Changes v Port

[Mondê 525]

I'm worried about this game. Port have their tails up and if we are a couple of % off after the bye we'll get done in hostile territory

[titan_uranus 24,931]

Putting aside Casey form for a moment, which is obviously not how the FD does it, I'm leaning towards replacing Pedersen with T Smith or Weideman and dropping one of Harmes or Hannan for Garlett.

The Pedersen replacement isn't terribly controversial I don't think. As for the other, neither Harmes nor Hannan are adding much to the side and like @stevethemanjordan I wouldn't be against us putting Garlett back into our forward line mix and challenging him to run a certain number of kilometres, make a certain number of pressure acts or lay a certain number of tackles, and see how he goes. 

Casey form obviously will dictate what actually happens, though.

I'd be leaving the midfield as is with a couple of positional changes (e.g. getting Brayshaw in at more stoppages).

[Soidee 1,496]

Season defining game!  They have Wines, Polec and Gray.  Our best game must be brought to beat them.  Bring in Tyson as he must perform or be traded.  Speed is our problem.

[Dee Zephyr 19,250]

46 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Why would you play TMac anywhere outside of the forward 50? He is dominant there at the moment. If anything I feel we need to have just TMac and Hogan as our tall forwards and play them there permanently. 

Roosy touched on this on the DL podcast. His take was to start T Mac forward all the time as opposition defenders lick their lips when they see him starting on the wing. Put the pressure on them immediately.

[Young Blood 2,373]

3 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Roosy touched on this on the DL podcast. His take was to start T Mac forward all the time as opposition defenders lick their lips when they see him starting on the wing. Put the pressure on them immediately.

I think the idea is to start him further up the field on an undersized player and drift back in as a marking option. Not only does he have the potential advantage in a marking contest but it also messes with the oppositions backline structures. Ie. Do we send a tall back to run with him further up the ground in case he does the same?? 

But I do agree with Roos as well that starting him forward is much more of a threat. He's one of those players who doesn't need a lot of the ball or play to get going, hence why he doesn't need to start around the ball. I would definitely be swapping him with Hogan to start.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Yung Blood

[DeeSpencer 24,975]

11 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Roosy touched on this on the DL podcast. His take was to start T Mac forward all the time as opposition defenders lick their lips when they see him starting on the wing. Put the pressure on them immediately.

I agree, although the unfortunate thing is Roos couldn't find reliable outside mids so we're using Tommy to give the younger guys a chop out on the wing, whilst also making sure the forward line isn't top heavy.

I'm not against the idea, I'd just do it with Hogan instead. And up against Port it's a nice way to counter the damage that Westhoff can do as a mobile tall on the wing.

[jumbo returns 6,715]

1 hour ago, Yung Blood said:

Agreed. He was OK against Crows and Bulldogs and managed to get on the end of some goals by slipping out the back. I thought he was very ordinary against Collingwood.  Only reason I can see him being kept in is as a marking option outside of Tmac/Hogan/Trac especially with Pederson and Bayley playing further up the ground now. But he certainly hasn't been performing well in the air.

Yep - his hard running and judgement has not been great in the last weeks, yet everyone sees Spargo as the one to be dropped this week

[Young Blood 2,373]

8 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

Yep - his hard running and judgement has not been great in the last weeks, yet everyone sees Spargo as the one to be dropped this week

Very surprising. Spargo besides marking gives you so much more around the stoppages and general contest.

[Young Blood 2,373]

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

Putting aside Casey form for a moment, which is obviously not how the FD does it, I'm leaning towards replacing Pedersen with T Smith or Weideman and dropping one of Harmes or Hannan for Garlett.

The Pedersen replacement isn't terribly controversial I don't think. As for the other, neither Harmes nor Hannan are adding much to the side and like @stevethemanjordan I wouldn't be against us putting Garlett back into our forward line mix and challenging him to run a certain number of kilometres, make a certain number of pressure acts or lay a certain number of tackles, and see how he goes. 

Casey form obviously will dictate what actually happens, though.

I'd be leaving the midfield as is with a couple of positional changes (e.g. getting Brayshaw in at more stoppages).

I really don't understand the knock against Harmes. He's not the cleanest with the ball and is probably still defining his role but I think he is one of our most consistent performers. He's definitely one of our most physical players and uses his body well around the contest as well as terrific tackling.

As we saw yesterday Richmonds bottom six players were just far better then Geelongs. I think we need more like James Harmes who performs consistently without starring.

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,399]

IN: Tyson, Frost, Garlett

OUT: Vince, Spargo, Pedersen

Have loved Spargo’s work, but the bigger bodied Collingwood brushed him aside.

Want to see Frost as the second tall against a tall Port Adelaide forward line and Smith play his more suited third tall role.

Tyson is a very good player and has found some form.  Must play against a strong Port Midfield.

 

[DeleteUser 638]

9 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

IN: Tyson, Frost, Garlett

OUT: Vince, Spargo, Pedersen

Have loved Spargo’s work, but the bigger bodied Collingwood brushed him aside.

Want to see Frost as the second tall against a tall Port Adelaide forward line and Smith play his more suited third tall role.

Tyson is a very good player and has found some form.  Must play against a strong Port Midfield.

 

Very sound reasoning. Garlett's last stand?

[D4Life 2,413]

After 6 very good wins and statistically excellent, the Collingwood loss while not totally unexpected was disappointing as it felt like we didn’t turn up to play.

