View Full Version : team v port
oldman -pop
15 May 2007, 14:35
Just for now would be interested in who everyones choice for Ins /Outs
In my case Ins Schmidt,Laidlaw
,Dempster maybe Moore / Phillips if Dempster doesnt come up
And we all know they are saying will we or will we not risk Kennelly ?
swanriver
15 May 2007, 14:50
INS Schmidt Phillps
natlovestheswans
15 May 2007, 15:29
In: Schmidt
Out: McVeigh
However, i'm too sure Roos will drop McVeigh yet.. possibly Jack instead. But at the same time you'd think he'd get another week. So who knows but i'm sure Schmidt will come back in.
Skystyler
15 May 2007, 15:58
Roos has indicated the selectors will "hold their nerve" for the Port game, but if we dont improve the axe will be out for the next game.
The extended bench will be Schmidt, Dempster and (Moore or Phillips)
Schmidt must get recalled. If Dempster is fully recovered I'd bring him in too. We need a few more penetrating kicks.
The outs on Friday night - Jack and McVeigh.
If we lose Fosdike, Bolton J, Richards and Crouch will also be enjoying a trip to the nation's Capital.
SouthSwans
15 May 2007, 16:20
OUT: McVeigh, Jack/Bevan
IN: Schmidt, Dempster
Cheer Red Blood
15 May 2007, 16:34
In: Schmidt, Dempster (If fit)
Out: McVeigh, Mathews
scottwade
15 May 2007, 16:49
I've got to admit I can't understand the Schmidt bandwagon.
Is he in reasonable form? Yes
Does he solve our problems? No
Schmidt is a clearance player, with average disposal skills and below average pace.
Our problem is not in clearances (we beat St Kilda 35-32 last week). Rather we lack genuine leg speed and run from behind (with Kennelly out), our skills are down, the forward line is functioning poorly and we have a lack of flexibilty in the team (particularly in the height department).
Forward line
Last year we had Hall & ROK leading to the 50 metre arc and beyond (creating space behing them for players to move into), with Micky O deep and generally one other forward (Davis, Schneider etc).
This year ROK (and Davis when fit) have been playing much more in the midfield, Hall, O'Loughlin and a third tall (Grundy early, latterly Jolly/Everitt) have been playing deep. This means a fourth defender can play on Hall or move to the contest. If we continue with those tactics we need a small crumber (Phillips/Moore), although I believe we need to go back to last year's structure.
Flexibility
We desperately need another tall. With no LRT, Bolton has to match up on the opposition's key tall and we have lost the run/rebound, 3rd man up option, he can provide. Similarly this year, Richards has to play back, whereas he was a very handy swingman last year. A player like Vogels offers another lead up option or alternatively an option down back. Or Dempster (if fit) comes in and potentially releases Richards.
Speed/run
I was amazed last week that Laidlaw wasn't selected. He offers real pace from HB/wing. It was obvious we need to have a Kennelly clone in the team, but instead another tagger (Bevan), with limited skills and an inability to run with ball was chosen.
Malceski has been excellent this year, but we need another flanker option.
Skills
Once again our taggers (Bevan, Crouch, Jack and Mathews) have average skills and none is a run & carry player. The other problem is our forward line is inhibiting our skills. An example was Buchanan being run down last week. Because all our options are deep, we don't have short outlets and so players are tackled or executing disposals under pressure.
Ins/outs
I believe Schmidt, Dempster, Laidlaw, Moore/Phillips, Vogels should all come under consideration. Although I fear Moore may be on the outer.
Assuming Dempster has pulled up OK he is an automatic inclusion. He can play short or tall and would allow Richards to pinch hit up forward.
The other player I would bring in is Laidlaw. He provides excellent speed/run and is a thumping kick
The outs Jack and Bevan or Crouch. Except that we need Crouch's speed against Port he would be a definite out. We do not need 4 taggers.
I would give McVeigh another chance and use him as an occasional HF (he is a reasonable mark). I certainly wouldn't drop Bolton (J), but I would play him on ball.
Last week we had 4 taggers and 4 run with players (excl defenders). We need to back our players and attack. Play the forward structure that has been successful for the last 2 year's and play to our strenghts.
