Changes vs Eagles

[dee-luded 2,959]

Dawes might miss if we take the 2 ruck option which we probably should against WC, particularly in Darwin.

Unless we think it would be a plus to stretch their defence particularly with injuries to the tall defenders.

I think we need to be careful of going too tall though, Hogan in for a tall either Spencer or Dawes. Dawes for me.

yep interesting. Dawes has rough hands, the slippery conditions may not suit this.

maybe 2 rucks (fitzy would be cool) but not a great idea to split up a winning ruck combo from last week.

So Hogan definately comes in, if fit.

I want a full bench of runners. so 2 rucks have to be able to play the game out & pull they're weight.

[rjay 24,944]

Playing tall forwards may expose their backline we will still have the smalls of Garlett and ANB or JKH on the ground.

Think the GWS game and you have your answer. Dawes came back in at the expense of a smaller player and the same arguments were made about us exposing their backline. History tells us it wasn't a good move.

The argument doesn't stand up unless you have quality tall forwards, who mark and kick goals. We will need the 2 rucks this game and even that is a gamble as neither of them are really forward/rucks, we can't afford to have another non marking tall who doesn't hit the scoreboard.

Find it staggering that people are proposing 3 or 4 changes after the best team performance in many years

It will be a couple of changes max...Hogan will come in if fit to play and most probably Garland.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Good point.

Haven't we asked the AFL every year that we have had this Darwin arrangement, to fit it in immediately before our bye?

Can't be that difficult to arrange, were there the will on their part.

Stubborn or arrogant at AFL HQ?

rather than that, I'd like to see us play back to back in the Northern Territory, in July... a Thursday night TV game in the Alice, Vs the Port magpies Power; followed next round, a Saturday night game in Darwin, Vs the Crows.

... our Bye should follow this.

this then readies us for a run to the Finals, via our August games as preparation, before September.

[DeeSpencer 25,719]

Find it staggering that people are proposing 3 or 4 changes after the best team performance in many years

I agree but:

- Hogan and Garland are clear best 22. Hogan and Garland in

- The ruck advantage we had against Geelong won't be the same against West Coast and Hogan adds another tall to the forward line. Spencer, Howe or Dawes out?

- West Coast have 3 dangerous key forwards (Kennedy, Darling, Sinclair) who need manning, where Geelong was really just Hawkins as a threat. Fitzy in?

- JKH is a half forward flanker. That's his position. Bail, Riley, ANB (despite his success in hitting the scoreboard) really don't fit that role. He's also had success in the sub role. JKH in?

I see Garland for Bail, Hogan for Riley with either ANB, Stretch, Toumpas or possibly Howe as the sub as the most logical moves. But both JKH and Fitzy are worth the question and the role of Spencer is certainly worth considering as the forward line will be heavily cluttered with Hogan back.

The top teams make lots of changes these days. I think Sydney and Hawthorn rarely go unchained. They bring injured players back. Pick the right players for the right conditions/match ups and they rotate fringe and young players to develop their games and the list.

Fringe or young players coming in and doing their job but losing out to more experienced or a different role player shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, it should be part of being a maturing list and team and finding a consistent best 22.

[DeeSpencer 25,719]

Think the GWS game and you have your answer. Dawes came back in at the expense of a smaller player and the same arguments were made about us exposing their backline. History tells us it wasn't a good move.

The argument doesn't stand up unless you have quality tall forwards, who mark and kick goals. We will need the 2 rucks this game and even that is a gamble as neither of them are really forward/rucks, we can't afford to have another non marking tall who doesn't hit the scoreboard.

It will be a couple of changes max...Hogan will come in if fit to play and most probably Garland.

I agree about exposing a teams backline. I think you should predominantly pick the best side you've got to play your way and win on your terms regardless of opposition too much. But I disagree about Dawes.

I think Hogan can take Howe's spot close to goal. The ruckman can play as they did. Dawes can keep his lead up CHF style spot.

Which then does beg the question of what to do with Howe. If Howe can provide the work rate and defensive pressure of one of the smalls (ANB, Stretch, Brayshaw etc) then it will all function. It also probably means giving him a stint each quarter on a wing which he should be able to handle. This probably won't be popular but we could try Hogan for the first time in the Roughy role. If he's playing deep forward he could rest up much more and be unleashed for a 3 minute or so burst on the ball just for something different.

The Dawes-Hogan-Ruckman combination is big. But not so big as to be impossible. If Howe can play small it can work and I guess we will find out soon enough if they are game to try it.

[rjay 24,944]

I agree about exposing a teams backline. I think you should predominantly pick the best side you've got to play your way and win on your terms regardless of opposition too much. But I disagree about Dawes.

I think Hogan can take Howe's spot close to goal. The ruckman can play as they did. Dawes can keep his lead up CHF style spot.

