View Full Version : Changes for the Grand Final vs Sydney
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 19:12
IN: Wirrpanda
OUT: Waters
Waters looked like he had buggered his ankle.
Waters just had cramp in my opinion
Goldenblue
23 Sep 2006, 19:44
Word going around it is cramp.....
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 19:44
Waters just had cramp in my opinion
Really?
OK.
Who should we drop for Wirrpanda?
A lot of people will point to Armstrong.
I reckon Armstrong is better than RoJo.
macca69
23 Sep 2006, 19:46
In - Wirra and Sampi
Wirra is an automatic selection. A lot of people may disagree with the Sampi call, but we desperatley needed him today IMO. Not only in him kicking goals and setting up goals, but his opponent rarely gets a lot of the ball despite his lack of fitness. Johncok got a ****load of the ball today, he rarely plays well against Sampi and he wouldn't have been nearly as effective today if he was on Sampi. The ball often hit the deck in our forwardline, and while Armstrong was ok, Sampi just has cleaner hands, better agility and a better goal sense of a natural forward. If Nicoski is fit he could be a chance also.
Out - Graham, Banfield
Graham doesn't have a matchup against the Swans. And we don't want to go in too tall against them. Very harsh to drop Banners, but he was a bit out of touch today and made a few basic errors, also can't find a matchup for him either.
Kaitsey
23 Sep 2006, 19:46
dont drop army!!! he tackled superbly today.
drop......rojo hahaha nah i dont know.
Sampi is injured macca69. Knee injury and is out for the year hence why he isnt even a emergency anymore and why he aint playing vs Subi tomorrow
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 19:48
In - Wirra and SampiWe're not going to bring Sampi in.
Surely.
Graham out?. No way. If we do that they will simply play Jolly or Doyle down forward, then who do we play on them. We would have to move Hunter away from the forward line.
jorel6669
23 Sep 2006, 19:52
The Pund in. Probably for Banfield.
Under the pump will be:
Banfield, Rojo, Armstrong, Graham.
Banfield for the Pund is a straight swap.
Rojo works hard in the forward line but is a terrible set shot.
Armstrong works hard but can go missing. Worth a shot given we have no other small forwards.
Graham has no match up, but reads the play well. Could be the unlucky one.
One thing's for sure. Bones and Seaby WILL play. If Waters is injured, then The Pund just comes straight back in, you'd think.
macca69
23 Sep 2006, 19:52
We're not going to bring Sampi in.
Surely.
I don't think we will, but that was our main weakness today. I would bring him in, but I can't see it happening.
I reckon Armstrong is better than RoJo.
6 touches today and just doesn't look upto it when the pressure's on. If anyone's going out it's Armstrong.
macca69
23 Sep 2006, 19:55
Graham out?. No way. If we do that they will simply play Jolly or Doyle down forward, then who do we play on them. We would have to move Hunter away from the forward line.
Jolly and Doyle very rarely play forward. If they did for 5 minutes a quater maybe Hunter could be thrown back, but we can't pick a player on the off chance an oppoosition player will play in a certain position. What happens if they don't go forward? What happens to Graham then?
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 19:56
6 touches today and just doesn't look upto it when the pressure's on. If anyone's going out it's Armstrong.But we need that presence at ground level inside our forward 50.
Even if Armstrong doesn't do much, we need a guy whose sole task is to apply ground-level pressure I50.
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 19:57
Jolly and Doyle very rarely play forward. If they did for 5 minutes a quater maybe Hunter could be thrown back, but we can't pick a player on the off chance an oppoosition player will play in a certain position. What happens if they don't go forward? What happens to Graham then?Graham will stay in.
If we want to play Hunter forward, then we're going to need an extra tall to support Glass and Bones.
If it's just those guys, then we'll be clearly undersized, and that will be an invitation for one of Jolly or Doyle to push forward.
Jolly and Doyle very rarely play forward. If they did for 5 minutes a quater maybe Hunter could be thrown back, but we can't pick a player on the off chance an oppoosition player will play in a certain position. What happens if they don't go forward? What happens to Graham then?
Throw him up forward and play him as a decoy out of the square maybe. I like Lynch and Hansen patrollong CHF line with Hunts in the square and maybe Graham there. Glass would need a rest aswell as would Brett Jones assuming he plays on O Loughlin.
TheBigUnit
23 Sep 2006, 19:58
IN: Wirrpanda
OUT: Rojo (I'm not a hater of his, but the guy has ZERO confidence in his ability)
BTW is Sampi playing tomorrow?
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 20:00
Throw him up forward and play him as a decoy out of the square maybe. I like Lynch and Hansen patrollong CHF line with Hunts in the square and maybe Graham there.How many talls do you want to play in our forward line?
That will play right into Sydney's hands.
They'll bring the ball to ground and just run it off HB. That's what they always do. That's their trademark.
But you want to load our forward-line with talls.
macca69
23 Sep 2006, 20:03
Graham will stay in.
If we want to play Hunter forward, then we're going to need an extra tall to support Glass and Bones.
If it's just those guys, then we'll be clearly undersized, and that will be an invitation for one of Jolly or Doyle to push forward.
They won't play there for large periods of time, and Hunter will be able to run off them anyway. Wouldn't be a good idea if they go down there for a rest and end up having to chase Hunter all over the ground.