Finally Roos apart from an attacking mindset needs to be tactically far better on match day. The double team on Hall and Roos inability to rectify the situation was woeful last week.
natlovestheswans
15 May 2007, 17:09
I've got to admit I can't understand the Schmidt bandwagon.
Is he in reasonable form? Yes
Does he solve our problems? No
Of course Schmidt isn't going to solve our problems.. no one is thinking that at all, he hasn't even played 10 senior games of football, but the boy has alot of potential and the way i see it is a big part of our future. He needs more game time, dropping him wasn't fair, especially not when Bevan came in for him.
SouthSwans
15 May 2007, 17:29
In: Schmidt, Dempster (If fit)
Out: McVeigh, Mathews
Idiot.
grimlock
15 May 2007, 17:46
Average disposal skills? Are you kidding me? He's no Lindsay Gilbee, but among the scrappers and scraggers of our seniors, he's a freaking star.
Cheer Red Blood
15 May 2007, 18:30
Idiot.
Ouch, you really got me good this time!
SWANNIES RULE
15 May 2007, 19:43
I've got to admit I can't understand the Schmidt bandwagon.
Is he in reasonable form? Yes
Does he solve our problems? No
Schmidt is a clearance player, with average disposal skills and below average pace.
Our problem is not in clearances (we beat St Kilda 35-32 last week). Rather we lack genuine leg speed and run from behind (with Kennelly out), our skills are down, the forward line is functioning poorly and we have a lack of flexibilty in the team (particularly in the height department).
Forward line
Last year we had Hall & ROK leading to the 50 metre arc and beyond (creating space behing them for players to move into), with Micky O deep and generally one other forward (Davis, Schneider etc).
This year ROK (and Davis when fit) have been playing much more in the midfield, Hall, O'Loughlin and a third tall (Grundy early, latterly Jolly/Everitt) have been playing deep. This means a fourth defender can play on Hall or move to the contest. If we continue with those tactics we need a small crumber (Phillips/Moore), although I believe we need to go back to last year's structure.
Flexibility
We desperately need another tall. With no LRT, Bolton has to match up on the opposition's key tall and we have lost the run/rebound, 3rd man up option, he can provide. Similarly this year, Richards has to play back, whereas he was a very handy swingman last year. A player like Vogels offers another lead up option or alternatively an option down back. Or Dempster (if fit) comes in and potentially releases Richards.
Speed/run
I was amazed last week that Laidlaw wasn't selected. He offers real pace from HB/wing. It was obvious we need to have a Kennelly clone in the team, but instead another tagger (Bevan), with limited skills and an inability to run with ball was chosen.
Malceski has been excellent this year, but we need another flanker option.
Skills
Once again our taggers (Bevan, Crouch, Jack and Mathews) have average skills and none is a run & carry player. The other problem is our forward line is inhibiting our skills. An example was Buchanan being run down last week. Because all our options are deep, we don't have short outlets and so players are tackled or executing disposals under pressure.
Ins/outs
I believe Schmidt, Dempster, Laidlaw, Moore/Phillips, Vogels should all come under consideration. Although I fear Moore may be on the outer.
Assuming Dempster has pulled up OK he is an automatic inclusion. He can play short or tall and would allow Richards to pinch hit up forward.
The other player I would bring in is Laidlaw. He provides excellent speed/run and is a thumping kick
The outs Jack and Bevan or Crouch. Except that we need Crouch's speed against Port he would be a definite out. We do not need 4 taggers.
I would give McVeigh another chance and use him as an occasional HF (he is a reasonable mark). I certainly wouldn't drop Bolton (J), but I would play him on ball.
Last week we had 4 taggers and 4 run with players (excl defenders). We need to back our players and attack. Play the forward structure that has been successful for the last 2 year's and play to our strenghts.
Finally Roos apart from an attacking mindset needs to be tactically far better on match day. The double team on Hall and Roos inability to rectify the situation was woeful last week.
Good post. I was also baffled as to why they didn't pick Laidlaw.
Here's what I would do for this week.....
