Changes vs Bulldogs

[PaulRB 6,297]

8 hours ago, daisycutter said:

running is great for your fitness and stamina. do them good

just no need to [censored] them during the week at training

all is good

I've heard "successful clubs" run a lot... 

?

[Deecisive 1,709]

36 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Doubt Gawn or Spencer play this week.

The Dogs dont have a ruckman.  Their highest hitout winner last round was Tim English with just 8.  Pedders can be the main man for one more week.... then Gawny in to face West Coast.

Interesting approach match their non-ruckman with our non-ruckman.  Wouldn't it make more sense to have a reasonable ruckman while they dont so that we have a greater chance of winning clearances. For me I would like to see Gawn or Spencer in to control the ruck and perhaps rest down forward.  Also bring in wagner he would provide a bit more down back  Out would go, Oscar only due to the smaller doggie forward line and ANB, while ANB got a bit of the ball is effective disposal average was pretty poor, he needs to work on that.

[Demons11 6,718]

1 hour ago, Petraccattack said:

Doubt Gawn or Spencer play this week.

The Dogs dont have a ruckman.  Their highest hitout winner last round was Tim English with just 8.  Pedders can be the main man for one more week.... then Gawny in to face West Coast.

This gives us our first chance in a long time to have an advantage in the ruck, so I think one of them plays 

[Demon Disciple 11,680]

As much as i want Gawn back in the side, like Hogan, i only want him back when he is 100% cherry ripe.

If Spencer is ready, give him a go. I'm sure he'd be hungry after getting his call-up only to get injured the following game.

[brendan 3,430]

This is one of the hardest weeks to pick any changes, I think we might go in unchanged 

[Akum 2,660]

41 minutes ago, Deecisive said:

Interesting approach match their non-ruckman with our non-ruckman.  Wouldn't it make more sense to have a reasonable ruckman while they dont so that we have a greater chance of winning clearances. For me I would like to see Gawn or Spencer in to control the ruck and perhaps rest down forward.  Also bring in wagner he would provide a bit more down back  Out would go, Oscar only due to the smaller doggie forward line and ANB, while ANB got a bit of the ball is effective disposal average was pretty poor, he needs to work on that.

I wonder about this. We've been so successful without a ruck men because we've been able to analyse the oppo ruck's preference for tapping the ball and get to the right place in strength before their mids do. Doing this, it doesn't matter how much hot outs they win; we can anticipate where they're likely to hit it better than their mids (because our brains trust have studied it and theirs probably hasn't). 

This works best against a ruckman like Jacobs or Grundy who seem to be totally predictable; at half time on Monday it was 35 hitouts to 11, but we had 4 hitouts to advantage against 5. It's not so successful against a ruckman like Sandi who seems to be much harder to pick. 

The Dogs have had to do this for the best part of two seasons now, and they're probably at least as good as us at it. Spence is more the Jacobs type; Gawn is so good and unpredictable he's almost impossible to predict. While Pedo, T-Mac & Watts aren't good enough to be predictable.

Against the Dogs, we might be better to go unpredictable rather than the predictable, but better, Spencer.

[Diamond_Jim 12,360]

Spencer (perhaps understandably) did not exactly set the world alight at Casey last week.

"Jake Spencer 1 behind 3 kicks 5 handballs 8 disposals 1 mark 3 tackles 35 hit outs 68 dream team points"

If he had more around the ground impact he would be an in but I don't think he adds as much as the present players so no change unless there is some soreness.

[Ted Lasso 18,786]

I personally don't think spencer is a factor In this. It's either gawn or pederson as our starting ruck. 

[Cards13 9,117]

9 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

It's horses for courses.

Three changes due to a combination of form, matchups and change of ground.

Rotations are normal for teams going into a three week block of six day breaks back-to-back-to-back.

Horses for courses? Interested to know when we have made changes besides based on form, better option or injury. 

Which 3 changes for us you think?

[What 18,810]

The Dogges have been so mediocre this season and were pitiful last Thursday night.. they remind me of the 2009 Hawks , who missed the finals the year after winning the grand final.

Im a bit surprised they are $1.50 favourites against us this week.

[PaulRB 6,297]

If Max is ready, he's straight in. 

With TMac ok as relief ruck, and Max effective resting forward, it would probably be Pedo out... 

[rjay 24,615]

3 hours ago, Deecisive said:

Out would go, Oscar only due to the smaller doggie forward line

So where is this smaller doggie forward line that seems to have become the conventional wisdom here this week???

They will have either Cloke or Redpath or both, Tom Boyd back with Roughead in the ruck, Stringer and Bont. The option of bringing in Cordy and or Campbell...

Last year they had too many tall options for us forward and they double teamed Max in the ruck.

Hardly a bunch of pygmies...

[Big Demon 197]

Melksham had a role on Monday and was amongst our best. Sydney showed a great template to beating the Dogs by applying a hard tag all day on Johannisen and it dried up their run off half back. There's a job for Jake this week.

[Pates 9,625]

4 hours ago, PaulRB said:

If Max is ready, he's straight in. 

With TMac ok as relief ruck, and Max effective resting forward, it would probably be Pedo out... 

I hope not, Pedo has been an absolute workhorse for us and I'd be disappointed if he went out so quickly. 

My thoughts would be either Melksham or OMac (giving OMac a rest rather than dropping). I have this feeling we're not going to bring in either Gawn or Spencer, bring Gawn back to quickly could hurt us in the long run so let's hold him back until we're sure. While I would prefer to have Spencer in the question becomes what will he add, will he make a big enough difference at the stoppages? 

