Changes for next week

[beelzebub 23,382]

would have thought Bail could easily play a Grimes like role without the poor disposal that is Cheney's lot at present.

[Grandson of a gun 276]

Just thinking about it further....

Maric was first emergency yesterday and was at the G so didn't get to play with Casey. This would also suggest that he was ahead of Bail in the coaches mind at the moment.

I want Bail in there but i wouldn't be surprised if Maric is first based on the above. (He will also have fresh legs for the big Subi ground).

After re-considering my earlier post:

PJ will stay as a chop out for Jamar. PJ is a fairly good runner (i know he is useless in most other areas) which on the back of Bailey's comments might also save him.

Cheney may go out for Bail/Maric

MacDonald is boderline although his running ability might help.

McKenzie or Jones may go aside for Junior. (With McKenzie the more likely just due to his similar role/attributes).

[The O 39]

Cheney won't be dropped,he's playing the Grimes role while he's out.

You're all saying drop Cheney and bring in Bail,he can't play the Grimes/Cheney role.I liked Cheney's game yesterday especially when he went back into the pack and knew he was going to get hammered.

Cheney is handy to have on our list because when Grimes or Bartram is out,he'll slot right in and when he gets 40-50 games under his belt,i'd have him in for Bartram.

Agree with you're sentiments 100% Jack.

Those calling for Cheney to be dropped are looking at his apparent flaws (lack of pace and kicking weakness), however his close checking, ability to spoil and desire to provide run are exactly what we need. Bailey's praise specifically of both Cheney and Garland's games yesterday for their spoiling and shut down roles illustrates Cheney is lot higher valued by the FD than here.

Have to disagree with those calling for PJ to be dropped due to the game being played at Subiaco. Considering Subi requires a lot more run, I'd like to see Jamar and PJ play a similar role to that of the weekend. Whilst an extra runner through the midfield such as Bail would help, I'd like to see a Jamar get some support against Sandilands. I just don't think Dunn and others such as Slyvia can cut the mustard against Sandilands if we are to go with 1 ruckman.

Edited July 12, 2010 by The O

[beelzebub 23,382]

Bail and Maric are quite different role-players. To say Maric was ahead because he was an emergency only goes to the notion of who might not have played for him to come in. we might never know any underlying injuires or illnesses etc. Maric , though being educated around the ground is essentialy a small forward oportunistic crumber etc. Bail is a flanker come wingman who can get the ball. He would fill any hole by Cheney's dropping quite ably if not actually adding a bit more to offer. Cheney is obstensibly crafting a defensive role with barely a pass mark to date. stil , time does avail improvements and this is what Bailey is about.

Bailey may opt to not actually win the ruck at al contest..just win the ball..often two different things that go un appreciated by many. PJ may be droped to bring in a bigger-engined medium style player. It will be very much last man standing agaisnt Freo at Subi

[Nasher 33,617]

Have to disagree with those calling for PJ to be dropped due to the game being played at Subiaco. Considering Subi requires a lot more run, I'd like to see Jamar and PJ play a similar role to that of the weekend. Whilst an extra runner through the midfield such as Bail would help, I'd like to see a Jamar get some support against Sandilands. I just don't think Dunn and others such as Slyvia can cut the mustard against Sandilands if we are to go with 1 ruckman.

In retrospect I think I agree. Given that Spencer is injured and Martin is languishing in the Sandy twos I think we may be stuck with PJ for another week. If ever there's a week when Jamar needs help, it will be this week.

[Jaded No More 68,973]

In retrospect I think I agree. Given that Spencer is injured and Martin is languishing in the Sandy twos I think we may be stuck with PJ for another week. If ever there's a week when Jamar needs help, it will be this week.

Who is Freo's backup ruckman?

Freo rely very heavily on Sandilands, as we do on Jamar. Sandilands takes most of the ruck contests, and so does Jamar.

I'd rather have Jamar go with Sandilands and rest when Sandilands does. Then have Dunn compete in the ruck when Freo's secondary ruckman goes up.

