Our back six dilemma

[burn in hell 0]

Rivers is a great reader of the play and a good leader in our back six. After his 'standout' performance at Casey, you would think he is going to get picked in the backline against the Kangas. So who do we squeeze out?

Our back six may look like this

FB, Bartram, Warnock, Garland

HB, Rivers, Frawley, Joel Mac

Bruce and Grimes can be released as utilities, floating back, forward and thru the midfield.

Martin will probably be swapped for Rivers this week, it seems as if Dunn is able to ruck around the ground as a back up to Jamar. Jamar seems to relish the responsibility of being the sole ruckman.

Anyhow, it is a blessing to have too many quality backman, especially with Strauss and Cheney doing so well at Casey.

[Sir Why You Little 37,195]

Why Drop a Player from our back six after we have just Beaten the previously undefeated Bear by 8 Goals 2.

Rivers is not an automatic Best 22 player anymore-Gotta fight for the spot each week.

Good way to Demand Excellence.

[e25 5]

This is a dilemma?

I'm not exactly sure Rivers comes in, but if he does the player that goes out is very stiff.

It will depend on matchups.

I think Dunn may be dropped.

[Deestroy All 14,266]

No dilemma for me. He's no longer in our best back 6.

Rivers gets a game if Ricky doesn't come up for mine. Play in the forward line and throw himself at everything in the air like Ricky does.

Martin stays in for North's ruck rotations, Jamar is too important to burn him out, Dunn will be too busy making Harvey cry.

No injuries = no change.

[Deestroy All 14,266]

This is a dilemma?

I'm not exactly sure Rivers comes in, but if he does the player that goes out is very stiff.

It will depend on matchups.

I think Dunn may be dropped.

Why?

[Eth 4]

This is a dilemma?

I'm not exactly sure Rivers comes in, but if he does the player that goes out is very stiff.

It will depend on matchups.

I think Dunn may be dropped.

I don't believe that Dunn should be dropped, he's a very good player and works hard around their ground.

Bring back Rivers for Martin, and go with the back six listed here with Grimes and Bruce listed as interchanges or midfielders, because they are really utilities and possibly even extra defenders if required.

[Swampfox 190]

Rivers is a great reader of the play and a good leader in our back six. After his 'standout' performance at Casey, you would think he is going to get picked in the backline against the Kangas. So who do we squeeze out?

Our back six may look like this

FB, Bartram, Warnock, Garland

HB, Rivers, Frawley, Joel Mac

Bruce and Grimes can be released as utilities, floating back, forward and thru the midfield.

Martin will probably be swapped for Rivers this week, it seems as if Dunn is able to ruck around the ground as a back up to Jamar. Jamar seems to relish the responsibility of being the sole ruckman.

Anyhow, it is a blessing to have too many quality backman, especially with Strauss and Cheney doing so well at Casey.

IMO Rivers will struggle to get a regular game at senior level unless he takes the next step real soon

He has promised so much for far too long and going from a good player to a very good player is what is required

Our current defensive 6 are doing quite well in their development and i would expect they will be preforming better than Rivers can currently offer by the seaons end if they arent already

To the OP you have got to compare apples with apples as the standard between VFL and AFL is MASSIVE

No way would i close the door on Rivers as he still has some good footy left to play but he is running out of time if its in OUR BACK 6

[Jaded No More 68,974]

I still hold high hopes that Garland will become a key forward one day, which possibly opens up a spot for Rivers.

But for now, Rivers has no spot in the backline, because he is competing with MacDonald who is in good form (he is not in direct competition with Garland IMO as they are completely different players and Garland is far more versatile than Rivers). Further to this, Rivers is not in competition with Martin who is a ruckman/forward. If you drop Martin you go into a game with one too many defenders, and one too few ruckman, so it's ludicrous to suggest that one will make way for the other.

[Harcourt 146]

Our back six may look like this

FB, Bartram, Warnock, Garland

HB, Rivers, Frawley, Joel Mac

Bruce and Grimes can be released as utilities, floating back, forward and thru the midfield.

As much as I'd love to see Grimesy moved into the middle he is absolutely outstanding down back. I'm just not sure it's worth messing with anything at this stage.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I wouldn't change the back six even though I have a great deal of respect for Riv, they are playing well at the moment so let's leave it as is is. Bail may well be very stiff if he misses out and that's the way it is when you have a side that's playing well.

