Changes vs Eagles

[Gator 16,893]

IF you're going to play two legitimate rucks, why would you gamble playing Jamar after Gawn/Spencer worked so effectively? The potential downside is far greater than the potential upside in that decision.

If it was coming off a loss, maybe, but coming off the best win in god knows how long?

It's a left-field suggestion, because Naitanui is in career best ruck form and he's always struggled against Jamar. Footy is all about matchups.

Do I think he'll be included for this one off game to negate Naitanui's influence ? Not likely, but it wouldn't be the worst decision I've seen.

Not withstanding Spencer's clear improvement it's also fair to say I think he's a potato and I'm far from confident he'll successfully compete with Naitanui.

Edited June 29, 2015 by ProDee

[Gator 16,893]

To illustrate my point, here's his record against all opposition teams:

http://finalsiren.com/PlayerStats.asp?PlayerID=1942

His worst record is against... you guessed it, Melbourne. And that's the Jamar factor.

[rjay 23,947]

To illustrate my point, here's his record against all opposition teams:

http://finalsiren.com/PlayerStats.asp?PlayerID=1942

His worst record is against... you guessed it, Melbourne. And that's the Jamar factor.

I think you are right on with Jamar 'ProDee', Nat has struggled against him because he doesn't let him get an easy jump at the ball. Jamar pushes in under him and keeps him off the footy.

I doubt we will bring Jamar in for this game but as you say it is a left field and not altogether dumb idea when talking match ups.

Hopefully Stafford is teaching Gawn & Spencer the technique to bring Nat undone.

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,321]

It's a left-field suggestion, because Naitanui is in career best ruck form and he's always struggled against Jamar. Footy is all about matchups.

And in those games our average losing margin to the Eagles has been 87.25 points.

[Older demon 2,175]

I would also point out that a bloke named Cox dominated the ruck in those games, smashed the Russian with his running ability meaning Nic Nat did not have as big a role. Stats don't tell the whole story.

[picket fence 15,348]

As already iterated, one change,

Hogan for either Bail or M Jones, that's it!

[jnrmac 19,129]

To illustrate my point, here's his record against all opposition teams:

http://finalsiren.com/PlayerStats.asp?PlayerID=1942

His worst record is against... you guessed it, Melbourne. And that's the Jamar factor.

Nah, its Watts.....

[rjay 23,947]

As already iterated, one change,

Hogan for either Bail or M Jones, that's it!

Yep...Hogan for Dawes and Garland for Riley.

Sorry can't count

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Yep...Hogan for Dawes and Garland for Riley.

Sorry can't count

Dawes is not getting dropped, how oblivious are some of you

[rjay 23,947]

Dawes is not getting dropped, how oblivious are some of you

I know he's not but I'm getting in early for next week when all with hindsight say he should have been and how we went in with too many talls.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

This is a real danger game for the Weagles.

We go in as under dogs with a boost of confidence from the Geelong game.

They've got some pretty sore bookend players from their match against Richmond in Schofield, McGovern and Cripps (to a lesser extent), none of whom are definite starters.

They'll all be touch and go this week.

On top of McKenzie and Brown being out, I think at least one or two of those sore three won't get up for this game and if that's the case they're in trouble providing our midfield fires.

With Hogan coming in, they'll have him, Dawes, Howe and potentially a resting Gawn or Spencer to deal with if we decide to play two ruckman to combat Nic-Nat.

This is definitely a winnable game, but we need our midfield to get on top and we need to convert most entries inside 50.

Edited June 30, 2015 by stevethemanjordan

[rpfc 27,573]

This is definitely a winnable game, but we need our midfield to get on top and we need to convert most entries inside 50.

This is what it boils down to - we can wax lyrical after the fact about how 'tall we were' but if your midfield doesn't get enough footy - it's all moot.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

I know he's not but I'm getting in early for next week when all with hindsight say he should have been and how we went in with too many talls.

exactly, you and others will say that regardless of how he actually plays and what the result is. Like last week, for example, where he did OK and we won.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

man.. I must have blocked out just how poor we have been against WC in recent times

we have lost the last 7... including margins of 108, 94, and 93
wowsers, that is sobering

[Gator 16,893]

I would also point out that a bloke named Cox dominated the ruck in those games, smashed the Russian with his running ability meaning Nic Nat did not have as big a role. Stats don't tell the whole story.

You do realise that the "Cox effect" relates to all of Naitanui's stats and not just his Melbourne games ?

Btw, the stats only reinforce what my eyes have always told me. Jamar has had his measure for the reason Rjay mentions.

[rjay 23,947]

exactly, you and others will say that regardless of how he actually plays and what the result is. Like last week, for example, where he did OK and we won.

I'm not a Dawes fan but that's not the issue here; he did ok against Geelong and played a role but if we bring in Hogan we then have one tall too many.

We can't drop one of the rucks as neither alone would stand up to the WC rucks and Dawes doesn't play ruck so to me it has to be him that goes our for team balance.

