CHANGES: Rd 21 vs West Coast

[Kent 2,859]

12 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

They won't drop Viney. Goody and the coaches love him too much.

The only changes that'll happen are the forced ones like McDonald or Salem if they don't pull up well.

so even if Viney costs us games he wont get dropped ?

Huge Call!

Drop low IQ Viney bring in Jones, Melksham  or AVB   Not too sure of Sparrow  Maybe JJ in

[Kent 2,859]

14 hours ago, Redleg said:

I thought Viney's first half was horrible. His second was good.

He needs to be coached from now on, to take the first option, immediately.

That will improve his game and ours.

We know he is hard at the ball and not great at disposal, but a quick release to another player, will avoid htb decisions and at least get the ball forward quickly, where our scoring opportunities will increase.

Harmes needs to be told to do likewise and when he kicks for goal, to not run out to the right.

Both of them can be valuable to us, with a little change to their games.

The trouble is that both Viney and Harmes are getting worse and appear not to be taking the first option so all the training isn't making any difference  I still contend that Viney is uncoachable in my opinion

[dazzledavey36 52,735]

8 minutes ago, Kent said:

so even if Viney costs us games he wont get dropped ?

Huge Call!

Drop low IQ Viney bring in Jones, Melksham  or AVB   Not too sure of Sparrow  Maybe JJ in

No he won't. 

[Ted Lasso 18,776]

we won by 98 points and showed real improvement in the areas we wanted to improve. 

No forced changes. 

we need to build momentum from here, we've got 3 weeks to find our best footy and give ourselves a real shot at a premiership

[DubDee 24,347]

Jordon to play and Sparrow Moved to sub which is apparently ‘no change’ these days

no other changes unless injuries 

[Red and Blue realist 2,026]

Funny how preconceived ideas form the basis of a lot of people's changes, although I haven't seen 1 call for ANB to be dropped this week (so far), so that's refreshing. Both the HS and Age had Harmes in the best, yet around half the calls on here have been for him to be axed. No way will he go out, yes cleaning up some disposal and taking the first option would make him a better player, but his defensive skills/efforts (5 tackles in the 1st quarter when it was still actually a game!) go overlooked on here but I'm sure will be noted by the coaches.

No change for mine, unless TMac's back is still sore today, then no point putting him on the plane - take and plan for Weid to play, hours on the plane on Saturday and then hours more today could lead to a longer term back issue, so unless he's right today, I hope they take no risks. 

[Mr Steve 3,820]

Herald Sun had Harmes as third best on ground. 

[Pates 9,625]

23 minutes ago, Red and Blue realist said:

Funny how preconceived ideas form the basis of a lot of people's changes, although I haven't seen 1 call for ANB to be dropped this week (so far), so that's refreshing. Both the HS and Age had Harmes in the best, yet around half the calls on here have been for him to be axed. No way will he go out, yes cleaning up some disposal and taking the first option would make him a better player, but his defensive skills/efforts (5 tackles in the 1st quarter when it was still actually a game!) go overlooked on here but I'm sure will be noted by the coaches.

No change for mine, unless TMac's back is still sore today, then no point putting him on the plane - take and plan for Weid to play, hours on the plane on Saturday and then hours more today could lead to a longer term back issue, so unless he's right today, I hope they take no risks. 

I didn’t think Harmes had an awful game but he suffers from the same issue as Viney where he tries to bust through tacklers when he just needs to give the first option. If Harmes kicks straight we’re praising him. 

I think TMac was taken off for precautionary reasons, it’s a bit of a cheeky use of the medi-sub and it got a mini-run into Jordon but we’ve barely used it this year anyway. 

Does anyone know who’s on the plane to Perth that wasn’t in the 23 this week?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,644]

If Tom McDonald plays it makes a mockery of the medi-sub rule (although not for the first time this year). Nevertheless, if he's fit, he should play. I thought Viney and Harmes were our worst two on the ground - even though both were in the Herald Sun's "best players" - but would persist with them. Both just need to be told to take the first option and stop assuming they can break every tackle. 

So, unless there are injuries, no change. (Weideman for T Mac is the obvious replacement if that change is required). 

[Jaded No More 67,636]

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If Tom McDonald plays it makes a mockery of the medi-sub rule (although not for the first time this year).