Which then does beg the question of what to do with Howe. If Howe can provide the work rate and defensive pressure of one of the smalls (ANB, Stretch, Brayshaw etc) then it will all function. It also probably means giving him a stint each quarter on a wing which he should be able to handle. This probably won't be popular but we could try Hogan for the first time in the Roughy role. If he's playing deep forward he could rest up much more and be unleashed for a 3 minute or so burst on the ball just for something different.

The Dawes-Hogan-Ruckman combination is big. But not so big as to be impossible. If Howe can play small it can work and I guess we will find out soon enough if they are game to try it.

We've tried it before and it didn't work.

Quoting you '- The ruck advantage we had against Geelong won't be the same against West Coast and Hogan adds another tall to the forward line. Spencer, Howe or Dawes out?

...and I don't get the JKH love on this thread. He is still young with a lot to learn and doesn't hit the scoreboard enough. Let him learn at Casey and put together a body of work that demands selection. At the moment ANB & Stretch hold there place in the team.

[What 18,810]

If we drop Spencer whos back up ruck? Dawes?

Bit of a dilemma.

Spencer deserves to play, and Dawes isnt a back up ruck. Might see Dawesy out of the team vs WC.

[DeeSpencer 25,719]

We've tried it before and it didn't work.

Quoting you '- The ruck advantage we had against Geelong won't be the same against West Coast and Hogan adds another tall to the forward line. Spencer, Howe or Dawes out?

...and I don't get the JKH love on this thread. He is still young with a lot to learn and doesn't hit the scoreboard enough. Let him learn at Casey and put together a body of work that demands selection. At the moment ANB & Stretch hold there place in the team.

That was my postulating in regards to why we might make up to 4 changes despite a good win.

Against GWS we had Dawes, Hogan and Frost. We just beat Geelong with Dawes, Howe and Spencer which is much less mobile.

Dawes, Hogan and Spencer might not be perfect but it does give us some advantages and I wouldn't be surprised if Roos tries it. Many good teams continue to win playing tall and the bad teams continue to lose whilst looking for more run and versatility and sometimes it just isn't there.

JKH had 9 goals in 14 games with quite a few as the sub last year. Not too bad. He hasn't kicked as many this year but 2 goals 3 at Casey on the weekend shoes he knows where the goals (and behinds) are. He reads the play well, has nice hands in traffic and can be creative with the footy. I would keep ANB and Stretch in ahead of him but maybe not Aidan Riley who hasn't scored yet from 4 games (2 as sub), has 8 goals from 25 games and is really a midfielder instead of a half forward.

[Dees2014 2,377]

I'm inclined to go tall if dry and smaller if wet. I think WC defence is their biggest weakness and so to stretch it if dry makes sense. I think because also it will be hot, and that WC are likely to play both NicNat and Sinclair, both over 200cm, I think both Spencer and Gawn have to play. I would therefore go with

IN: Garland. Hogan. JKH (sub)

OUT: Riley. Bail. Matt Jones (if dry). Dawes (if wet)

There could also be a case to play Fitzy, in which case he could replace Spencer and play second ruck and match up on Sinclair either in defence or attack. He would be a better proposition than Spencer in the wet also because of his mobility. Now if we could get him to hold his overhead marks like Maxy is starting to do, he would be a very valuable edition. The other possibility is to drop Toumpas instead of M Jones given his serviceable game on Sunday. I still worry about Toumpas's poor disposal and decision making, although I admit he is a good ball getter.in the end I think it depends on match ups.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Dees2014

[mdemon 266]

Crazy to even consider dropping Dawes. Although the word "structures" is arguably the most overused and overrated terms in modern day football, the reality is that (as others have posted) Dawes knows what he is doing up forward. Individual stats may not amount to much but his ability to bring others into the game is impressive.

Probably have to retain Big Jake - be nice to see him jump into Nic Nat when he launches for one of his spectacular leaps. Jake might conced agree or two but Nic Nat will end up getting very sore very quickly.

Bail and Riley out for Hogan and Garland in are the logical (albeit minimalist) changes.

Yes, it makes us a bit top heavy but, as the saying goes, at the end of the game, a bloke who is 195+ cms is still that tall whereas the little guys may just have run out of puff.

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

Pretty simple I'd think:

In: Hogan, Garland, JKH

Out: Dawes, Bail, Riley

[barneymfc 152]

in the words of jack dyer,little blokes get slower big blokes dont get shorter,so if we go tall in the conditions in darwin it should work

[CityDee 738]

Hogan and Garlo come in .

Depends on balance with regard to the weagles as to who is dropped. Garlo for a small ( Bail Jones - id keep Riley ) Hogan for a tall or small??

JKH can wait a week .

