deanox

@Jaded No Moreand @BritishDemonFan in his presser Goodwin described Hibberd as our only injury concern and said he got subbed out because of soreness in the achillies again. He noted we had a short week to next Saturdays game so would need to be assessed.

One of the hardest parts of this question is whether a player gets named based on their whole career, or how they performed at their peak. If it's the former, it often tends to favour some older posts with complete careers! I reckon for the era it's a pretty good crack though, well done. I'd think Hibbo might give Rivers a run for that spot, Fritsch for Bruce as Wells mentioned, and I'd probably give Langdon the nod on the wing over Green (move to the bench over Brown). Great job.

The key forwards right now are JVR, Petty, McDonald. We've effectively swapped JVR and Petty for Max and Brown, but as a result are playing shorter in defence. It will be very interesting to see what happens. Agree RE Salem not being auto best 22, if the others are playing well. There are only a couple of best 22s tbh the rest are truly on form. I just really hope that we play guys like JJ and Sparrow ahead of Harmes and Melksham as much as possible. It's imperative we retain that group from a list profile perspective. Oliver is 26 late this season so has years to go. Below Oliver is a 2.5 year gap to Petty, the next oldest regular player, and the next group are aged: Petty, Spargo, Chandler (all 23), Sparrow, Jordan (both 22), Pickett, Rivers (both 21). Personally think it is crucial we keep that group of 7 so that we don't have a big drop off in 5 years with a dearth of experience. Younger than that we have good prospects (Turner, JVR, Jefferson, Bowey, McVee) but this group probably have another 2-4 years before they start "looking for opportunities" if they aren't playing enough.

Freo sitting 1-3 (lucky win after injuries plagued WCE) and have this the next few weeks: GCS (in Adelaide) Dogs (Home) Brisbane (away) Hawthorn (Home) Sydney (away) Geelong (home) Melbourne (away) If they are better than 3-8 I'd be surprised. Could be as bad as 2-9 is the Sun's get them this week in Adelaide.

He had a great game, and is super stiff but when I look at the 22 it's really hard to drop someone ahead of him, with Sparrow being the only option. With Gawn a walk up start to come back in, I suspect that a small forward (either Spargo or Chandler) will make way as well. Salem is going to add significant pressure to Hibbert, Bowery, Rivers or McVee as well. I do think it is particularly important to make sure that the young guys get as many games as possible to ensure we keep the depth and the list profile/renewal. Sparrow and JJ in particular need to play as often as possible so they are there and ready. Losing them will put a hole in our list profile long term.

Laughed out loud at this, thankyou!

Here you go.

I'm going to counter by suggesting that Goodwin has always been innovative and flexible, but he is also an astute judge of whether the flexibility would work. It's possible that the type of flexibility punters were calling for would have caused worse results! The times when he was called "inflexible" have been when we've had key players injured or out of form and he was inflexible for "not bringing in players players from Casey". Maybe he made judgements that an injured Gawn is a better option than a bball rookie, or an out of form TMac was more likely to find form than a first year undersized kid. Other times he's been called inflexible have been when he sticks with a game plan the players have learnt for 3 years, hoping that the work with pay off, instead of throwing it out and hoping they'll catch on to something new in a single week. What some people call inflexible or stubborn, others might call pragmatic, realistic and risk based. In a game of percentages at the elite level, Hail Mary's rarely pay off

Just FYI I'm pretty sure the goal assist and the 2 goals all count as score involvements.

Fritsch weak in the contest. Magic from Oliver. Fritsch does what he does best with a classic finish. 🤷

I agree with you on the inconsistency, I just think the rule is the right one. If they paid it just a little more often, the behaviour would disappear entirely.

Should be paid. But we know big names get away with everything.

And people complaining about Clarry not being damaging enough despite having heaps of it, leading our metres gained and contested possessions and scored involvements including kicking a couple of goals.

I think throwing him back for match ups is ok. They have 3 tall forwards, although only started with two on field. If we put him back to cover the third, I've no problem with that change, wouldn't think it was admitting defeat.

Wondering if we'll throw Petty back to manage the height down back while the midfield battle is on their favour/balanced.

Great idea. The don't talk to the ref at all. If they do the ref calls the captain over and puts them on notice. Off field? No comment on whether the are great blokes ornrole models. But if they can control their language and behaviour on field, so can AFL players.

Don't argue with or abuse umpires (including body language) or it will mean a free kick or 50 is paid against you. Simple. If you disagree, that's a you problem.

Heat of the moment as an excuse is such a red flag. Road rage? Physical threats in a pub? Any other situation in life? None of it is acceptable, and it's not needed on a football field. If professional rugby players can control themselves, but you think it is verbal and physical aggressive and arguing is an auto response that should be allowed, then that seems like a you problem. Not true at all. Any behaviour (including language) that is insulting, intimidating, or abusive can be awarded a free kick. Body language can fit in this, and the AFL made it clear it does.

Yup, if you can't play without being aggressive or abusive or complaining then it's a you issue, not a rule issue.

Nah. It's easy not to whinge or complain or criticize umpires on field. Rugby players manage it just fine. Open your mouth or physically show disent, and it's a free or 50. Easy.

Ok I've been thinking about the changes this week and what that means for our composition and structure. We are 3 talls out (Gawn, Tomlinson, McDonald) for 2 talls in (JVR, May). Positionally, we effectively have 3 tall forward, 3 tall back and 1 ruck. Sydney have also named: 3 tall forwards (Franklin, McDonald, Amartey), 3 tall defenders (Blakey, McCartin, McCartin) and 1 ruck (Ladhams). Sydney have played a fast moving game, using lots of run. I can't help but feel we have deliberately tried to match that and make sure we aren't too tall, and slow around the ground.

It's pretty amazing isn't it? Selwyn said we had an "aggressive approach to rehabilitation" and I guess that's what we're seeing?

I feel like the public statement of dropping to make him an emergency is worse than telling us about an injury, don't you?

They've named him as an emergency, so definitely dropped not rested or soft dropped.

The named bench includes no talls (except TMac) so if May is a late out he is being replaced by Hibberd probably. Or are we allowed to bring someone into the 26 if there is a withdrawal? If so, what's the point of naming emergencies? I can't keep up.