View Full Version : Tough Ins/Outs Vs Hawthorn?
mattys123
26 Apr 2008, 12:51
Just wondering how tough it will be to fit Rocca and Burns in next week.
Obviously players like Cook, Wellingham and Maxwell would be in the mix to be replaced in both Rocca and Burns are 100% fit.
Personally,
In: Burns, Rocca
Out: Wellingham, Maxwell
Then we could move Goldsack back to the backline, and with Rocca back inside 50 Trav can play his best role of the roaming, leading CHF.
Maxwell will not be dropped.
You cant drop someone who has been voted into the leadership group unless they are playing pathetic football. Maxwell didnt set the world on fire but he didnt play pathetic football.
My guess is Wellingham will make way for Rocca... very stiff though, but thats the price you pay for playing in a team that has depth.
Cook will make way for Burns
Chase the Ace
26 Apr 2008, 13:02
Don't think Rocca will be over his ankle for the Hawks
In: Burns
Out: Cook
Coin_Toss
26 Apr 2008, 13:03
Rocca will not play next week, not fit enough.
I reckon Burns may come back through the ressies. Just a hunch.
Assuming both are fit;
IN: Burns, Rocca
OUT: Johnson, Cook
Maxwell/Thomas both struggling right now, but both need to play against the Hawks.
smiddaz123
26 Apr 2008, 13:08
In: Burns, Rocca
Out: Johnson, Cook
Believe me, Johnson will be found out against the Hawks. Essendon's midfield pressure was abysmal, so his one sided tendancy wasn't found out. He was able to turn onto his left and deliver the ball under little pressure. If he's up against a quality midfield, such as Hawthorn's, he'll forever be trying to get his left side, and that'll either get him caught in possession of getting a rushed kick away with will more than likely result in a turnover. He's the kind of player who'll struggle against class opposition imo.
Cook was good, but everyone was better. He showed what he can do though, which is enough to keep him listed for next season. He should be happy.
Burns will add a whole heap to our midfield. Rocca will be a vital player for us against Hawthorn. They lack a monster defender imo. He might be able to take a contested grab or two for us, along with Cloke.
Assuming both are fit;
IN: Burns, Rocca
OUT: Johnson, Cook
Maxwell/Thomas both struggling right now, but both need to play against the Hawks.
You cant drop Jono???? Thats a terrible call, Jono played very well yesterday, and contributed alot more than others. Just because you've been calling for his head in previous weeks you cant drop a established senior player who is continually getting better each week and running himself into form. He has a mass of experience that will come in handy next week.
Its sad to say because he doesnt deserve to be dropped but Wellingham goes a long way before Jono would.
Johnson 22 Disposals - 15 kicks, 7 handballs and 6 marks and 1 booming goal from 50 on the run. He stays
Lockyer24
26 Apr 2008, 13:16
Burns for Wellingham if SSB is fit.
No disgrace is making way for the captain, will get another chance.
You cant drop Jono???? Thats a terrible call, Jono played very well yesterday, and contributed alot more than others. Just because you've been calling for his head in previous weeks you cant drop a established senior player who is continually getting better each week and running himself into form. He has a mass of experience that will come in handy next week.
Its sad to say because he doesnt deserve to be dropped but Wellingham goes a long way before Jono would.
He played ok yesterday. So did everyone. I don't think we can really learn too much from the Ess game. Johnson's problems don't go away just because he played one game ok.
He still can't kick with any consistency, especially under pressure, and these days he's playing more outside than ever.
If we had a system where guys were encouraged to handball and carry, he'd be fine. But given he has to kick a lot in our system, and given he plays as a receiver, I think he's detrimental to our chances.
God i am looking foward to this game.
If its anything like last years game it will be a ripper.
mattys123
26 Apr 2008, 13:33
Yeah I remember that game last year, close all day, but we could never quite get in front.
3 Differences this time around,
1. Rocca will play
2. Harry O'Brien will play on Buddy (Harry didnt play last year vs Hawth)
3. We have 2 Ruckman at last
He played ok yesterday. So did everyone. I don't think we can really learn too much from the Ess game. Johnson's problems don't go away just because he played one game ok.
He still can't kick with any consistency, especially under pressure, and these days he's playing more outside than ever.