How many talls do you want to play in our forward line?
That will play right into Sydney's hands.
They'll bring the ball to ground and just run it off HB. That's what they always do. That's their trademark.
But you want to load our forward-line with talls.
Nope I want Hansen to play well out of the forward line and Graham to lead way out of the 50 leaving Lynch and Hunter as the two main players in the 50.
Stenglein's a Champ!
23 Sep 2006, 20:09
What about Nicoski? The Eagles asked Peter German to play him for Subi in the WAFL GF. Surely they'd only do this if they were considering him.
Or maybe it's because Woosh is a Bulldog. hrmmmmm
thecoastingcoaster
23 Sep 2006, 20:12
If Armstrong is dropped then Wirrupanda will have to play forward.
Fletcher is walking on thin ice, I'd definetley prefer Armstrong over him.
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 20:12
Nope I want Hansen to play well out of the forward line and Graham to lead way out of the 50 leaving Lynch and Hunter as the two main players in the 50.Yeah - I'm sure we'll just have an open forward line with Hunter and Lynch one-out.
Yeah - I'm sure we'll just have an open forward line with Hunter and Lynch one-out.
What would you do with Graham?
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 20:16
They won't play there for large periods of time, and Hunter will be able to run off them anyway.Why not?
If we push Hunter forward, that would be the obvious move from Paul Roos.
With Glass and Bones taking Hall and O'Loughlin, why wouldn't Roos throw an extra tall forward?
Who would we play on them? Chick? Stenglein? Waters?
Suddenly Woosha would be torn between playing Hunter back to cover an obvious mismatch or playing him forward where he can actually win us the game.
If you want Hunter to spent a significant amount of time forward (which seems like a pretty good idea after today), then Graham has to play.
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 20:20
What would you do with Graham?Depending on how the Swans line-up, I'd be using him to plug holes in defence whenever Roos pushes a third tall forward.
I'd start Hunter forward - bugger this crap about him only being good as a pinch-hitter.
I'd start Glass on Hall. Bones on O'Loughlin. Chick on O'Keefe.
Hunter, Lynch and Hansen start forward.
Graham can start on the bench. If Goodes pushes forward, or one of the ruckmen rest there, then that's Graham's match-up.
He might not be required for that much of the game.
But if we don't play Graham, then we'll risk being either undersized in defence or having to use Hunter in defence rather than forward.
Jack Bauer
23 Sep 2006, 20:20
I am hoping Nicoski plays well for Subi tomorrow and then gets a nod for the Grand Final in place of Chad Fletcher who has been piss weak.
Wirrapanda will come in for sure maybe for Waters if he is injured.
CARN EAGLES!
Depending on how the Swans line-up, I'd be using him to plug holes in defence whenever Roos pushes a third tall forward.
I'd start Hunter forward - bugger this crap about him only being good as a pinch-hitter.
I'd start Glass on Hall. Bones on O'Loughlin. Chick on O'Keefe.
Hunter, Lynch and Hansen start forward.
Graham can start on the bench. If Goodes pushes forward, or one of the ruckmen rest there, then that's Graham's match-up.
He might not be required for that much of the game.
But if we don't play Graham, then we'll risk being either undersized in defence or having to use Hunter in defence rather than forward.
Then were stuck with 2 talls starting on the bench, which certainly isnt ideal.
macca69
23 Sep 2006, 20:22
Why not?
If we push Hunter forward, that would be the obvious move from Paul Roos.
With Glass and Bones taking Hall and O'Loughlin, why wouldn't Roos throw an extra tall forward?
Who would we play on them? Chick? Stenglein? Waters?
Suddenly Woosha would be torn between playing Hunter back to cover an obvious mismatch or playing him forward where he can actually win us the game.
If you want Hunter to spent a significant amount of time forward (which seems like a pretty good idea after today), then Graham has to play.
Where does Graham play then if you pick him? Like I said Doyle and Jolly RARELY play forward and they'd be less likely to if Graham played. Roos likes an open forwardline and will back his 3 or 4 forwards to kick a winning score, eithout Jolly or Doyle going forward.
If we drop Graham and Doyle does move forward, then why not move Hunter back and tell him to run off him? There's no way he'll be able to run with Hunter, he'll be able to exploit them more so than he did with Chris Grant.
No point playing Graham on the off chance Roos throws an extra tall forward, we need someone like Sampi/Nicoski who will contribute to the side.
Where does Graham play then if you pick him? Like I said Doyle and Jolly RARELY play forward and they'd be less likely to if Graham played. Roos likes an open forwardline and will back his 3 or 4 forwards to kick a winning score, eithout Jolly or Doyle going forward.
If we drop Graham and Doyle does move forward, then why not move Hunter back and tell him to run off him? There's no way he'll be able to run with Hunter, he'll be able to exploit them more so than he did with Chris Grant.
No point playing Graham on the off chance Roos throws an extra tall forward, we need someone like Sampi/Nicoski who will contribute to the side.
You make a good point there, but damn itd be hard to tell Graham he is out. He was real good today. IMO Its easier to just play Hunts in defence and have him run down to the forward line. Maybe switch Hunter Graham from forward to back
Decisions decisions
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 20:27
Where does Graham play then if you pick him? Like I said Doyle and Jolly RARELY play forward and they'd be less likely to if Graham played.Goodes will go forward at some point.