I can just see us running out of steam in the last quarter if we don't go with an extra runner instead of a second ruckman who does very little around the ground. Not to mention that if we are down a midfield rotation we'll be stuffed the following week too, and that could cost us the game against Sydney (which is winnable IMO).

[Redleg 41,421]

Who is Freo's backup ruckman?

Freo rely very heavily on Sandilands, as we do on Jamar. Sandilands takes most of the ruck contests, and so does Jamar.

I'd rather have Jamar go with Sandilands and rest when Sandilands does. Then have Dunn compete in the ruck when Freo's secondary ruckman goes up.

I can just see us running out of steam in the last quarter if we don't go with an extra runner instead of a second ruckman who does very little around the ground. Not to mention that if we are down a midfield rotation we'll be stuffed the following week too, and that could cost us the game against Sydney (which is winnable IMO).

They use Bradley and Johnson.

[Nasher 33,617]

Who is Freo's backup ruckman?

Freo rely very heavily on Sandilands, as we do on Jamar. Sandilands takes most of the ruck contests, and so does Jamar.

I'd rather have Jamar go with Sandilands and rest when Sandilands does. Then have Dunn compete in the ruck when Freo's secondary ruckman goes up.

I can just see us running out of steam in the last quarter if we don't go with an extra runner instead of a second ruckman who does very little around the ground. Not to mention that if we are down a midfield rotation we'll be stuffed the following week too, and that could cost us the game against Sydney (which is winnable IMO).

Apparently Jamar's TOG was in the 65% range yesterday. In order for us to not get spanked in the middle (i.e. with Dunn rucking) that figure would need to be in the 90% range if we didn't have another recognised ruckman in the side. On the extra large ground with Jamar covering the ground he has been this year, I'd be very worried about him having nothing left in the tank by the last quarter. In light of that if I were looking to introduce more run in to the side, I'd probably be targetting Macdonald or Rivers rather than Johnson.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm definitely not going to be shedding any tears of PJ is omitted (as per my own choice of selection earlier in this thread!). I just don't think it's as straight-forward a decision as it seems.

[Jaded No More 68,973]

Apparently Jamar's TOG was in the 65% range yesterday.

Maybe they stratigically played Jamar less yesterday in order to keep him fresh for next week?

He practically rested for the last 15 minutes of the game.

[Keyser Söze 0]

IN: Bail, Morton

OUT: Joel MacDonald, Cheney

PJ should go too, but I want a second ruckman so that Jamar doesn't crumble.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

In: Bail

Out: PJ/Cheney

Bail should have played yesterday, deserves his spot, and must be called up to help us cover the Subiaco turf.

Whether it's PJ or Cheney will come down to how the FD rates Jamar's fitness and ability to compete with Sandilands all day. If they don't think he can then they will keep PJ to allow Jamar to rest during the game, and Cheney will be cut. Otherwise I suspect PJ will be dropped to allow us to keep Cheney's run.

Shouldn't make more than 1 change. Reward winning teams.

Those suggesting MacDonald should be dropped have pre-conceived notions and are not rewarding good form. MacDonald was good yesterday.

And those suggesting McKenzie should be dropped have NFI. Sorry.

[DemonDave 1,089]

When was the last time Clint Bartram was dropped? Aint gonna happen. Sheesh.

Changes would probably boil down to matchups with Freos forward line. Pavlich leads their goalkicking

with 44, from Ballantyne on 21 and Barlow on 15. Its then a pretty even spread of the likes of Hill,

Hasleby, Mayne etc.

So they dont really have a big tall, cumbersome forward line. Therefore you'd think only 3 of Frawley,

Garland, Rivers and MacDonald would be needed. I'd favour the first 3, so MacDonald would miss for mine.

Cheney and Bartram are needed to counter the smaller, quicker forward line which is in reality resting mids,

and Garland and Frawley can both play on talls and smalls.

So for mine,

In:

Morton (or Bail)

Out:

MacDonald

[DemonDave 1,089]

The other option is to drop PJ. Sandilands cant ruck the whole game either you wouldnt think, so you could simply pinch hit with Dunn or Sylvia every time Sandilands is rested, and thus not lose too much.