In: Laidlaw, Schmidt, Phillips, Dempster
Out: Jack, J Bolton, McVeigh, Bevan
SouthSwans
15 May 2007, 19:56
In: Laidlaw, Schmidt, Phillips, Dempster
Out: Jack, J Bolton, McVeigh, Bevan
Thats better.
SWANNIES RULE
15 May 2007, 20:00
I think Schmidt and Laidlaw would be a better combination than Jude and McVeigh.
Who agrees?
SouthSwans
15 May 2007, 20:20
Schmidt and someone would. Personally I'd love to see Doyley get a gig.
SouthSwans
15 May 2007, 22:24
Idiot.
I got an infraction for that?!
oldman -pop
15 May 2007, 22:51
Ok dont be surprised if a Brabazon debut is on the cards
SouthSwans
16 May 2007, 00:08
Ok dont be surprised if a Brabazon debut is on the cards
:D :thumbsu:
ANOTHER SCOOP!!!
oldman -pop
16 May 2007, 00:21
:D :thumbsu:
ANOTHER SCOOP!!!
No not yet anyways
One thing I know is height will be the answer
Tedeski
16 May 2007, 01:12
I think Schmidt and Laidlaw would be a better combination than Jude and McVeigh.
Who agrees?
Are you guys alright up top??
Jude Bolton represents everything that the Bloods are about. You drop him & that is the end of this era. Do we drop Barry Hall because I went to the last two games in Melbourne to be brutally honest, I didn't like the way he ranted & raved to the umpires about how hard done by he had been. Sure, he was man handled by three opponents in each match but since the the prelim final against Freo, he doesn't look a shadow of the champion we know he can be. I think he needs to have an attitude change. It's nothing new that he gets triple teamed & man handled by opponents. This has been happening for a few years now. But it wasn't until he started moving his ar se around in the last quarters of both Melb. matches that he started to have an influence on both games albeit a little too late. I'm used to seeing him constantly run his opponent around & around, taking many marks up the ground & locking the ball in our hands so that we control the tempo of games. He is staying to deep & is stagnant & has almost single handedly caused our midfield to be afraid to have a ping at goal themselves when they are 30 meters out. The other night, one of our guys should have goaled from 30 mt out in the second Q to put us in front but instead he probably had Bazza stuck in his head for not passing one to him 3 weeks ago & chose the WRONG option, instead passing it to Bazza & his 3 manhandlers.
Nothing wrong with Jude.....................nothing wrong with McVeigh.............nothing wrong with Buchanen! They're just too scared to take the first option in fear of upsetting grumpy Bazza.
So............what to do then.
Leave the team the hell alone & go back to what we do best. That is, slow the game down & control it (I've never seen us win a fast .
scoring game), be efficient with our ball use (I've never seen such fear & indecision), don't abuse a team mate when he makes a mistake (see Luke Abletts pass to Cousins in the '05 GF................5 players went up & gave him a pat on the back...WE WENT ON TO WIN THE PREMIERSHIP) & for Christs sake don't play too many negative roles because the guys don't know when it's time to attack & when it's time to go defensive, often getting the two confused.
That's what I think anyway!
Go Bloods!:)
smasher
16 May 2007, 06:55
Dempster played in the reserves last week but I was told he didn't do alot.
I wouldn't be surprised if Roosy gives last weeks squad a final chance against Port.
As far as the young ones are concerned there have been some thing special about the ones we have tried.Schmidt has the ability to kick goals from nowhere and Moore is very good at finding space.I think our future looks good.
oldman -pop
16 May 2007, 13:55
Dempster played in the reserves last week but I was told he didn't do alot.
I wouldn't be surprised if Roosy gives last weeks squad a final chance against Port.
As far as the young ones are concerned there have been some thing special about the ones we have tried.Schmidt has the ability to kick goals from nowhere and Moore is very good at finding space.I think our future looks good.
Schimdt,only change is my tip
Schimdt,only change is my tip
Yar. Wouldn't have thoghtn Demspter would be back. Who goes out? Keiran?
natlovestheswans
16 May 2007, 18:11
Yar. Wouldn't have thoghtn Demspter would be back. Who goes out? Keiran?
Little slip of the fingers there Tuco?
