Changes for next week v Geelong

[Red and Blue realist 2,058]

Geelong have quiet a tall back-line - from their normal back 6 - Mackie, Longeran, Hendersen, Tuohy, Ruggles and Stewart (and maybe include Taylor because his forward play isn't great) then 5 of the 7 are over 190, and not all that mobile. If we go small, bring in Vince and Kent only, then as long as were prepared to play smart and not bomb the ball, I think that could be effective. Both Watts and Weid are quiet mobile as well, with neither really happy to just sit in the goal square, so robs them of Longeran and Hendersens strengths as backmen. 

[dino rover 714]

4 hours ago, JV7 said:

Um what ?

He is pretty reliable around goal when shooting from 30m & his field kicking is better than any ruck of his size in recent memory... 

Yeh right

How he is relative to someone else of his height on our list is irrelevant - it isn't a choice between him and another ruck playing forward its a choice between him and another fwd (smith Pedersen kent etc) his field kicking again relativities to others of his size - not relevant plus the he isnt being considered for chf

Its also the opportunity cost of losing an aa ruck to gain an average fwd with below average kicking

Edited April 5, 2017 by dino rover
Expansion of response

[daisycutter 29,892]

23 hours ago, Demons rising said:

One of our best wins was our victory in Geelong when Hogan pulled out late and Spencer came in .

? Omen for another victory 

lightning doesn't strike twice in the same spot

[whatwhat say what 23,425]

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

lightning doesn't strike twice in the same spot

Just as well it's at Docklands and not Kardinia Park this week then eh

[dino rover 714]

Indeed and in that game gawn marked around the ground and spencer (from recollection) took the one inside 50 mark from a brayshaw interception with spencer goaling

Granted his contest created goals as well but I dont think either ruck kicked a bag

I would prefer a tall fwd who also rucks to a second ruck playing fwd but we dont got one.

[JV7 2,375]

55 minutes ago, dino rover said:

Yeh right

How he is relative to someone else of his height on our list is irrelevant - it isn't a choice between him and another ruck playing forward its a choice between him and another fwd (smith Pedersen kent etc) his field kicking again relativities to others of his size - not relevant plus the he isnt being considered for chf

Its also the opportunity cost of losing an aa ruck to gain an average fwd with below average kicking

1) I was referring to the AFL as a whole when saying he is a better kicker of the football than most his ruckman, especially those who are around his height. 

2) Once again I'll say he isn't a below average kick ? Like I said he is pretty reliable infront of goal. I agree he shouldn't be played forward but to say he is an ordinary kick is incorrect. 

Edited April 5, 2017 by JV7

[mo64 5,881]

6 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

If Geeling try that trick of not competing in the ruck this week then there is an easy solution - have Max thump the ball 40 meters down field and set our runners up for such an eventuality. After we kick three or four goals from their smartarse stupidity, they will soon change back, when Max can go back to dominating them. 

I hope Max is practising it! As well as our runners.

Sounds good in theory, but suicidal if the ball is in Geelong's forward line. Most teams would set up a zone exactly where you suggest the ball would end. A 5m tap to a running mid makes more sense.

[Skuit 10,031]

6 hours ago, ManDee said:

40 meter punch! Some players struggle to kick 40

He smacked the ball about 40m straight up in the air at the end of the Saints game - after tapping it to himself, putting it on the boot and then getting to the fall of own kick (and after, ahem, coming off earlier in the match with a back issue from trying to the smack the ball too far). 

[monoccular 17,642]

4 hours ago, dino rover said:

Indeed and in that game gawn marked around the ground and spencer (from recollection) took the one inside 50 mark from a brayshaw interception with spencer goaling

Granted his contest created goals as well but I dont think either ruck kicked a bag

I would prefer a tall fwd who also rucks to a second ruck playing fwd but we dont got one.

Pedersen ??

[monoccular 17,642]

4 hours ago, JV7 said:

1) I was referring to the AFL as a whole when saying he [Gawn]  is a better kicker of the football than most his ruckman, especially those who are around his height. 

2) Once again I'll say he isn't a below average kick ? Like I said he is pretty reliable infront of goal. I agree he shouldn't be played forward but to say he is an ordinary kick is incorrect. 

1) other than Sandilands to whom else would you be referring ?

