though not tagged....got the maximum 10 votes in the AFL Coaches Association Award meaning both coaches thought he was BOG.
Interesting comments about Cotchin in Round 1 not being very effective even though not tagged....got the maximum 10 votes in the AFL Coaches Association Award meaning both coaches thought he was BOG.
Yes there seems to be some fan effect, are we biased in some subtle way? ;D
Interesting comments about Cotchin in Round 1 not being very effective even though not tagged....got the maximum 10 votes in the AFL Coaches Association Award meaning both coaches thought he was BOG.
Cotchin had one of those games that wasn't flashy, but is his usual best self. He throws his body in when required, and does the team things really well. Statistically he was in the top handful, but he is a death by a thousand cuts type player so often goes unnoticed.
We were discussing with a Richmond supporter with us, and the concensus was that the 3 should go to Cotchin for Round 1. 2 to either of Cripps or Martin, and the other one will get the 1. Given the Tigers won, Cripps will get 1 vote.
I have a feeling Marchy wont play and SOS will come in.
Cotchin had one of those games that wasn't flashy, but is his usual best self. He throws his body in when required, and does the team things really well. Statistically he was in the top handful, but he is a death by a thousand cuts type player so often goes unnoticed.
We were discussing with a Richmond supporter with us, and the concensus was that the 3 should go to Cotchin for Round 1. 2 to either of Cripps or Martin, and the other one will get the 1. Given the Tigers won, Cripps will get 1 vote.
I agree about Cotchin, he played a Hodge type game, him being the Captain is a bonus, not sure he was BoG though.
Don't agree about Dusty, I thought he as average at best, well below his best. I wouldn't have even had him in their top 5!
I thought Nankervis was BoG, he also had "a presence" and was all over the ground as much if not more than Cotchin. Lambert was pretty good when it mattered, as was Houli and Edwards.
Back onto this weeks game, I'm not sure those changes help us much. None of the three inclusions, Levi, Marchbank and O'Brien, are what you would call physical, and the Swans are mostly gritty physical types.
Maybe we are going to run them off their feet with our silky skills?
Excuse me while I head on the back to slap myself! ;D
If Murphy goes out I'd rather see Kennedy come in. Sydney aren't in the best form but Cripps will be up against some of the best inside players in the game in Kennedy/Parker and will need some help if the first two rounds are anything to go by.
If Murphy goes out I'd rather see Kennedy come in. Sydney aren't in the best form but Cripps will be up against some of the best inside players in the game in Kennedy/Parker and will need some help if the first two rounds are anything to go by.
I agree, if nothing else but to help preserve Cripps a little, it's a long season.
I thought Setterfield has been OK so far, I'd like to see a rotation with Setterfield and Kennedy in tandem with sMurph, leaving Cripps with Ed and Samo. I think the inside game of Setterfield and Cripps are too much alike to be in their side-by-side, to me it doesn't feel balanced.
If we want Setterfield to progress we have to be a little precautionary about how heavily he is loaded, as you state Swans will be a huge test. Also look at the Swans Ins, all 90kg types, they are planning to beat up on our kids.
I agree, if nothing else but to help preserve Cripps a little, it's a long season.
I thought Setterfield has been OK so far, I'd like to see a rotation with Setterfield and Kennedy in tandem with sMurph, leaving Cripps with Ed and Samo. I think the inside game of Setterfield and Cripps are too much alike to be in their side-by-side, to me it doesn't feel balanced.
If we want Setterfield to progress we have to be a little precautionary about how heavily he is loaded, as you state Swans will be a huge test. Also look at the Swans Ins, all 90kg types, they are planning to beat up on our kids.
Setterfield was used to sit on Rockliff in the 2nd half of the Port game and I reckon he might get another role like that....Kennedy should be in the team IMO anyway.....
Setterfield was used to sit on Rockliff in the 2nd half of the Port game and I reckon he might get another role like that....Kennedy should be in the team IMO anyway.....
If Kennedy is fit and firing then I am puzzled as to why he is not being selected, I thought we got him to give Cripps a chop out??
Setterfield was used to sit on Rockliff in the 2nd half of the Port game and I reckon he might get another role like that....Kennedy should be in the team IMO anyway.....
I too thought Setterfield did a good job on Rockliff, but I think Setterfield was even better value before we turned him into a tagger.