Anywho, you'd think it would be between McVeigh and Jack.
Little slip of the fingers there Tuco?
Anywho, you'd think it would be between McVeigh and Jack.
Actually I'm in the early stages of forming my own language. If you liked that preview there pletuip mgte whwre thad cabr, frpm! :p
oldman -pop
16 May 2007, 21:34
Actually I'm in the early stages of forming my own language. If you liked that preview there pletuip mgte whwre thad cabr, frpm! :p
Ins Dempster
Outs Crouch
And Kennelly a chance:thumbsu:
oldman -pop
16 May 2007, 21:37
Little slip of the fingers there Tuco?
Anywho, you'd think it would be between McVeigh and Jack.
If Kennelly pulls up between those
No Schmidt very unlucky again
Little slip of the fingers there Tuco?
Anywho, you'd think it would be between McVeigh and Jack.
If Kennelly pulls up between those
No Schmidt very unlucky again
Your not kidding.
You have to think Schmidt will ask to be traded at the end of the season if this keeps up
natlovestheswans
16 May 2007, 23:38
Little slip of the fingers there Tuco?
Anywho, you'd think it would be between McVeigh and Jack.
If Kennelly pulls up between those
No Schmidt very unlucky again
Wow, Kennelly's recovery came along nicely.
TheMase
16 May 2007, 23:51
[quote=oldman -pop;7550089]
Wow, Kennelly's recovery came along nicely.
Probably more like if he is close enough the injections will be able to have him get through the game....
natlovestheswans
16 May 2007, 23:56
[quote=natlovestheswans;7551252]
Probably more like if he is close enough the injections will be able to have him get through the game....
Ah, all the quoting is stuffed. Anyway..
Yeah, but at one stage people were saying he could be out for 6 weeks, so thank god it wasn't that long. Even if he doesn't play this week (i doubt he will) then you'd think he be a good chance for next week.
TheMase
17 May 2007, 00:19
[quote=TheMase;7551388]
Ah, all the quoting is stuffed. Anyway..
Yeah, but at one stage people were saying he could be out for 6 weeks, so thank god it wasn't that long. Even if he doesn't play this week (i doubt he will) then you'd think he be a good chance for next week.
I would rather them wait until he is 100%.
I would rather them wait until he is 100%.
Me too. You'd also like to think he'd had a week's solid training in before coming back into the team.
If the Dempster return is on the money, I think I'd be a little miffed if I were Schmidt, Moore, Brabazon, Phillips or Laidlaw. He (Dempster) has had a month out of the game, played one game back in which it doesn't sound as if he was more than handy, and he comes straight back in? If it were a Hall, Goodes or O'Keefe, fair enough. But while Dempster has done OK at senior level, it's not like he's a star of the team. Indeed, if everyone were fit you'd probably struggle to squeeze him into the best 22.
Corpuscles
17 May 2007, 11:53
Me too. You'd also like to think he'd had a week's solid training in before coming back into the team.
If the Dempster return is on the money, I think I'd be a little miffed if I were Schmidt, Moore, Brabazon, Phillips or Laidlaw. He (Dempster) has had a month out of the game, played one game back in which it doesn't sound as if he was more than handy, and he comes straight back in? If it were a Hall, Goodes or O'Keefe, fair enough. But while Dempster has done OK at senior level, it's not like he's a star of the team. Indeed, if everyone were fit you'd probably struggle to squeeze him into the best 22.
If Pop is correct (and has been so far) Out:Crouch In: Dempster
Then the likely reason is defensive height. Port last week recalled Thurstans & Brogan and will stretch an already short defence.
All the above "unluckys" range 179-184 cm (Schmidt 181- Dempster 192cm).
Form alone cannot ever be the only consideration at selection time especially in a critical game.
I am amazed at the preoccupation fans with 2's form. When we see from "the best 22 thread" it is obvious there is consensus of only about 4 fringe positon possibilities for inclusion.
How can you relate 2's form to 1's ?
I remember B Seymour, years ago when he resumed via 2's even though a dour uncreative defender... he absolutely dominated midfield in ressies!