[Demon Dynasty 17,130]

4 hours ago, JV7 said:

1) I was referring to the AFL as a whole when saying he is a better kicker of the football than most his ruckman, especially those who are around his height. 

2) Once again I'll say he isn't a below average kick ? Like I said he is pretty reliable infront of goal. I agree he shouldn't be played forward but to say he is an ordinary kick is incorrect. 

Big M is one of the most accurate kicks from inside 30 i've seen at his height or similar.

[Dees 41231 9]

Tim Smith will debut! 

[dazzledavey36 55,864]

12 minutes ago, Dees 41231 said:

Tim Smith will debut! 

Source??

[Dannyz 2,987]

^^ I have heard much the same. Same source as the Joel Smith elevation I confirmed on season launch evening. 

[Dees2014 2,377]

7 hours ago, mo64 said:

Sounds good in theory, but suicidal if the ball is in Geelong's forward line. Most teams would set up a zone exactly where you suggest the ball would end. A 5m tap to a running mid makes more sense.

Well you would hope we would do it with some intelligence, just the same as normal ruckwork. The variability is what should catch the opposition offside. The point is, if Geelong changes the ruck role, we certainly have options, many to our advantages. If you listen to much of the media they imply we would be cornered by it. We are not, and will not be.

[Gator 17,972]

Happy for Smith, Vince and Kent to come in.  Mobile forward-line. 

Kent is in our best 22, so not sure who makes way if they think he's ready to resume duties.

I'm guessing Hannan.

 

 

[Demons11 7,096]

I think Hannan definitely stays in due to his pace 

[mo64 5,881]

Hannan should stay. He did exactly what was asked of Watts the previous week. He flew for pack marks and created a spillage. He wasn't able to clunk any, but his efforts should be recognised by the coaches. I also thought that our players were too Hogan conscious when going forward. Hannan and others in better position were ignored.

If Kent comes in, it's for Brayshaw or Melksham. Melksham has suspect skills, and Brayshaw was off the boil last week. 

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by mo64

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

13 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Hannan should stay. He did exactly what was asked of Watts the previous week. He flew for pack marks and created a spillage. He wasn't able to clunk any, but his efforts should be recognised by the coaches. I also thought that our players were too Hogan conscious when going forward. Hannan and others in better position were ignored.

What I liked about Hannan was he started slowly but worked his way into the game.

[Hogans Heroe"s 16]

On 05/04/2017 at 8:25 AM, Rusty Nails said:

He is a dead eye dick also HH. 

Then we should give him the news right now

[Hogans Heroe"s 16]

I think Kent comes straight in but Hannan stays. I like the looks of Mitch Hannan. Get Jake Melksham out we have enough half backs to go through as it is. I think I would even rather put Jeffy Garlett or Dean Kent on Tom Hawkins the O Mac

[dpositive 1,818]

We have a squad of 40 and should use them all as appropriate.

What a position to be in for a change.

We can provide alternatives a chance to step up and play at maximum level knowing they can rest the next.

Specer could give Max a rest if he's injured 

We have good replacements for suspended players.

How good is that

[DemonDave 1,096]

2 hours ago, dpositive said:

We have a squad of 40 and should use them all as appropriate.

 

More like a squad of closer to 30, given this is our current injury/unavailable list:

Melbourne injury list: round three
Colin Garland (knee) – season
Michael Hibberd (Achilles) – 1-2 weeks
Jesse Hogan (suspension) – 2 weeks
Liam Hulett (hip) – 1 week
Mitch King (knee) – 3 weeks
Jordan Lewis (suspension) – 3 weeks
Pat McKenna (hamstring) – 6-8 weeks
Joel Smith (shoulder) – 3-4 months
Aaron vandenBerg (heel) – 6-8 weeks

Given that Tim Smith has been mentioned a couple of times by Goodwin in the press already, you'd think

the subliminal hints are that he'll debut this week. It seems from reports Pedo Bear has been underwhelming

so he may well pinch that spot. 

Vince for Lewis / Smith for Hogan / Kent for Hannan for mine

[binman 44,528]

I would hate hannan to be dropped

[In Harmes Way 7,840]

19 hours ago, daisycutter said:

lightning doesn't strike twice in the same spot

I dunno about that dc

we beat the filth twice at the G last year (any opportunity to bring this up again in non related threads much appreciated, thanks)