How so? They said post match that he copped a big hit to the back and it was seizing up. That could easily get better in a week or worse. Back injuries are very unpredictable. 
He shouldn’t have to play with back spasms if the option for the sub is there. Likewise if he legitimately gets better with careful management during the week, then why is that making a mockery of the sub rule? 
We rarely used the sub rule this year. When we have all the players missed the following week (a broken face, an ACL and a concussion seem fair reasons to use a sub). We have done the right thing all year and if we get lucky with Tmac I doubt very much any questions would need to be asked. 
Having said that, I can’t see how a long flight and a week of hotel room quarantine will help his back. 

[Redleg 40,085]

18 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If Tom McDonald plays it makes a mockery of the medi-sub rule (although not for the first time this year).

Why, it clearly wasn't used to win a game or get an advantage?

[leave it to deever 17,446]

I would really like to see Spargo have a shot in the middle rather than Kozzie.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,644]

17 minutes ago, Jaded said:

How so? They said post match that he copped a big hit to the back and it was seizing up. That could easily get better in a week or worse. Back injuries are very unpredictable. 
He shouldn’t have to play with back spasms if the option for the sub is there. Likewise if he legitimately gets better with careful management during the week, then why is that making a mockery of the sub rule? 
We rarely used the sub rule this year. When we have all the players missed the following week (a broken face, an ACL and a concussion seem fair reasons to use a sub). We have done the right thing all year and if we get lucky with Tmac I doubt very much any questions would need to be asked. 
Having said that, I can’t see how a long flight and a week of hotel room quarantine will help his back. 

 

14 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Why, it clearly wasn't used to win a game or get an advantage?

If teams can use the medi-sub to replace an injured player who plays the next week, what stops a team from removing an under-performing player on the day who's not really injured but claiming that they are ("hamstring awareness", for example)? May as well just drop the pretence that it's a "medi" sub and give the coaches what they've always wanted - a fifth player on the bench, albeit one who's a substitute and not an interchange.

If you look at how this happened, it was originally going to be a "concussion sub" knowing full well that the concussed player would miss 12 days and therefore (except when there's a bye) at least one game. The AFL quite rightly realised that coaches would mis-use the "concussion sub" by using it for any injured player who was going to miss at least a week by claiming he also had a "bit of concussion". Hence the "concussion sub" became the "medi-sub" but without the mandatory 12 day break. Hence, it is now just a sub.  

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

19 hours ago, Nasher said:

Forced changes only. Pre-emptive LOL for any posts suggesting differently.

Short sighted. 

Not how footy works. 

[Jaded No More 67,636]

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

If teams can use the medi-sub to replace an injured player who plays the next week, what stops a team from removing an under-performing player on the day who's not really injured but claiming that they are ("hamstring awareness", for example)? May as well just drop the pretence that it's a "medi" sub and give the coaches what they've always wanted - a fifth player on the bench, albeit one who's a substitute and not an interchange.

If you look at how this happened, it was originally going to be a "concussion sub" knowing full well that the concussed player would miss 12 days and therefore (except when there's a bye) at least one game. The AFL quite rightly realised that coaches would mis-use the "concussion sub" by using it for any injured player who was going to miss at least a week by claiming he also had a "bit of concussion". Hence the "concussion sub" became the "medi-sub" but without the mandatory 12 day break. Hence, it is now just a sub.  

There is a process in place to bring in a player a week following subbing them out. You can't do it without medical clearance from the AFL, which means you can't just sub someone out for bad form and then play them again the following week without a sign off from the AFL. 

So for Tom to play on Monday, the club would need to submit a medical assessment and get approval that he was legitimately subbed out and has legitimately recovered. 

It will be very interesting to see how subs are used in the grand final this year however. 

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

Harmes simply needs to be replaced after the last two weeks. 

You can't carry players like him. Burns team mates constantly, fumbles, mis-kicks and handballs. Refuses to do the basics well. 

The last straw for me on the weekend was when he marked 50 out or thereabouts, ignored clear better options and went back to inevitably miss. He has got way too much "me me me" about him atm and it's such a shocking look. 

It just such a [censored] example for younger guys btrying to get a gig. Even Jones/Melksham.

I would be livid if I were a more experienced player knocking the door down and watching Harmes dish up what he has over the last two weeks. 

We are carrying him and Goodwin needs to drop him this week.

Edited August 2, 2021 by JimmyGadson

[titan_uranus 24,583]

2 hours ago, SPC said:

If TMAC missed, might be time to look at something different. Perhaps Joel Smith or Daw up forward.