Our two ruckman should play its a great weapon.

the other scenario is that Hogan is rested another week. likely if history is anything to go by.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Out : Toumpas (squibbing is not to be accepted) Bail

In : Garland, Hogan

When did Toumpas do a Bryce Gibbs?

[CBDees 3,167]

Hogan and Garlo come in .

Depends on balance with regard to the weagles as to who is dropped. Garlo for a small ( Bail Jones - id keep Riley ) Hogan for a tall or small??

JKH can wait a week .

Our two ruckman should play its a great weapon.

the other scenario is that Hogan is rested another week. likely if history is anything to go by.

I would bring in Fitzy (BOG at Casey last weekend with 28 disposals and 11 marks) instead of Garlo.

[Mad_Melbourne 877]

The definite in is Hogan, the possible ins are Fitzpatrick and Garland

The definite out will be Spencer and then I am not sure.

I think we need Fitzy, he can play on their resting ruckman (Sinclair) and also pinch hit in the ruck for us as well. But it will be at the expense of a midfielder, possibly Riley.

Then I am not sure about Garland, I want him in, but it is hard to drop people after a win, Bail could make way for him, which would move Cross into a more midfield defensive role.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I don't think Gawn will be able to handle Naitanui on his own, therefore I'm inclined to keep Spencer.

In: Hogan

Out: Dawes

[Nasher 33,616]

General question: for the people who post "Out: Dawes", are you saying what you'd do, or what you think our coaches are going to do? Because I'm quite confident that there's absolutely no way on Earth Roos and co are going to drop Dawes. It's just wishful thinking.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

General question: for the people who post "Out: Dawes", are you saying what you'd do, or what you think our coaches are going to do? Because I'm quite confident that there's absolutely no way on Earth Roos and co are going to drop Dawes. It's just wishful thinking.

I agree. Roos has demonstrated that he picks Dawes every single time he is fit, as well he should. You don't just say OK Jesse nevermind the senior leader premiership CHF, he's going to Casey, it's all on you now. Not how footy clubs work.

[rjay 24,944]

General question: for the people who post "Out: Dawes", are you saying what you'd do, or what you think our coaches are going to do? Because I'm quite confident that there's absolutely no way on Earth Roos and co are going to drop Dawes. It's just wishful thinking.

I think Roos will keep Dawes and go tall.

My personal opinion is it will be a big mistake and we will all be talking about it the following week.

I hope I'm wrong.

A lot of opinion has been clouded by our great win this week and fair enough but team balance is still important.

[Redleg 40,946]

in the words of jack dyer,little blokes get slower big blokes dont get shorter,so if we go tall in the conditions in darwin it should work

Funny, coz I thought all the games in the top end have been won by quick running sides, not tall marking sides.

[Lucifers Hero 39,916]

I have long been a critic of Dawes and don't think he is in our best 22 going forward.

My biggest criticisms have been:

- he can't mark,

- doesn't kick enough goals

- can't use his body to out-position opponents

- doesn't lead to good places

However, Roos in one simple play made those criticisms redundant and found a role to use him effectively!

Roos must have told him to Not To Try to Mark...Not kick for goal...Just bring it to ground!!

If that his role and he sticks to it I think he should stay in the team.

Brilliant move by Roos.

[The Chazz 4,077]

There's about 45 different combinations of ins and outs next week, with a reasonable case for most of them. So I have NFI what changes will be made..

Does Casey play this weekend? If so, that might make it a bit easier, but it will still be guess work!

For the sake of this thread;

Ins: I think one to all of Hogan, Garland, JKH and Fitzpatrick come in

Outs: I think one to all of Bail, Spencer, Riley and Stretch go out

As I said, I have NFI!

[mo64 5,875]

General question: for the people who post "Out: Dawes", are you saying what you'd do, or what you think our coaches are going to do? Because I'm quite confident that there's absolutely no way on Earth Roos and co are going to drop Dawes. It's just wishful thinking.

I'm 100% certain that Dawes will play, as will Garland, but that doesn't change my opinion that they are detrimental to our structure. Everyone's perception of Dawes is that he is a beast. The reality is that Lonergan beat him for strength both times they had a one-on-one marking contest. Most of his rare possessions are gained by leading to the flanks, which is something that a mid/half forward can do just as affectively. If Dawes could ruck, he stays in the team, but the Gawn/Spencer combo will be important against Nik Nat, who is a dominent tap ruckman. Gawn/Spencer also kicked 2 between them plus crashed the packs to create spillage. Howe has kicked 6 goals in the past 3 games, which is more than Dawes has kicked all year. For mine is a straight swap, Hogan for Dawes.

[picket fence 17,172]

Find it staggering that people are proposing 3 or 4 changes after the best team performance in many years

YEP!

Also ROOSY Loves Dawes in the team conditions suiting or not! I also love his work rate and leadership!

Edited June 24, 2015 by picket fence