First, Staker all over Garland? Just enlighten me; what impact did Staker have on the game? The commentators said it all: very little. If he'd been any good they might have scored more goals.

Terry Toweling. Hold your horses.

We beat Brisbane. By a lot. Many of their players didn't do well. Staker is their third best tall after Brown and Fev so of course he will not get the same supply. Whilst Garland did well helping out and leaving his man to contest other situations, I don't think he played all that well. He looked rusty, he gave away clumsy free kicks and when the ball was kicked to Staker, Garland was caught out on a number of occasions in the first half.

All I am saying is, I would rather have Rivers in Garlands position at the moment.

And I believe that's a fair enough opinion. Garland has missed a year of footy and you can tell.

Edited April 25, 201015 yr by stevethemanjordan

I hope the side stays unchanged Col might take little while to settle into the run of the game. See how he goes in the next few weeks.

is it actually reported pettard is injured?

i hope pettard gets up for north next week. i really don't see anyone else being able to present themselves up forward like he does for us at the moment.

Bennell dropped?? You are kidding.

No injuries then no changes.

agree on both points

would love to squeeze bail and perhaps watts in, but going to be tough to drop players from yesterday's 22-man performance

agree on both points

would love to squeeze bail and perhaps watts in, but going to be tough to drop players from yesterday's 22-man performance

dont think we will see watts in the firsts for a few more weeks

think we need a extra tall, north have hmac, goldstein, and hale . As we are at ES , the weather will be irrelevant as the roof will be closed if its raining.

Martin is important in the longevity of Jamar and the development of a proper second ruck option. He also had 13 hitouts against Clark/Leuney, the stats aren't everything but it shows he gets his hands to it. Also liked his positioning when in the ruck, floated around half back nicely.

If by some miracle we make finals then play Dunn as the back up, but we if we don't keep developing players we might hit a roadblock with our development similar to where Essendon appear to be at the moment. They are playing too many guys who can't be dropped but also aren't going anywhere. In their case its their midfield - they didn't inject enough young talent when they needed to. For us its in the ruck and up forward. We might have to sacrifice a Bail or Bennell for a while, if they are good enough they'll bounce back anyway.

I think we'll play Martin against North's talls. Anyone know how serious Bail's "quad" injury is? I'd like him back. Garland was a bit iffy I thought. What stage is Rivers at? Otherwise, no changes.

Petterd is OK. He hyperextended his shoulder in the second quarter (I think it was the second quarter) and copped a corky in his butt and an ankle injury also, but he played out the game. If there is to be one inclusion, Bail in.

d

If Ricky is injured I'd move Garland forward and bring in Rivers.

Dunn is unfairly maligned at times (other times fairly) but I think he did a good job on Brennan.

Still, not sure he has a matchup against the Roos.

100% agree with your post enforcer. Rivers is in scintillating form at Casey and Garland would provide a terrific additional target up forward. I think it is important that if players show great form in the 2s that they can be rewarded with promotion. Rivers has done that and is a proven performer on the big stage.

This only applies of course if ricky is out, otherwise no change for mine. Unfortunately no room for Bail.

All I am saying is, I would rather have Rivers in Garlands position at the moment.

You should have just said that rather than the other floss you lead with.

Garland has missed a year of footy and you can tell.

And the selectors prefer him over Rivers even in his rusty state. Maybe they know something....

No change pending injuries.

Not much love for Martin - I realise he didn't have a "great" game but I thought his game was encouraging, and worth persevering with. At one stage he turned a 3 on 1 contest in the forward line in to a draw (ball up) when you could've forgiven him for being beaten. He didn't get a lot of the ball, but didn't slow it down when he did. On the back of that and the fact that I don't want Mark Jamar dead through exhaustion just yet, then he definitely stays in.

If Bail's fit, then he'll play at Casey next week, which is just bad luck as he was playing good footy before his injury. Nobody deserves to be left out, and while I reckon Bail's been good, I don't think he offers a significant improvement over the players currently in the side.

No room for Rivers in the side at the moment, but I'm sure we'll see him back again soon.

You should have just said that rather than the other floss you lead with.

If you read the whole thread you would embarrassingly realise that people on these forums ask for reasons why

an opinion is made. If I had simply said, "A straight swap, Rivers for Garland," people would have asked me why Rhino.

You do understand this yes?

And the selectors prefer him over Rivers even in his rusty state. Maybe they know something....

Just to let you in on something big guy, Rivers has had an injury and was nursed back through VFL.

It's not a matter of which player they "prefer".

Forums are made for exchanging ideas and having opinions Rhino.

Thank you for your constructive post on this issue.

Laughable to suggest we drop Garland.

It was a miracle that he is even playing football, and if it takes him 12 months to regain full form and confidence then so be it. He is a big part of our future, so big in fact that I'd rate him in our top 10 most important players, and therefore he has to be given as much game time as possible to continue to develop and gain experience.

