Welcome back Chip

[caddypgt 30]

I suppose Chip is too good to bring back through the reserves but i have some concerns about his lack of match conditioning coming straight up against Buddy.

While this may or may not be the case with Chip, I think this is one of the (few) advantages I see with the sub rule. You can bring back underdone players for a half of footy for one or maybe two games before they settle back into the starting 18 or 21.

[H_T 3,042]

The way I'd set up:

Frawley - Roughead

Garland - Franklin

Rivers - Hale

MacDonald dropped.

MacDonald dropped ? I might come back to this. Regarding Hale - I haven't heard, is he in this week ?

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

You're allowed to defend yourself, whether you can or not is a separate question...

At this point I am taking the p!ss, but you need to simmer down, C&B.

Seriously...

you've just posted twice with zero football content purely to antagonise

if that's not flaming I don't know what is

[rpfc 28,084]

MacDonald dropped ? I might come back to this. Regarding Hale - I haven't heard, is he in this week ?

Played last week, so, probably...

[rpfc 28,084]

you've just posted twice with zero football content purely to antagonise

if that's not flaming I don't know what is

You don't know what flaming is.

Just as an aside - did anyone in the MCC area see the way this one Sydney bloke sprinted to the bench with a straight left arm?

Looked so strange - there was audible "WTF?" laughter from the punters...

It was Dawn of the Dead stuff I tell you...

[e25 5]

You don't know what flaming is.

Just as an aside - did anyone in the MCC area see the way this one Sydney bloke sprinted to the bench with a straight left arm?

Looked so strange - there was audible "WTF?" laughter from the punters...

It was Dawn of the Dead stuff I tell you...

Pretty sure it was Gary Rohan, and yeah, it was very strange.

He was still moving bloody fast despite his awkwardness!

[Deeoldfart 8,001]

MacDonald dropped ? I might come back to this. Regarding Hale - I haven't heard, is he in this week ?

I'd be interested in your thoughts HT. Given that you have Riv. listed in defence, I can't think who else would make way for Chip without upsetting team balance.

[Guest Thomo]

The way I'd set up:

Frawley - Roughead

Garland - Franklin

Rivers - Hale

MacDonald dropped.

I agree. I'd also give Rivers instructions to handball to Tapscott whenever he gets the ball. The less Rivers boot goes near the ball the better.

[H_T 3,042]

I'd be interested in your thoughts HT. Given that you have Riv. listed in defence, I can't think who else would make way for Chip without upsetting team balance.

I think e25 might be right re: setup. Just unsure on dropping MacDonald.

For some reason I was mistaken re: Hale (I must have been thinking of another ruck from some other side..Goldstein perhaps ?) - he did play.

My thoughts are this, I think it's feasible that if Frawley plays (ie.fit to go), MacDonald could be the sub. The three interchange can be mids/midfwd and Frawley's first game back I'm wary of a full game by him. All being well (ie. no injuries) Frawley can sub off late 3rd quarter for Joel Mac and Garland could go to/stay on Buddy, Joel Mac to Roughead.

I think Petterd should start on the ground.

There is a risk if there is an injury to a mid early, we're one short on rotations through the midfield. But there's a risk with most things.

If Frawley doesn't get through Fridays training session, play as last week.

[e25 5]

I agree. I'd also give Rivers instructions to handball to Tapscott whenever he gets the ball. The less Rivers boot goes near the ball the better.

I'm not sure that's feasible.

You make sure all the defenders are aware that it's good to have Tapscott kick the footy, but then you just let them play footy.

Edited March 31, 2011 by e25

[13thflag 0]

Go Chip, this is great news