On 06/06/2013 at 12:51, Rusty Nails said:

Not necessarily. Just need a neutral outcome here and Sellar can at least kill the ball occasionaly surely? The outcome here will be mostly determined by the pressure we can put on their ball carriers up the field though Biff. If' it's half decent he gets less opportunity. If it isn't then you could be on the money.

I'm not worried too much about our defense at this point Biff. I'd prefer to have Frawley in obviously but Pederson showed last week that he can fill a hole and was one of our better players down there. Sellar i'm not so sure. So maybe Pedo on Cloke to start and Garland as a 2nd option if that's not working?

What is letting us down and is more damaging IMO is our ability to maintain and match the opposition's numbers at stoppage. We're allowing them to get +1, +2 and even +3 on odd occasions at some stoppages. We kept this to a minimum and had the edge on the Hawks for most of the first half last week, but it blew out a little in the 2nd half.

Combine this with too many "Lack of Awareness Acts" (as i like to call them) from many of the youngsters during a match that result in us coughing the ball up, or missing obvious targets in better positions. And in the former this results in us handing the ball to the opposition in mid field with an easy run into i50 or into an open goal etc, and you have multiple goals from silly turnovers to add to our woes.

I'd put Dunn on Cloke-all day and just leave him there.

Garland needs to be on the half back line so he can run off.

I've got a funny feeling about this game-we may only get smashed by 9 goals instead of the usual 13.

  On 06/06/2013 at 13:06, rjay said:

Neither of these options is the right one for Cloke and even Frawley would struggle with the extra height and weight advantage Cloke has. It will have to be Sellar, he's the only one with the size to match. Garland will probably take the smaller marking forward. I hope they don't put Tommy Mc on Cloke either both he and Peders are suited to Lynch.

I'm not so sure. I think our defensive unit at this point is so tight they're capable of taking on anyone if enough pressure is on up the field. Garland can't match Cloke in a one on one if the ball's coming in from height i agree, so he'd need a chop out from Sellar, Pedo or Dunn. But what Garland can do effectively is run with Cloke on the lead, potentially spoil, then run off him. Pedo, Dunn and Sellar aren't so effective as too slow IMO. Better in the contested stakes i agree, but not in spoiling a lead and running off with the spills/putting tackles on afterwards once the ball hits the deck.

Sellar has 4cm on Pedo so yes, an advantage on Cloke in a contest i'll concede that. As for being any stronger or more skilled at any apsect of the game vs Pedo, atm i think Pedo is a step or 2 above Sellar in most aspects of his game. Besides, not many are going to beat Cloke in a 1 on 1 contested situation anyway.

The biggest worry for me out of all the match ups is whoever McKenzie is going to which will probably be either Swan, Pendles or Seedsman. Any of these 3 will be off to the races and will lose McKenzie in a heartbeat. Wouldn't be too bad if MckEnzie hurt them the other way, but he rarely does. Offers no value for us. Can't shut a player down and doesn't hurt the opposition the other way.

The more pressure we place on Pie players like Pendles, Swan and Seedsman up the field the better our plight. If we can't or don't and also don't hurt them enough going the other way it'll get pretty ugly with Cloke, Pendles and others hitting the scoreboard fairly regularly.

They've certainly kept their options open this week. I wonder how the final side will look.

Interesting that they've gone back on the thing about earning your way back after being suspended.

  On 06/06/2013 at 13:47, RalphiusMaximus said:

They've certainly kept their options open this week. I wonder how the final side will look.

Interesting that they've gone back on the thing about earning your way back after being suspended.

ive never seen the sense of blanket rules. The simple fact is that the team needs a big strong experienced body like Sylvia. It would be letting the 22 out there down if they had Sylvia available and didn't pick him

  On 06/06/2013 at 13:44, Rusty Nails said:

I'm not so sure. I think our defensive unit at this point is so tight they're capable of taking on anyone if enough pressure is on up the field. Garland can't match Cloke in a one on one if the ball's coming in from height i agree, so he'd need a chop out from Sellar, Pedo or Dunn. But what Garland can do effectively is run with Cloke on the lead, potentially spoil, then run off him. Pedo, Dunn and Sellar aren't so effective as too slow IMO. Better in the contested stakes i agree, but not in spoiling a lead and running off with the spills/putting tackles on afterwards once the ball hits the deck.

Sellar has 4cm on Pedo so yes, an advantage on Cloke in a contest i'll concede that. As for being any stronger or more skilled at any apsect of the game vs Pedo, atm i think Pedo is a step or 2 above Sellar in most aspects of his game. Besides, not many are going to beat Cloke in a 1 on 1 contested situation anyway.

The biggest worry for me out of all the match ups is whoever McKenzie is going to which will probably be either Swan, Pendles or Seedsman. Any of these 3 will be off to the races and will lose McKenzie in a heartbeat. Wouldn't be too bad if MckEnzie hurt them the other way, but he rarely does. Offers no value for us. Can't shut a player down and doesn't hurt the opposition the other way.

The more pressure we place on Pie players like Pendles, Swan and Seedsman up the field the better our plight. If we can't or don't and also don't hurt them enough going the other way it'll get pretty ugly with Cloke, Pendles and others hitting the scoreboard fairly regularly.

...and there is the problem, we are not capable of putting on this pressure up the ground. To me this is the job Sellar was hired for, to take on the monsters and there's no bigger monster than Cloke.

  On 06/06/2013 at 13:08, Biffen said:

I'd put Dunn on Cloke-all day and just leave him there.

Garland needs to be on the half back line so he can run off.

I've got a funny feeling about this game-we may only get smashed by 9 goals instead of the usual 13.

If you remember back to when they tried Dunn on Tex last year then you wouldn't be suggesting this. Apart from the first contest he was monstered until Neeld invoked the mercy rule and switched him away. Cloke is as mobile as Tex and bigger, the only thing we have in our favour is he is not as good a kick.

  On 06/06/2013 at 13:52, the master said:

ive never seen the sense of blanket rules. The simple fact is that the team needs a big strong experienced body like Sylvia. It would be letting the 22 out there down if they had Sylvia available and didn't pick him

I agree, but it is interesting nonetheless.

  On 06/06/2013 at 13:59, rjay said:

...and there is the problem, we are not capable of putting on this pressure up the ground. To me this is the job Sellar was hired for, to take on the monsters and there's no bigger monster than Cloke.

If you remember back to when they tried Dunn on Tex last year then you wouldn't be suggesting this. Apart from the first contest he was monstered until Neeld invoked the mercy rule and switched him away. Cloke is as mobile as Tex and bigger, the only thing we have in our favour is he is not as good a kick.

As a back up for Frawley then yes. Frawley will be sorely missed this week obviously. Possibly a 2 to 3 goal advantage (additional one....like they needed it) for Cloke and Collingwood now he's out.

Dunn isn't capable of matching up on most players in a one on one IMO. Lacks intensity and desperation at the contest eg, when hitting a pack to spoil/pressuring the ball carrier on a chase down. He reads the play ok at times when he's pushing higher up the field, tackles reasonably well when he gets near the opposition in congestion, capable of taking the odd mark in the clear (which most are capable of), has a great boot on him, can kick goals if he gets within 55 - 60. But his awareness of what's going on, his poor short game, lack of intensity (see above) and his general lack of awareness/footy smarts (eg., sometimes plays on when he shouldn't or holds on to the ball for too long after a mark) makes him a sub par performer for us at this point and puts us under further pressure when trying to transition through the opposition's press.