If we've got Hunter, Lynch and Hansen in our forward-line, then why wouldn't Roos push an extra tall deep to the goal-square?
It would be an obvious mismatch against whoever we played on them, and we'd be forced to pull Hunter back to cover.
Graham has to play to allow Hunter to spend the entire game in attack.
That's as clear as day to me.
macca69
23 Sep 2006, 20:29
Here's an alternative to dropping Graham. Why not drop Seaby and let Lynch play back up ruck for 5 minutes a quater. Wouldn't be ideal, but we wouldn't really loose our structure with Hunter at FF and would create a more open forwardline. I'd prefer to leave Graham out, but Seaby wasn't too flash today and it may be an option.
Goodes will go forward at some point.
If we've got Hunter, Lynch and Hansen in our forward-line, then why wouldn't Roos push an extra tall deep to the goal-square?
It would be an obvious mismatch against whoever we played on them, and we'd be forced to pull Hunter back to cover.
Graham has to play to allow Hunter to spend the entire game in attack.
That's as clear as day to me.
Could Graham play on Hall giving Glass a rest every now and then. Hall is the hardest working forward there is and Glass might need a break. Id love to play Bones on OKeefe and someone else on O Loughlin. Maybe Graham. Michael Johnson did ok on O Loughlin when he was moved onto him during the game
Here's an alternative to dropping Graham. Why not drop Seaby and let Lynch play back up ruck for 5 minutes a quater. Wouldn't be ideal, but we wouldn't really loose our structure with Hunter at FF and would create a more open forwardline. I'd prefer to leave Graham out, but Seaby wasn't too flash today and it may be an option.
Dont you remember what happened two weeks ago
macca69
23 Sep 2006, 20:32
Goodes will go forward at some point.
If we've got Hunter, Lynch and Hansen in our forward-line, then why wouldn't Roos push an extra tall deep to the goal-square?
It would be an obvious mismatch against whoever we played on them, and we'd be forced to pull Hunter back to cover.
Graham has to play to allow Hunter to spend the entire game in attack.
That's as clear as day to me.
why can't Stenglein play on Goodes when he goes forward?
macca69
23 Sep 2006, 20:33
Dont you remember what happened two weeks ago
yeh but Hunter was playing FB that day, if Hunter plays FF we'll still have 2 talls up forward, which is the same structure we've had all year.
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 20:35
why can't Stenglein play on Goodes when he goes forward?Goodes is too good overhead for Stinger.
We need Graham as an insurance policy that will allow Hunter to play forward permanently.
If Graham isnt in the side, then we will be torn between using Hunter forward and throwing him back to cover any mismatches that arise.
Graham will be in the team. He's missed one game for the year. I don't think he's the guy who is really on the chopping block.
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 20:37
Id love to play Bones on OKeefe and someone else on O Loughlin. Maybe Graham.This is crazy talk.
Glass on Hall.
Bones on O'Loughlin.
Chick on O'Keefe.
Those are so clearly our best match-ups for Sydney's three best forwards.
macca69
23 Sep 2006, 20:43
Goodes is too good overhead for Stinger.
We need Graham as an insurance policy that will allow Hunter to play forward permanently.
If Graham isnt in the side, then we will be torn between using Hunter forward and throwing him back to cover any mismatches that arise.
Graham will be in the team. He's missed one game for the year. I don't think he's the guy who is really on the chopping block.
not true, Stenglein is every bit as good as Goodes overhead and much better than Graham once the ball hits the deck.
Dont count out Teddy Richards. Graham could play on him IMO. Hes not as slow as everyone thinks he kept up with Perrie fine and Perrie is probably faster.
jorel6669
23 Sep 2006, 21:15
Graham doesn't have a match up in defence, unless there's a resting ruckman.
He played on Ian Perrie today. Hall, O'Loughlin and Goodes are so much better than Ian Perrie.
I think a better option is to play him forward, but get him to run whoever he's on into the midfield. It'll likely either be Roberts-Thomson or Reynolds. That will draw out one player from our forward line, and Graham is nimble and has good footskills for a big man. Plus he can take a grab if he drifts forward occassionally.
Play Lynch, Hunter and Hansen forward. Barry can only take one, Roberts-Thomson or Reynolds gets another. They'll be forced to play Bolton on another. Embley can push forward and become a problem then.
We have the pace AND the height. Let's play the game on our terms.
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 22:00
I think a better option is to play him forward, but get him to run whoever he's on into the midfield. It'll likely either be Roberts-Thomson or Reynolds.Who?
Lions43
23 Sep 2006, 22:08
Graham doesn't have a matchup against the Swans. And we don't want to go in too tall against them. Very harsh to drop Banners, but he was a bit out of touch today and made a few basic errors, also can't find a matchup for him either.
I was wondering who'd make way for Wirra and kept coming back to Banfield. Sad end for a fine player but the pace of the game is starting to find him out. Also, why on God's earth did he play on with 1 minute to go and kick it to a one on one? Absolute brain explosion from an experienced player and put you guys in a position you didn't need to be in.
Selwood made some bad errors today but has too many Browny points. R.Jones seems to have a pretty good engine and keeps getting his hands on the ball all around the ground though his disposal is average at best. Still he gets too much ball for mine. I thought B.Jones did some terrific and courageous things today and should keep his spot. Maybe the only other 2 under the microscope would be Graham and Armstrong. The latter was pretty ineffective today....
