Based on that I'd like to see

B: Martin, Jetta, Trengove

S: Petterd

Emerg: Strauss, Warnock, Spencer

^Agree with this.

seconded.

Let me get this right some want Jamar to be the sole ruckman until we sub Martin. Your second ruckman will not be your sub. If we play Spencer, Martin may be a sub not as a ruckman but a Key Defender. A lot will hinge on if Trengove is fit

Final Bench Jetta, Trengove(if Fit), Martin

Sub Petterd

If Trengove is not fit Petterd comes onto the bench and Strauss moves into the sub position.

Bail get first crack at Goodes.

Edited March 24, 201114 yr by drdrake

Let me get this right some want Jamar to be the sole ruckman until we sub Martin. Your second ruckman will not be your sub. If we play Spencer, Martin may be a sub not as a ruckman but a Key Defender. A lot will hinge on if Trengove is fit

Final Bench Jetta, Trengove(if Fit), Martin

Sub Petterd

If Trengove is not fit Petterd comes onto the bench and Strauss moves into the sub position.

Bail get first crack at Goodes.

Jamar rucked most of the first half of last year with no back up. Whats the difference?

Edited March 24, 201114 yr by big_red_fire_engine

Jamar rucked most of the first half of last year with no back up. Whats the difference?

That failed and the FD realised they couldn't go in with Jamar with Miller/Dunn or Sylvia as a back up. The times Jamar had to rest we got smashed you need that second ruckman. Secondly what is the point having a ruckman as a sub, with no injury's you want to inject fresh legs that can have an impact on the game, a second string ruckman isn't that. We hopefully have 23-24 games ahead of us, Jamar can't go it alone or we will burn him out fast.

Of course those that are named on the bench may not resemble the actual bench that is named 90 minutes before the game.

Bail get first crack at Goodes.

No way. He's way too short.

My tip all along has been Martin - height, speed, endurance, leap.

No way. He's way too short.

My tip all along has been Martin - height, speed, endurance, leap.

You may be right, but Martin's athletic ability isn't matched bu his footy brain. Goodes will turn him inside out and make him look silly.

I'd give Garland first crack. He has pace, is great at spoiling without infringing and would be far better at coralling Goodes to the boundary through superior backline experience. Also, Goodes will play relatively deep, he won't be roaming around the ground as some have stated - not early anyway. This preseason, in the absence of Bradshaw, he's been playing closer to goal. I know that there's a height issue, but Garland has long arms and has played and done well on the likes of Franklin.

If Goodes goes into the Midfield expect Bail to run with him, if he pushes forward then a MacDonald or Garland will go to him. Bail doesn't have the height but he has the running capacity to match Goodes and can tackle, I'm not concerned about the Height mis-match whilst Goodes is in the middle.

Bate was incredibly rubbish at PP. No surprise.

I hope the team doesn't line up like that. Pretty deplorable full back line too.

Agree with Hannabal - Garland for me is the man to take Goodes.

I am against starting Martin as a sub for two reasons:

1) Jamar will need time to rest and I think it's important for Martin to give him some help in the ruck for at least 5-7 minutes a quarter. This will help make Jamar more effective over the entire game.

2) Our backline is short and not physically big. If someone like Jesse White (who I know is only a mediocre footballer) proves too big and strong for Rivers (his likely opponent) or Goodes is out-muscling Garland, then I think it's important to have someone like Martin who at least is a suitable physical match for these strong forwards (even if he is not the ideal option) and is probably the best back-up option should Rivers/Garland/Macdonald struggle.

Early tip: the Swans midfield is going to absolutely spiflicate ours.

We have one genuine clearance midfielder in Jones. The Swans have four A-grade inside men - Bolton, Kennedy, Jack and Hannebery. Our defence needs to have its very best game if we're to be any sort of chance.

Agree with Hannabal - Garland for me is the man to take Goodes.

I am against starting Martin as a sub for two reasons:

1) Jamar will need time to rest and I think it's important for Martin to give him some help in the ruck for at least 5-7 minutes a quarter. This will help make Jamar more effective over the entire game.

2) Our backline is short and not physically big. If someone like Jesse White (who I know is only a mediocre footballer) proves too big and strong for Rivers (his likely opponent) or Goodes is out-muscling Garland, then I think it's important to have someone like Martin who at least is a suitable physical match for these strong forwards (even if he is not the ideal option) and is probably the best back-up option should Rivers/Garland/Macdonald struggle.

