1 minute ago, Copuchas said:

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...

No that does not happen, just ask Nasher. No way that any club would take out a tall with a "knee" and replace with a speedy midfielder for a very wet game.

I'm with you though and think a tall may have a "24 hour virus" and a speedy mid may come in for us too.

28 minutes ago, 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.

Riddler I'm not sure what incident or issue you are referring to ('won't be the last time' - tres mysterious) but given Kent hurt his back against Port that free he earnt for having his back used as trampoline won't have have done his back much good.

4 minutes ago, binman said:

Riddler I'm not sure what incident or issue you are referring to ('won't be the last time' - tres mysterious) but given Kent hurt his back against Port that free he earnt for having his back used as trampoline won't have have done his back much good.

Yes, ok, just don't like to telegraph anything to anyone for advantage (sic)

18 minutes ago, Copuchas said:

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...

Alternate suggestion: Laidler has actually injured his knee.  Radical idea I know.

13 minutes ago, ManDee said:

No that does not happen, just ask Nasher. No way that any club would take out a tall with a "knee" and replace with a speedy midfielder for a very wet game.

I'm with you though and think a tall may have a "24 hour virus" and a speedy mid may come in for us too.

tall    flanker

2 minutes ago, Nasher said:

tall    flanker

Rhyming slang?

Just now, binman said:

Rhyming slang?

Heh, no.  Just suggesting that Laidler is a tall in the same sense that Wagner or Hunt are talls (i.e. they're not).

Latest weather forecast for Sydney on Sunday - up to 35mm of rain potentially - almost forces selectors hand I would think.

Obviously they will monitor things on the day, but if the rain is that heavy, only a braindead person would think it is a day for bigs and given the Swans have already gone small with a forward line of - Franklin (big), resting ruck (Sinclair and Naismith/Nankervis), Heeney, Rohan, McGlynn and Rose plus another small who will play high forward/midfield anyway - ie: Hewett, Towers, it would be a bit like the Collingwood stupidty of playing three rucks.

I suspect that decision will be made on the day of game, so the team will stand untweaked tonight. If it is that wet, it will get down to one of our big three defenders and obviously T-mac is safe. Frost is quicker, but O-Mac's kicking sills are better, so it won't be an easy choice - personally I'd omit O-Mac because he's less assertive at this stage in his career but if they opt for Frost it's no big deal, as his kicking is less trustworthy at this stage. Both are development players after all and whoever is the unlucky one can expect to come back in for the taller Adelaide set-up that includes Jenkins, Tex and Lynch.

As to who comes in, I'd favour Grimes, although I've been wrong on him almost every time this year and they do seem to like him as the 23rd - four times this year already. So it might well be Harmes. One reason why I'd go for Grimes is because he plays percentages better and that is all you have to do in such heavy expected conditions - keep the ball moving forward. But the main reason is that if we omit a defender, then we need another defender to swing into this defensive rotation and Harmes is not as suited to this role as much as Grimes (even though he hasn't played that role much in twos this year). But who, apart from selectors, really knows what logic will come into play.

Some would argue they both come in, but I can't see it happening unless someone has a minor niggle. The pace of Rohan or McGlynn means that Hunt will be required, even if the conditions don't really suit his lighter-body style. I actually reckon Jetta will get Rohan, Hunt will have McGlynn and Wags will take Heeney with Grimes (if he plays) on Rose.

I'm really pleased we had a trial game in such conditions against the Hawks two weeks ago and I actually really like our chances of finally doing it for Roosy against his old side.

I'm expecting Jack to tag Jones and I reckon we might try Bugg on Hannebery, but it could get down to whether Tyson/Vince can quell Kennedy as he goes incredibly well in such conditions. Viney's game on Mitchell may also have a big bearing on the outcome, although as we saw last week, you actually need contributions from everyone. 

 

 

will be much worse than hawks game. ground will be saturated on fri, sat so should turn into a pond on sun plus heavy rain during play. will be ugly

17 hours ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Nice work by your kids.

Thanks Bombay

Although I should point out my 10 yo son barracks for Sydney and is only wearing the beard out of threat of not going. 

Thankfully my daughter has remained true and follows the dees.

What can you do? We live near Sydney and his whole under ten Butchers team goes for the swans.

I feel like Krusty the clowns father......I have no son!!

45 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Heh, no.  Just suggesting that Laidler is a tall in the same sense that Wagner or Hunt are talls (i.e. they're not).

Fact free conversations always good.  Laidler 190cm / Garland 191cm.  Talls perhaps?  Hunt 187cm.  AFL staff writers clearly morons too: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-06-17/knee-puts-swan-laidler-out-of-demons-clash    Obviously the "Primary Administrator" role not necessarily congruent with insightful or factual analysis....

Just now, Copuchas said:

Fact free conversations always good.  Laidler 190cm / Garland 191cm.  Talls perhaps?  Hunt 187cm.  AFL staff writers clearly morons too: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-06-17/knee-puts-swan-laidler-out-of-demons-clash    Obviously the "Primary Administrator" role not necessarily congruent with insightful or factual analysis....