Really?
OK.
Who should we drop for Wirrpanda?
A lot of people will point to Armstrong.
I reckon Armstrong is better than RoJo.
Sorry totally wrong about Rojo Gunnar IMO. Go and get the todays stats and have a good read of them then watch the replay and have a look at the one percent stuff that this bloke does. Lets just hope that his kicking wont cost us a Grand Final.
Strong rumour Wirra will not come up for the GF, If that's the case no changes my friend.....
But we need that presence at ground level inside our forward 50.
Even if Armstrong doesn't do much, we need a guy whose sole task is to apply ground-level pressure I50.
His sole task isn't to apply ground level pressure. He's a forward pocket whose number 1 task is to kick or create goals. His secondary task is to apply ground-level pressure. Waters, Wirra, Jones, Chick, and our resting midfielders can all do a decent job of creating pressure once the ball hits the ground and can be all swung forward at different stages in the game.
It does amaze me that you think Armstrong's sole task is to apply ground level pressure inside 50. In our three finals to date...
Army had a total of 39 posessions (most in the bulldog bath), kicked 1 goal and had 4 tackles.
Rowan Jones has had 55 touches and 5 tackles.
Jones is way ahead of Armstrong in terms of selection. I don't have the stats but I'll bet Jones is ahead in goal assists aswell.
P.S. Apart from the shocker shot at goal, Jones' disposal today was almost all effective. In the Sydney game he had about 30 touches of which about 3 missed their target. You can not drop Jones the way he's playing this finals series.
Why are some people saying Banners should be dropped. Played a terrific game on Bode today IMO. Will probably be his last game, what a send off that would be if we won:)
section8
23 Sep 2006, 22:53
Why are some people saying Banners should be dropped. Played a terrific game on Bode today IMO. Will probably be his last game, what a send off that would be if we won:)
Banners will be exposed in the clinches by the Swans. I don't think he's quick enough physically or mentally anymore.
wce4premiership
23 Sep 2006, 22:55
In: Wirra
Out: banfield (i hate to say it but it is either him or rojo, banfield is defence though)
Gunnar Longshanks
23 Sep 2006, 23:00
Sorry totally wrong about Rojo Gunnar IMO. Go and get the todays stats and have a good read of them then watch the replay and have a look at the one percent stuff that this bloke does.I'm looking at the stats sheet and I've already watched a replay.
RoJo is still a dud.
We can't continue to carry so many players with sub-standard footskills.
That missed set-shot - seriously - you can't keep those guys around.
RoJo doesn't play deep in defence. He's not quick enough to play in the midfield. He plays as a defensive HFF. But if he simply can't convert from any set shot, then he shouldn't be there.
bunsen burner
23 Sep 2006, 23:04
Thought Banfield was good today. If Wirra comes in I'd look at dropping Fletcher. Passenger.
Seaby has to play. Tall as **** and can take a grab in the goal square.
I'd like Graham to play too. I'd like an extra man in defence when Sydney flood. 3 men to take O'loughlin and Hall when they're the only Swans in their fwd 50.
Banfield was pretty good today. Needs to think a bit quicker now that he hasn't got so much pace. We need Graham if Hunter is going to go forward a bit. Wirra will come back in, so we can't drop a tall (Brett Jones safe). It's between Armstrong and RoJo really, and I know who i'd prefer.
Hint: It ain't RoJo. Can you imagine if he missed that shot after the siren in the GF?
I'm looking at the stats sheet and I've already watched a replay.
RoJo is still a dud.
We can't continue to carry so many players with sub-standard footskills.
That missed set-shot - seriously - you can't keep those guys around.
RoJo doesn't play deep in defence. He's not quick enough to play in the midfield. He plays as a defensive HFF. But if he simply can't convert from any set shot, then he shouldn't be there.
Not sure which replay you were watching but it certainly wasn't todays game. Apart from the occassional shot at goal his clangers are minimal.
If a player has to go this week for Wirra it will be Graham or Banners theres simply no matchup for either player. Armstrong gives us defensive pressure in attack and there's no other player apart from chick that gives us that. I would love to say Fletcher has to go but that wont happen.
Eagle_boy
24 Sep 2006, 00:16
IMHO Fletcher has had another poor final series, he played as a permanent forward today and was outclassed by Johncock, Wirra (if fit) to replace Fletcher although it will be a tough decision either way.
imright
24 Sep 2006, 00:19
Not sure which replay you were watching but it certainly wasn't todays game. Apart from the occassional shot at goal his clangers are minimal.
If a player has to go this week for Wirra it will be Graham or Banners theres simply no matchup for either player. Armstrong gives us defensive pressure in attack and there's no other player apart from chick that gives us that. I would love to say Fletcher has to go but that wont happen.
RJones had 3 opportunities in the first half to shoot for goal and didn't end up with anything. That last quarter stuff up from 12 metres out from goal was exactly what you expect from RJones. That sort of miss is morale shattering to the team, considering the brilliant work that Judd did to get him that shot on goal.
