4 hours ago, Cards13 said:

Thanks Webbs!!! High ankle sprain... interesting, I thought they might have been using a different term previously. I did see an article, was from 2020 that noted that season had a very high number of this injury, might have been an outlier season. It does note it is usually 3-4 per season on ave https://www.afl.com.au/news/463519/injuries-on-the-rise-why-afl-footballers-are-running-the-gauntlet

Funny enough as a 17yr old I had a syndesmosis, I'd never heard of it, was a funny popping feeling in the lower leg and just not being able to get any drive out of it, was a decent recovery time too.

Ps how are the paintings progressing?

Your symptoms nail it. Bones separate under load, and the ankle has no push-off stability. There’s a weird thing with injuries that they sometimes come in waves of incidence across the comp. You’ll get a spate of syndesmoses, or Achilles ruptures, foot fractures, high hamstring tears, shoulder dislocations, etc, and questions always get asked. Over a longer time-line, the incidence then averages out. When they don’t, sometimes the industry alters management, and even better, gets prevention sorted. A great example is osteitis pubis, which dropped to a dribble due to running load management and lumbo-pelvic stabilising work (core strengthening). Hamstring tears are also far less than years ago, again due to training/prevention protocols.

Funny you should ask about paintings Cards, just finished the time-consuming stuff today. Should be done before Easter now! Stay tuned….

I re-watched the GC game, 

Our defensive setup considering the current outs is just exceptional, huge props to both players and coaches. Our link up under pressure is still a thing of beauty.

Am genuinely worried about injuries and exhaustion, not sure Rivers is fully fit, and the weather murdered our players, heat is literally kryptonite and might be why GC go well in the first few games of the year. If you read about the effects of humidity on elite athletes you will understand we gave a really solid performance but a few of our guys might not be 100%. Am actually sweating on Brayshaw he took some heavy hits.

I also was super impressed with Dew's coaching, they came with a plan for us, fair play.

So to selection:

I am still not convinced re Hunt (not a popular opinion last week but sticking with it). Tmac down back, Brown in to play Tmac's role, Hunt out. Unless Hibbered fit, (I still believe players go well against their former clubs), in which case I would swap Hibbered for Hunt. Tmac is doing alot of role work, he wasn't missing, just didn't get reward for effort. Spargo wasn't bad. Smith improved on the week before, bit worried about his hand injury but his closing speed is a weapon, disrupted several GC attacks with it. Hopefully his disposal continues to improve, I see no reason why not, he is getting better every game.

Dunstan as sub. I think he is more versatile than Bedford.

All of that said, this is a good game to try something new selection wise, I don't think we want to spend all our petrol tickets early in the season and I think some players might be NQR. 

Mitch Brown consistently puts his hand up and form wise looks like he is ahead of Weed and maybe even TMac.

Brown and Fritsch are locks , so maybe give Mitch a game against his old side.

Even though I’ve always liked Weed, the more times I get to see him,  the more I realize he is just missing that bit of mongrel you need to succeed in this game.

 

3 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

For the one hundredth time, it's nothing to do with one game and it's got all to do with his form since the finals to now. 

 

Which has been fine.

Which is why he keeps being picked.

And will be this week.

 

2 minutes ago, binman said:

Which has been fine.

Which is why he keeps being picked.

And will be this week.

 

Goody picks players who do the role they are assigned to do.

If they remain in the team you can safely assume they are doing thst role to his satisfaction 

6 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I believe he got pulled off at 3/4 time because he's likely going to debut this week.

Not injured. 

There's a happy ending joke in here somewhere.

I doubt Lever will play. 

Or Hibberd.

Based on the comments about Howes on this thread, my guess is one change - howes in, Hunt out.

Bedford to be medi sub again.

1 hour ago, DEE fence said:

I re-watched the GC game, 

Our defensive setup considering the current outs is just exceptional, huge props to both players and coaches. Our link up under pressure is still a thing of beauty.

Am genuinely worried about injuries and exhaustion, not sure Rivers is fully fit, and the weather murdered our players, heat is literally kryptonite and might be why GC go well in the first few games of the year. If you read about the effects of humidity on elite athletes you will understand we gave a really solid performance but a few of our guys might not be 100%. Am actually sweating on Brayshaw he took some heavy hits.

I also was super impressed with Dew's coaching, they came with a plan for us, fair play.

So to selection:

I am still not convinced re Hunt (not a popular opinion last week but sticking with it). Tmac down back, Brown in to play Tmac's role, Hunt out. Unless Hibbered fit, (I still believe players go well against their former clubs), in which case I would swap Hibbered for Hunt. Tmac is doing alot of role work, he wasn't missing, just didn't get reward for effort. Spargo wasn't bad. Smith improved on the week before, bit worried about his hand injury but his closing speed is a weapon, disrupted several GC attacks with it. Hopefully his disposal continues to improve, I see no reason why not, he is getting better every game.

