Excited about what I saw on Sat. Night and the news of 5 players about to return.

I thought it was time now to sit down and work on my Best 22.

Last year I thought it wasn't hard. This year is a totally different scenario.

I have angst over a lot who were once almost walk up starters to now being fringe players.

I expect a lot of Robust Conversation, but see if we can keep the personal barbs out of the thread.

Everyone will have their own opinion and their own reasons.

My best 22 will include all the LG for a start.

Trengove, Grimes, Bartram, Frawley, Jones, Garland, Clark & Jamar (That was the easy part)...........8

Magner, Sylvia, Martin, Petterd, Green, Howe, Moloney, Sellar, & Bate ( I think they are the next walk up starters)..... 9 + 8 = 17

The remaining 5 spots is where we have a lot of competition. Couch, Nicho, Dunn, Watts, Blease, Gysberts, Jurrah, Tappy, McDonald, Bail, Davey, McKenzie, Strauss ( Form, Injury, team balance or opposition may determine who gets the nod) This is the embarrassment of riches.........13 players competing for 5 spots. That adds up to 30. Usually the top sides have about 30 competing for positions

The Fringe Players:- Morton, Rivers, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Jetta, MacDonald, (Taggert, Tynan only because they need a little bit of time)

The fringe players would only be used if we have a specific role needed because of injury.

it's still six months to finals....

How quickly Rivers has fallen away.

I know Sellar has looked impressive for the past two weeks but I do remmeber Rivers have a fairly decent season last year. 2nd in the b&f was it not. He gets a gig in my 22 every day of the week.

So, Chippy, what would your best line-up be based on what you already know about players, or what you have seen them do in preseason? Assume no injuries/suspensions.

Mine is:

B: Bartram Frawley Rivers

HB: Grimes Garland Tapscott

C: Howe Moloney Gysberts

HF: Sylvia Watts Jurrah

F: Green Clark Petterd

Foll: Jamar Jones Trengove

Int: Martin McKenzie Magner Bail (sub)

Emergencies: Bate, Strauss, Bennell

  On 05/03/2012 at 22:24, Good Times Grimes said:

So, Chippy, what would your best line-up be based on what you already know about players, or what you have seen them do in preseason? Assume no injuries/suspensions.

Mine is:

B: Bartram Frawley Rivers

HB: Grimes Garland Tapscott

C: Howe Moloney Gysberts

HF: Sylvia Watts Jurrah

F: Green Clark Petterd

Foll: Jamar Jones Trengove

Int: Martin McKenzie Magner Bail (sub)

Emergencies: Bate, Strauss, Bennell

Thanks GTG My Backline in. was Sellar because he can compete with the Gorillas. the out was Rivers.

The rest was pretty much the same - slightly different positions, but I had Bate in the 22 because of his bigger body.

We need those bigger bodies against the Dorks, Cats, Pies etc.

But as I said it's the 13 competing for 5 positions. The pressure it puts on everyone to perform.

There will be a few that will stand up and surprise us. (I hope)

It may even be those few that I have named as fringe players.

Yay. Depth.

Hoo.

Ray.

  On 05/03/2012 at 22:43, Chippy said:

Thanks GTG My Backline in. was Sellar because he can compete with the Gorillas. the out was Rivers.

The rest was pretty much the same - slightly different positions, but I had Bate in the 22 because of his bigger body.

We need those bigger bodies against the Dorks, Cats, Pies etc.

But as I said it's the 13 competing for 5 positions. The pressure it puts on everyone to perform.

There will be a few that will stand up and surprise us. (I hope)

It may even be those few that I have named as fringe players.

You're right, and I cannot wait to see who it is that will step up. Based on the weekend, I think Davis will be playing a bit of senior footy in 2012.

I think you got the title right rather than the best 22 on other thread.

The depth of the squad will probably be tested during the season as injuries and form fluctuations hit but it is great to see the options and I am really waiting to see the variations against the variety of oppostion teams.

I did ask earlier if Neeld had an easier task matching against the pies because of his personal knowledge. I guess we will see as he handles other team structures and styles.

With that said he certainly does appear to have a better list and others have paid some credit to previous coaches and recruiters so maybe we can continue the development at a faster rate to exploit the riches we have.