In finals when goals are like diamonds you can't afford to carry a forward that can't execute a fundamental skill such as kicking.
me thinks unchanged..
wirra may not come up or be risked if he's not 100%...if hes dropped you drop banners probably
Au_Blue#24
24 Sep 2006, 01:03
me thinks unchanged..
wirra may not come up or be risked if he's not 100%...if hes dropped you drop banners probably
I was in subi wednesday. Wirra ran past me at a fairly convincing rate- he'll be right
Wirra will play. Unfortunately the axe may fall on Banners :(
Gunnar Longshanks
24 Sep 2006, 02:29
Not sure which replay you were watching but it certainly wasn't todays game. Apart from the occassional shot at goal his clangers are minimal.His clangers were minimal because he no longer has enough confidence to kick the ball.
Yeah great - let's take him into a GF.
If a player has to go this week for Wirra it will be Graham or Banners theres simply no matchup for either player.And who is RoJo's match-up?
Or do we play him in the forward-line despite the fact that we all know he's the worst kick for goal in our team?
Graham can take Goodes, Jolly or Richards when they push forward. He basically releases Hunter to play as a forward.
Sydney have plenty of small forwards who Banfield can rotate through. Who are we going to play on Malceski, Buchanan, Schneider and Davis?
Gunnar Longshanks
24 Sep 2006, 02:30
wirra may not come up or be risked if he's not 100%...if hes dropped you drop banners probablyEr - what?
nibbles
24 Sep 2006, 02:59
ease up - he's probably half-pissed still from today... thats if he is legal
i reckon wirra = shoo in
and its a toss up between rojo, army, banners and fletcher out - based on form it should be feltcher out - but it wont happen i dont think, looks like either banners or army will get the chop
The_Eagles
24 Sep 2006, 03:12
any chance of nicoski
See how he goes tomorrow in the WAFL if he plays.
However it's probably unlikely.
I'm looking at the stats sheet and I've already watched a replay.
RoJo is still a dud.
We can't continue to carry so many players with sub-standard footskills.
That missed set-shot - seriously - you can't keep those guys around.
RoJo doesn't play deep in defence. He's not quick enough to play in the midfield. He plays as a defensive HFF. But if he simply can't convert from any set shot, then he shouldn't be there.
Don't be surprised if Jones plays a defensive roll on Kennelly......By the way when analysing players look at the small things that they do because they are the things that win games of footy....
I sense no change.
Wirra is too big a risk for such a big game.
We have a balanced squad so I see no reason for change unless an injury occurs.
But we must drop an extra player back to help out against Hall/O'Loughlin combo!
Wirra may come in....who gets dropped will be very unlucky.....very...
the talls pick themselves....R jones might go....who knows...if wirrpamda is fit he must be picked.......they did say he was close for this game......
bringbackschwarter5
24 Sep 2006, 22:28
Are Nicoski and Staker any chance
weagles_fan
24 Sep 2006, 22:50
Fletcher?
Doesn't put his body on the line even when he can use it to win the ball :mad:
The only player that may get dropped is Armstrong or R Jones....Satker may come in for armstrong if they want another tall but that leaves us short in crumbers....armstrong didnt do a whole lot v crows....was good in the other games though
if they go small wirra may come in for Armstrong.....I like armstrong why...this may sound silly but hes played fair bit of footy on the MCG....and looked good in the tigers game I know it was only tigers but its useful thing all the same....like stenglein looked at ease at AAMI...horses for courses thing
Boy from the West
24 Sep 2006, 23:28
Wirra must come in if fit. I reckon Fletch is the one in the firing line but past actions from the match committee seem to point at Armi or Jaymie G. Don't think Stakes will get back in and Sampi shouldn't. Kicked 3 for SF today but isn't in good enough nick to warrant dropping another of our brave warriors who have got us intio the GF.
I'm praying for a perfect day for footy because I think we are so cherry ripe that we will be able to break the shackles of these Eagles / Swans arm wrestles that go down to the wire and win quite comfortably. yesterday was the danger game and we got through it unscathed.
We are ready!!
This is crazy talk.
Glass on Hall.
Bones on O'Loughlin.
Chick on O'Keefe.
Those are so clearly our best match-ups for Sydney's three best forwards.
Your right Gunner,
silly ideas.
You'd certainly have these matchups as your starting options, and go from there...
Should definately play Graham too, been good all year.
God forbid, could even be used as loose man in defence if needed, although Wirra is probably better suited to this job.
also, I think Rowan Jones should be dropped.
ya can't risk players that can't kick over a jam tin in Grand Finals, and given he is mainly used in a forward role...
Shouldn't drop armstrong unless your gunna replace him with another similar type of player, i.e crumbing/small fwd.
Surprized no one has mentioned LeCras, his last game on the MCG was pretty good as the leading small forward! :-)
However, his last game against the Swans wasn't quite as good! :-)
Probably too big an ask on the kid...
Seeings Woosha seems to love Rowan Jones, the only other option is sadly Banfield. This would be a more "like for like" swap with Wirra.
I swear to god, half of you dont watch the Eagles or even know anything about football.
To suggest dropping Rowan Jones is hilarious!!! Oh he missed a set shot a goal from 10 metres out and everyone on the net says he is crap, let's drop him.
WATCH A FOOTBALL GAME FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!
Rojo is constantly putting his body on the line, tackling, chasing, 1%ers... this stuff is CRUCIAL in finals footy.
Yet some of you are suggesting bringing back Sampi HAHAHAHAH... oh man, I wonder if any of you lot actually watch football.