If we had a system where guys were encouraged to handball and carry, he'd be fine. But given he has to kick a lot in our system, and given he plays as a receiver, I think he's detrimental to our chances.
160 games, ANZAC day medalist, twice second in our B & F and he cant kick??? Dane Swan said late last year he should be considered for the captaincy!
I am blown away with people calling for his head. There are alot of other players who's efficiency in disposal has struggled early this year and alot worse than Jono's. I thought his efficiency yesterday was pretty damn good (and he got 22 possessions!). Calling for a 160 game player to be dropped after a game like yesterday is a terrible call.
He wont be dropped he came 5th in disposals for the team yesterday and played very well.
Its like dropping Medhurst for Rocca next week because we need a marking forward and Medhurst dropped a couple of marks yesterday!
Ridiculous at best.
lol Johnson being dropped, he had 6 inside 50s in the first quarter alone.
160 games, ANZAC day medalist, twice second in our B & F and he cant kick???
That's right.
Dane Swan said late last year he should be considered for the captaincy!
You're using a man who strolls about in spiderman suits as an authority? Obviously MM disagrees.
There are alot of other players who's efficiency in disposal has struggled early this year and alot worse than Jono's.
Guys like Heath and Swan are good kicks who are just struggling right now. They've shown they can kick well over the course of the last two seasons. Johnson has always struggled.
I thought his efficiency yesterday was pretty damn good (and he got 22 possessions!).
His efficiency yesterday was above his usual standard, but there was no pressure. The problem with the 22 possession is that only 3 were contested. As a receiver, he must have better skills.
He wont be dropped he came 5th in disposals for the team yesterday and played very well.
Again, let's agree to disagree on just how well he played. I thought he passable, but not good.
Its like dropping Medhurst for Rocca next week because we need a marking forward and Medhurst dropped a couple of marks yesterday!
Ridiculous at best.
Your analogy is certainly ridiculous at best
Goldhawk
26 Apr 2008, 13:44
Yeah I remember that game last year, close all day, but we could never quite get in front.
2. Harry O'Brien will play on Buddy (Harry didnt play last year vs Hawth)
i bet you he wish he didn't. LOL
SIDE BY SIDE
26 Apr 2008, 13:54
If Rocca is fit he will play same with Burns. Hawks don't have anyone big enough/good enough to play on Rocca if he comes to play. Good thing about yesterday it shows we can kick big scores without him so if he has anything inside he will want to remind us why we should play him. Hawks don't have great ruckman so thats a spot we can really take advantage of and resting the ruckman on the bench we let them run hard all day to hammer it home. Having said that if the weather is bad Rocca shouldn't come in.
If Rocca is fit he will play same with Burns. Hawks don't have anyone big enough/good enough to play on Rocca if he comes to play. Good thing about yesterday it shows we can kick big scores without him so if he has anything inside he will want to remind us why we should play him. Hawks don't have great ruckman so thats a spot we can really take advantage of and resting the ruckman on the bench we let them run hard all day to hammer it home. Having said that if the weather is bad Rocca shouldn't come in.
Croad is big enough and good enough to play on him.
Also underestimate our rucks at your own peril. Very much underrated. They are great around the ground as a duo and our midfield will still win clearances being beaten at hitouts.
leather_poisoning
26 Apr 2008, 14:01
In: Burns
Out: Wellingham
On another note... just noticed on this board 90% of posters HATE johnson and do not rate him one bit.. a player who has played 160 odd games and IMHO is quite consistent... yet there is so much love for wellingham who has played one game, yet cost the club a multi million dollar sponsorship... any reasons?
SIDE BY SIDE
26 Apr 2008, 14:05
Good play Croad on Rocca who are you now going to play on Cloke? Brown maybe then who gets Medhurst? As for the Rucks our Ruckman are better around the ground then in the middle and one of our best area's are clearances so I'm happy to go head to head.
You're using a man who strolls about in spiderman suits as an authority? Obviously MM disagrees.
You are calling Dane Swan a player who's opinion doesnt count at the Collingwood Football Club? You have lost the plot! Spiderman suit, to entertain him and his team mate who cant go out due to his contract being under scrutiny if he does... looking after his mate... I have alot of respect for him for what he did for Dids that night... You think he degraded himself... FAR FROM IT!.
the bump cost him dearly - he wouldnt have wanted to be part of the leadership group coming back from suspension for what he did, he's not an attention seeker
Guys like Heath and Swan are good kicks who are just struggling right now. They've shown they can kick well over the course of the last two seasons. Johnson has always struggled.
