MATCH PREVIEW AND TEAM SELECTION

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

Magner's a strange one but I've seen far more perplexing changes than that.

MacDonald probably plays as a defensive forward to try to limit the impact of Hawthorn's launching of attacks of half back. They are deadly there.

No surprises in amongst the rest

And Biff........your eyes deceive you. Nev is slow

He's straight line slow but agile. To me that means he can get the ball in close and he can get out of trouble when he gets the ball. But he can't win the ball in space - ie. handball receives, hard running leads etc and that combined with his size makes it hard. I know they are developing him as a defender and played him forward because we had so little options but I'd play him smack bang in the middle for Casey. Bugger Magner and Couch we know what they can do at VFL level. The VFL midfield should be Blease, Taggert and Jetta this week.

[mrtwister 652]

In all honesty, would it make ANY difference who is in and who is out?

I wonder if any of the ins are a little apprehensive.

How many people here would look forward to going into work knowing 30000 people are going to watch you look pretty damn ordinary.

How exciting!!!

[rjay 25,088]

He's straight line slow but agile. To me that means he can get the ball in close and he can get out of trouble when he gets the ball. But he can't win the ball in space - ie. handball receives, hard running leads etc and that combined with his size makes it hard. I know they are developing him as a defender and played him forward because we had so little options but I'd play him smack bang in the middle for Casey. Bugger Magner and Couch we know what they can do at VFL level. The VFL midfield should be Blease, Taggert and Jetta this week.

I would like to see that, at a minimum Taggert should be in the middle.

On another subject it appears that MacDonald is set to be a defensive forward this week. So what are all those other forwards who don't get the ball doing.

Here's a novel idea how about we play someone as an attacking forward, if we get the ball it's a bit harder for our opponent to have it. The ultimate defence.

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

I would like to see that, at a minimum Taggert should be in the middle.

On another subject it appears that MacDonald is set to be a defensive forward this week. So what are all those other forwards who don't get the ball doing.

Here's a novel idea how about we play someone as an attacking forward, if we get the ball it's a bit harder for our opponent to have it. The ultimate defence.

Dawes - CHF, repetitive leading and also pressure Hawthorn's defenders and man up when not in possession.

Fitzpatrick - FF, use your speed to try and get on the end of it

Watts/Howe - rotating between 3rd tall forwards and wing

Tapscott - Generally defensive forward I wonder if he'll be freed up or set to play on a Hawthorn defender

Davey - attacking player to get up the ground and use the ball but has to watch out for opponent

Kent - I think likely sub if he does play

Bail - Defensive forward likely to go to Mitchell but needs to get involved in the play

Macdonald - Defensive forward likely to go to Birchall but needs to run all day leading to provide and option and also drag Birchall away from the play

In all likely hood 2 of 7 forwards we use will be involved purely in defense. I'm fine with those players getting roles but I just don't see Bail or Macdonald having the ability to hurt the player the other way. Unfortunately even if they do get the ball I think they'll struggle to use it. Hopefully next year we can give these roles to a Hogan or Viney at times or at least a Tapscott and Howe who can hurt the other way.

[rjay 25,088]

Dawes - CHF, repetitive leading and also pressure Hawthorn's defenders and man up when not in possession.

Fitzpatrick - FF, use your speed to try and get on the end of it

Watts/Howe - rotating between 3rd tall forwards and wing

Tapscott - Generally defensive forward I wonder if he'll be freed up or set to play on a Hawthorn defender

Davey - attacking player to get up the ground and use the ball but has to watch out for opponent

Kent - I think likely sub if he does play

Bail - Defensive forward likely to go to Mitchell but needs to get involved in the play

Macdonald - Defensive forward likely to go to Birchall but needs to run all day leading to provide and option and also drag Birchall away from the play

In all likely hood 2 of 7 forwards we use will be involved purely in defense. I'm fine with those players getting roles but I just don't see Bail or Macdonald having the ability to hurt the player the other way. Unfortunately even if they do get the ball I think they'll struggle to use it. Hopefully next year we can give these roles to a Hogan or Viney at times or at least a Tapscott and Howe who can hurt the other way.

I would add Tapscott to the list as pure defence he needs to get ball otherwise he is a waste. Kent unlikely to play which is a pity because he can at least hold a tackle and who knows where Watts or Howe will line up. Watts at half back and Howe loose man in defence again.

I can't see Birchall being dragged away from the play by MacDonald, better players have tried and failed. If we put players back in defence again then the Hawks will manufacture whoever they want loose and have a field day off HB.

So for me we will have 3 defensive forwards, 2 key forwards (a 5 man forward line) and a loose man in defence. This is not how I would set up but it is what seems likely. It's no wonder we have been getting around 100 less possessions than the opposition. We're so focussed on defensive acts we forget about getting the ball.