Anyways to the team. No changes for mine. Only one change needs to be made and that is if Wirrpunda is fit. I hope he comes up because he reads the play so well and zones off his opponent and can get in the way of Hall and O'Loughlin and help our backline. His run out of defence and the way he sets up play for us is massive. Will be a huge "in" if he comes up.
As for who to drop? I keep coming back to Banfield, despite him playing well against Adelaide. Im a sentimental guy though so would rather see him play and drop Armstrong.
Scotland
25 Sep 2006, 00:53
The only player that may get dropped is Armstrong or R Jones....Satker may come in for armstrong if they want another tall but that leaves us short in crumbers....armstrong didnt do a whole lot v crows....was good in the other games though
Armstrong, R Jones, B Jones, Seaby, Graham, Banfield all fall into the category of may be dropped. Personally I would include Fletcher but I am not the match committee, he is safe.
RoJo was great in the QF, Bones was great in the PF and shut down O'Loughlin in Rd 15, they should stay in. Keeping Graham in allows Hunter to move forward.
For mine it'll be one of these three:
IN: Wirrpanda, OUT: Banfield
IN: Wirrpanda, OUT: Armstrong
IN: Wirrpanda, OUT: Seaby
Bringing in Staker, Nicoski or Sampi at this point would be a mistake.
FiveStrings
25 Sep 2006, 01:12
Armstrong, R Jones, B Jones, Seaby, Graham, Banfield all fall into the category of may be dropped. Personally I would include Fletcher but I am not the match committee, he is safe.
RoJo was great in the QF, Bones was great in the PF and shut down O'Loughlin in Rd 15, they should stay in. Keeping Graham in allows Hunter to move forward.
For mine it'll be one of these three:
IN: Wirrpanda, OUT: Banfield
IN: Wirrpanda, OUT: Armstrong
IN: Wirrpanda, OUT: Seaby
Bringing in Staker, Nicoski or Sampi at this point would be a mistake.
No, no, NO. We dropped him for the prelim and Jolly/Doyle killed Lynch/Graham whenever Coxy went off. Seaby has to play, even if he only on for 30 minutes of the game it's worth it.
I think you're right and there's only one possible in, and that's Wirra.
My heart says Banfield has to play. My head says he should go if Wirra comes back in.
If it's not banners, it'll be either Armstrong or Graham depending on whether we go tall or not.
Whoever misses is going to be bloody unlucky.
Scotland
25 Sep 2006, 01:51
No, no, NO. We dropped him for the prelim and Jolly/Doyle killed Lynch/Graham whenever Coxy went off. Seaby has to play, even if he only on for 30 minutes of the game it's worth it.
I think you're right and there's only one possible in, and that's Wirra.
My heart says Banfield has to play. My head says he should go if Wirra comes back in.
If it's not banners, it'll be either Armstrong or Graham depending on whether we go tall or not.
Whoever misses is going to be bloody unlucky.
I agree dropping Seaby would be a big risk, just proposing the likely scenarios. We did only lose to Sydney by a point, and Seaby was barely sighted in the prelim, but I'd prefer him to play 40 minutes in the ruck allowing Cox to drift forward or rest than to chance Cox rucking the whole game (an early injury a la Kerr 05 would kill us) with a few minutes help from Lynch and Graham. Graham isn't experienced enough as a ruckman to match it with the Swans pair, and we need Lynch at full forward.
If Armstrong goes we're down a crumbing option. Tackling and chasing in our forward 50 is crucial. Putting Fletcher in the pocket won't give us that. Putting Seaby in the pocket won't give us that. Army's defensive work against the Swans and Dogs was good, however his game against Adelaide was poor. Chick, Waters or Wirrpanda would have to be used forward during the game in the absence of Armstrong.
Whoever misses is going to be bloody unlucky.
Absolutely. I'd love to see Banners in the side but winning the game comes first. It will be sad if he is dropped (far from guaranteed that he will be) but if it is a case of putting the team before the individual that's about as accurate a description of Banfield as you can get, and I'm sure he'd handle himself like the professional that he is.
quiksilva
25 Sep 2006, 01:54
Such a tough task. Happy Woosha is doing the call.
His sole task isn't to apply ground level pressure. He's a forward pocket whose number 1 task is to kick or create goals. His secondary task is to apply ground-level pressure. Waters, Wirra, Jones, Chick, and our resting midfielders can all do a decent job of creating pressure once the ball hits the ground and can be all swung forward at different stages in the game.
It does amaze me that you think Armstrong's sole task is to apply ground level pressure inside 50. In our three finals to date...
Army had a total of 39 posessions (most in the bulldog bath), kicked 1 goal and had 4 tackles.
Rowan Jones has had 55 touches and 5 tackles.
Jones is way ahead of Armstrong in terms of selection. I don't have the stats but I'll bet Jones is ahead in goal assists aswell.
P.S. Apart from the shocker shot at goal, Jones' disposal today was almost all effective. In the Sydney game he had about 30 touches of which about 3 missed their target. You can not drop Jones the way he's playing this finals series.
Well Gunnar you never responded to my points, but I just thought I'd add the them anyway after watching a replay of the Adelaide game. Armstrongs pressure inside forward 50 was almost non-existant. According to you that's his sole reason for being in the team.
So tell me again why it is he shouldn't be dropped? And should be selected before Jones? You must've been having a laugh, aye?
