Ouch! Maxy sledging us 🫣

 

 

My biggest concerns for the game is do we have good enough defensive forwards to stop Ash and Whitfield running out and setting up their run off half back. And who plays on their small forwards in Greene, Daniels and Jones. 
 

I think their midfield is good enough to setup and nullify any real advantage Gawn has in the ruck. I think we will lose unfortunately. 

4 minutes ago, ANG13 said:

My biggest concerns for the game is do we have good enough defensive forwards to stop Ash and Whitfield running out and setting up their run off half back. And who plays on their small forwards in Greene, Daniels and Jones. 
 

I think their midfield is good enough to setup and nullify any real advantage Gawn has in the ruck. I think we will lose unfortunately. 

Ash had a very good game yesterday but he's typically a poor decision maker and a butcher, you want the ball in his hands!

16 minutes ago, ANG13 said:

My biggest concerns for the game is do we have good enough defensive forwards to stop Ash and Whitfield running out and setting up their run off half back. And who plays on their small forwards in Greene, Daniels and Jones. 
 

I think their midfield is good enough to setup and nullify any real advantage Gawn has in the ruck. I think we will lose unfortunately. 

I get where you are coming from but I personally despise the term “defensive forward” . All forwards should be expected to defend when it is their turn. I want manic pressure from all forwards to force that turnover. What I really want though is forwards that know where the big sticks are. We need to find ways to score more. This defence obsession that we have in my opinion is holding us back. Not dismissing the importance of defence at all but as a club over the last few years we  have put little to no value in offence and we are going backwards and have done so since our premiership. 
I hope with the change in coaching personnel comes a change in our philosophy and game style. Time will tell. 

We historically struggle against fast sides who play the corridor with run and apply manic pressure when they dont have it. Couple that with our ability to then under pressure dump kick to quality interceptors when they have Taylor this will be a challenge. Hopefully we name a fit and fast side and play smaller at both ends. Win the contest and manage their swarm then we are a good chance as long as we lead early. Coming up round 1 against a team who have already got a true game of match fitness under their belt will hurt us in the last. 

4 hours ago, Dannyz said:

The issue with locking it inside the forward 80 is the game becomes a cluster and the forwards have no space to work in!

Yes, and the game today is built around counter attacking brutally from a congested backline with a series of 1-1s and using running power to turn those 1-1s into 3-1s in seconds.

1 minute ago, rpfc said:

Yes, and the game today is built around counter attacking brutally from a congested backline with a series of 1-1s and using running power to turn those 1-1s into 3-1s in seconds.

The game may well be built around running it out of the backline. However when you have a very strong midfield as we do and Gawn has no serious opponent against a team that can likely out run us I'd play lock it up football in the front half.

On 03/03/2025 at 23:36, WERRIDEE said:

What's wrong with having 3 talls and a second ruck? Carlton have McKay, Curnow and Kemp as 3 talls and have De Koning and Pittonet as 2 ruckman it can work.

That's two absolute gun talls, one of whom routinely pushes up the ground to provide defensive cover, plus Kemp is more of a Hibberd type and can swing all over the ground. De Koning is a ruck who can move forward at any time and Pittonet is an expert at forcing a heavy wrestling and bullocking load from opposition rucks.

Put more simply, the number of talls you use looks very different when it includes two contenders for the Coleman Medal.

So from our practice match we have Petty coming in, anyone else?

Out - Kozzi, Adams, TMac?, Langford (needs a run at Casey imo), Woey

Does that make 22?

The sub to come from the outs. Langford would be a handy sub

I can imagine a lot will want Billings out given his goal kicking but I think we need some senior players there to support our kids and his link play is generally good

56 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

The game may well be built around running it out of the backline. However when you have a very strong midfield as we do and Gawn has no serious opponent against a team that can likely out run us I'd play lock it up football in the front half.

Based on how we played in 2022-24, you could write a script on how this game is going to be played. We dominate hit outs, CPs and clearances, resulting in a high number of inside 50s and time spent in our forward half, but with low quality shots on goal leading to an inaccurate score. The Giants often enough will break through our zone with pace and run and generate easier shots on goal. 

I think the idea of our pre-season has been to work out how to avoid this from happening. This week is probably our first look at seeing what we’ve done to address it. 

39 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Based on how we played in 2022-24, you could write a script on how this game is going to be played. We dominate hit outs, CPs and clearances, resulting in a high number of inside 50s and time spent in our forward half, but with low quality shots on goal leading to an inaccurate score. The Giants often enough will break through our zone with pace and run and generate easier shots on goal. 

I think the idea of our pre-season has been to work out how to avoid this from happening. This week is probably our first look at seeing what we’ve done to address it. 