Second on Copeland night 2006, and thats struggling?
You are making me laugh!
His efficiency yesterday was above his usual standard, but there was no pressure. The problem with the 22 possession is that only 3 were contested. As a receiver, he must have better skills.
Getting into space and getting away from your opponent as a running midfielder is a skill... its one of the most important skills! Its what every running midfielder in the competition tries to do... He's not a tagger.
I admit his skills have been a little rusty in the first few games of the year but you are so far off in rating his skills it amazes me. he is amazingly quick with his 1%ers and the little things he does.
Again, let's agree to disagree on just how well he played. I thought he passable, but not good.
5th in disposals and didnt play good! 6 inside 50's in the first qtr... Efficiency cant be questioned from yesterday and you give him a pass, and want to drop him!!!
Your analogy is certainly ridiculous at best
Exactly my point. Your dropping of a player who was top 5 in disposals yet you havent mentioned once when his handling of the ball cost us...
Penders10
26 Apr 2008, 14:11
In: Burns
Out: Cook
Cook was ok yesterday but i think he will make way for the capitan
I still think ROCCA is in our best side but not unless he is injury free
If he is 100% bring him in for Wellingham
In: Burns
Out: Wellingham
On another note... just noticed on this board 90% of posters HATE johnson and do not rate him one bit.. a player who has played 160 odd games and IMHO is quite consistent... yet there is so much love for wellingham who has played one game, yet cost the club a multi million dollar sponsorship... any reasons?
It was only 500,000 cause it was in its last year ( all up 3 year deal 1.5 mill not multi mill deal )
Leave him in played well enough for a second game and drop Obree
Smoky, I think we're just going to go round in circles. Let me just say it's not really relevant whether or not a guy has played 300 games and how he did in 2006 - the only thing I care about is how he'll play in the future.
btw, the Dane Swan comment was just a wisecrack :cool:
It was only 500,000 cause it was in its last year ( all up 3 year deal 1.5 mill not multi mill deal )
Leave him in played well enough for a second game and drop Obree
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
2nd in disposals yeaterday! Played a very good game.
Did you actually watch the game?
This thread is ridiculous!
P.S:- You dont drop senior players after they play well! You dont drop them just because you dont like them!
Smoky, I think we're just going to go round in circles. Let me just say it's not really relevant whether or not a guy has played 300 games and how he did in 2006 - the only thing I care about is how he'll play in the future.
btw, the Dane Swan comment was just a wisecrack :cool:
2006 Copeland was only brought up because you said that Heath and Rhyce had proved over the last 2 years that their skills were a high standard and Jono's weren't... You were wrong (unless Collingwood completely stuffed up the Copeland count).
We're not going round in circles... you just have no where to go! He played well yesterday and not once have you given example of how he cost us, you have just said he didnt play "good".
I seriously think you dont like Johnson for your own personal reasons and it is blinding your judgement on watching a game. You cant drop a player who had as much of the ball yesterday and used it well. Dropping him is an idea you came up with weeks ago... you dont drop a player who's running into form.
Your "wisecrack" about the Great Dane... was far from "wise".
Next you'll want to drop Didak because he missed that goal against North!
Ever heard of the saying your only as good as your last game!
Mate, this aint an attack on you. I respect your posts alot and I know you know your stuff when it comes to the Pies... but regarding Jono, you're way off. He cant be dropped, he played well.
2006 Copeland was only brought up because you said that Heath and Rhyce had proved over the last 2 years that their skills were a high standard and Jono's weren't... You were wrong (unless Collingwood completely stuffed up the Copeland count).
He came second in spite of his kicking, not because of it. He did a fantastic job that year of carrying the ball.[/quote]
I seriously think you dont like Johnson for your own personal reasons and it is blinding your judgement on watching a game. You cant drop a player who had as much of the ball yesterday and used it well. Dropping him is an idea you came up with weeks ago... you dont drop a player who's running into form.
Almost every mid had near 20 possessions and used it ok yesterday. And I really suggest you stop looking at disposals as a useful measure of performance - it's not.