EDIT: Let us also not forget his inept effort that gifted the ball to Bode halfway through the second quarter, to extend the Crows lead to 16 points.
Gunnar Longshanks
25 Sep 2006, 11:27
By the way when analysing players look at the small things that they do because they are the things that win games of footy....Oh, OK!
Thanks for the tip. Your expertise is so valuable.
When analysing RoJo, I also look at the fact that he can't kick and makes bad decisions.
Those are the things that lose a game of footy.
Gunnar Longshanks
25 Sep 2006, 11:36
Well Gunnar you never responded to my points, but I just thought I'd add the them anyway after watching a replay of the Adelaide game. Armstrongs pressure inside forward 50 was almost non-existant. According to you that's his sole reason for being in the team.
You've slightly distorted what I said, but I'll take it in my stride.
Obviously we need him to create goals.
But ground-level pressure is a major factor.
Saying forward-line pressure was his "sole responsibility" was probably over-stating it.
So tell me again why it is he shouldn't be dropped? And should be selected before Jones? You must've been having a laugh, aye?
I don't think Armstrong should be dropped, because he's our only small forward. He's obviously one of the guys who should be nervous.
I don't think RoJo will be dropped either. I just reckon he's a dud.
That said, he's quite handy in the kind of contests we have against the Swans.
I just think that, beyond this week, we need to look at the handful of guys in our side with sub-standard footskills. I guess my criticisms of RoJo are more long-term than they are about the make-up of our GF side.
Waters sprained his ankle, he should be fine though. Seaby will definetly play by all accords, it does seem to be a battle between Banfield and Graham. Take into account there is a 50/50 chance of rain, in that case then surely Graham goes?
You've slightly distorted what I said, but I'll take it in my stride.
Obviously we need him to create goals.
But ground-level pressure is a major factor.
Saying forward-line pressure was his "sole responsibility" was probably over-stating it.
I don't think Armstrong should be dropped, because he's our only small forward. He's obviously one of the guys who should be nervous.
I don't think RoJo will be dropped either. I just reckon he's a dud.
That said, he's quite handy in the kind of contests we have against the Swans.
I just think that, beyond this week, we need to look at the handful of guys in our side with sub-standard footskills. I guess my criticisms of RoJo are more long-term than they are about the make-up of our GF side.
Beyond this week perhaps, but Rowan Jones is a pretty important cog for this Grand Final. I don't think Armstrong should be dropped either, and believe Banfield will probably get the flick. But to be honest, Sampi for Armstrong wouldn't upset me greatly. Army doesn't quite seem to have what it takes at finals tempo.
Having said I don't think he should be dropped, I wouldn't be surprised to see him make way for Wirra. Like I said earlier, we have plenty of other players who can pinch hit as a small forward and provide just as much as Armstrong can (and certainly more than he has in these finals).
Eagles Crue
25 Sep 2006, 11:54
Bear in mind that Armstrong's old home ground was the G, and his last game there against the Tigers was great.
Obviously GFs are a different kettle of fish, but talk of Sampi replacing him is silly I think.
There is definently no way that we can drop Steven Armstrong. He is our only small forward, and someone earlier made a very agreable statement that he has indeed played plenty of football out on the G with melbourne. It would be a serious mistake to drop him unless they make a straight swap for sampi.
If wirra was to make his way in i think it would have to be graham that gets the flick. To take the sydney talls we already have glass, bones and hunter rotating through with wirra at the fall of the ball. I also wouldn't be suprised if Nickoski came in, his booming left foot and ability to run through the lines could possibly come to be invaluable on grand final day.
After all, woosh is definently thinking about it otherwise they wouldnt have pushed so hard for him to play with suby. A sampi - army swap is possible but i doubt it although i do love sampis 'natural brilliance' around the packs, it again could win us the game.
Gunnar Longshanks
25 Sep 2006, 12:05
If wirra was to make his way in i think it would have to be graham that gets the flick. To take the sydney talls we already have glass, bones and hunter rotating through with wirra at the fall of the ball. I also wouldn't be suprised if Nickoski came in, his booming left foot and ability to run through the lines could possibly come to be invaluable on grand final day.
Hard to see Nicoski coming in. I'd be very surprised to see him recalled.
As for Graham, you reckon we've got enough talls already?
So what happens when Hunter goes forward?
We have Glass on Hall and Bones on O'Loughlin.
All Roos has to do to dictate terms and force Hunter to go back in defence is send Ted Richards forward, or rest Goodes or Jolly in a pocket. With Hunter forward, who plays on these guys if they move into attack?
If we want the option of playing Hunter forward (which we quite obviously want), Graham needs to be in the team. Without him, moving Hunter forward will just be an invitation for Roos to create a mismatch in the Swans' forward-line.
A sampi - army swap is possible but i doubt it although i do love sampis 'natural brilliance' around the packs, it again could win us the game.I would say that's a very remote possibility.
Rosa is more likely to be recalled than sampi.
Id hope they move Goodes forward Gunnar. Get him away from the midfield.... Theyd move Ted Richards maybe but then I guess we could throw Seaby in the ruck throw Cox forward and essentially have Dean Cox on Sean Dempster.