Id like to see Viney replaced. Perhaps by a small forward. Jones would be a better option. 

You're kidding, right?

For one, Weid's best football this year has been playing a role more like TMac than Brown, so he'd IMO be more suited to playing alongside Brown than alongside TMac.

For another, Smith's been playing defence all season.

For a third, why the [censored] would we experiment this boldly in our most important game of the year so far?

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

1 hour ago, Mr Steve said:

Herald Sun had Harmes as third best on ground. 

Mate, the AFL and newspaper 'bests' regularly put players in that don't deserve it.

Often they look at stats and put players in based on the numbers they had. 

[dazzledavey36 52,735]

6 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

Harmes simply needs to be replaced after the last two weeks. 

You can't carry players like him. Burns team mates constantly, fumbles, mis-kicks and handballs. Refuses to do the basics well. 

The last straw for me on the weekend was when he marked 50 out or thereabouts, ignored clear better options and went back to inevitably miss. He has got way too much "me me me" about him atm and it's such a shocking look. 

It just such a [censored] example for younger guys btrying to get a gig. Even Jones/Melksham.

I would be livid if I were a more experienced player knocking the door down and watching Harmes dish up what he has over the last two weeks. 

We are carrying him and Goodwin needs to drop him this week.

Agree wholeheartedly.

He was a dead set clear liability alongside Viney. He has this fascination of just immediately tucking the ball under his arm and straight away put the don't argue.

I was a fan of getting Harmes back into our team during the year, but I've had enough him. The bloke is more fixated in wanting to become the next Dusty then doing the team things, when realistically he's a plodder.

I'd much rather guys like Jordon or Vandenberg. 

[1964_2 2,357]

1 hour ago, Red and Blue realist said:

Funny how preconceived ideas form the basis of a lot of people's changes, although I haven't seen 1 call for ANB to be dropped this week (so far), so that's refreshing. Both the HS and Age had Harmes in the best, yet around half the calls on here have been for him to be axed. No way will he go out, yes cleaning up some disposal and taking the first option would make him a better player, but his defensive skills/efforts (5 tackles in the 1st quarter when it was still actually a game!) go overlooked on here but I'm sure will be noted by the coaches.

No change for mine, unless TMac's back is still sore today, then no point putting him on the plane - take and plan for Weid to play, hours on the plane on Saturday and then hours more today could lead to a longer term back issue, so unless he's right today, I hope they take no risks. 

All that tells you is that the age and HS reporters read the stats, rather than watching games to determine the best. 

only best Harmes and Viney were in was for GC! 

[At the break of Gawn 4,417]

Considering most of us (including myself) demanded Jackson to be dropped last week, shows that the coaches still have a fair better idea than us!

Harmes won’t be dropped. I think every match report I’ve read he was listed in the best.

The only change I can see are forced changes for Tmac or Salem if they can’t get up, or potentially Sparrow out for his mate Jordan or potentially Jones.

I’m still concerned with Viney but his grunt might be pretty valuable against the Eagles midfield.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,644]

Do we know who we took to WA? Presumably, any player who's not in WA by now won't have the necessary clearance to play. 

[old dee 23,487]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Why, it clearly wasn't used to win a game or get an advantage?

Agree he actually caused a drop in the teams ability.

[Go the Biff 3,360]

1 hour ago, JimmyGadson said:

Harmes simply needs to be replaced after the last two weeks years. 

Fixed it for you Steve

[old dee 23,487]

2 hours ago, Red and Blue realist said:

Funny how preconceived ideas form the basis of a lot of people's changes, although I haven't seen 1 call for ANB to be dropped this week (so far), so that's refreshing. Both the HS and Age had Harmes in the best, yet around half the calls on here have been for him to be axed. No way will he go out, yes cleaning up some disposal and taking the first option would make him a better player, but his defensive skills/efforts (5 tackles in the 1st quarter when it was still actually a game!) go overlooked on here but I'm sure will be noted by the coaches.

No change for mine, unless TMac's back is still sore today, then no point putting him on the plane - take and plan for Weid to play, hours on the plane on Saturday and then hours more today could lead to a longer term back issue, so unless he's right today, I hope they take no risks. 

You are correct of course most of us have this problem to some extent. I can never see Weideman being any more than useful. However if Tmac cannot play this week he is the logical replacement. Supporters get off players quick. Viney had a average first half yesterday and one guy wants to trade him.