I had Laidler listed as 189cm (from Google - may have been the wikipedia article), which is the same height as Josh Wagner and yes, 2cm taller than Hunt.  I would hardly call it a significant difference.  We can continue to quibble about a 1cm error if you like, but I would not have considered Laidler a "tall" - and certainly not the slow, lumbering type you'd expect to be left out due to weather conditions.

My forum title is as it is because I have control of the forum software and do the maintenance on it.  It is not intended to say anything about football nous.

8 minutes ago, Nasher said:

My forum title is as it is because I have control of the forum software and do the maintenance on it.  It is not intended to say anything about football nous.

Lift your game, Nasher.

26 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I had Laidler listed as 189cm (from Google - may have been the wikipedia article), which is the same height as Josh Wagner and yes, 2cm taller than Hunt.  I would hardly call it a significant difference.  We can continue to quibble about a 1cm error if you like, but I would not have considered Laidler a "tall" - and certainly not the slow, lumbering type you'd expect to be left out due to weather conditions.

My forum title is as it is because I have control of the forum software and do the maintenance on it.  It is not intended to say anything about football nous.

Is it a smelly job?  

 

Edit:- Freshly showered

Edited June 17, 20169 yr by ManDee

25 minutes ago, Copuchas said:

Fact free conversations always good.  Laidler 190cm / Garland 191cm.  Talls perhaps?  Hunt 187cm.  AFL staff writers clearly morons too: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-06-17/knee-puts-swan-laidler-out-of-demons-clash    Obviously the "Primary Administrator" role not necessarily congruent with insightful or factual analysis....

Pretty disrespectful to the bloke who keeps this site going so you can fill up your free time reading it. Just saying.

190cm is not "tall" in this era of AFL.  195cm plus, perhaps even 200cm plus.

Patrick Cripps is listed on the AFL website as 193cm.

52 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Lift your game, Nasher.

Not saying I'm not stunningly awesome at analysing football Clint.  Just saying it's got nothing to do with my job title

30 minutes ago, S_T said:

190cm is not "tall" in this era of AFL.  195cm plus, perhaps even 200cm plus.

Patrick Cripps is listed on the AFL website as 193cm.

The whole tall/small debate is stupid, if you are mobile and have strong hands at ground level then who cares how tall you are, you can play in the wet! Cant just throw talls out the window because you are assuming opposition won't mark the ball. Most AFL players are capable of marking in the wet so what you need more of clean users regardless of their size. 

Based on a couple of reports from training this morning, Training - Friday 17th June, 2016, it seems like 'no change' to me, with Michie the travelling emergency.

7 hours ago, Nasher said:

Hunt, Kennedy, Trengove and Oliver are the only options.

(Nobody bother telling me that the omissions don't have to come from extended bench.  Albeit with no evidence other than experience, I am 100% certain they do.)

Late withdrawals happen all the time i  afl. 

1 minute ago, DemonWA said:

Late withdrawals happen all the time i  afl. 

That's not what we're talking about.  Changes to the selected team will come from the extended bench only, I'd bet...someone else's house on it.

14 minutes ago, Nasher said:

That's not what we're talking about.  Changes to the selected team will come from the extended bench only, I'd bet...someone else's house on it.

This is tiresome.  For a Sunday game where a squad is announced, a player can be pulled from the starting 18 or the extended interchange in the 24 hours until the trimming of the interchange and replaced with a player from outside the initially announced 25 (as the Swans have just done).  From 5pm on Friday, the extended interchange is finalised and emergencies are named.  Subsequent withdrawals of either starting 18 or interchange bench players up until the commencement of play (eg Dylan Grimes in Hobart) must be replaced by a named emergency.

3 hours ago, Nasher said:

Alternate suggestion: Laidler has actually injured his knee.

Nah, too obvious. Got to be something sinister in it.

47 minutes ago, Nasher said:

That's not what we're talking about.  Changes to the selected team will come from the extended bench only, I'd bet...someone else's house on it.

Exactly Nasher.. Of course a player can be withdrawn from the starting 18 anytime up until an hour before the game but players left out from extended Sunday squads are ALWAYS from the bench UNLESS there is a withdrawal like Laidler which is different hence why his been withdrawn lunch time Friday, not when the Sunday sides are named Friday night. I'm sure you'll find Sydney's outs will now come from the extended bench even with Cunningham replacing Laidler 

Edited June 17, 20169 yr by JV7

27 minutes ago, Copuchas said:

This is tiresome.  For a Sunday game where a squad is announced, a player can be pulled from the starting 18 or the extended interchange in the 24 hours until the trimming of the interchange and replaced with a player from outside the initially announced 25 (as the Swans have just done).  From 5pm on Friday, the extended interchange is finalised and emergencies are named.  Subsequent withdrawals of either starting 18 or interchange bench players up until the commencement of play (eg Dylan Grimes in Hobart) must be replaced by a named emergency.

My argument is purely that the emergencies (i.e. the three players who will not be selected, hence "the changes") will come from the extended bench.  It was DemonWA who introduced the concept of players withdrawing through injury, which I said had nothing to do with my point, and you seem to agree with.

If it's that tiresome, you're welcome to cease arguing.