TEAMS: Rd 15 vs Sydney

[Deespicable 2,886]

Guys don't get caught up by the Bedford v Smith or any other Smith-based issue.

The extraordinary thing is that two and a half weeks ago (three games) we seemed to have finally got the right balance down back.

Our win against the Pies came with three mobile tallls (May, Lever and Tomlinson), two smalls (one precise left, one quick right - Salem, Lockhart) and two running medium defenders (Hibberd and Harmes - one left, one right). Finally it appeared our best mix but then we lost to the Dogs on a windy day when their season was on the line and all of a sudden Goody decided to change the entire make-up back there.

Out went our right-side run (Lockhart and Harmes) and in came our least mobile tall O.Mac and a young goer Rivers with aerial skills. Wags mixed his time between the wing (Billings) and half-back. Tomlinson had Battle for much of the night and like Wags had to mix half-back and wing, depending on where Battle lined up. The extra height was designed to combat the Saints who had potentially four talls up there.

Now you can argue that our new back six (seven with rotation) saw us get the points against the Saints (just), but most of us know that May played the best game we'd seen from one our defenders for a long time and got us across the line.

You can also use that old stupid "we won, why should we change anything" line but the fact is that we changed what many of us felt was the best-balanced backline that we'd had for a while (one that was pretty much unchanged after our Port loss) prior to the Saints game on the back of the Dogs knocking us off largely on the strength of Bont and Wallis having days outs.

And so now we play the Swans, who are decimated by injury with two of the best five out (Heeney and Rampe), plus all bar one of their ruckmen missing and even though they are going with just two tall forwards, we are continuing to go with four talls down back and maybe adding another who can play tall in Smith (agree that one of Smith or Harmes will most likely play back on Papley, not sure which yet).

Either way, Goody has altered what appeared our best format two weeks ago and gone big and slow down back in favour of the extra precision that in theory Oscar brings. Maybe he is trying to replicate the Cats who are having great success with a big defence. Or maybe he is trying to replicate the Hawks, who aren't have any success with their big defence.

The Swans season is over and we should win easily. But if Sydney's forwards start exploiting us with pace and ground-ball gets, then I know who I'll be blaming.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Deespicable

[PaulRB 6,411]

Given where Sydney are at we should beat them comfortably.

So the team selections are less about matching our team to beat Sydney, but more to identify and consolidate the best team that we can take forward through the remainder of the season, into our first elimination Final against one of Westcoast, Collingwood, Saints etc...

It appears that there are 3-4 spots or roles up for grabs with several candidates or options for each. I'd expect if we can avoid injuries, we shall aim to have no changes between round 18 and finals with the selections settled with the final addition of Jackson for the Dons game.

This internal competition for the final available 2-3 spots in our best 22 should keep us building and winning...

Good signs

Go Demons

 

[jnrmac 20,185]

2 hours ago, Deespicable said:

Guys don't get caught up by the Bedford v Smith or any other Smith-based issue.

The extraordinary thing is that two and a half weeks ago (three games) we seemed to have finally got the right balance down back.

Our win against the Pies came with three mobile tallls (May, Lever and Tomlinson), two smalls (one precise left, one quick right - Salem, Lockhart) and two running medium defenders (Hibberd and Harmes - one left, one right). Finally it appeared our best mix but then we lost to the Dogs on a windy day when their season was on the line and all of a sudden Goody decided to change the entire make-up back there.

Out went our right-side run (Lockhart and Harmes) and in came our least mobile tall O.Mac and a young goer Rivers with aerial skills. Wags mixed his time between the wing (Billings) and half-back. Tomlinson had Battle for much of the night and like Wags had to mix half-back and wing, depending on where Battle lined up. The extra height was designed to combat the Saints who had potentially four talls up there.

Now you can argue that our new back six (seven with rotation) saw us get the points against the Saints (just), but most of us know that May played the best game we'd seen from one our defenders for a long time and got us across the line.

You can also use that old stupid "we won, why should we change anything" line but the fact is that we changed what many of us felt was the best-balanced backline that we'd had for a while (one that was pretty much unchanged after our Port loss) prior to the Saints game on the back of the Dogs knocking us off largely on the strength of Bont and Wallis having days outs.

And so now we play the Swans, who are decimated by injury with two of the best five out (Heeney and Rampe), plus all bar one of their ruckmen missing and even though they are going with just two tall forwards, we are continuing to go with four talls down back and maybe adding another who can play tall in Smith (agree that one of Smith or Harmes will most likely play back on Papley, not sure which yet).