After 12 months out of the game, I thought he did some very good "trademark Garland" things, and was nowhere near soundly beaten. How many goals did that [censored] Staker kick on him?

Garland is starting 18 every single week, and will remain so for the next 10 years. He ain't getting dropped. Move on.

If you read the whole thread you would embarrassingly realise that people on these forums ask for reasons why

an opinion is made. If I had simply said, "A straight swap, Rivers for Garland," people would have asked me why Rhino.

You do understand this yes?

Just to let you in on something big guy, Rivers has had an injury and was nursed back through VFL.

It's not a matter of which player they "prefer".

Forums are made for exchanging ideas and having opinions Rhino.

Thank you for your constructive post on this issue.

There is a spot for Rivers in the team without a doubt. Even if he came off the bench, his great anticipation and cool skills should not be forgotten.

You have to put up with some posters bagging your opinions. Their records show that this is probably why they get involved in open forums. If you go too hard in your criticism of their 'constructive posts' them, you get a wrist slap from the mods. I like the way you've communicated your ideas.

"even if he came off the bench"

you do realize the game has changed to the extent that spot on the bench might as well be a position on the field..?

It's irrelevant whether it is a bench spot or not; in the team is in the team.

No change pending injuries.

Not much love for Martin - I realise he didn't have a "great" game but I thought his game was encouraging, and worth persevering with. At one stage he turned a 3 on 1 contest in the forward line in to a draw (ball up) when you could've forgiven him for being beaten. He didn't get a lot of the ball, but didn't slow it down when he did. On the back of that and the fact that I don't want Mark Jamar dead through exhaustion just yet, then he definitely stays in.

If Bail's fit, then he'll play at Casey next week, which is just bad luck as he was playing good footy before his injury. Nobody deserves to be left out, and while I reckon Bail's been good, I don't think he offers a significant improvement over the players currently in the side.

No room for Rivers in the side at the moment, but I'm sure we'll see him back again soon.

Agreed - I thought most contests Stef was involved in he did something encouraging. He needs to have more impact on more contests though.

I really want to say Bail in for Dunn. I really do.

But I won't.

Let's try to go with no change again.

People suggesting Martin should be dropped badly undervalued his imput on Saturday. He played well.

"even if he came off the bench"

you do realize the game has changed to the extent that spot on the bench might as well be a position on the field..?

It's irrelevant whether it is a bench spot or not; in the team is in the team.

Then why is he being compared to our KP backmen throughout this thread? You do realize that he can play forward or anywhere for that matter.

Agreed - I thought most contests Stef was involved in he did something encouraging. He needs to have more impact on more contests though.

Let him have another week. Playing for VFL is entirely different pressure wise than playing AFL. He needs to get that week behind him and having played in that game will do a lot for his confidence. He is a player that needs that little bit of extra time given that his background is not football but basketball and he is still getting used to all the nuances that AFL has in comparison to VFL. He's certainly regained his confidence at Casey having played at least three decent games but what he needs in the seniors to be able to believe that he is making a contribution. I thought he did on Saturday because he provides so many more options for DB with him in the team.

I really want to say Bail in for Dunn. I really do.

But I won't.

Let's try to go with no change again.

I felt exactly the same way when doing my post.

My god, there are a few players I would like back in the side, but who do we drop? They are all playing great as a unit.

In - Rivers

Out - Bruce

B - Garland Frawley Warnock

HB - Grimes Rivers MacDonald

C - Davey Moloney Trengove

HF - Scully Green Bate

F - Petterd Sylvia Martin

R - Jamar McDonald Jones

IC - Bartram Bennell Dunn McKenzie

In - Rivers

Out - Bruce

B - Garland Frawley Warnock

HB - Grimes Rivers MacDonald

C - Davey Moloney Trengove

HF - Scully Green Bate

F - Petterd Sylvia Martin

R - Jamar McDonald Jones

IC - Bartram Bennell Dunn McKenzie

It won't happen.....and it shouldn't happen. Bruce is too important in a number of ways, not least cos of his on field leadership and his consistent blanketing of key forwards

maybe bring bail in for martin?

i dont think martin had a great game

and i dont think the roos have a big backline ?

what do people think?

McIntosh, Hale, Goldstein. Martin will play.

Would anyone think about bring JR in for Petterd if Ricky is carrying an injury. Just a left field thought. I don't think there is a role for JR in the back 6 at the moment. However, IF Ricky is injured, there may be a case to give him a shot in the forward line. He is a lovely over head mark and a great judge of the ball in flight.

I saw Ricky get hurt. Looked bad at the time. H e needed to get off but couldn't get out of the play. From where i was sitting it looked as though it was an ankle he had hurt or leg. However it was a big clash that left him hurt so could have been back, hip, corks...not too sure.

I think it was just before 3/4 time. I think he must have had some work done in the break coz he looked fine in the last 1/4.

IF ricky is injured the only other option may be to bite the Bullet and give Jack a run!! Watts that is

Edited April 26, 201015 yr by Balls_Grinter_14