Edited July 12, 2010 by DemonDave

[Dannyz 2,851]

I know I'll cop some flack for this, but I'd love to see Hughes in this week. I think he fits into the plan with our forward line.

Rather than having a direct target with a few smallers guys around, our forward line is based on having medium marking players leading up to the ball. Such as Green, Bate, Sylvia, Dunn and Petterd when not injured. Hughes would provide another target and can take a strong grab.

Therefore. In - Bail, Hughes.

Out - Cheney, Watts.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Dannyz

[Red Sox 2]

I know I'll cop some flack for this, but I'd love to see Hughes in this week. I think he fits into the plan with our forward line.

Rather than having a direct target with a few smallers guys around, our forward line is based on having medium marking players leading up to the ball. Such as Green, Bate, Sylvia, Dunn and Petterd when not injured. Hughes would provide another target and can take a strong grab.

Therefore. In - Bail, Hughes.

Out - Cheney, Watts.

And what's the reasoning for dropping Watts?

[pm24 451]

I'm finding it hard to support Cheney's inclusion in the team for this week after his poor disposal and one particular passage of play early in the 3rd where i believe he was to blame for the Zaharakis goal....

I'll explain why. Early in the 3rd Quarter I believe that Cheney half talked Pears (correct me if i'm remembering the wrong Bummer player) right in front of the MCC Members stand, then after pears released the ball Cheney STOPPED, looked towards the umpire for the free kick (with none forthcoming) leave Pears to continue his run forward without pressure and continue Essendons thrust into the forward 50 with us now chasing from behind, rather than having Cheney sticking to the tackle, causing the turnover.

The fact that he just played for the free kick and not the ball at this moment, really [censored] me off. The fact that it lead to a goal was just icing on the cake.

The guy is great in a contest but I feel as nervous when he has the ball as i do when Rivers or Johnson do. Providing a contest is great, but if you then turnover the ball due to poor disposal that contest no longer means much.

I'd like to see Cheney dropped for Bail.

[deeflog 679]

I know I'll cop some flack for this, but I'd love to see Hughes in this week. I think he fits into the plan with our forward line.

Rather than having a direct target with a few smallers guys around, our forward line is based on having medium marking players leading up to the ball. Such as Green, Bate, Sylvia, Dunn and Petterd when not injured. Hughes would provide another target and can take a strong grab.

Therefore. In - Bail, Hughes.

Out - Cheney, Watts.

WTF???

[jnrmac 20,185]

Nxt week I would sacrifice PJ's game to take out Sandilands. He has the height and Jamar can cause more problems around the ground.

Bail would have to be a cert to come in after another terrific performance for Casey.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

I'm finding it hard to support Cheney's inclusion in the team for this week after his poor disposal and one particular passage of play early in the 3rd where i believe he was to blame for the Zaharakis goal....

I'll explain why. Early in the 3rd Quarter I believe that Cheney half talked Pears (correct me if i'm remembering the wrong Bummer player) right in front of the MCC Members stand, then after pears released the ball Cheney STOPPED, looked towards the umpire for the free kick (with none forthcoming) leave Pears to continue his run forward without pressure and continue Essendons thrust into the forward 50 with us now chasing from behind, rather than having Cheney sticking to the tackle, causing the turnover.

The fact that he just played for the free kick and not the ball at this moment, really [censored] me off. The fact that it lead to a goal was just icing on the cake.

The guy is great in a contest but I feel as nervous when he has the ball as i do when Rivers or Johnson do. Providing a contest is great, but if you then turnover the ball due to poor disposal that contest no longer means much.

I'd like to see Cheney dropped for Bail.

Yeh I remember that passage of play. Wasn't Pears (he wasn't playing) but whoever it was, Cheney tackled him, the ball spilled free, and Cheney stopped, presumably expecting a free kick. He didn't chase hard enough once he realised no free kick was forthcoming either.

[Inner Demon 1]

I know I'll cop some flack for this, but I'd love to see Hughes in this week. I think he fits into the plan with our forward line.

Rather than having a direct target with a few smallers guys around, our forward line is based on having medium marking players leading up to the ball. Such as Green, Bate, Sylvia, Dunn and Petterd when not injured. Hughes would provide another target and can take a strong grab.