Either way, Goody has altered what appeared our best format two weeks ago and gone big and slow down back in favour of the extra precision that in theory Oscar brings. Maybe he is trying to replicate the Cats who are having great success with a big defence. Or maybe he is trying to replicate the Hawks, who aren't have any success with their big defence.

The Swans season is over and we should win easily. But if Sydney's forwards start exploiting us with pace and ground-ball gets, then I know who I'll be blaming.

Interesting analysis.

I suspect rotations and keeping players fresh are front of mind. But also keeoing players on their toes and ensuring that we can be flexible if and when we need to be. ie players who come in know what to expect and what their role is.

If this is the case I think that is good and a tick to Goodwin

It takes a squad to win a flag and you need a fit squad that know how we want to play.

We should win this comfortably. Its in Cairns - they have been to Perth, Adelaide and Cairns in 12 days - they don't have a decent ruck or fwd line.

As usual its up to usto stamp our authority early

 

[kev martin 10,411]

17 hours ago, kev martin said:

Sydney has been doing some travelling. 

Although hubbed in WA, last week was in Adelaide and now they fly to far north Qld.

The Nullarbor flights do take a bit out of you.

So three long flights in five days.

From the pre-game interview with Parley, I assume they flew from Adelaide to Cairns as they trained at Cazaly Tuesday.

So, they have been on the road, with less flights across the desert

From Tracc interview, seems we got there today. 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

5 hours ago, Deespicable said:

Guys don't get caught up by the Bedford v Smith or any other Smith-based issue.

The extraordinary thing is that two and a half weeks ago (three games) we seemed to have finally got the right balance down back.

Our win against the Pies came with three mobile tallls (May, Lever and Tomlinson), two smalls (one precise left, one quick right - Salem, Lockhart) and two running medium defenders (Hibberd and Harmes - one left, one right). Finally it appeared our best mix but then we lost to the Dogs on a windy day when their season was on the line and all of a sudden Goody decided to change the entire make-up back there.

Out went our right-side run (Lockhart and Harmes) and in came our least mobile tall O.Mac and a young goer Rivers with aerial skills. Wags mixed his time between the wing (Billings) and half-back. Tomlinson had Battle for much of the night and like Wags had to mix half-back and wing, depending on where Battle lined up. The extra height was designed to combat the Saints who had potentially four talls up there.

Now you can argue that our new back six (seven with rotation) saw us get the points against the Saints (just), but most of us know that May played the best game we'd seen from one our defenders for a long time and got us across the line.

You can also use that old stupid "we won, why should we change anything" line but the fact is that we changed what many of us felt was the best-balanced backline that we'd had for a while (one that was pretty much unchanged after our Port loss) prior to the Saints game on the back of the Dogs knocking us off largely on the strength of Bont and Wallis having days outs.

And so now we play the Swans, who are decimated by injury with two of the best five out (Heeney and Rampe), plus all bar one of their ruckmen missing and even though they are going with just two tall forwards, we are continuing to go with four talls down back and maybe adding another who can play tall in Smith (agree that one of Smith or Harmes will most likely play back on Papley, not sure which yet).

Either way, Goody has altered what appeared our best format two weeks ago and gone big and slow down back in favour of the extra precision that in theory Oscar brings. Maybe he is trying to replicate the Cats who are having great success with a big defence. Or maybe he is trying to replicate the Hawks, who aren't have any success with their big defence.

The Swans season is over and we should win easily. But if Sydney's forwards start exploiting us with pace and ground-ball gets, then I know who I'll be blaming.

Some very astute work there Dee.... i agree re the backline looking settled and nicely balanced prior to the Doggies match.  Much of the loss was us not locking down on the Bont who had one of his usual day outs againt us plus a horrid effort from the forwards who applied some low level pressure inside 50 and allowed the Dogs to waltz out and transition too easily off HB for multiple score launches.

I don't mind Rivers for Lockhart though although with Hibb out i believe he was a must in this week.... not Smith.

And you are right, we shouldn't be relying on one player down back to be bailing us out every other week.  Not gonna happen against the better clubs.

[Mel Bourne 4,534]

*

Edited September 3, 2020 by Mel Bourne

[jnrmac 20,185]

I [censored] hate this football club. 

Goodnight