Dunstan as sub. I think he is more versatile than Bedford.

All of that said, this is a good game to try something new selection wise, I don't think we want to spend all our petrol tickets early in the season and I think some players might be NQR. 

Agreed, Sydney tried something very similar on the G to us last year and it very nearly worked. it's a good plan to make a game against us an arm wrestle which given how well we are going, is probably a great result for most clubs. 

The bombers are a totally different beast though, we SHOULD completely overpower them in the midfield, and Gawn/Jackson will run Draiper into the ground. even if our backline suddenly forgets how to defend, it's hard to see the Bombers scoring 100 points against us

 

9 minutes ago, binman said:

I doubt Lever will play. 

Or Hibberd.

Based on the comments about Howes on this thread, my guess is one change - howes in, Hunt out.

Bedford to be medi sub again.

From the 2 seconds of vision at training they showed on 7, Trac had a full leg bandage and was grabbing at his knee. Let’s hope he’s ok. 
I would hate to risk him in round 3 and have him end up like Salem. 

53 minutes ago, binman said:

Which has been fine.

Which is why he keeps being picked.

And will be this week.

 

You don't have the best track record with players named McDonald. 

3 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

You don't have the best track record with players named McDonald. 

That's a funny coincidence.

I was just about to post the same comment about you

Doubt he plays but this shot was from today's training. You aren't wearing footy boots kicking a footy around if you are not close to playing.

Hopefully hes back playing competitive footy in the next week or 2 at either VFL level or AFL.

1 hour ago, binman said:

I doubt Lever will play. 

Or Hibberd.

Based on the comments about Howes on this thread, my guess is one change - howes in, Hunt out.

Bedford to be medi sub again.

Hmmm. I don’t know if the backline atm would be a good place for a debutant. Not setting Howes up to succeed IMO.

I would put the acid on Hunt by giving him a big hug possibly. Don’t know what he responds to.

1 minute ago, rpfc said:

Hmmm. I don’t know if the backline atm would be a good place for a debutant. Not setting Howes up to succeed IMO.

I would put the acid on Hunt by giving him a big hug possibly. Don’t know what he responds to.

Yeah fair point.

I'd like to see Hunt get another shot at it, particularly on the wide open spaces of the g.

He seems to be playing a more one on one role in the two games thus far. Not really his strength, but was OK against the dogs I thought.

Had one of those nights against the gc where nothing seemed to work. 

 

12 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Hmmm. I don’t know if the backline atm would be a good place for a debutant. Not setting Howes up to succeed IMO.

I would put the acid on Hunt by giving him a big hug possibly. Don’t know what he responds to.

 

7 minutes ago, binman said:

Yeah fair point.

I'd like to see Hunt get another shot at it, particularly on the wide open spaces of the g.

He seems to be playing a more one on one role in the two games thus far. Not really his strength, but was OK against the dogs I thought.

Had one of those nights against the gc where nothing seemed to work. 

 

I'd be very surprised to see Howes come in after only one VFL game but sure hopes he does.

I'd imagine it would mean Jordon to halfback to replace Hunt, Howes to the wing if he did eventuate. 

7 minutes ago, adonski said:

 

I'd be very surprised to see Howes come in after only one VFL game but sure hopes he does.

I'd imagine it would mean Jordon to halfback to replace Hunt, Howes to the wing if he did eventuate. 

To be honest, I'm just going with the suggestion of inside mail on Howes.

I watched the game against Sandy and thought he played pretty well, but not banging the door down well.

I was a bit surprised to see Laurie play as a mid, in so far as I thought he was a Salem style hb as a junior and trained in thst role last year. 

Does anyone know which group he has been training with this year?

I want to see Spargo dropped.  He's not necessarily playing badly, but I saw him a number of times play for the free rather than the ball and wind up turning it over.  If he keeps doing that he's going to turn into a liability.  They need to remind him how to play hard footy. 

Much as I like Hunt, he also needs to go away and sort out his kicking.  It may have been because of the humidity and slippery ball, but he was a disaster by foot. 

I would really love it if we could bring in Deakyn Smith and give Toby Bedford a start to replace them, but that would probably be a really bad move right now.  While I think Bedford taking Spargo's spot is a solid call, Smith is probably a few names down the list.  More likely to bring in one of the established defenders. 

I'm going with Hunt out and replaced by either Lever or Hibberd, and Spargo out, replaced by Bedford. 

49 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Hmmm. I don’t know if the backline atm would be a good place for a debutant. Not setting Howes up to succeed IMO.