I'm against using any ruckman as a sub at all on principle. Doing so firstly risks too much run later in the game, and secondly it doesn't sufficiently mitigate the risk of injury to a key runner especially early in the game (14-18 runners in the side and one Jamar - odds of an injury are significantly greater to the runners on weight of numbers).

If Goodes goes into the Midfield expect Bail to run with him, if he pushes forward then a MacDonald or Garland will go to him. Bail doesn't have the height but he has the running capacity to match Goodes and can tackle, I'm not concerned about the Height mis-match whilst Goodes is in the middle.

I can't see Bail playing on Goodes. There's an 11cm difference in height and 17kg in weight. That's a total mis-match.

Garland would be my choice.

Gulp. is it possible that Jamar, Spencer and Martin will all play? Jamar, 1st ruck; Spencer to assist Jamar and Martin as part of the rotating tall defenders, particularly if Goodes and White both play forward? Personally, I think that would be unbalanced (having Martin and Spencer on the bench at the same time makes it tough for the runners). I'd rather play Jamar and one of the other two, preferably Martin.

I'm suspicious about Trengrove's fitness, though, so I think he's a doubtful starter.

I think it would be a complete waste having Petterd as a sub. He is extremely dangerous and hard to match up on and even if he is a tad underdone, he will go a long way to winning us the game considering Sydney's backline absentees.

And FWIW I believe Garland will take Goodes for the majority of the game considering Bradshaw is out and Goodes is likely to play close to goal. The 3cm height difference won't be too much of a problem and having MacDonald and Rivers there as 3rd men up will be very effective.

I believe Dunn will play onball at times to give us a presence at stoppages. They have a lot of hard inside midfielders, including Kennedy who is 96kg so we need Dunny to provide blocks and strong tackles for Sylvia and Jetta among others to have the luxury of a bit more space in the clinches.

In the absence of Kennelly and Malceski, I think our half forwards will punish any attacking moves by the Sydney back half with strong marking and hard running back towards goal in true Melbourne fashion. If we make them play accountable football then they will be without much run off half back and if they try to play attacking football we will punish them "on the counter". This is where the game will be won by us I believe.

Don't be supprised if Martin starts in the back line goes into the ruck for 5-7mins per qtr. IMO we will line up as per below

Bartram Martin Garland

MacDonald Rivers Grimes

Bail Sylvia Bennell

Dunn Watts Davey

Green Jurrah Maric

Jamar Moloney Jones

Jetta Petterd Tapscott

Sub Strauss

I din't think Trengove will play.

Someone mentioned Bolton playing for Sydney which is not the case as he has retired.

I'd like to see Jetta line up on Jack. I think Jetta could be a good stopper with his hardness.

If it was the four man int I'd pick Petterd, Jetta, Martin and Trengove from the seven listed, leaving out Spencer, Warnock and Strauss.

I think you need a second ruck option in the game - not as a sub - so Spencer or Martin play. Otherwise, are those suggesting otherwise thinking we'll ruck Jamar 100% until some point in the game when he's totally gone and then replace him? If not, who rucks when Jamar is resting and the second option has not been subbed in?

No chance all three will play. We need all the run we can get.

Someone mentioned Bolton playing for Sydney which is not the case as he has retired.

Err, the Swans have (had) two Boltons - Craig, who retired on Thursday and Jude, who is most certainly playing on Sunday.

You may be right, but Martin's athletic ability isn't matched bu his footy brain. Goodes will turn him inside out and make him look silly.

I'd give Garland first crack. He has pace, is great at spoiling without infringing and would be far better at coralling Goodes to the boundary through superior backline experience. Also, Goodes will play relatively deep, he won't be roaming around the ground as some have stated - not early anyway. This preseason, in the absence of Bradshaw, he's been playing closer to goal. I know that there's a height issue, but Garland has long arms and has played and done well on the likes of Franklin.

I'd give Garland foirst crack @ Goodes in our defence.

When Goodes goes on-ball, I'd play Dunn against him, and pinch hit with Watts, to try him out, if he makes the final cut.

HaHa, pardon the typo, but I thought I'd leave it for goodies posterity.

No way. He's way too short.

My tip all along has been Martin - height, speed, endurance, leap.

No way Martin has the endurance or agility to go with Goodes in the guts. Speed, yes. Height, yes. Even strength he matches well. But tank/engine... no way.

We have one genuine clearance midfielder in Jones. The Swans have four A-grade inside men - Bolton, Kennedy, Jack and Hannebery. Our defence needs to have its very best game if we're to be any sort of chance.

Brent Moloney says hi.

Short memories around here, some of you lot...