(Crouch on the other hand seldom shines as BOG in 2's)
McPherson & S Arnott also looked like world beaters in 2's (I thought Arnott was unlucky) but struggled at times to show it in the intensity of firsts or gel with the gameplan or group synergy.
Yes I do hope all the "unluckies" get their chance but lets not do a "Wallets lottery ...play the kids BS rebuild" .. yet!
I think there are special reasons for Jack's window of opportunity, but it won't go on much longer, unless unforseen happens.
Out: Crouch In: Dempster?
Wow. If true that would be a huge fillip for Keiran Jack considering he came into the side to essentially play that same role!
Personally I reckon Dempster should come straight back into the side when able. I'd have him in our top 22 of choice for sure.
oldman -pop
17 May 2007, 13:35
[quote=oldman -pop;7550089]
Your not kidding.
No kidding from what I know and there may be a few that wouldnt mind going else where but they have now the bloods in them better to succeed in one club working hard
oldman -pop
17 May 2007, 13:48
Out: Crouch In: Dempster?
Wow. If true that would be a huge fillip for Keiran Jack considering he came into the side to essentially play that same role!
Personally I reckon Dempster should come straight back into the side when able. I'd have him in our top 22 of choice for sure.
If Kennelly pulls up I would say out Jack but then again son of a great brownie points for daddy Gary and on home turf
If Pop is correct (and has been so far) Out:Crouch In: Dempster
Then the likely reason is defensive height. Port last week recalled Thurstans & Brogan and will stretch an already short defence.
Thurstans plays as defender and has done for the whole season... ANd he wasn't recalled, he hasn't missed a game this season?
Brogan was brought back in from injury, but he's not a real scary forward option. We do have Tredrea, White, Lade up forward as talls however, plus Ebert plays pretty tall...
Luckily for you guys we've never had all of them play well on the same day!
Should be a very very good match this, i'm very worried and if i had to put money on this game, i'd go for Sydney at this stage.
oldman -pop
17 May 2007, 14:00
Thurstans plays as defender and has done for the whole season... ANd he wasn't recalled, he hasn't missed a game this season?
Brogan was brought back in from injury, but he's not a real scary forward option. We do have Tredrea, White, Lade up forward as talls however, plus Ebert plays pretty tall...
Luckily for you guys we've never had all of them play well on the same day!
Should be a very very good match this, i'm very worried and if i had to put money on this game, i'd go for Sydney at this stage.
Good point but worried about what you guys are playing good footy every game is hard
Corpuscles
17 May 2007, 14:49
Thurstans plays as defender and has done for the whole season... ANd he wasn't recalled, he hasn't missed a game this season?
Should be a very very good match this, i'm very worried and if i had to put money on this game, i'd go for Sydney at this stage.
Umm.. I defer to your superior knowledge but watched intently last week and Thurstons played first in forward line. Hell these days they play no fixed abode. Even so, if he was sent forward he would stretch and if his training inj is not serious??? .. I bet he plays forward as will Lade for some time.
Nah, on form you would have to back Port.. lucky I dont bet:p
Form alone cannot ever be the only consideration at selection time especially in a critical game.
Not the sole criterion but surely it should be a significant one. Otherwise what motivation can there possibly be for the youngsters to play well in the reserves.
It is entirely probable that the reason why Dempster was only a handy contributor last week is that he's had a longish injury layoff and needs to regain match fitness. Until he's proven he has that, why rush him back. As I said earlier, it is not as if the argument that an 80% fit Dempster is significantly better than a 100% (insert name of other player) holds much weight.
FWIW, if Dempster does come back in this week, I think it will be his pace and the tagging factor that do it, rather than his height. He may be 192cm but he doesn't really play like a tall player. And if he is coming in to replace Crouch, I think that might be an admission that Crouch is still carrying some kind of injury.
Corpuscles
17 May 2007, 17:26
Not the sole criterion but surely it should be a significant one. Otherwise what motivation can there possibly be for the youngsters to play well in the reserves.
It is entirely probable that the reason why Dempster was only a handy contributor last week is that he's had a longish injury layoff and needs to regain match fitness. Until he's proven he has that, why rush him back. As I said earlier, it is not as if the argument that an 80% fit Dempster is significantly better than a 100% (insert name of other player) holds much weight.