  On 05/03/2012 at 22:24, Good Times Grimes said:

So, Chippy, what would your best line-up be based on what you already know about players, or what you have seen them do in preseason? Assume no injuries/suspensions.

Mine is:

B: Bartram Frawley Rivers

HB: Grimes Garland Tapscott

C: Howe Moloney Gysberts

HF: Sylvia Watts Jurrah

F: Green Clark Petterd

Foll: Jamar Jones Trengove

Int: Martin McKenzie Magner Bail (sub)

Emergencies: Bate, Strauss, Bennell

I'll tackle this one.

Based on past seasons form & ignoring the preseason speculation: AND, the fact that we Know,,, that we are going to play hard contested 'head over the Ball' footy.

B: Bartram Sellar Rivers

HB: Grimes Frawley Garland

C: Howe Trengove Bail

HF: Petterd Martin Green

F: Watts Clark Sylvia

Foll: Jamar, Jones, Moloney

Int: Bate, Magner, Blease, (sub) Morton,

Emergencies: JMacdonald, LDunn, TCouch, JBennell, ADavey, LJurrah, JMcKenzie, LTapscott, DNicholson, TMcDonald, TDavis, JGysberts, JStrauss, JFitzpatrick, (pick from, on an as needs basis)

Sufficient Hardness I think to start with, Plus a dash of speed & an element of Flair.

  On 05/03/2012 at 21:58, Chippy said:

Excited about what I saw on Sat. Night and the news of 5 players about to return.

I thought it was time now to sit down and work on my Best 22.

Last year I thought it wasn't hard. This year is a totally different scenario.

I have angst over a lot who were once almost walk up starters to now being fringe players.

I expect a lot of Robust Conversation, but see if we can keep the personal barbs out of the thread.

Everyone will have their own opinion and their own reasons.

My best 22 will include all the LG for a start.

Trengove, Grimes, Bartram, Frawley, Jones, Garland, Clark & Jamar (That was the easy part)...........8

Magner, Sylvia, Martin, Petterd, Green, Howe, Moloney, Sellar, & Bate ( I think they are the next walk up starters)..... 9 + 8 = 17

The remaining 5 spots is where we have a lot of competition. Couch, Nicho, Dunn, Watts, Blease, Gysberts, Jurrah, Tappy, McDonald, Bail, Davey, McKenzie, Strauss ( Form, Injury, team balance or opposition may determine who gets the nod) This is the embarrassment of riches.........13 players competing for 5 spots. That adds up to 30. Usually the top sides have about 30 competing for positions

The Fringe Players:- Morton, Rivers, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Jetta, MacDonald, (Taggert, Tynan only because they need a little bit of time)

The fringe players would only be used if we have a specific role needed because of injury.

I remember getting excited in 2007, and 2005, and 2004, and 2002.... Forgive me for not expecting much just yet. Yes, it's getting greener but as good as our side might look compared to our previous teams, other teams look pretty impressive too.

FWIW

Grimes Frawley Bartram

Bennell Sellar Rivers

Howe Bate Garland

Petterd Watts Sylvia

Davey Clark Green

Jamar Trengove Jones

Int: Moloney Magner Martin (Dunn)

I don't believe Rivers and Davis will be fringe players and if Jetta can fire up this year he might be fighting too which only strengthens your argument that we certainly have a good fight for spots

ill chuck mine in for what id like to see rd 1

Bartram Frawley Grimes

Tapscott Seller Garland

Blease Moloney Bail

Green Watts Sylvia

Davey Clarke Petterd

Jamar Trengove Jones

INT: Magner Martin Dunn (Bennell)

Bennell sub to inject a bit of pace and flare when he comes on

You are all having the same difficulty I was having, when trying to pick my Best 22 for the other thread.

Having those 13 or 21 if you include the Fringe Players, just made me feel very comfortable with the direction we are heading.

As RPFC has already stated "DEPTH". I haven't had that feeling for at least 20 years.

All of your Best 22's are fine, they differ just a bit but that just shows you the depth we have all over the ground.

I can't see a weakness that can't be covered by someone else, if in the case of injury or form slump.

Bring on the Season proper.