Rather than over react to a poor loss and then having the bye break would be surprised if we have too many changes. Two changes maximum three for me.

Likely two - Out:

Pedo (Possibly stiff after concussion)

Vince (I don’t think we can play both Vince & Lewis, makes us too slow)

In:

Weid or T Smith (for Pedo)

Garlett (We have plenty of guys who can go back & replace Vince, already in team).

And maybe # Three

If you want more height (Frost) or grunt (Tyson) against Port then it’s possibly Hannan that I would leave out.

 

 

[Skuit 10,007]

I've been eager for Garlett's return to the side. But not if it's going to be wet.  

[Deemania since 56 6,571]

5 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I agree, although the unfortunate thing is Roos couldn't find reliable outside mids so we're using Tommy to give the younger guys a chop out on the wing, whilst also making sure the forward line isn't top heavy.

I'm not against the idea, I'd just do it with Hogan instead. And up against Port it's a nice way to counter the damage that Westhoff can do as a mobile tall on the wing.

That makes better sense to combat and shut down Westhoff by those means. TMac can do much up forward just like Hoges but in a slightly different way, and with support, both can do damage and form the basis of another 100-points to win the game by at least 40 points. 

[Deemania since 56 6,571]

1 hour ago, D4Life said:

After 6 very good wins and statistically excellent, the Collingwood loss while not totally unexpected was disappointing as it felt like we didn’t turn up to play.

Rather than over react to a poor loss and then having the bye break would be surprised if we have too many changes. Two changes maximum three for me.

Likely two - Out:

Pedo (Possibly stiff after concussion)

Vince (I don’t think we can play both Vince & Lewis, makes us too slow)

In:

Weid or T Smith (for Pedo)

Garlett (We have plenty of guys who can go back & replace Vince, already in team).

And maybe # Three

If you want more height (Frost) or grunt (Tyson) against Port then it’s possibly Hannan that I would leave out.

 

 

Tyson hopefully will get a run. Same for Frosty for speed, power and run.

[monoccular 17,359]

2 hours ago, Skuit said:

I've been eager for Garlett's return to the side. But not if it's going to be wet.  

Yes. Maybe I have a poor memory but I seem to remember Jeffy putting in some shockers in the wet.

[DV8 2,271]

8 hours ago, Yung Blood said:

I think the idea is to start him further up the field on an undersized player and drift back in as a marking option. Not only does he have the potential advantage in a marking contest but it also messes with the oppositions backline structures. Ie. Do we send a tall back to run with him further up the ground in case he does the same?? 

But I do agree with Roos as well that starting him forward is much more of a threat. He's one of those players who doesn't need a lot of the ball or play to get going, hence why he doesn't need to start around the ball. I would definitely be swapping him with Hogan to start.

He creates mismatches on the wing, and as he drifts forward.

# Playing TMc from the Wing, this week, means he can drift back, to chop out little brother, on big Dixon.

I'd bring in Petty this week, who apparently is tall and a good reader of the play, to play back with OMc.   And TMc from the Wing, playing an overseeing role, for those two.

 

Keep Pedo in, with Hogan.  With Pedo helping Maxy in the ruck.  Give Pedo more minutes on-ball, with Maxy stretching Ports defenders more often.   Rotate Maxy more frequently.

Garlett may be handy, in that scenario, when Maxy is forward.   Garlett and Petracca roving deep forward to Maxy.

Edited June 18, 2018 by DV8

[WERRIDEE 5,371]

3 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Tyson hopefully will get a run. Same for Frosty for speed, power and run.

Don't play Frost it will be a step backwards like playing Pedersen last game. Play Petty for height or Baker for speed. How many chances does Frost need to prove that he is unworthy?

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,399]

59 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

Don't play Frost it will be a step backwards like playing Pedersen last game. Play Petty for height or Baker for speed. How many chances does Frost need to prove that he is unworthy?

I worry about a 197cm 83kg KPD in the lineup.  He’s got talent, but he’d be required to man up on players much bigger and stronger.

Dixon 200/108

Westoff 200/93

Marshall 198/90

Ryder (resting) 197/96

 

[WERRIDEE 5,371]

4 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

I worry about a 197cm 83kg KPD in the lineup.  He’s got talent, but he’d be required to man up on players much bigger and stronger.

Dixon 200/108

Westoff 200/93

Marshall 198/90

Ryder (resting) 197/96

 

I know he's strong Frost but I'm worried about his football smarts.

My line up would be.

Dixon on O.Mac

Westoff\Ryder on Petty

Marshall on Joel.Smith

[SFebes 4,868]

4 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

I know he's strong Frost but I'm worried about his football smarts.

My line up would be.

Dixon on O.Mac

Westoff\Ryder on Petty

Marshall on Joel.Smith

Dixon will eat Omacs carcass

[WERRIDEE 5,371]

3 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Dixon will eat Omacs carcass

O.Mac has had 1 bad game, give him a chance to redeem himself.

I'd still prefer him to Frost.

[SFebes 4,868]

2 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

O.Mac has had 1 bad game, give him a chance to redeem himself.

I'd still prefer him to Frost.

Yes he’s had a good year on all the key forwards, I just think Dixon will rag doll him as he’s more aggressive 

[McQueen 17,864]

7 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Dixon will eat Omacs carcass

Agreed.

I don’t mins the idea of Frost on Dixon due to Frosts strength in one on ones. Dixon isn’t really jack flash either so Frosty could expose him better that Omac.

[puntkick 325]

Ive done all of my tips for this week except this one !