Changes next week v The Saints

[DeeSpencer 24,972]

8 touches, 1 mark, 1 tackle. I'm glad that meets your expectations for a guy who is probably in the top three highest paid players at the club.

Where did you get the idea Lumumba is on big cash. Not saying it's wrong but I'm interested.

We know Dawes is on good money. It's the going rate for a key forward even a battler. Nath Jones and Vince would be paid well. I doubt they skimped on Hogan's extension.

I'm sure we have a lot of players getting paid more than they would at a top club. That's the price you pay as a struggling club to keep them happy. Lumumba would likely fall in to that group. But there wasn't huge competition for his services. I'd be shocked if he was getting paid more than 500k.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

a guy who is probably in the top three highest paid players at the club.

this doesn't matter. It doesn't matter for Dawes either. When you want to get an established player to a club, you are going to have others vying for him, and especially when you are a basket case of a club it is reasonable to expect you have to pay a bit of overs to get it done. It is what it is. Using that as some sort of benchmark for better performance is not appropriate.

[What 18,810]

Would be shocked if Riewoldt played, why would they risk him doing further damage to his calf, its not like them or us need to win to make the 8.

Dunn to Bruce

Garland to McCartin

T Mac up forward to create havoc for them, he can go back if Bruce gets on top of Dunn

[Adam The God 29,680]

Because he was limping very badly in the rooms after the game.

His knees have been wrecked for years and he continues to play on them. I'd say it's almoat a certainty that he'll line up against us.

[GawnWithTheWind 604]

Lets hope Nick doesn't play, he always cooks us.

Ins: Grimes

Outs: ANB (needs a rest)

FB: Jetta - Dunn - Grimes

HB: Garland - McD - Howe

C: Vince - N.Jones - Prince

HF: Howe - Dawes - Watts

FF: Garlett - Hogan - JKH

R: Gawn - Tyson - Cross

I: Brayshaw - Viney - Stretch

S: Harmes

Matchups:

Backs (no nick)

Mcdonald to Bruce

Dunn to McCartin

Jetta to Lonie

I back all of our defenders to win those contests.

Mids:

Viney to Steven

Jones to Armitage

Vince to Joey

Should be tight, Viney needs to physicaly hurt Steven

[stuie 7,374]

8 touches, 1 mark, 1 tackle. I'm glad that meets your expectations for a guy who is probably in the top three highest paid players at the club.

Oh so you're on of THOSE guys that judges players on stats.... Tells the rest of us how much attention to pay from here on out.

[Skuit 10,007]

No one shall ever quote statistics on Demonland again even if they had also watched the game. From here on in we must all rely on facebook. Georgiou Martin's response was reasoned. If he curtailed McStay and released Howe and Cross off hb then fair enough, although I doubt this is what he was recruited for and is a role that can be equally fulfilled by someone else (stoppers as to rebounders). Arguing his run and carry when he had 8 possessions and 3 clangers is a more difficult task.

[stuie 7,374]

No one shall ever quote statistics on Demonland again even if they had also watched the game. From here on in we must all rely on facebook. Georgiou Martin's response was reasoned. If he curtailed McStay and released Howe and Cross off hb then fair enough, although I doubt this is what he was recruited for and is a role that can be equally fulfilled by someone else (stoppers as to rebounders). Arguing his run and carry when he had 8 possessions and 3 clangers is a more difficult task.

It's shallow to judge Lumumba's influence by just stats, but if that's the limit of your footy understanding good for you.

If you've watched us at all this year you would hopefully have noticed H plays on 9 times out of 10. That is a clear mandate by the coaching staff given these factors:

- We knew he was that sort of player when we brought him in

- He has kept doing it game after game

- He has been selected for every game when fit

- We have made it known we wish to attack more this year

Now, combine that with the fact we are the worst run, carry and spread team in the competition and you will begin to understand why his form hasn't been amazing, why he's in the leadership group, and why he's such an important player to us. Hopefully then you will begin to comprehend that while no one is arguing he needs to lift somewhat, he is a crucial part of this team and more importantly it's development and confidence.

But you know, if you're happy going around the boundary all year and notching up 4 wins season after season then I hope you can get some enjoyment out of stats rather than wins.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,136]

It's shallow to judge Lumumba's influence by just stats, but if that's the limit of your footy understanding good for you.

If you've watched us at all this year you would hopefully have noticed H plays on 9 times out of 10. That is a clear mandate by the coaching staff given these factors:

- We knew he was that sort of player when we brought him in

- He has kept doing it game after game

- He has been selected for every game when fit

- We have made it known we wish to attack more this year

Now, combine that with the fact we are the worst run, carry and spread team in the competition and you will begin to understand why his form hasn't been amazing, why he's in the leadership group, and why he's such an important player to us. Hopefully then you will begin to comprehend that while no one is arguing he needs to lift somewhat, he is a crucial part of this team and more importantly it's development and confidence.