  On 06/03/2012 at 02:30, Chippy said:

You are all having the same difficulty I was having, when trying to pick my Best 22 for the other thread.

Having those 13 or 21 if you include the Fringe Players, just made me feel very comfortable with the direction we are heading.

As RPFC has already stated "DEPTH". I haven't had that feeling for at least 20 years.

All of your Best 22's are fine, they differ just a bit but that just shows you the depth we have all over the ground.

I can't see a weakness that can't be covered by someone else, if in the case of injury or form slump.

Bring on the Season proper.

Terribly sorry, I was being facetious.

There is nothing more useless than having 30 players as good as each other.

We need 5 player that can match it with the best.

Depth is a red herring.

  On 06/03/2012 at 02:32, rpfc said:

Terribly sorry, I was being facetious.

There is nothing more useless than having 30 players as good as each other.

We need 5 player that can match it with the best.

Depth is a red herring.

I didn't say we had 30 players as good as each other "Oh Facetious one"

I was referring to the 13 fighting for the last 5 spots.

IMHO depth is the reason why good clubs become great clubs.

We do have the 5 that can match it with the Best

  On 06/03/2012 at 02:40, Chippy said:

IMHO depth is the reason why good clubs become great clubs.

We do have the 5 that can match it with the Best

No Depth is Depth. Nothing more, nothing less. Its hardly an embarrassment of riches. Too often when subjected to a couple of tough games (losses), depth is more illusory and an embarrassment more than riches.

Good clubs become great clubs because they are able to develop a top 5 or 6 that not only consistently dominate contests and games but make those around them better players.

We dont have the 5 that match it with the best.... We have a couple with potential to be worthy of the top 5 but none of them are there yet.

  On 06/03/2012 at 02:40, Chippy said:

I didn't say we had 30 players as good as each other "Oh Facetious one"

I was referring to the 13 fighting for the last 5 spots.

IMHO depth is the reason why good clubs become great clubs.

We do have the 5 that can match it with the Best

I apologise.

It doesn't excite me that the 18th best player is as good as the 32nd...

And your last line is bordering on liable...

We don't have 5 players that can match it with Mitchell, Franklin, Hodge, Sewell, and Rioli. Nor Pendlebury, Swan, Cloke, Ball, and Thomas. Nor Bartel, Selwood, Johnson, Chapman, and Scarlett.

I reckon depth is where the success will come from

No need to overplay your best 5 or 22

select the best team for the day, opposition and circumstances.

Do we have players who play better at one venue?? or in wind??

teams used to be selected for wet soggy grounds. whilst that has improved we still see players who can perform on a given day.

Some players feel more comfortable/ assured against a particular player or team that will be their day and they may be better than a more credentialled player.

Depth allows you to rcover refresh or rest

so list management(depth) can be a powerful attribute for our club.

Dont discount the value of a squad competing for spots. If we have 13 fighting for the last 5 spots then it can only be a good thing IMO as they'll all be training and playing like their life depends on it.

I also agree that depth isnt the silver bullet for success, but surely its not a bad thing to have!

  On 06/03/2012 at 03:33, DemonWA said:

Dont discount the value of a squad competing for spots. If we have 13 fighting for the last 5 spots then it can only be a good thing IMO as they'll all be training and playing like their life depends on it.

I also agree that depth isnt the silver bullet for success, but surely its not a bad thing to have!

You have my vote for what it is worth.

  On 06/03/2012 at 02:32, rpfc said:

Terribly sorry, I was being facetious.

There is nothing more useless than having 30 players as good as each other.

We need 5 player that can match it with the best.

Depth is a red herring.

What! depth is crucial. If you don't have depth you don't have anything.

Now were finding our depth we need to unearth those champions your alluding too.

Each thing in it's turn.

Having 5 champions without any real quality depth will get you nowhere.

To be really competitive we need to develop the top 5 - did anyone see Pendlebury last Saturday night?

But I do think there's a lot of competition for our bottom 5 now - more than there was when we played finals under Daniher - and we'll have at least good players all over the field.

  On 06/03/2012 at 04:21, dee-luded said:

Having 5 champions without any real quality depth will get you nowhere.

A toe-poke and an unlucky bounce away from 2 flags.

I prefer the phrase "competition for places" rather than "embarrassment of riches"