As for "running into form", I thought he played his worst game just a fortnight ago against North, so he's hardly been improving with each game.
I don't have anything personal against Johnson. If you check my posts before the season, I was adamant that he could be in our 22 (as opposed to those that wanted him gone). But I thought, and still do, that he should play as a small defender. In the midfield, he gets too much of the ball, and that's a negative for the team.
As for "running into form", I thought he played his worst game just a fortnight ago against North, so he's hardly been improving with each game.
I think overall he has been getting better each week, the North game might have been a case of 2 steps forward, 1 backwards.
But you cant drop him after he's had his best game for the year so far, on the Big stage.
You made the point you cant just go off a possesion count on whether a player played well and I totally agree, but cant remember any bad disposals from yesterday (Im sure there were a couple) but no one played 100% efficiency. Medhurst won the medal and did a couple of stupid things!
The match report on the Collingwood website had Johnson in the best!
Put simply... you dont drop a player who is in the best the week before.
Bay Pie
26 Apr 2008, 15:59
Burns and Rocca both in if fit.
Wellingham will be the first to go and possibly Cook.
If either Burns or Rocca do not play, Wellingham will miss before Cook. Cook could follow Crawford all day just like he did Stanton. Stanton got most of his kicks in the back half after Cook did a good job on him in the early parts.
I can see R Shaw and Cook being our run with players in the future. Doesn't bode well for Holland.
He came second in spite of his kicking, not because of it. He did a fantastic job that year of carrying the ball.
Almost every mid had near 20 possessions and used it ok yesterday. And I really suggest you stop looking at disposals as a useful measure of performance - it's not.
As for "running into form", I thought he played his worst game just a fortnight ago against North, so he's hardly been improving with each game.
I don't have anything personal against Johnson. If you check my posts before the season, I was adamant that he could be in our 22 (as opposed to those that wanted him gone). But I thought, and still do, that he should play as a small defender. In the midfield, he gets too much of the ball, and that's a negative for the team.[/quote]
Can almost guarantee you that Johnson will not be dropped. He is miles in front of Wellingham and Cook. So if Burns and/or Rocca come into the side, those two guys will be the most likely to go.
The Royal Sampler
26 Apr 2008, 16:19
Assuming Rocca is fit;
IN: Rocca, Burns
OUT: Wellingham, Cook
If Rocca's not fit, I'd drop Cook first.
magpies42
26 Apr 2008, 17:24
Just wondering how tough it will be to fit Rocca and Burns in next week.
Obviously players like Cook, Wellingham and Maxwell would be in the mix to be replaced in both Rocca and Burns are 100% fit.
Personally,
In: Burns, Rocca
Out: Wellingham, Maxwell
Then we could move Goldsack back to the backline, and with Rocca back inside 50 Trav can play his best role of the roaming, leading CHF.
as our defensive and team unit stands at the moment maxy is an integral part even if the possesion rate doesnt show it. he provides invaluable leadership and is hard at it! wont be dropped. unfortunately i think wellingham will be dropped, dont know who else...
Soul_Pie
26 Apr 2008, 17:27
I would say give Rocca another week out to get his fitness and his hunger back. Could do him a world of good.
If Burns is fit, then I would take Cook out of the team. He played alright but I thought Wellingham was just a little more impressive.
Dead Eye Didak
26 Apr 2008, 17:59
Rocca will not play next week, not fit enough.
I reckon Burns may come back through the ressies. Just a hunch.
I agree, l don't think Rocca will play next week even if fit. Dosen't bode well for him considering we kicked 23 goals, and Cloke relished playing closer to goal. Hawthorn aren't really that tall down back, so that is the only consideration that could be given for pebbles to play, but l think we will use a similiar structure against the Hawks.
Burnsy l think will come straight in, as we need another hard body in the middle and Hawthorn do have the hard bodies in the middle.
The Royal Sampler
26 Apr 2008, 18:10
Burnsy l think will come straight in, as we need another hard body in the middle and Hawthorn do have the hard bodies in the middle.
What an odd thing to say!
He'll either come in because he's our captain, or he won't because he's not fit. I don't see hard bodies having even the remotest thing to do with it! :p
Daicos Mullets
26 Apr 2008, 18:22
I think Wellingham had a better game than Cook, but probably both of them will make way for Burns & Rocca.