FWIW, if Dempster does come back in this week, I think it will be his pace and the tagging factor that do it, rather than his height. He may be 192cm but he doesn't really play like a tall player. And if he is coming in to replace Crouch, I think that might be an admission that Crouch is still carrying some kind of injury.
Ok Liz I don't want to make this a yeah, nah ..yeah, nah argument.
Pace and tagging Vs Crouch? .... he matches Dempster in both!... but not in spoiling height which is sadly lacking atm.
Incoming players highest priority is consistency ( they would not be there if they arn't class) that is the motivation for 2's....and by all accounts Schmidt Brabazon Laidlaw Phillips others are showing just that... but they are there to replace! Pre season is where much of the pecking order is established. I suggest you list your best 22 then match up who from 2's could come in for who... some like Vogels & Grundy have limited chances but have to be ready to take chance to excel (eg Magic/ROK inj for 4 wks).
On form IMO Mcveigh would be out! But none of the newbies have had to play on Judd, Black, K Johnson, Edwards etc.... too big a step up even if he is getting beaten. They need to get a debut or early game chances when one of the fringe bottom 6 roles are out inj or badly out of form (worse than incoming capability relative to match ups)... and then side is shuffled to free up one of those lesser demanding roles.
I'm going 9:50am Sunday to watch the young guns V Ainslie!:thumbsu: Might change my tune on Monday!:)
scottwade
17 May 2007, 19:09
Team;
SYDNEY
B: Richards, Barry, Malceski
HB: Bevan, C.Bolton, Mathews
C: Ablett, Kirk, Buchanan
HF: R.O'Keefe, O'Loughlin, J.Bolton
F: Davis, Hall, Dempster
FOLL: Jolly, Goodes, Fosdike
I/C from: Crouch, Kennelly, Schneider, McVeigh, Jack, Grundy, Everitt
IN: Dempster, Grundy, Kennelly
OUT:
makingmemark
17 May 2007, 21:28
Team;
SYDNEY
B: Richards, Barry, Malceski
HB: Bevan, C.Bolton, Mathews
C: Ablett, Kirk, Buchanan
HF: R.O'Keefe, O'Loughlin, J.Bolton
F: Davis, Hall, Dempster
FOLL: Jolly, Goodes, Fosdike
I/C from: Crouch, Kennelly, Schneider, McVeigh, Jack, Grundy, Everitt
IN: Dempster, Grundy, Kennelly
OUT:
What, Kennelly is back ALREADY?!? Woohoo!
Hmm. Well if they play Tiger it's a fair bet the Swans are taking this game very very VERY seriously.
Jeffers1984
17 May 2007, 22:24
I've got a bad feeling about Tadhg being back this early. That dislocation looked pretty horrible.
He has to be at about 90% for me if he's gonna play.
Ok Liz I don't want to make this a yeah, nah ..yeah, nah argument.
Pace and tagging Vs Crouch? .... he matches Dempster in both!... but not in spoiling height which is sadly lacking atm
Which is why I indicated that if he is coming in for Crouch, I believe it is an admission that Crouch is injured.
My suggestion of Dempster's pace and tagging ability being the decisive factor was in comparison to others who could have come in instead (eg Grundy, Schmidt) not in comparison to Crouch.
And I really don't see why this would be an opponent against which we'd want to load up with height. They have their fair share of taller players, but also far more small, quick dangerous players than any other team I can think of - Snr Bgr, Pearce, Rodan, Krakouer. And Jnr Bgr plays a bit this way too, though he is also quite tall. I wonder if Dempster is being brought in specifically to tag the jnr B. Big ask if he is.
I agree with liz that if Crouch is going out there's probably a backstory. But he'd probably be the first to admit that he's struggled to get into games the way he usually does since returning. So his form has probably been a factor too.
*PAFC*13
18 May 2007, 11:06
Umm.. I defer to your superior knowledge but watched intently last week and Thurstons played first in forward line. Hell these days they play no fixed abode. Even so, if he was sent forward he would stretch and if his training inj is not serious??? .. I bet he plays forward as will Lade for some time.