Therefore. In - Bail, Hughes.

Out - Cheney, Watts.

Considering Hughes hasn't played in weeks due to injury and hadn't been in the best at all prior to that and Gawn is scheduled to return this week which relegates Danny to the rookie list I'd say your flak copping is pretty justified.

Mind bogglingly bad call.

Still not as bad as the calls for the return of an injured Spencer to somehow 'nullify' Sandilands?? I'd love to hear how a rookie-listed project player who has years of development ahead of him in any way whatsoever could be credited as a nullifying factor on the best ruckman in the league.

In - Bail

Out - Cheney

[The O 39]

I'm finding it hard to support Cheney's inclusion in the team for this week after his poor disposal and one particular passage of play early in the 3rd where i believe he was to blame for the Zaharakis goal....

I'll explain why. Early in the 3rd Quarter I believe that Cheney half talked Pears (correct me if i'm remembering the wrong Bummer player) right in front of the MCC Members stand, then after pears released the ball Cheney STOPPED, looked towards the umpire for the free kick (with none forthcoming) leave Pears to continue his run forward without pressure and continue Essendons thrust into the forward 50 with us now chasing from behind, rather than having Cheney sticking to the tackle, causing the turnover.

The fact that he just played for the free kick and not the ball at this moment, really [censored] me off. The fact that it lead to a goal was just icing on the cake.

The guy is great in a contest but I feel as nervous when he has the ball as i do when Rivers or Johnson do. Providing a contest is great, but if you then turnover the ball due to poor disposal that contest no longer means much.

I'd like to see Cheney dropped for Bail.

It's very easy to isolate errors of a player during a passage in the game pm24 (Morton and Bennell come to mind as obvious examples). Whilst one negative incident can be easily highlighted, I was just as impressed at watching Cheney back into an oncoming contest with an approaching Neagle and Frawley during the 3rd quarter, yet still remaining on his feet and feeding of the spoiled contest via handball to a running Bruce.

One of the major positives for me on the weekend was the significant drop in handballing from the backline and more emphasis on kicking to targets and moving the ball quickly, which for me was partially due to the spoiling of players such as Cheney, Garland, Bruce and Frawley.

[gOLLy 401]

Out : Bate , Someone else

In : Maric , Bail

Maric because I think he is the type of player that suits cleaner football. Not the VFL standard thats served up to him.

[dee-luded 2,959]

IN Bail, Warnock

OUT Cheney PJ

Junior may come back requiring another out

Those suggesting Bennell...this is is is home turf..and he can run...might just be the space and game he needs

Yeah, I think so to, I think Bail in,,, with Junior off the bench & Warnock back in. Also, don't discount Maric/Bell.

Not sure of the outs.

& PS: Just thought Daniel Bell could also play well @ Subiaco.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

Out : Bate , Someone else

In : Maric , Bail

Maric because I think he is the type of player that suits cleaner football. Not the VFL standard thats served up to him.

Bate? For Maric?

No.

Yeah, I think so to, I think Bail in,,, with Junior off the bench & Warnock back in. Also, don't discount Maric/Bell.

Not sure of the outs.

& PS: Just thought Daniel Bell could also play well @ Subiaco.

No thanks, I think I will discount Maric and Bell. Maric is doing nothing at Casey at all. No reason at all to be promoted. Same goes for Bell, but with Bell he's had numerous chances at AFL level and has never looked good enough.

[MadAsHell 4,215]

I'll just call for the one change myself.

IN: Bail

OUT: MacDonald

I know PJ has been far from great, but I really do feel we need to have a 2nd ruck option in the team, and until Martin has discovered some form with Casey then PJ's the most mobile option.

FB: Garland, Frawley, Bartram

HB: Bruce, Rivers, Cheney

C: Dunn, McKenzie, Davey

HF: Sylvia, Bate, Green

FF: Watts, Jurrah, Bennell

FOLL: Jamar, Moloney, Scully

INT: Bail, Johnson, Jones, Trengove

EMERG: Jetta, Morton, Warnock

Edited July 13, 2010 by Tall Defence