Dead Eye Didak
26 Apr 2008, 18:32
What an odd thing to say!
He'll either come in because he's our captain, or he won't because he's not fit. I don't see hard bodies having even the remotest thing to do with it! :p
What a odd thing to say on your part, Scott Burns is the hardest player in the middle for our footy club. He's one of the best in comp when taking a hit in the middle and gives out the hits to opposition players as well as anyone. If he's not extracting the ball from under a pack, he's hitting the oppostion bodies hard to clear the way for one the others to get the ball.
If you think that Burnsy wouldn't be considered to play because of his toughness and strength in the middle he provides then your kidding yourself. Of course he's our captain, but if the choice came to him playing in the VFL, or coming straight back into the side, l think his hardness in the middle would swing it the way of him returning immediately to the AFL, if fit.
Dundalis
26 Apr 2008, 19:14
Wellingham if he can keep improving will be far more valuable to us than Cook. He has speed and is an attacking midfielder. Again, speed in the midfield is our achilles heel, along with disposal. I've already commented about how our disposal efficiency goes to shit when we are heavily pressured, and we certainly weren't against the Bombers. It is guarenteed next week, and Wellingham looks almost as composed under pressure as Pendles. Very good skills, and seems a pretty smart player too. I would try to keep Wellingham in the side particularly for next week. Cook's role is easily replacable.
lenny&carl
26 Apr 2008, 20:26
Oh man, they're better than us! Although, our game against them last year was very hot, and we displayed enough skill to match them, but I know who should be favourites.
Hopefully the Dongs have played us into some form and we can at least have a decent go against the Dorks. In with a chance, but that's all.
Rocca generally plays well against the Hawks, and i think we need a second tall option up forward so i really hope he is fit.
Burns surely should be ok for this game, fingers crossed anyway.
Who to drop is the tough part, it'll probably be Wellingham and Cook, but both would be very unlucky.
Subtemperate
26 Apr 2008, 20:52
Whoever gets dropped will get another chance pretty quick.... I'm sure we will have our fair share of injuries. I myself would bring in Burns and Rocca in a heartbeat.
magpies42
26 Apr 2008, 22:01
Wellingham if he can keep improving will be far more valuable to us than Cook. He has speed and is an attacking midfielder. Again, speed in the midfield is our achilles heel, along with disposal. I've already commented about how our disposal efficiency goes to shit when we are heavily pressured, and we certainly weren't against the Bombers. It is guarenteed next week, and Wellingham looks almost as composed under pressure as Pendles. Very good skills, and seems a pretty smart player too. I would try to keep Wellingham in the side particularly for next week. Cook's role is easily replacable.
cook was far more advanced then wellingham for mine! i would play wellingham in the two's till the next oppurtunity arises, make him earn his stripes. should be alot easier now that he has had a taste of what the big time is like
scottyD
26 Apr 2008, 22:04
I think there will be no changes.
I just want to know who will Buddy Play on!
Dundalis
26 Apr 2008, 22:16
cook was far more advanced then wellingham for mine! i would play wellingham in the two's till the next oppurtunity arises, make him earn his stripes. should be alot easier now that he has had a taste of what the big time is like
Wellingham's possessions for me were more damaging, he directly created a couple of our goals. Cook made a few very poor skill errors early, though he was also good. Cook is a player easily replaced, we don't have many other quick mids.
dumesny1
26 Apr 2008, 22:34
If Medhurst and Cloke are going to play the way they did last week without Rocca, leave him out.
Pies_10
26 Apr 2008, 22:48
hope Rocca doesnt play next week if not for a while no forward pressure from him and our forward line played beautifally on ANZAC day without him.
In: Burns
Out: Cook or Wellingham not that either deserves to be dropped
Hawk0373
27 Apr 2008, 00:16
Good play Croad on Rocca who are you now going to play on Cloke? Brown maybe then who gets Medhurst? As for the Rucks our Ruckman are better around the ground then in the middle and one of our best area's are clearances so I'm happy to go head to head.
Gilham would take Cloke.
Guerra or Ladson on Medhurst.
Browny normally takes Didak.
Will get back to you on the rest, need to deal with the Tiggers first, not as easy as some are predicting.