What do we think of that idea
BigUnitforAA
25 Sep 2006, 13:25
fletcher has to be dropped. we have persisted with him for farrrrrrrr too long. he is an outside reciever with poor disposal. straight swap for wirra. time to make the tough call.
fletcher has to be dropped. we have persisted with him for farrrrrrrr too long. he is an outside reciever with poor disposal. straight swap for wirra. time to make the tough call.
He was diabolical. Good call
halfbackflanker
25 Sep 2006, 13:39
To my mind, Graham is a certainty, mostly for the reason stated - he provides a way in which Hunter can be placed forward for long periods. But he's also very valueable in his own right. He's got a remarkably cool head most times , plays a role well and is an extremely reliable kick. Not bad attributes to have. He'll be coming off a good game against the Crows as well.
The Wirrapanda-Banfield swap is a given for me. Banfield has struggled and doesn't quite offer enough in the backline comparative to others. It's a shame but that's footy.
A few weeks ago, I wouldn't have thought Brett Jones would be in the final 22, but he's proved me wrong with some good work. There was some bumbling stuff between him and his collegues at AAMI which resulted in a turnover goal, but other than that he's solid and good in the air, and will match up well.
I share the concerns about the contributions of Seaby and Armstrong, but there's not much in the way of alternative. For the small forward position, if you throw others into that hole, you're only taking away from your main structure. Waters and co can make appearances, but they won't be permanent small forwards, and are of maximium value elsewhere. If Armstrong helps to keep the ball in there, reduce the rebounding effect which is Sydney's bread and butter, and perhaps create a goal or two, then he'll have done a great job.
Seaby is important for the structure, giving Cox a chance to rest/go forward. Again, he doesn't need to be a superstar, just give enough value and hold the ship for short periods. By using him, you maximize the value of Cox, who is basically a matchwinning ruckmen. The selection process isn't just about picking 'the best players' - every selection has a flow on effect.
So, at the end of this torturous selection process, we'll make one change :D
No f***in way should Grayham play unless they drop Seaby. Who the hell would he play on against Sydney? He'd get murdered... God even Ian Perrie beat him last week.
And so what if Sydney throw an extra dud tall forward... It will turn out like the Hunter - Chris Grant situation from 2 weeks ago... win for us.
Last year we had Gardiner on Barry and that worked well didn't it.
Pace is much more important in defending, especially against Sydney's attacking play.
IN: Wirrpanda for Grayham/Seaby
Maybe Sampi for Armstrong.
And even Nicoski for Fletcher/Banfield if Woosha is
not feeling too sentimental.
Must create goals, especially early which is why id like to see a half fit Sampi there instead of Armstrong, who only just came in.
Speculate all you want I cant see Fletcher being dropped.
Wirra in for Army/Banners would be the only feasible change.
I doubt Wirra will come up though.
Just listening to 882 and they had woosha on and karl langdon asked him if dropping seaby was a option for wirra and woosha said that we will weigh up the options but with coxys mobility and his form it is definatley a option.
Hope this doesnt happen i personally think we need 2 ruckman for this game just incase and god forbid coxy goes down then we would have seaby there.
EasternHills
26 Sep 2006, 10:57
Keep Armstrong.
Keep Seaby.
Keep Grayham.
If we can win the ruck contest, we will win more take aways and if we are moving the ball fast throught the middle our forwards can finally for the first time get space against there backs.
My tip is Leo Barry on Lych and he is to slow in my beleif he really relies on contested posession, move embley or hunter up there both if we need them and we can catch them out by create heaps of space with fast incoming ball.
Magnum27
26 Sep 2006, 11:31
Just listening to 882 and they had woosha on and karl langdon asked him if dropping seaby was a option for wirra and woosha said that we will weigh up the options but with coxys mobility and his form it is definatley a option.
Hope this doesnt happen i personally think we need 2 ruckman for this game just incase and god forbid coxy goes down then we would have seaby there.
Have to agree, have to keep Seaby for your exact reason, me personally i think it's going to be out of Banners,Graham and Armstrong who goes for Wirra, who goes i'm not sure but it's a lot better situation to be in than last year in regards to selection, at least we have many options.
Eagles Crue
26 Sep 2006, 11:36
Any more news on whether Wirra is ready for a start?
It sounded like on the radio last night Seaby was the leading contender to get the drop. Its silly to suggest you have to play a 2nd ruckmen on the slight chance the first one gets injured.
Oh, OK!
Thanks for the tip. Your expertise is so valuable.
When analysing RoJo, I also look at the fact that he can't kick and makes bad decisions.
Those are the things that lose a game of footy.
Okay it's official, Gunnar you are a tool......
Sladest
27 Sep 2006, 15:36
If Wirra was to come in, I would not risk him in the defensive half.
I'd play him on a HFF or pocket.
Saying that though, I believe Armstrong will be useful on Saturday.
Ah well, good luck John.
smilingassassin
27 Sep 2006, 16:02
The only player it is absolutely essential to have out there is - HANSON - we never lose without him.
Loosen up guys and have faith in our coaches - they have carried us this far and will hopefully make the right selections and take us all the way.
The only player it is absolutely essential to have out there is - HANSON - we never lose without him.
Loosen up guys and have faith in our coaches - they have carried us this far and will hopefully make the right selections and take us all the way.
Do you mean Hansen?
He has been absolutley wonderful this finals series.
Looking forward to him towelling up LRT. :thumbsu: