A few stats for this weekend, based on the full 25 man squad

MFC            Syd             Diff    Average Age 23.1 25.3   -2.2   Average Games 60.4 85.9   -25.6               Back Line           Ave Age 22.0 26.3   -4.3   Ave Games 48.3 133.3   -85.0               Fol (includes wing)           Ave Age 24.5 27.5   -3.0   Ave Games 95.8 86.8   9.0               Fwd           Ave Age 22.3 21.7   0.6   Ave Games 61.5 122.2   -60.7               Int           Ave Age 22.3 21.7   0.6   Ave Games 39.3 13.4   25.9               Melbourne           Games     Backline              Fol          Fwd             Int          total 0-50 3 1 4 5 13 51-100 3 3 0 2 8 101-150 0 0 2 0 2 151-200 0 1 0 0 1 200+ 0 1 0 0 1           25 Syd           Games     Backline               Fol          Fwd             Int          total 0-50 1 3 1 6 11 51-100 2 1 1 1 5 101-150 0 0 1 0 1 151-200 2 1 2 0 5 200+ 1 1 1 0 3           25               MFC Back    Syd Fwd             Diff   Age    22.0       21.7   0.3   Games    48.3      122.2   -73.8                 MFC Fwd    Syd Back       Age 22.3 26.3   -4.0   Games 61.5 133.3   -71.8

 

Once again we field a team that gets no where close in terms of age or experience. I am surprised by the amount of young players the swans have in the team though, they are obviously very well supported by a group of very good highly experienced players, which we lack in number. 

Given the weather forecast and hopefully carrying over our experience from the Hawks game I can see us sneaking a win here, but I also wont be surprised if we lose comfortably. 

Edited June 17, 20169 yr by Chris
Changed figures due to Laidler out and Cunningham in.

I think the selection group might have made a big mistake again. A tough slog in the rain against one of the best teams on a 6 day break(!) .. selection group have to get over this "but everyone played well last week" mentality. There should have been 2-4 fresh bodies coming in. I know it's a hard choice, but through injury or not, it's exactly what Sydney have done.

I think the consistency we're achieving is coming from continual rotations.

13 hours ago, martin said:

Dawes surely can't play.

Dawes played pretty well in the wet against Hawthorn, I thought.

I think with the weather conditions I would only make 1 change.. I would take Oscar McDonald out (Keep Frost in as he is faster and a bigger body) and bring in Grimes. This will help us match up better given their smaller forward line. 

Should take the squad out to Casey for a run today,get em used to the mud and slush.

 

I would bring in Grimes and Harmes. 

Out would be Dawes and maybe one of the younger ones like Wagner or Stretch ( for a break )

 

I think people may be forgetting that Harmes has been an automatic selection up until last week when, as a kid still, he was probably due for a rest. Admittedly, he was trailing off before the rest but just prior to that he was playing the best games of his short career. Top handful in Rising Stars for clearances, contested possessions and i50s`, first in tackles, and basically #1 for goals and goal assists for a non-specialist forward.

A solid development year. Intensity around the ball. Fresh body. A Roos special. Have to imagine he's still ahead of Trenners in the current pecking-order.

 

5 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I think people may be forgetting that Harmes has been an automatic selection up until last week when, as a kid still, he was probably due for a rest. Admittedly, he was trailing off before the rest but just prior to that he was playing the best games of his short career. Top handful in Rising Stars for clearances, contested possessions and i50s`, first in tackles, and basically #1 for goals and goal assists for a non-specialist forward.

A solid development year. Intensity around the ball. Fresh body. A Roos special. Have to imagine he's still ahead of Trenners in the current pecking-order.

 

You're suggesting dropping Trengove for Harmes this week?

I'd have to strongly disagree with that, especially given Trengove's strengths in tackling and contested possession. I wouldn't mind Harmes coming in, but it would surely be for a tall, most likely Oscar McDonald in my book. He's been getting better, but I just see his lack of strength being an issue against a physically mature Swans side in the wet.

That being said, no talls are named on the extended bench, so I'm expecting no change.

 

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

You're suggesting dropping Trengove for Harmes this week?

I'd have to strongly disagree with that, especially given Trengove's strengths in tackling and contested possession. I wouldn't mind Harmes coming in, but it would surely be for a tall, most likely Oscar McDonald in my book. He's been getting better, but I just see his lack of strength being an issue against a physically mature Swans side in the wet.

That being said, no talls are named on the extended bench, so I'm expecting no change.

 

I'm suggesting that Harmes is ahead of Trengove at this time. Or that he should be.

3 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I'm suggesting that Harmes is ahead of Trengove at this time. Or that he should be.

Yeah, it's an interesting one. Probably in the context of the season to date he is, but I would argue on form at this minute Trengove is ahead. I guess the question mark will be how Trengove's body holds up, but he's been pretty solid the first two weeks. Harmes has the speed, but Trengove has the better ball use, plus the experience etc, so for mine, in the wet, I'd be keeping Trengove in this week.

 

I'm so inclined to tip us to win on Sunday. Could be a good game to snatch a point amongst the general population of tipsters.

Likelihood?

Harmes needs to go back to Casey and earn his spot back, just like Kennedy did and like Garlett has been asked to do. Michie had his chance and showed nothing, but is a good choice for traveling emergency. Grimes is the only one of the three who should be considered this week.

Oliver will be suited to the conditions so I am loathe to drop him, even though he needs to work on his endurance further. Trengove and Kennedy should both play, which leaves Hunt (or a late withdrawal). I wouldn't have a problem with Hunt having a rest, or having a run at Casey. Having said that, Wagner is the one who should go back to Casey until his decision making improves.

Just now, Skuit said:

I'm suggesting that Harmes is ahead of Trengove at this time. Or that he should be.

At this time?  He isn't ahead of Trengove.  He's fallen behind.

I think Dawes would be a good wet weather player. Let's face it marking isn't his strength. He is strong at the contest, has a great tank and good at feeding off the ball. Would be surprised if he didn't play.

1 hour ago, nrc73 said:

I think the selection group might have made a big mistake again. A tough slog in the rain against one of the best teams on a 6 day break(!) .. selection group have to get over this "but everyone played well last week" mentality. There should have been 2-4 fresh bodies coming in. I know it's a hard choice, but through injury or not, it's exactly what Sydney have done.

I think the consistency we're achieving is coming from continual rotations.

Casey did not exactly play in pristine conditions so where would you get the "fresh" bodies from. At best they had an extra day. And as somebody pointed out the Swans have played in atrocious condition over an extended period. I think the selectors have got it right with good options depending on final assessments.  

 

What about the risk of running out of legs in the last, if it's a strength-sapping slog like it promises to be?

As much as I love them both as players, the two that struggle with their endurance at the moment - both for good reasons that are obvious - are Oliver & Trengove. Both have TOG% in the mid-60%s in the past 2 weeks. If we have two players who struggle to raise a gallop in the last quarter or two, that means less rotations for everyone else and could spell trouble in a game like this.

17 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

At this time?  He isn't ahead of Trengove.  He's fallen behind.

Can you further elaborate on this contention? Do you mean simply because Trengove was in the team last week and Harmes wasn't?

16 hours ago, Pates said:

Buddy will be the big match up, he's been doing some ominous things this year and has killed a couple of teams. The short SCG ground could suit our game style, but I think ultimately we will fall short this week. Experience told against the Hawks and I think it could be the same this week.

I'm picturing a competitive game and the swans coming out on top by about 15-25pts. But then these are the sort of games that can change a team from being fringe to genuine finals contenders.

I think the key to Buddy, like all key forwards is how he is delivered the ball.. If we let their midfielders do as they please, then Buddy will destroy us. If we work as a defensive unit, then he wont get the ball in dangerous spots, hence nullifying his impact. 

I feel we have a pretty good defensive structure for teams that do not have 2-3 really strong tall forwards (Adelaide/Port Adelaide), or teams that do not have 2-3 really good small forwards (Hawthorn/Bulldogs). I do not think that Sydney have either, but their midfield kick goals and they win games by restricting opportunities, closing down space and time. They are better than the Bulldogs and Hawthorn at this, and that has made is look sloppy in the past.

Calling a low scoring, ugly game. Swans by 22.

Just now, Skuit said:

Can you further elaborate on this contention? Do you mean simply because Trengove was in the team last week and Harmes wasn't?

Why do I need to?  Can't you work it out?  Harmes has been in horrible form for the past month, while Trengove put together an excellent 6 week block of games and duly got promoted to the senior side.  Trengove has been very solid over these past 2 games and there is no reason to drop him for Harmes.

Anyone watching our games would know this.

I'm thinking Harmes in as well, but not at the expense of Trengove. I'm afraid to say possibly instead of Kent. Just from paying eye service to last weeks replay saw something, could be wrong but won't be the last time.

Just now, willmoy said:

I'm thinking Harmes in as well, but not at the expense of Trengove. I'm afraid to say possibly instead of Kent. Just from paying eye service to last weeks replay saw something, could be wrong but won't be the last time.

If you're suggesting Kent will be dropped for Harmes then you need your 'eye service' checked.

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

If you're suggesting Kent will be dropped for Harmes then you need your 'eye service' checked.

I think he's suggesting he saw Kent with an injury (hence "saw something").

Obviously nobody in their right mind would suggest Kent be dropped after that game.

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

If you're suggesting Kent will be dropped for Harmes then you need your 'eye service' checked.

I didn't use the word "dropped", you did, and "eye service" is my saying.

Headstrong....is yours

Just now, willmoy said:

I didn't use the word "dropped", you did, and "eye service" is my saying.

Headstrong....is yours

And riddler is yours.  If you mean injured, say injured.

The Swans are on to the weather - Laider out with a "knee" and Cunningham back in.  If we don't drop out one of the talls, I'll be surprised and more than a tad disappointed...