Timmy from Thomastown
27 Apr 2008, 10:33
In Burns
Out Wellingham
cakewalk06
27 Apr 2008, 11:32
I think we need to be careful not to lose too much run - by, for example, bringing in Rocca, Burns for Cook, Wellingham - against a team like the Hawks who play a lot of keepings off. we'll need to do a lot of chasing/harrassing/tacking if we are to have a chance.
jerry springer
27 Apr 2008, 11:40
the extra 2 days break will be invaluable
hellfire
27 Apr 2008, 12:28
the extra 2 days break will be invaluable
I hope Richmond rough them up a bit today.... :)
Wellingham if he can keep improving will be far more valuable to us than Cook. He has speed and is an attacking midfielder. Again, speed in the midfield is our achilles heel, along with disposal. I've already commented about how our disposal efficiency goes to shit when we are heavily pressured, and we certainly weren't against the Bombers. It is guarenteed next week, and Wellingham looks almost as composed under pressure as Pendles. Very good skills, and seems a pretty smart player too. I would try to keep Wellingham in the side particularly for next week. Cook's role is easily replacable.
I agree 100% with this. :thumbsu:
Stakerz
27 Apr 2008, 13:14
Don't think Cook OR Wellingham will get dropped :)
Paddywackers
27 Apr 2008, 13:42
In Burns
Out Cook/Wellingham
Horses for coarses so probably Wellingham.
Wellingham was fantastic on debut obviously, however we will need Burns' toughness at the ball against one of the toughest midfields not just this year but for a long time.
jerry springer
27 Apr 2008, 13:52
I hope Richmond rough them up a bit today.... :)
my thoughts exactly:thumbsu:
Axl the great
27 Apr 2008, 15:49
Rocca needs to come in but on a bit of borrowed time i reckon. The guys looked real good with multiple scoring options and a massive forward line rotation. Essendon never knew Which of our guys were going to score next a la the bulldogs. If the same sort of thing where Ant is the option 50 to 70% of the time and is not having an influence starts happening again, the club has an obligation to maybe change it around to see if what we did with the forward line can work on a permanent basis.
I really hope Rocca is rested this week, and same goes for Burns too if not quite right. There is no need for either to be rushed back in.
I was admittedly impressed with both Cook and Wellingham, Wellingham always seemed to be there abouts at alot of contests, I think its only a matter of time before he Is really making a big impact, deserves another week. So does Cook.
Changes: If any...
In: Burns
Out: Cook
daics cousin
28 Apr 2008, 12:11
Rocca does play well against the hawks,but i think he won't come in this week.He has an ankle injury (soreness) so he may be forced to sit it out for another week.
Burns may come in but is no certainty either.
If that is the case,mm may surprise and debut another kid.
If rocca is out and reid is not up to it ,expect Chris Dawes to come in,Cook may get dropped and wellingham may stay in for Scotty burns if burns isn;t fit.
If Dawes does debut I wouldn't be surprised if mm plays him back and forward.The gazelle buddy franklin will get a few opponents and Dawes may be one of them if the others don't work out.
Other than that expect Chris Dawes to take over the Rocca role.
Strong kid, big frame for a junior similar to that of Nathan brown and will be groomed to take over from Rocca.He is very much in the jonathan Brown mould. Dawes is kpp,his position is a forward but like MM,he always wants a forward to learn to play both ends of the ground.
jimmy_clement#8
28 Apr 2008, 13:43
You'd go no change, except for maybe one thing, and thats Burns in for Cook. But I thought Cookie was good, and has a future. No shame in making way for the captain.
I think we need to be, if anything, smaller than taller, if that makes sense, to beat the Hawks. We need the run. So if it means sacrificing a tall in Rocca (to come back in) for a small in Wellingham (to make way for Pebs), then so be it.
We need to have more run than them, so as many smalls as possible is desirable, and besides, we have a goalkicking midfield, so goals aren't an issue. Especially after kicking 25 odd last week.
Hawthorn are a great running team i think we may go with same team just for that extra runner. We must play like the prelim v Geelong to get close to these guys i feel. High pressure football with good foot skills all game.
cschreuder61
28 Apr 2008, 14:42
If Rocca isn't fit, you'd definately go no chance wouldn't you? I know the Bombers weren't much opposition, but you guys seemed to get a lot more out of your midfield than I have seen this year, so it looks like its starting to gel.