Nah, on form you would have to back Port.. lucky I dont bet:p
Mate, Thurstans hasn't been up forward all year.
I'd say IN Dempster OUT Bevan looks to be the likely result this week. I'd love to see Tiger come in, but only if he's right to go.
oldman -pop
18 May 2007, 12:07
I'd say IN Dempster OUT Bevan looks to be the likely result this week. I'd love to see Tiger come in, but only if he's right to go.
As stated that Crouch out and between McVeigh and Jack who may get dropped if Kennelly comes up
It would good to go to training just to see how he does pull up and Im sure there will be a few there maybe even from port one thinks
further more I read Crouch is :( up at what spider said maybe its because he (Crouch)is playing 2,s this week ?
But just a opinion
As stated that Crouch out and between McVeigh and Jack who may get dropped if Kennelly comes up
It would good to go to training just to see how he does pull up and Im sure there will be a few there maybe even from port one thinks
further more I read Crouch is :( up at what spider said maybe its because he (Crouch)is playing 2,s this week ?
But just a opinion
On AFL teams last night they had Bevan as being out. So if Dempster is ahead of Tiger for fitness, that's what I'm basing my guess on. But you've been very accurate in the past so perhaps Crouch/McVeigh/Jack for Tiger icould still happen. Although Roos was pretty unconvinced that Tadhg would be ready this round in his comments.
I'm just not convinced that what Spida said should be regarded as out of line. Almost every Swan interviewd in recent weeks has stated in his own way that there are problems, and that they need to be fixed. Hall's comments this week were very strong. All Spida said was that that his area of the field needs to lift across the board, and the only player he named as being under the pump was himself.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21751609%255E19742,00.html (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21751609%255E19742,00.html)
Swans coach Paul Roos, however, applauded Everitt for his honesty as thet team prepared for Sunday's game against Port Adelaide at the SCG.
"I didn't have a problem at all with what Spida said, if that's the way he feels and that's the way the midfield feels," Roos said.
"Spida included himself as one of the players who need to lift their game and in this situation. I applaud him for his honesty.
"That's what people want to hear, the truth. Why you are not playing that well."
Roos seems to agree with that assessment.
I just think the media are fishing for division in the Swans camp. The "Swans Demise" headlines are right on the verge of hitting the presses. And the more they speculate the more the jackals begin to circle the team.
They've been waiting for us to produce some news for a long time. And all we've really given them in recent seasons to talk about was the Davis selection drama last year. And they lapped that shite up and want more. And Spida really is a lightning rod for that kind of media attention. :thumbsd:
natlovestheswans
18 May 2007, 13:32
Hm, i honestly didn't really like what Everitt said, but i really didn't like what Crouch said. I don't like when players single eachother out. If Crouch had a problem with what Everitt said then he could have gone to the leadership group and told them what he told the media, not everyone had to know about it.
Edit: I just read the quote again and it's not what i first though. I don't think Crouch had problem with the comments.
oldman -pop
18 May 2007, 17:05
On AFL teams last night they had Bevan as being out. So if Dempster is ahead of Tiger for fitness, that's what I'm basing my guess on. But you've been very accurate in the past so perhaps Crouch/McVeigh/Jack for Tiger icould still happen. Although Roos was pretty unconvinced that Tadhg would be ready this round in his comments.
I'm just not convinced that what Spida said should be regarded as out of line. Almost every Swan interviewd in recent weeks has stated in his own way that there are problems, and that they need to be fixed. Hall's comments this week were very strong. All Spida said was that that his area of the field needs to lift across the board, and the only player he named as being under the pump was himself.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21751609%255E19742,00.html
Roos seems to agree with that assessment.
I just think the media are fishing for division in the Swans camp. The "Swans Demise" headlines are right on the verge of hitting the presses. And the more they speculate the more the jackals begin to circle the team.
