deanox

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.

It's an interesting challenge for a team challenging and with a good squad like we have. We want to make sure there are enough younger kids coming through to balance the profile. So really, one to two recruits who push into the 22 each year is the return we want. So in some ways loading up on a top pick is a good strategy for a team like us, provided the recruit will fill a current list gap or pending retirement.

This is a ridiculous post. They will have played three sides most picked to be bottom 4, and we will have played two top 4 and one (expected) top 8 sides. We had the hardest first three weeks out of all teams. Freo had the easiest. With Adelaide and GCS to come in round 4 and 5, unless they are 2-3 they are in serious trouble. Remember, their return games are against: Brisbane, Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney, West Coast, Western Bulldogs. Their fixture isn't getting easier.

At 0-2 and having lost to St Kilda and North, they are looking precarious. With that start it is a rare season that makes finals. But even if they do improve, it would be unprecedented to make top 4 from here, which is a massive win for us.

I think Jackson has the potential to be a star, but likely will carve out a solid career as a regular player who never quite achieves his lofty potential. Having moved to Freo there is also a chance the added pressure will be too much ala Tom Boyd. There is a risk they move him on of he doesn't perform quickly and they need to clear cap space.