Can't wait for this game, should be a good 50/50 contest.
magpiewarrior
28 Apr 2008, 17:37
I know he is a legend but Wakes may not be fast enough against the Hawks forward-line. Leroy will get Buddy but the rest of the Hawks forward-line is bloody quick and Wakes aint. As effective as he was on Friday when he had to sprint he looked nearly as slow as me and I make plugger look like a sprinter. If Scotty is fit he will play and thats a fact.
shawthing09
28 Apr 2008, 17:39
He played ok yesterday. So did everyone. I don't think we can really learn too much from the Ess game. Johnson's problems don't go away just because he played one game ok.
He still can't kick with any consistency, especially under pressure, and these days he's playing more outside than ever.
If we had a system where guys were encouraged to handball and carry, he'd be fine. But given he has to kick a lot in our system, and given he plays as a receiver, I think he's detrimental to our chances.
I think that is the most significant thing here. In a side desperate for hard bodies and inside players he has become more outside. As you have said his kicking skills are clearly not up to scratch if he is playing outside. If he was in the form of previous years winning a lot of contested ball and using it average he'd still be of great value. Unfortunatly he is recieving a lot of ball and turning it over.
As for kicking effiecncy stats they really flatter him. He almost always kicks long to a contest and more often then not it is A) not the right option and B) to the disadvantage of the foward
Wellingham's possessions for me were more damaging, he directly created a couple of our goals. Cook made a few very poor skill errors early, though he was also good. Cook is a player easily replaced, we don't have many other quick mids.
Wellingham today looked much the same as he does at VFL level, got to a lot of contests, won a couple got a bit of outside ball used it well. That said I think that if we did not dominant possesion so much he may have struggled. Cook did a decent tagging job and could be used in that role again this week. Cook is clearly the more AFL ready of the two and probably the most AFL ready of the players who have spent a majority of time in the two's that said he is also probably the player with the least upside of the bunch too
shawthing09
28 Apr 2008, 17:42
I know he is a legend but Wakes may not be fast enough against the Hawks forward-line. Leroy will get Buddy but the rest of the Hawks forward-line is bloody quick and Wakes aint. As effective as he was on Friday when he had to sprint he looked nearly as slow as me and I make plugger look like a sprinter. If Scotty is fit he will play and thats a fact.
I think our match ups will look something like this in the back half
Wakes on Roughhead
Harry O on Willams
Browny to start on Buddy
If Buddy goes nuts then Harry O will go to him IMO
magpiewarrior
28 Apr 2008, 20:32
I think our match ups will look something like this in the back half
Wakes on Roughhead
Harry O on Willams
Browny to start on Buddy
If Buddy goes nuts then Harry O will go to him IMO
You wouldn't think Harry on Roughhead and Moneybags on Williams?
Optimax
28 Apr 2008, 20:40
You wouldn't think Harry on Roughhead and Moneybags on Williams?
goldsack is better on the taller players, he can play small but as stokes proved in the prelim last year dangerous small forwards and goldsack dont always mix. Where as harry is probably better on smalls than talls (can play both easily well) he just needs to concentrate on his man.
magpiewarrior
28 Apr 2008, 20:55
goldsack is better on the taller players, he can play small but as stokes proved in the prelim last year dangerous small forwards and goldsack dont always mix. Where as harry is probably better on smalls than talls (can play both easily well) he just needs to concentrate on his man.
Don't get me wrong I'm not against Wakes but gee Roughhead's fast and in form do you really think Wakes can go with him.
Optimax
28 Apr 2008, 21:00
Don't get me wrong I'm not against Wakes but gee Roughhead's fast and in form do you really think Wakes can go with him.
wakes is deceptively quick, i wouldnt say fast or blistering on the lead but roughhead never struck me as someone blisteringly quick either. Roughead also seems a contested mark player as well which wakes excells at stopping where as harry is probably better on the lead (height differnce affects).
Thats my reasoning for wakes to play on roughhead
Thommo 42
28 Apr 2008, 21:12
Wakes has said in the past (and so has Mick) that he won't play 22 games this year.
This game is the perfect chance to rest him as I don't really think there is an obvious matchup for him
magpiewarrior
28 Apr 2008, 21:18
Wakes has said in the past (and so has Mick) that he won't play 22 games this year.