Whether we tweaked the plan or not we simply can't go with the sides that run and spread better than we can. We have to force a forward half territory game and hope we can find targets inside 50 who can kick goals. The other method is to just run and spread and hope the kicks and handballs find their mark. When they don't we have to have numbers to force a contest and run back to defend. It's just not how we play though.

Expected score

11.22.88

10.6.66

39 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Based on how we played in 2022-24, you could write a script on how this game is going to be played. We dominate hit outs, CPs and clearances, resulting in a high number of inside 50s and time spent in our forward half, but with low quality shots on goal leading to an inaccurate score. The Giants often enough will break through our zone with pace and run and generate easier shots on goal. 

I think the idea of our pre-season has been to work out how to avoid this from happening. This week is probably our first look at seeing what we’ve done to address it. 

100% agree 

The Fremantle practice match saw our 2022-23 strengths on display (winning CP, more inside 50s, territory etc.) but also our 2022-23 weaknesses (getting scored against on transition going back the other way, poor conversion)

Improvement in 2025 will mean better conversion when we’re winning territory (partly by getting higher quality shots on goal) while minimising the opposition’s ability to run the ball down the field (more fwd 50 and around the ground pressure)  

GWS is almost the perfect litmus test for us - I can’t wait 

Toby got hit with 2 charges, neither resulting in a suspension.  

Dam

12 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Toby got hit with 2 charges, neither resulting in a suspension.  

Dam

Gosh. His third such kneeing offence and it’s a fine. 

Edited March 10Mar 10 by sue

5 minutes ago, sue said:

Gosh. His third such kneeing offence and it’s a fine. 

The AFL want GWS to have a good year. 

7 hours ago, deejammin' said:

I still remember how good we were for three quarters against GWS last year with no Trac, half fit Clarry, no Salem, Max returning from injury, Windsor looking tired and sore and Lever on one leg. They only beat us by two points as Hogan got on top of TMac for five minutes and they piled on the goals. We were 5 goals up at quarter time.

This is winnable, especially with a fit Trac, Clayton, Max and Lever. McVee being injured hurts us as he put a warm blanket on Toby Green last time and our record without Kozzie in the team is pretty woeful, Melksham, ANW and ANB were also important last time. But the additions of Langford, XL, Petty back and Sharp give me hope that we can hold our own. Also Max against no recognised ruckman must be exploited and could be the key. 

Dees by 5 goals.

Agree with all that except your prediction and the McVee and T Greene comment. Greene got a hold of us last time with 3 goals and 16 touches.

Definitely agree with your comment about Kozzie for sure.

Edited March 10Mar 10 by Bring-Back-Powell

I do not think we will see too many changes.

probably only 2 of 

XL,  HL,  sharp or one of AJ or TC. To help max, be amazed if they make much more, 

more interesting who will be the sub. 
can imagine HL coming on at the last break , full time on the ball.  Might happen.  
we can win. Keep positive 

Have to tag Sam Taylor somehow, a player on him as though the roles are completely reversed.

Gee the game has changed.

35 minutes ago, sue said:

Gosh. His third such kneeing offence and it’s a fine. 

Perhaps justice has been served?🤮

7 hours ago, sisso said:

Who is the Giants back up ruckman anyway I have no idea…?

Wadey Derkenson!

5 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Wadey Derkenson!

Keefe.

Don't think Gawn gets a chop out because Briggs is out...

GWS remind me of a very unsociable 80s Hawthorn side atm

Kingsley will no doubt get all in Sundry to get stuck in to Gawn, despite his probable 50+ hit outs

35 minutes ago, 640MD said:

I do not think we will see too many changes.

probably only 2 of 

XL,  HL,  sharp or one of AJ or TC. To help max, be amazed if they make much more, 

more interesting who will be the sub. 
can imagine HL coming on at the last break , full time on the ball.  Might happen.  
we can win. Keep positive 

We had 26 for the practice match so we need to drop 4 in addition to Petty coming in for Kozzi. 

then pick a sub

No chance of Sharp or AJ being dropped imo

4 minutes ago, DubDee said:

We had 26 for the practice match so we need to drop 4 in addition to Petty coming in for Kozzi. 

then pick a sub

No chance of Sharp or AJ being dropped imo

Yes I;m sure Kingsley will target Max, I would seriously go with Tom Campbell and spring a surprise and play Max for periods of time forward! That might prove interesting for Kingsley to counter!

2 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Yes I;m sure Kingsley will target Max, I would seriously go with Tom Campbell and spring a surprise and play Max for periods of time forward! That might prove interesting for Kingsley to counter!

can the grey nomad play forward though?