If it all works out and Dawes plays a cracker of a game I'm happy to admit I was wrong but at the moment we are looking ahead and I see selection may be a problem for us.

[Fat Tony 4,465]

I'm not a Dawes fan but that's not the issue here; he did ok against Geelong and played a role but if we bring in Hogan we then have one tall too many.

We can't drop one of the rucks as neither alone would stand up to the WC rucks and Dawes doesn't play ruck so to me it has to be him that goes our for team balance.

If it all works out and Dawes plays a cracker of a game I'm happy to admit I was wrong but at the moment we are looking ahead and I see selection may be a problem for us.

Dawes or Spencer must make way for Hogan. Particularly in Darwin.

[ManDee 7,091]

Fact, or speculation on your part?

In my experience it's the other way about Man. Back issues cause other problems - ie hammys.

Observation mono, they do a lot more work on his hammy's than back when he comes off. BBO you may be right it could be back causing hammy's.

[Skuit 9,290]

I’d completely forgotten but it’s interesting to note how tall we went in against the Weagles last time round (in an obviously dead rubber – but they’re all pretty much dead after round 5 for the MFC) – Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Pederson and Dawes up front with Jamar in the ruck. Though probably not much of an insight into current thinking ‘cause we still lost by 10 goals. And my god, I’d also happily forgotten that according to the match report we didn’t take a grab inside 50 until the last term despite comfortably winning the possession count.

P.s. - I have no point. I'm just lonely.

[Pennant St Dee 11,351]

This is a real danger game for the Weagles.

We go in as under dogs with a boost of confidence from the Geelong game.

They've got some pretty sore bookend players from their match against Richmond in Schofield, McGovern and Cripps (to a lesser extent), none of whom are definite starters.

They'll all be touch and go this week.

On top of McKenzie and Brown being out, I think at least one or two of those sore three won't get up for this game and if that's the case they're in trouble providing our midfield fires.

With Hogan coming in, they'll have him, Dawes, Howe and potentially a resting Gawn or Spencer to deal with if we decide to play two ruckman to combat Nic-Nat.

This is definitely a winnable game, but we need our midfield to get on top and we need to convert most entries inside 50.

Only issue is that Mcgovern, Schofield and Darling have had a week off to freshen up and it would have been nice to get them after the Tigers game so they will have had 15 days off by the time Saturday nights game comes around. Darling has only come back in and was slightly underdone so would have been nice to get him on a minimum turnaround.

They have some awesome running power across the ground and are still very much a confidence side and we can't afford to start rusty against them and allow them to get their tails up, we need to come out of the blocks and set the tone very early for a physical contest. Has anybody got any info on the ground in Darwin a nice big ground more in terms of width will help us expose their defence and isolate some one on ones inside our forward 50

[rjay 23,947]

Only issue is that Mcgovern, Schofield and Darling have had a week off to freshen up and it would have been nice to get them after the Tigers game so they will have had 15 days off by the time Saturday nights game comes around. Darling has only come back in and was slightly underdone so would have been nice to get him on a minimum turnaround.

They have some awesome running power across the ground and are still very much a confidence side and we can't afford to start rusty against them and allow them to get their tails up, we need to come out of the blocks and set the tone very early for a physical contest. Has anybody got any info on the ground in Darwin a nice big ground more in terms of width will help us expose their defence and isolate some one on ones inside our forward 50

We need to get the ball in quickly 'Pennant'.

WC defence was good against the Tiges when on their terms but whenever the Tiges moved it in quickly WC were pretty easy to score against.

[Je Roos Salem 661]

I wanna see Naitanui mangled like a rag doll

[Pennant St Dee 11,351]

We need to get the ball in quickly 'Pennant'.

WC defence was good against the Tiges when on their terms but whenever the Tiges moved it in quickly WC were pretty easy to score against.

Agree totally quick ball use also eliminates Mcgovern peeling off and going up 3rd man

[mo64 5,209]

Agree totally quick ball use also eliminates Mcgovern peeling off and going up 3rd man

If we want quick movement of the ball, Garland doesn't play.

[Bitter but optimistic 21,368]

Only issue is that Mcgovern, Schofield and Darling have had a week off to freshen up and it would have been nice to get them after the Tigers game so they will have had 15 days off by the time Saturday nights game comes around. Darling has only come back in and was slightly underdone so would have been nice to get him on a minimum turnaround.

They have some awesome running power across the ground and are still very much a confidence side and we can't afford to start rusty against them and allow them to get their tails up, we need to come out of the blocks and set the tone very early for a physical contest. Has anybody got any info on the ground in Darwin a nice big ground more in terms of width will help us expose their defence and isolate some one on ones inside our forward 50

I don't know the dimensions Pennant but I went to see us get flogged by Port a few years ago and had the chance to wander over the ground during the day. I remember standing on the wing area and commenting to my mate about how far it was to goal.