But you know, if you're happy going around the boundary all year and notching up 4 wins season after season then I hope you can get some enjoyment out of stats rather than wins.

Interesting Stu! You point out that it is "shallow to judge Lumumba's influence just by stats" yet your rebuttal contains the stat that "H plays on 9 times out of 10".

Not entering this debate, just interested Stu - what's your source for that play on stat?

[stuie 7,374]

Interesting Stu! You point out that it is "shallow to judge Lumumba's influence just by stats" yet your rebuttal contains the stat that "H plays on 9 times out of 10".

Not entering this debate, just interested Stu - what's your source for that play on stat?

Still following me around number 1 fan?

[Bitter but optimistic 22,136]

Still following me around number 1 fan?

Not really Stu, just interested in where you sourced that play on stat from.

[Moonshadow 17,599]

Interesting Stu! You point out that it is "shallow to judge Lumumba's influence just by stats" yet your rebuttal contains the stat that "H plays on 9 times out of 10".

Not entering this debate, just interested Stu - what's your source for that play on stat?

BANG!!!

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Interesting Stu! You point out that it is "shallow to judge Lumumba's influence just by stats" yet your rebuttal contains the stat that "H plays on 9 times out of 10".

Not entering this debate, just interested Stu - what's your source for that play on stat?

He doesn't need a stat, he has used his EYES like all of us SHOULD be able to do

[Bitter but optimistic 22,136]

Not really Stu, just interested in where you sourced that play on stat from.

Come on Stu - I want to call it a night. Surely a man of your AFL knowledge would have your sources at your fingertips. Don't keep me in suspense

[titan_uranus 24,924]

BANG!!!

No, not 'bang'.

Look, I'm not stuie's biggest fan and he says some ridiculous, rude, petulant things sometimes (the stuff with KC is a perfect example).

But coming onto threads, waiting for someone to say something, then responding to it, without engaging with the thread, is trolling, which ironically is something you/BBO criticise stuie of doing.

You're not even right about his post. He said it's shallow to judge H's form on just stats (which, IMO, is correct). What he then said was H plays on 9 times out of 10, which isn't a stat but a figure of speech, but even if it was a stat, wouldn't be a problem because he used it in context with his observations (i.e. not 'just' using stats to judge a player).

FWIW, I like Lumumba playing on repeatedly, we're too stagnant and too inert through the middle and he tries to keep our transitions moving. However, his disposal hasn't been up to scratch and he's made too many bad decisions with the ball for my liking.

[Deecisive 1,709]

I would like to see fitzy in the backline and McDonald up forward. Mcdonald has proven that he is a reasonable mark that will take some of the pressure of Dawes and give us another option should nick pose his usual handful up forward.

[Skuit 10,007]

Now Stuie is being followed by a Moonshadow as well. Moonshadow moonshadow.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,136]

No, not 'bang'.

Look, I'm not stuie's biggest fan and he says some ridiculous, rude, petulant things sometimes (the stuff with KC is a perfect example).

But coming onto threads, waiting for someone to say something, then responding to it, without engaging with the thread, is trolling, which ironically is something you/BBO criticise stuie of doing.

You're not even right about his post. He said it's shallow to judge H's form on just stats (which, IMO, is correct). What he then said was H plays on 9 times out of 10, which isn't a stat but a figure of speech, but even if it was a stat, wouldn't be a problem because he used it in context with his observations (i.e. not 'just' using stats to judge a player).

FWIW, I like Lumumba playing on repeatedly, we're too stagnant and too inert through the middle and he tries to keep our transitions moving. However, his disposal hasn't been up to scratch and he's made too many bad decisions with the ball for my liking.

Couple of points ..anus.

1. I "engaged" with the thread at post 70. When did you engage with the thread apart from "responding" to someone?

2. "9 times out of 10 " isn't a stat? FMD!!

[Skuit 10,007]

And Stuie, I'm not even sure who you are arguing with? I can't believe I'm engaging here but carefully read through our exchange again and then ask me about comprehension. Some things I didn't say that you feel the need to rave against: That he should be dropped. That he isn't crucial to our team and development. That I'm basing what I say on stats rather than using stats as support. Suggestion about his role contrary to what you're arguing. Anything about his form across the year or anything actually about any other game whatsoever.

That one was a rather inoffensive post to react to in relative terms. I think Harry's best defensive effort for the day was a falcon, and if by weighed down it's inferred not being able to get off the ground then I can't recall too many marks against limited opposition. If he's not providing rebound and run then his worth to the team is currently very low.

Edit: Just had a look - stats last weekend are not flattering. 1 mark - 8 disposals - 3 clangers. (AFL match center).

Basing your opinion on stats hey....

Clearly H needs to lift, but anyone suggesting the only player we have who tries to get the worst run and spread team in the league running and spreading gets dropped is only judging his contribution by stats and not watching and understanding.

I don't recall saying he should get dropped. You also might notice the inclusion of stats was an edited afterthought. I based my opinion on watching the game and my understanding that his effort to get our run and spread going has been limited.

Oh so you're on of THOSE guys that judges players on stats.... Tells the rest of us how much attention to pay from here on out.

No one shall ever quote statistics on Demonland again even if they had also watched the game. From here on in we must all rely on facebook. Georgiou Martin's response was reasoned. If he curtailed McStay and released Howe and Cross off hb then fair enough, although I doubt this is what he was recruited for and is a role that can be equally fulfilled by someone else (stoppers as to rebounders). Arguing his run and carry when he had 8 possessions and 3 clangers is a more difficult task.

It's shallow to judge Lumumba's influence by just stats, but if that's the limit of your footy understanding good for you.

If you've watched us at all this year you would hopefully have noticed H plays on 9 times out of 10. That is a clear mandate by the coaching staff given these factors:

- We knew he was that sort of player when we brought him in

- He has kept doing it game after game

- He has been selected for every game when fit

- We have made it known we wish to attack more this year

Now, combine that with the fact we are the worst run, carry and spread team in the competition and you will begin to understand why his form hasn't been amazing, why he's in the leadership group, and why he's such an important player to us. Hopefully then you will begin to comprehend that while no one is arguing he needs to lift somewhat, he is a crucial part of this team and more importantly it's development and confidence.

But you know, if you're happy going around the boundary all year and notching up 4 wins season after season then I hope you can get some enjoyment out of stats rather than wins.

[Moonshadow 17,599]

No, not 'bang'.

Look, I'm not stuie's biggest fan and he says some ridiculous, rude, petulant things sometimes (the stuff with KC is a perfect example).

But coming onto threads, waiting for someone to say something, then responding to it, without engaging with the thread, is trolling, which ironically is something you/BBO criticise stuie of doing.

You're not even right about his post. He said it's shallow to judge H's form on just stats (which, IMO, is correct). What he then said was H plays on 9 times out of 10, which isn't a stat but a figure of speech, but even if it was a stat, wouldn't be a problem because he used it in context with his observations (i.e. not 'just' using stats to judge a player).

FWIW, I like Lumumba playing on repeatedly, we're too stagnant and too inert through the middle and he tries to keep our transitions moving. However, his disposal hasn't been up to scratch and he's made too many bad decisions with the ball for my liking.

Please tell me where exactly I criticised Stuie for being a troll? Where did I say "Stuie you are a troll"?

If you want irony Anus, it's that you tell me my post is incorrect and then you inaccurately claim I called Stuie a troll.

[Moonshadow 17,599]

Now Stuie is being followed by a Moonshadow as well. Moonshadow moonshadow.

And now I'm being followed by a skuit. Go figure.

[rpfc 28,084]

We allowed 36 points and 1 goal for a half. They had 37 Inside 50s.

Trying to criticise a defender for not seeing enough footy is a bit rich - our dominant gameplan restricted how often our defenders saw the footy...

[titan_uranus 24,924]

Please tell me where exactly I criticised Stuie for being a troll? Where did I say "Stuie you are a troll"?

If you want irony Anus, it's that you tell me my post is incorrect and then you inaccurately claim I called Stuie a troll.

Here.

Anyway, I severely regret my decision on this one.

Returning to the topic:

I would like to see fitzy in the backline and McDonald up forward. Mcdonald has proven that he is a reasonable mark that will take some of the pressure of Dawes and give us another option should nick pose his usual handful up forward.

I don't mind McDonald playing forward when it's possible, though IMO he's a defender and I see him as a defender long-term. If Riewoldt doesn't play, I reckon we can get away with it again this week without needing Fitzy. If he does play though, I'd rather play McDonald on him - Riewoldt's tank is too much for anyone else on our list I think.

[jumbo returns 6,715]

Now Stuie is being followed by a Moonshadow as well. Moonshadow moonshadow.

I've always liked Cat Stevens.

Oh, and Grimesy deserves one more year from our coaching staff - his whole career, he's had terrible coaches.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

No, not 'bang'.

Look, I'm not stuie's biggest fan and he says some ridiculous, rude, petulant things sometimes (the stuff with KC is a perfect example).

But coming onto threads, waiting for someone to say something, then responding to it, without engaging with the thread, is trolling, which ironically is something you/BBO criticise stuie of doing.

You're not even right about his post. He said it's shallow to judge H's form on just stats (which, IMO, is correct). What he then said was H plays on 9 times out of 10, which isn't a stat but a figure of speech, but even if it was a stat, wouldn't be a problem because he used it in context with his observations (i.e. not 'just' using stats to judge a player).

FWIW, I like Lumumba playing on repeatedly, we're too stagnant and too inert through the middle and he tries to keep our transitions moving. However, his disposal hasn't been up to scratch and he's made too many bad decisions with the ball for my liking.

Exactly right