Edited May 30, 2013 by rjay

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

of the 25 named I count 6 good players, 6 OK ones and 13 not up to it

in some betting agencies Hawthorn is unbackable

what an effing disgrace we have become

this will be a 120+ flogging and Neeld's last game surely

[jackaub 1,402]

Jaded. Gawn started well, but hasnt set the world on fire in recent weeks. Where Fitzy has played solid games and accumlated 5 goals last week. So I think its justified. This wont be the last of Gawn.

But Magner does surprise me.

And Bail gets another go he is the worst player on the list he cant compete tackle or kick . Whats he doing there!

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

of the 25 named I count 6 good players, 6 OK ones and 13 not up to it

in some betting agencies Hawthorn is unbackable

what an effing disgrace we have become

this will be a 120+ flogging and Neeld's last game surely

Depends.

If all 22 have a red hot go for most of the 4 quarters and play team footy (& for each other) we should be able to keep this to a 10 to 12 goal thrashing, which is sad to say but that's what we have on the park for this game.

If 1, 2 or maybe more of our AFL capable players drop off or decide to throw in the towel then yeh, we could be looking at another 148 special here. I guess it depends on how many of those AFL capables hang in there and for how long into the 4 quarters.

I would be prepared to say that if it's the former, then the players have responded to Neeld. Not necessarily progressing but they've shown they're interested and something is clicking.

If it's another 90+ blow out, well, I think you get the picture.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Rusty Nails

[deanox 9,989]

of the 25 named I count 6 good players, 6 OK ones and 13 not up to it

in some betting agencies Hawthorn is unbackable

what an effing disgrace we have become

this will be a 120+ flogging and Neeld's last game surely

If your review of the list reveals only 6 good players, 6 ok and 13 not up to it, why is it the coach who is sacked? I'm not following they logic...

[Bay Riffin 1,480]

If your review of the list reveals only 6 good players, 6 ok and 13 not up to it, why is it the coach who is sacked? I'm not following they logic...

I reckon Fitzpatrick is going to find it hard against the hawks backline. Will be surprised if he gets near 10 possessions.

[monoccular 17,573]

I reckon Fitzpatrick is going to find it hard against the hawks backline. Will be surprised if he gets near 10 possessions.

He may well, but I hope he gets more than one game regardless. In fact at least two.

Edited May 30, 2013 by monoccular

[CHAMP 347]

And Bail gets another go he is the worst player on the list he cant compete tackle or kick . Whats he doing there!

And allegedly he's in the team because he has more 'legspeed' than Magner.

What a pile of, he's no quicker over 3, 6 or 12 meters and despite Bail's QLD underage cross country rep I'd reckon endurance is comparative.

Rohan must be in the side because of his polished disposal.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

And allegedly he's in the team because he has more 'legspeed' than Magner.

What a pile of, he's no quicker over 3, 6 or 12 meters and despite Bail's QLD underage cross country rep I'd reckon endurance is comparative.

Rohan must be in the side because of his polished disposal.

Hey CHAMP.

Serious (but off topic ) question. is your avatar a picture of Mark Neeld or Michael Douglas? I can't tell.

[CHAMP 347]

No doubt there are LaL qualities here but it is Mark, just cropped with colour balance gradient changes.

Neeld is very photogenic in an alarming sort of way.

[demonchris 162]

I can see why certain changes were made, everyone who was included has been in good form for Casey as Neeld said. But, that does not mean i agree with them. Im hoping after the bye, we see the likes of Taggert and maybe even Barry

[titan_uranus 25,043]

I'm not surprised that Gawn has been dropped back to the VFL. For one, no decent AFL side runs around with two ruckmen in the ilk of Jamar and Gawn. They're both what I would call number 1 ruckmen, the type who play 75-80% of the game rucking and spend the rest drifting forward. They're not what I would call a second or backup ruckmen, who fills in for the remaning 15-20% and spends the rest of the time forward.

If we're going to play Jamar as a number 1 ruck, Gawn probably unbalances the team and shouldn't be in. Certainly on his recent form he shouldn't be in. Of course, there is a second question, and that is whether it should be Jamar or Gawn as our number 1 ruck. Clearly Gawn is the future, and will take that spot in the long term. Jamar also is in awful form right now. I think the thinking here is that sending Gawn down to Casey helps him get his touch and confidence back, possibly/hopefully with a view to replacing Jamar in a few weeks (maybe after the bye) if he can't lift.

Pedersen for Sellar makes perfect sense, and IMO improves the side, especially if Pedersen can become a longer term defender. He is far fitter and more mobile than Sellar and, ideally, I see him adding run off half back.