They've been waiting for us to produce some news for a long time. And all we've really given them in recent seasons to talk about was the Davis selection drama last year. And they lapped that shite up and want more. And Spida really is a lightning rod for that kind of media attention. :thumbsd:
Only my opinion But the most obvious reasons Spider came to Sydney is to get out of the Bs he has got himself into at times in Melbourne
but agree with that statement
and thats not saying he cannt still play good football well lets hope so
Bevo is fine from I heard
oldman -pop
18 May 2007, 17:31
Just heard there now maybe more so of a Question mark over Kennelly but they will give him to early Sunday morning
So the mind games start
grimlock
18 May 2007, 20:42
Just heard there now maybe more so of a Question mark over Kennelly but they will give him to early Sunday morning
So the mind games start
Thanks for the scoop. Will Crouch come in for Tadhg if he doesn't make it or will it be Jack?
Thanks for the scoop. Will Crouch come in for Tadhg if he doesn't make it or will it be Jack?
I think it might be Crouch for that style of football, depending on where they really think Crouch is, even if its not Crouch I dont think it will be Jack to replace the style their looking for.
is2SWaNz
19 May 2007, 18:33
I think it might be Crouch for that style of football, depending on where they really think Crouch is, even if its not Crouch I dont think it will be Jack to replace the style their looking for.
I don't think Crouch will be included in the team IF Kennelly pulls out moments before the bounce off. Jack suits Kennelley's role, and its pretty obvious Roos would include Jack into the squad instead of Crouch?
Crouch knows he is out of form. And I quote, 'He’s actually excited about getting back and getting back into good form … you know he’s looking forward to playing with the seconds, which is good'.
The Tadhg recovery is very surprising. He can't possibly recover that quick? Tadhg: The man who defies all medical laws.
On Tadhg I remember when he first got injured that there were widely varying predictions on the recovery time. Some even had him as a possible to return the very next week.
We definitiely need him back sooner rather than later. So I won't be complaining if he runs out on Sun.
oldman -pop
19 May 2007, 18:46
Thanks for the scoop. Will Crouch come in for Tadhg if he doesn't make it or will it be Jack?
As I stated way back Crouch is out its between Mcveigh and Jack if Kennelly doesnt come up
Benevolent Ert
19 May 2007, 19:04
Well Jack is the player officially listed as "out", and I understand the plan was always to give Crouch a run in the twos this week
Therefore if Kennelly doesn't come up, Jack gets "undropped"
Fair enough, I have been convinced by all (well old-man pop actually) and humbly admit my error in saying Crouch may play if Taigh does not come up.
TheMase
19 May 2007, 20:02
Jack suits Kennelley's role...
I am not sure how you came up with that idea. Jack does not suit Kennelly's role at all. Dempster would be closer to the mark, but does not have the pace. Malceski is the closest thing we have to Kennelly, and is playing 'his' role now. We need someone to take on Malceski's role, and now the return of Dempster.
is2SWaNz
19 May 2007, 23:58
I am not sure how you came up with that idea. Jack does not suit Kennelly's role at all. Dempster would be closer to the mark, but does not have the pace. Malceski is the closest thing we have to Kennelly, and is playing 'his' role now. We need someone to take on Malceski's role, and now the return of Dempster.
Hmm.. let me rephrase what I said then. Suit was probably the wrong word, as I re-read my post, how wrongly is came out. (NB: I'm a young girl with a limited range of vocabulary).
But all i meant was that Jack would be the one who fills in for Kennelly, only as 'filling-up-the-spot-with-another-defender' sort of thing. When he got injured, Jack came and replaced Kennelly. And it would've been obvious that if Kennelly would pull out tomorrow, Jack would come back into the side.
Asgardian
20 May 2007, 04:27
Good luck for the game guys
Let's hope it a great game to watch, and no serious injuries
TheMase
20 May 2007, 09:31
Good luck for the game guys
Let's hope it a great game to watch, and no serious injuries
Cheers mate! Best of luck to your boys too. Hopefully we get a good game!
Good luck for the game guys
Let's hope it a great game to watch, and no serious injuries
Well said. Looking forward to seeing some of these young guns in the Port side.
But I sat through Hawthorn versus StKilda last night. So anything will be great by comparison. That game was like watching super slow motion footage of two learner drivers backing into each other in a Woollies car park. :D
Hood007
20 May 2007, 10:01
Good luck fellas!
Bustlin' Baz to kick 5!