Perhaps this being a more even ruck dual allows us to keep the status quo for another week. 

[deelete my account 1,194]

15 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I'm sure I'll be potted again but Dom Tyson for me just isn't cutting it.

He is racking up ball, but if you compare the type of possessions he is gaining and the quality and meaningfulness of his disposals vs others in our side, you'll see that he's simply not damaging enough. He was fumbly, caught out on the counter due to his pace and he genuinely could have lost us the game when he had the free kick and kicked long directly to three collingwood players. (Hibberd's desperate diving spoil saved a mark coming back in which resulted in Jack's winning goal).

Along with his lack of positional versatility, I can see him being squeezed out against a speedy dogs side on a fast deck.

I'm hoping Gawn's fit and can rotate forward with Pedo to cause some headaches for an undersized dog's defence. I'd also like to see Trac play deep forward in patches next week.

Ins: Gawn, JKH and Stretch

Outs: O-Mac, Tyson and ANB

On notice: Harmes, Lewis, Melksham and Frost

 

Hate to drag over the List management stuff into a match selection page, but I think we should trade Dom Tyson (who is surplus to our needs) for Zak Jones. And I should pick a new username.

Edited June 14, 2017 by DominatrixTyson

[Dees2014 2,377]

8 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Doubt Gawn or Spencer play this week.

The Dogs dont have a ruckman.  Their highest hitout winner last round was Tim English with just 8.  Pedders can be the main man for one more week.... then Gawny in to face West Coast.

All the more reason to get Gawny to totally dominate them then, and when he is not doing that dominate them in the air up forward.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Dees2014

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Out: Melksham, Bugg

In: Gawn/Spencer, Stretch

 

FB: Jetta T. McDonald Hibberd

HB: Hunt Frost Salem

C: Vince Viney Tyson

HF: Petracca Watts Lewis

FF: Garlett Pedersen Hannan

Foll: Gawn/Spencer Jones Oliver

Int: Stretch ANB O. McDonald Harmes

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,652]

I'm going to reiterate something I said earlier but perhaps in a clearer way. Our major problem has not been the lack of a ruckman. We've coped with that quite well. It's the lack of a big bodied key forward which has seen us struggle during periods of games. We improved against Collingwood when Pedersen went forward and swapped roles with Tom McDonald. The question for me is not about who rucks but what is the best structure overall. We are much better (at least until Hogan returns) with Pedersen playing forward. It makes it so much easier for Petracca and Watts. For that to happen, someone needs to replace Pedersen as the ruckman. That is either Tom McDonald or Spencer.

In my mind, the real question is whether we want Tom McDonald in the backline or as a ruckman? I'd say play him in defence. Therefore, play Spencer (or Gawn if he's ready, of course) in the ruck. And then move one of Salem, Vince or Lewis out of defence to replace one of Harmes, Bugg or Hannan (probably Bugg).

[buck_nekkid 5,819]

No change unless injury, or Max Factor is ready to rumble.  Who goes out for Max?? I think it would be matchups based if no one injured.  

Wags was closest to knocking on the door for a spot, Spencil didn't really.  Stretch was OK, but would need to do more.  So no driving changes from VFL level.

[Red and Blue realist 2,026]

10 hours ago, Big Demon said:

Melksham had a role on Monday and was amongst our best. Sydney showed a great template to beating the Dogs by applying a hard tag all day on Johannisen and it dried up their run off half back. There's a job for Jake this week.

I would think that Bugg would be better on JJ and Melksham to Macrae, Hunter or Bont. 

[GawnWithTheWind 604]

Ins: Gawn

Outs: Oscar

--------------------------------------------------------

He was great, but we cant go in too tall on a quick surface, and TMAC will go back with Gawn coming into the ruck.

We can only play two genuine tall defenders.

---------------------------------------------------------

B: Jetta - Frost - Hibb

HB: Hunt - TMac - Salem

C: Vince - Jones - Lewis

HF: Trac - Watts - Bugg

FF: Hannan - Pedo - Garlett

R: Gawn - Oliver - Viney

I: Tyson - Melksham - ANB - Harmes

 

[Demons11 6,718]

Is Watts injured? someone posted of FB that he was and wouldn't play this week. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by Demons11

[dino rover 700]

16 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

As much as i want Gawn back in the side, like Hogan, i only want him back when he is 100% cherry ripe.

If Spencer is ready, give him a go. I'm sure he'd be hungry after getting his call-up only to get injured the following game.

I thought Spencer was pretty underwhelming against Collingwood vfl

What did others make of his game?

I made the point that not playing a ruck has flow on impacts to other positions so on that basis gawn or spencil makes sense and maybe last week spencer was tentative after injury

[daisycutter 29,341]

2 minutes ago, dino rover said:

I thought Spencer was pretty underwhelming against Collingwood vfl

What did others make of his game?

I made the point that not playing a ruck has flow on impacts to other positions so on that basis gawn or spencil makes sense and maybe last week spencer was tentative after injury

it was his first game back after 7 weeks so no biggie. if he plays seniors this week his job is to negate any ruck advantage of bullies and allow us to restore some structure to our spine. anything extra is a bonus.............................but i hope maximus is ready to resume

[rolling fog 1,207]

23 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

Is Watts injured? someone posted of FB that he was and wouldn't play this week. 

Rolled his ankle quite badly last week and was doubtful if he would get up for QB. Then got a bad knee to his back in the fist five mins of QB and was reportedly spasm-ing according to Goody's presser. The rest is history on that one - would be suprised if he wasn't named