Dropping Jetta doesn't really phase me too much. I'm not sure Jetta is going to make it at AFL level; I just don't see what he brings. He's not quick enough to be a small forward/mid, but he doesn't really play tall enough to be a half-forward. I just don't know what he offers. I can't see how he fits into a real AFL side. I like his endeavour and his tackling and his aggression, but when he gets 10 touches a game, that's just not enough.

The one decision I can't agree with is dropping Magner. There may well be something going on behind closed doors regarding his attitude or something, but that's just guesswork and speculation. From what we've seen, he's been an addition to the midfield and has helped out our younger players by getting his hands a bit dirty. I don't think he's got enough talent to make it at AFL level, but right now I think he's best 22. If they're not going to play him, though, it begs the question of why they wasted the LTI spot on him, when Couch continues to play well.

Bail and Nicholson appear to keep getting games because they can both run. Bail can't do much, but he never stops running, and Nicholson provides a lot of pace, which I think Neeld is wary of. Personally I've always liked Bail, but he's not in form right now and shouldn't be playing. I think Nicholson actually has a high ceiling and could really become a good player, but he has to work on his disposal. Right now, I think it's much of a muchness with him, and I can't really fault giving him an extended run to see what he's made of (that's what many ask for Strauss, who IMO has less of an impact more often than Nicholson does).

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

The one decision I can't agree with is dropping Magner. There may well be something going on behind closed doors regarding his attitude or something, but that's just guesswork and speculation. From what we've seen, he's been an addition to the midfield and has helped out our younger players by getting his hands a bit dirty. I don't think he's got enough talent to make it at AFL level, but right now I think he's best 22. If they're not going to play him, though, it begs the question of why they wasted the LTI spot on him, when Couch continues to play well.

Good post titan. I agree with it all. But I think the reason they upgraded Magner was that before the Richmond game we hit rock bottom in the midfield department so he had to play. Now we have Jones, McKenzie (in some kind of form), Trengove and Matt Jones to fill the minutes in the midfield who are all around the mark with Magner. Then Rodan, Evans and others are more versatile.

I don't think they'd play Couch either if they upgraded him. Remember how long it took Couch to crack a game last year. Whilst Magner and Couch have been super impressive in the VFL I think the footy department has come to their senses (which they could've realised before recruiting them) that they both probably aren't up to AFL level. I was surprised at the time that we went for 2 very similar players and even more surprised when we kept them both this year. They both win the ball in close but their lack of goals in the VFL for such dominant players may be a simple reflection that they just don't have the speed or spread required to get to the next level.

I believe we have the ability to upgrade a rookie at the half way mark of the season and if he can just get a few games under his belt without injury I believe that player will be Mitch Clisby who will be upgraded and play.

[old dee 23,872]

of the 25 named I count 6 good players, 6 OK ones and 13 not up to it

in some betting agencies Hawthorn is unbackable

what an effing disgrace we have become

this will be a 120+ flogging and Neeld's last game surely

I reckon you are close with those numbers C and B

I am a little different with 8- 5 and 12.

But still means that IMO almost 50% are not afl standard

And we wonder why we struggle!

[hardtack 10,627]

I reckon Fitzpatrick is going to find it hard against the hawks backline. Will be surprised if he gets near 10 possessions.

I really don't care about that... he has earned his spot by repeated good performances at Casey and so deserves the opportunity. At this time and with the players available to us, can you name any that would be expected to do better against their backs?

[pm24 451]

Given strauss hasn't been named for Casey, I take that as guarantee that he's playing this week. I think the final in's will be confirmed as Rodan and Pedersen (both listed in the starting 22) with Straus and Fitzpatrick the other two changes.

Spencer, Kent and Macdonald to be named as emergencies.

[bing181 9,328]

Final:

In: Rodan, Macdonald, Strauss, Fitzpatrick, Pedersen & Kent.

Out: Byrnes, Sellar, Magner, Jetta, Gawn & Nicholson.

Without commenting on the outs, I like the ins. Good to see Kent get another go, though suspect he will be sub.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,088]

Very happy with the final ins and outs. It gives us better disposal and some decent pace out of the stoppages. I'll be interested to see how they set up the midfield for the opening bounce.

[pm24 451]

I'm happy with those final changes. Kent for the sub vest I reckon.

[ThreeOneSix 954]

Rodan for sub, give Kent a full game for the supporters sake alone.

For those supporters who still watch the great Mark Neeld ply his trade.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,939]

One wonders why they bothered dropping Strauss considering they've brought him back after just 1 week and Freo had a plethora of small blokes kicking loads of goals last week.