I would put the acid on Hunt by giving him a big hug possibly. Don’t know what he responds to.

not sure about Howes (I know nothing of him) but he is down as 6 foot 3 forward from when we drafted him.  how is he fitting into out backline? anyone know?  

7 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I want to see Spargo dropped

I think thats unlikely, not setting the house on fire but with Brayshaw playing down the back, Spargo is playing higher up the ground, with some horrible mismatches.

In terms of disposal, Hunt played a shocker, so should make way for 'Team Balance'.

39 minutes ago, Sideshow Bob said:

Oops wrong thread

Thats ok SB I will have a crack at it.

I parsed 'Oops wrong thread' through my Uckranistan translator, and then back again, if you get my drift, and it came out as

Please pick Wines.....wtf

(In my defense can I say I had 3 dental implants this morning and the pain killers are magnificent.  As they should warn -Dont make any life changing decisions, drive a car, operate heavy machinery or post on demonland.....)

10 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

Good to see Lever in those training pics, anyone got an inside word on his status? 

I'm hearing it's worse than expected and typically the club are being extremely ambiguous about it which annoys to no end. 

Same can be said for Petty. 4 week injury that turns into an 8 weeker and zero transparency as to why! 

Would that make you feel better?

I think our best side is

B: Lever, May, Salem

HB: Brayshaw, McDonald, Bowey

C: Langdon, Petracca, Jordon

HF: Neal-Bullen, Jackson, Pickett

F: Fritsch, B.Brown, Spargo

FOLL: Gawn, Oliver, Viney

IC: Rivers, Harmes, Sparrow, M.Brown

SUB: Dunstan

I think we struggled against Gold Coast because we didn't go with what worked against the Bulldogs and that was McDonald to CHB and Brayshaw to the back flank. Tomlinson got beaten one on one by Chol too many times when I think McDonald wouldn't have been beaten as easily and it allows the inform Mitch.Brown to come in as the 7th forward. He would be getting a game at any other club with his form ATM except us but if we make a little adjustment and dropped Tomlinson and put McDonald to CHB Mitch.Brown could get his chance.

Not saying Mitch Brown didn’t have a good game but I think it’s important for those who have watched none of the Casey game to realise the following

- not all his goals were hard earned I’d say the majority were from free kicks or delivered on a plate from a team mate - at least one arguably two from the much maligned Weed

- the quality of the opposition was pretty average so this doesn’t automatically translate to AFL level 

I’m not opposed to him getting a chance at some point and 7 goals, coupled with some good positioning and handy marks warrants attention from the selectors. However, dropping players who demonstrate an ability to do their job is not the way this coaching team goes about selection - it may not be obvious to us but I’d say no change unless somebody has not followed instructions 

TMac is safe for now imo 

28 minutes ago, Sydee said:

Not saying Mitch Brown didn’t have a good game but I think it’s important for those who have watched none of the Casey game to realise the following

- not all his goals were hard earned I’d say the majority were from free kicks or delivered on a plate from a team mate - at least one arguably two from the much maligned Weed

- the quality of the opposition was pretty average so this doesn’t automatically translate to AFL level 

I’m not opposed to him getting a chance at some point and 7 goals, coupled with some good positioning and handy marks warrants attention from the selectors. However, dropping players who demonstrate an ability to do their job is not the way this coaching team goes about selection - it may not be obvious to us but I’d say no change unless somebody has not followed instructions 

TMac is safe for now imo 

All good points Sydee.

That said, brown was terrific - clunked some good marks and took his chances.

He is such a smart footballer. 

Weed must have had mixed emotions watching brown go to work.

To be fair to weed Brown played deep as a true full forward, which is really weed's natural position.

Weed played higher up the ground and spent plenty of time in the ruck.

The Casey set up is largely a mirror of the senior's set up in terms of players playing specific roles.

Which is super smart in terms of players ready to slot into the system, in the event of injury, and play a designated role in that system.

For example, daw is gawn and rosman is langdon. 

Using that idea, Brown played the bb role, JVR the tmac role (contesting, bringing the ball to ground, blocking and screening for Brown etc) - and weed the Jackson role ie high forward, relief ruck, up and down the ground.

I think it is a good role for weed, in part because I reckon he is a pretty good ruck, but it also means when he is in the ruck he is in the game.

The downside is, like has often been the case for Jackson, the role doesn't lend itself to getting high possession numbers or bags of goals.

So, a tough gig for weed. Hopefully he embraces it and it helps him address some of weaknesses, for example inconsistent intensity levels.

 

 

Edited March 28, 20223 yr by binman

19 hours ago, rjay said:

Don't be surprised to see Howes make his debut this week...

why?