I have to question our tactics EB1. Why waste Setterfield tagging, a player who wins inside football and distributes it well, yet leave Ed Curnow floundering in the F50 as an ineffective distributer or F50 target?
It didn't make sense to me, have I missed something?
If Kennedy is fit and firing then I am puzzled as to why he is not being selected, I thought we got him to give Cripps a chop out??
Agree....Kennedy has been unfit since arriving and that game for the NB's last week is about the best he has moved and played since coming across
from GWS. We know how Sydney play and we were ordinary last week around the ball even though Port had Wines out and Wingard now at Hawthorn.
No brainer IMO that this game would suit Kennedy and I'd be playing him while he is fit and firing...
No brainer IMO that this game would suit Kennedy and I'd be playing him while he is fit and firing...
History suggests we'll wait until his VFL form bottoms out then give him a trial run against Collingwood! :o
If Kennedy is fit and firing then I am puzzled as to why he is not being selected, I thought we got him to give Cripps a chop out??
I assume that Bolton would have picked Kennedy if he was available. However, the other assumption is that the guru, Andrew Russell has deemed him NQR to be promoted. If we believe that Russell is the fitness real deal, then it makes sense that we support his recommendation.
I assume that Bolton would have picked Kennedy if he was available. However, the other assumption is that the guru, Andrew Russell has deemed him NQR to be promoted. If we believe that Russell is the fitness real deal, then it makes sense that we support his recommendation.
Well if that is all true TC then fair enough.
I too thought Setterfield did a good job on Rockliff, but I think Setterfield was even better value before we turned him into a tagger.
I have to question our tactics EB1. Why waste Setterfield tagging, a player who wins inside football and distributes it well, yet leave Ed Curnow floundering in the F50 as an ineffective distributer or F50 target?
It didn't make sense to me, have I missed something?
LP...Setterfield has impressed me too, bit of a quiet achiever, no frills type who gets the job done, agree I wouldnt waste him on tagging and would have him as the rotation for Cripps when he goes off the ball so we can use Cripps forward more to win games. Floundering is a good word for Ed, its not his fault in many ways as he isnt the creative slick ball user type and apart from retaining the ball in the forward 50 he doesnt add much in terms of delivery or forward nous. Ed's forte is tagging but he had some bad games last season where he got towelled up and its almost like we are having to find a spot for him each week because he is a senior role model type player.
Then we have Kennedy on the comeback trail, probably a bit smoother player than Ed who deserves a chance to cement a spot if he can stay on the park....Is Ed playing down forward part of a good game plan for the future or another bandaid on the fly fix??...think we need to progress and pick the players who are going to take us forward and not keep us in a holding pattern.
History suggests we'll wait until his VFL form bottoms out then give him a trial run against Collingwood! :o
Yep...Probably get injured this week in some innocuous fashion wasting his time in the NB's.....
If we're backing the fitness guy in then I hope like hell that Marchbank gets through the game unscathed....if we're talking about "history suggesting", then it's almost a lock that he'll be injured again within a fortnight. From memory Marchbank hasn't played any pre-season or VFL practice matches? For a bloke who's missed a lot of footy in his time at Carlton it's a big call to bring him straight back in.
If we're backing the fitness guy in then I hope like hell that Marchbank gets through the game unscathed....if we're talking about "history suggesting", then it's almost a lock that he'll be injured again within a fortnight. From memory Marchbank hasn't played any pre-season or VFL practice matches? For a bloke who's missed a lot of footy in his time at Carlton it's a big call to bring him straight back in.
They must rate Marchy extremely important (vital in fact) to our set up/structure to name him straight in. I still think he wont line up in the 1s personally. Good luck to him if he does, he's gonna need it.
Philips out and Lobbe in.....
Phillips has no luck with injuries ::)
Lobbe played a great game in NBs last week and should bring that form into this game. I think that he will be a tougher opponent for Sinclair.
Phillips can't play three games in a row.
Phillips can't play three games in a row.
Phillips or any ruck cannot be expected to play week in and week out with such pissweak support options.
What's his issue anyway?
What's his issue anyway?
Warnock and Porter Syndrome WaPS
Why we struggle.
Summed up in one contest.
Aerial ball. Casboult crashes into mills, and comes off second best.
Any other team would leave mills dead fairly.
Instead we play nice guys trying to not hurt anyone.
Casboult..the least physical big man I've seen since Warnock, who was inspid.