[Deestroy All 14,266]

I wouldn't change the back six even though I have a great deal of respect for Riv, they are playing well at the moment so let's leave it as is is. Bail may well be very stiff if he misses out and that's the way it is when you have a side that's playing well.

Might need another week off with the quad.

I like Bail, to get back in I'd drop Bennell, even though he has earnt a bit of respect back after cleaning his undergarments, Bail looks the more complete player ATM and knows where the goals are.

[Roost It 1,434]

Might need another week off with the quad.

I like Bail, to get back in I'd drop Bennell, even though he has earnt a bit of respect back after cleaning his undergarments, Bail looks the more complete player ATM and knows where the goals are.

They won't drop Bennell, he's going to be a very, very handy player.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I like Grimes in the back half, rather than the midfield. We are setting up everything through our run off the half back line - simply should not change that. And Grimes is instrumental in this.

Despite the comments of some on this loop, Rivers still has plenty of good football in front of him. Perhaps Rivers for Garland (who still looks a bit underdone). If not, Rivers may need to wait for an injury to get in (God forbid). The defence is working very well at the moment and it's not obvious where you'd fit him in.

[Sir Why You Little 37,195]

Just think how competitive it is now during the week-Players don't want to lose their spot, others are Busting an absolute Gut to get in.

We haven't had this situation for years. It's the way Hawthorn worked during there 20 year Finals Run-(Some players played over 100 games in the Reserves before getting a game) Now i know times have changed, but still i don't want to see any player not earn their spot in the ones.

All the Great sides had settled lines.

[Deeoldfart 8,074]

Definitely wouldn't be meddling with our back 6 at present. Riv will have to wait until injury or form dictates his inclusion. The 'form' part of the equation certainly isn't pressing at the moment, and there is no suggestion of injury to anyone in our back half.

[Chook 15,022]

Play him as a loosie in the back-line. He loves it this way anyway, and it would give our attacking defenders (Grimes and Frawley in particular) the confidence to also run off their player when we are rebounding. The only issue, of course is who to drop, and the only answer for me would be to look at who performed worst on the week-end. I don't really know who that was, but I'm sure the FD would have some idea.

[e25 5]

I still hold high hopes that Garland will become a key forward one day, which possibly opens up a spot for Rivers.

But for now, Rivers has no spot in the backline, because he is competing with MacDonald who is in good form (he is not in direct competition with Garland IMO as they are completely different players and Garland is far more versatile than Rivers). Further to this, Rivers is not in competition with Martin who is a ruckman/forward. If you drop Martin you go into a game with one too many defenders, and one too few ruckman, so it's ludicrous to suggest that one will make way for the other.

I'm not so sure the club sees him in this light.

Josh Mahoney referred to Garland as the prototype for what teams will want in a defender in the future.

[dee-luded 2,959]

They won't drop Bennell, he's going to be a very, very handy player.

Imo Bennell is on his last chance, if he Baulks big time again, I think he'll go for a rest.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I like Grimes in the back half, rather than the midfield. We are setting up everything through our run off the half back line - simply should not change that. And Grimes is instrumental in this.

Despite the comments of some on this loop, Rivers still has plenty of good football in front of him. Perhaps Rivers for Garland (who still looks a bit underdone). If not, Rivers may need to wait for an injury to get in (God forbid). The defence is working very well at the moment and it's not obvious where you'd fit him in.

Yep, Rivers still has something to offer, but I don't think we can fit him in Yet.

IMO, Rivers is competing directly with Garland, Joel MacDonald, & to a lesser extent Frawley for the same roles.

I don't think there is room until one is injured or drops form, or, if Garland when fitter, goes forward. MacNamara also plays that role of 3rd tall/Med defender.

Similarly, This tightness in our defensive group is also keeping Cheney at bay.

[Disco Demons 92]

i don't see a dilemma in our back six....

on rivers...a couple of good games at casey is great for rivers...but the problem with him he hasn't been consistent...he's had injuries....as previous people have said...we beat brown and fev last weekend...don't mess with a working backline...

fact is we have 17 home and away games left for the year....he will get his chance but i hope he earns his chance.