TEAM SELECTION AND MATCH PREVIEW - ROUND 3

[hells bells 2,023]

I'm picking up a bit of timsmithmentum on social media.  

As others have mentioned if he is ever going to play this is the perfect time.  He's not on the list to develop for 2-3 years.  

- Drafted as a key forward

- Incumbent key forward suspended

- Plays well in proceeding game.

- Played well in conjunction with Weideman for most of last year.

Be interesting to see if he gets a game.  

[The Chazz 4,077]

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

EVERY contest 30% of the time?

 

Even Will Hunting couldn't work out your mathematical equation in that post, 55.

Point is, if we don't bomb it long, we are a chance.  If we do bomb it long, Watts and/or Weed have to force a contest.  If they don't, we're screwed.

[old55 23,491]

8 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

Even Will Hunting couldn't work out your mathematical equation in that post, 55.

Point is, if we don't bomb it long, we are a chance.  If we do bomb it long, Watts and/or Weed have to force a contest.  If they don't, we're screwed.

A second grader could understand it.  If Watts and Weed are our only talls they'll only be in the fwd line together 30% of the time.

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Fifty-5

[The Chazz 4,077]

6 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

A second grader could understand it.  If Watts and Weed are our only talls they'll only be in the fwd line together 30% of the time.

 

Don't think they could adjust and have Gawn rest forward, rather than be off the ground?  The figures you have showed are also going to be different this week as Hogan won't be there, so the time on ground % for all of Gawn, Watts and Weed will change.

So, while I appreciate you spent a bit of time coming up with your little figures, it is more likely that they are totally irrelevant for this week.

[old55 23,491]

Just now, billy2803 said:

Don't think they could adjust and have Gawn rest forward, rather than be off the ground?  The figures you have showed are also going to be different this week as Hogan won't be there, so the time on ground % for all of Gawn, Watts and Weed will change.

So, while I appreciate you spent a bit of time coming up with your little figures, it is more likely that they are totally irrelevant for this week.

Give me an alternative model.  There is no "rest forward" these days.

[Vipercrunch 2,827]

I'm not sure where else to bring this up, but does anyone else get a little frustrated that Billy Stretch doesn't take the game on a bit more.  Several times in the last few games, he has had ball in hand and what appears to be open space towards goal ahead of him, and instead of making some ground and using his foot skills to deliver the ball forward, he back tracks and handballs off, coincidentally to much more senior players.

Does he lack the pace?  Confidence?  Should the senior players be encouraging him to take it on himself instead of calling for a cheap possession?

No thoughts of dropping him or anything like that, but I can't help but feel he could be me offensively minded and therefore much more damaging.

[The Chazz 4,077]

7 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Give me an alternative model.  There is no "rest forward" these days.

No, I won't give you an alternative model.  I'm just picking the flaws in yours, as you have based the % game played on the previous week when we had an extra tall to use.  If we don't replace Hogan for another tall, then your "model" is worthless.

This week, we don't necessarily need an extra tall.  Hannan is a renowned leaper - maybe he's the one that can sacrifice getting the ball, by ensuring he launches at contests to bring the ball down to our other small forwards.

Edited April 5, 2017 by billy2803
2nd last word.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

9 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

No, I won't give you an alternative model.  I'm just picking the flaws in yours, as you have based the % game played on the previous week when we had an extra tall to use.  If we don't replace Hogan for another tall, then your "model" is worthless.

This week, we don't necessarily need an extra tall.  Hannan is a renowned leaper - maybe he's the one that can sacrifice getting the ball, by ensuring he launches at contests to bring the ball down to our other small forwards.

His point is that not replacing Hogan would require us completely changing our structure. Our gameplan is built around having the 3 talls rotating around in the forwardline. That means we need to replace hogan with someone who can play his role. Neither of Pedo or Smith are going to be able to play the role as well as Hoges does, but they just need someone there to have an impact.

Edited April 5, 2017 by ArtificialWisdom
fixed double negative

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

My biggest fear is Dangerfield simply roving to Gawn, this needs to be stopped where possible.

[The Chazz 4,077]

4 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

His point is that not replacing Hogan would require us completely changing our structure. Our gameplan is built around having the 3 talls rotating around in the forwardline. That means we need to replace hogan with someone who can play his role. Neither of Pedo or Smith are going to be able to play the role as well as Hoges does, but they just need someone there to have an impact.

But the point is, if we don't play another tall, then Watts, Gawn and Weed will likely spend more time on the ground.

Look at the Saints game, Gawn was on 84%, Watts 80% and Weed 86% - that's a combined 20% more game time than what they did last week. 

 

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

1 minute ago, billy2803 said:

But the point is, if we don't play another tall, then Watts, Gawn and Weed will likely spend more time on the ground.

Look at the Saints game, Gawn was on 84%, Watts 80% and Weed 86% - that's a combined 20% more game time than what they did last week. 

 

Yeah that's fine to say they spend more time on the ground but if we play 1 tall short you're not just asking them to play longer but longer at a higher intensity because they cant rotate the roles they way they are conditioned to do.

Edited April 5, 2017 by ArtificialWisdom

[The Chazz 4,077]

1 minute ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Yeah that's fine to say they spend more time on the ground but if wwe play 1 tall short you're not just asking them to play longer but longer at a higher intensity because they cant rotate the roles they way they are conditioned to do.

They (the 3) spent an extra 20% on the ground in the first game when we had the extra tall playing.  Adding that 20% just throws out Fifty-5's model.

I said in a post earlier this week that it'll be interesting to see how selection plays out this week.  I personally don't think we are desperate for an extra tall to replace Hogan, and clearly some others do (to the point where they are trying to predict game time %).  I won't slit my wrists if Goody doesn't agree with me.  I just hope we win.

[old55 23,491]

 

11 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

But the point is, if we don't play another tall, then Watts, Gawn and Weed will likely spend more time on the ground.

Look at the Saints game, Gawn was on 84%, Watts 80% and Weed 86% - that's a combined 20% more game time than what they did last week. 

 

Even on those figures, without the extra tall, Watts and Weed are together in the forward line only 50% of the time.

Watts in the ruck 16% of the time, off 20% of the time, forward 64% of the time.

Weed is off 14% of the time while Watts is forward (unless you're going with no tall forwards) therefore Watts and Weed are only together 50% of the time.

Weed by himself 36% of the time.

Watts by himself 14% of the time.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Fifty-5

[Sir Why You Little 37,010]

13 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Pencilled in as a loss for the moment. Would be nice to win but far more important to maintain confidence for the following three matches.

Geelong by less than 24 points is a win

Rubbish

[Redleg 40,870]

Vince for Lewis is a given.

If Kent is fit I see him in for Hogan.

You need pace at Etihad and Kent has that and aggression, while also being a goal kicker.

They will want forward pressure and to me Kent is the likely one in with Vince.

[The Chazz 4,077]

10 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

 

Even on those figures, without the extra tall, Watts and Weed are together in the forward line only 50% of the time.

Watts in the ruck 16% of the time, off 20% of the time, forward 64% of the time.

Weed is off 14% of the time while Watts is forward (unless you're going with no tall forwards) therefore Watts and Weed are only together 50% of the time.

Weed by himself 36% of the time.

Watts by himself 14% of the time.

So for half the game, we have 2 tall forwards on at once?  I hope that for at least half the game, the ball is in our forward half to take advantage of this.

Goody could consider playing both Watts and Weed as high forwards, similar to the old Pagan's Paddock.  Henderson needs a GPS when he leaves a 50 arc, will make Mackie more accountable, and (hopefully) less likely to zone off his man, will strangle up Tuohy, and then let the likes of Jeffy, Hannan, ANB and (potentially) Kent run in to an open 50.

 

 

 

[Adam The God 30,157]

Yeah, Smith won't come in this week unless they think Kent is still off the pace. Just can't see it happening.

[Diamond_Jim 12,555]

9 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Rubbish

The most important aim for this year to beat the teams outside the notional 8. In our first six games we play five of those teams. Geelong is not one of them and we are playing them at Docklands.

Would be nice to beat Geelong but realistically the following three games are far more important to our season.

[Adam The God 30,157]

8 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The most important aim for this year to beat the teams outside the notional 8. In our first six games we play five of those teams. Geelong is not one of them and we are playing them at Docklands.

Would be nice to beat Geelong but realistically the following three games are far more important to our season.

I just don't think it's a good attitude. Being realistic is fine, but I'm not going to call a narrow loss a 'win' and I'm going to be angry if we don't win. It'll mean we didn't bring the required pressure and decision making, which I know we possess now.

[Sir Why You Little 37,010]

16 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The most important aim for this year to beat the teams outside the notional 8. In our first six games we play five of those teams. Geelong is not one of them and we are playing them at Docklands.

Would be nice to beat Geelong but realistically the following three games are far more important to our season.

A 4 goal loss is not acceptable. 

They will happen at times, but they should never be accepted

Geelong are no longer THAT good. 

We can beat them if the team has the right attitude

You have already put up The White Flag. 

[rjay 24,900]

29 minutes ago, A F said:

Yeah, Smith won't come in this week unless they think Kent is still off the pace. Just can't see it happening.

I think there's a very good chance he will come in...we need some coverage forward when Watts has a run on the ball.

I can't see us only going in with Weideman & Watts as the tall forwards/ruck relief.

The other options are Pedders and Frost and both seem underdone or off the pace. Spencer is another but I can't see us going with 2 1st rucks.

Edited April 5, 2017 by rjay

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

25 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The most important aim for this year to beat the teams outside the notional 8. In our first six games we play five of those teams. Geelong is not one of them and we are playing them at Docklands.

Would be nice to beat Geelong but realistically the following three games are far more important to our season.

We will go into each game this year with a realistic chance of winning for the first time in the better part of a decade. Yes winning this week will be tough but there is every chance we will win. Overall when we put wins and losses aside, it's the performances we dish up that matters most this year. If we play well on Saturday and get beaten by a top 8 quality side then yes we can take the good out of the game move onto the following week with a good feeling about our finals hopes season, but don't be so fast to dismiss the 2017 Dees outright.

We wont win every game but dont for a second think we cant win any game.

[P-man 13,366]

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

My biggest fear is Dangerfield simply roving to Gawn, this needs to be stopped where possible.

At least it gives us a glimpse of what the Australian team would look like in practice..

I'm not sold on going mosquito fleet this week. Watts and Weed as the main targets is not an appealing prospect, particularly with Watts needed around the ground. I'd be happy with Pedo as he can hold a mark and throw his body around. On form it would be Tim Smith. It's big ask for a debutant but he's no spring chicken.

Cats aren't much chop. This is 4 points waiting to be taken.

Although, after last week, I have returned my confidence to the confidence shop. It was faulty.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

12 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

A 4 goal loss is not acceptable. 

They will happen at times, but they should never be accepted

Geelong are no longer THAT good. 

We can beat them if the team has the right attitude

You have already put up The White Flag. 

Agree. Were in the top 4, albeit on %......and its only 2 rounds, i know i know...but there you have it.....when was the last time we were in the top 4 after 2 rounds? I cant even remember? If we want to stay there, then these are the games we have to win. Good teams cover lost players. Its only 2 or 3 we have to cover for, we still have a good midfield and the best ruck in the game. We also won our last 2 games at the stadium, so we cant blame that.

[Adam The God 30,157]

11 minutes ago, rjay said:

I think there's a very good chance he will come in...we need some coverage forward when Watts has a run on the ball.

I can't see us only going in with Weideman & Watts as the tall forwards/ruck relief.

The other options are Pedders and Frost and both seem underdone or off the pace. Spencer is another but I can't see us going with 2 1st rucks.

Agree to disagree, mate.