This game is the perfect chance to rest him as I don't really think there is an obvious matchup for him
Yeah I guess that's what I'm trying to say. Wakes is clever as all hell but I just don't see a match-up for him either, save him for the Saints next week. That'll give him a 2 week break and freshen him up a treat.
smiddaz123
28 Apr 2008, 21:28
What if Roughead gets the better of Brown? What about the resting ruckman?
Wakelin will have plenty to do.
What if Roughead gets the better of Brown? What about the resting ruckman?
Wakelin will have plenty to do.
What if pigs fly?
Actually, I agree with you. We've played Wakelin despite him not having an obvious match-up in most games, this would be absolutely the wrong week to rest him.
Thommo 42
28 Apr 2008, 21:34
Agree he's in the best 22. But they have stated that he will get a rest at some stage, perhaps this is one of the better chances to do it?
We've learnt in the past that 'rests' for players against so called 'weaker' sides don't work, but this is a situation where it is perhaps more appropriate than normal.
You are correct thoug, as the Hawks do rest their ruckmen up forward and Wakes would eb the best man to go to them.
brockbruiser
28 Apr 2008, 23:02
Please drop Rhyce Shaw......
yeah i know he's a hard worker... runs hard ra ra ra
but he cannot kick to save himself... even missed a number of handballs!! He makes me nervous everytime he gets the ball, i hope he gets dropped before cook/wellingham....
i know he gets a fair bit of the footy but this doesn't count for anything if they aren't effective... and cook IMO for a newbie seemed more effective than Rhyce in kicking
I would love to see a stat somewhere on rhyce shaws kicking effectiveness....?? he must be close to not being on our best 22
hellfire
28 Apr 2008, 23:22
Please drop Rhyce Shaw......
yeah i know he's a hard worker... runs hard ra ra ra
but he cannot kick to save himself... even missed a number of handballs!! He makes me nervous everytime he gets the ball, i hope he gets dropped before cook/wellingham....
i know he gets a fair bit of the footy but this doesn't count for anything if they aren't effective... and cook IMO for a newbie seemed more effective than Rhyce in kicking
I would love to see a stat somewhere on rhyce shaws kicking effectiveness....?? he must be close to not being on our best 22
Pffft.
Rhyce's kicking isn't that bad on paper. We all know it's not that great, but his run is extremely valuable, and he is easily in our top 7 or so players this year. Johnson will be dropped way before Rhyce.
Typhoon
28 Apr 2008, 23:36
I'm with Didaka.
No Change.
Give both Rocca & Burns another week to get themselves 100% right.
TheClokes
29 Apr 2008, 09:40
B: H. Shaw - Wakelin - Maxwell
HB: R. Shaw - Brown - O'Brien
C: Johnson - Burns - Pendlebury
HF: Didak - Cloke - Thomas
F: Davis - Rocca - Medhurst
FL: Fraser - Swan - Lockyer
INT: Clarke - O'Bree - Goldsack - Wood
OUT: Welllingham - Cook
Timmy from Thomastown
29 Apr 2008, 11:08
Rocca will no doubt be "injured" again this week. He'll be back after the week off and the best part of a month's break for him. And if doesn't perform when he comes back - or worse still if the forward line doesnt work with him in the team - some serious questions may have to be raised about his role in the starting 22.
Its the first time I've ever had a slight doubt about Ant's role in the team, but I'm beginning to see the writing on the wall. Its not quite the changing of the guard, but its getting close.
4#Didak#4
29 Apr 2008, 11:44
Would doubt Rocca will be quite ready, plus why risk him when he can have the next two weeks to get right.
Burns hopefully will play but once again if not close to 100% why risk him when you can consolidate his fitness over 2 weeks.
If Burns is in then either Wellingham or Cook out. Cook has a harder body so may favour him.
Pffft.
Rhyce's kicking isn't that bad on paper. We all know it's not that great, but his run is extremely valuable, and he is easily in our top 7 or so players this year. Johnson will be dropped way before Rhyce.
I hope Rhyce plays as Hodge goes out of his way to give him hell about hearing footsteps whenever he plays. Probably makes no difference to Shaw whatsoever, but just adds to the theatre of the contest.
This is easily one of my favourite matches for the year....hope it gets close to the contest of last year.
Why is Goldsack not an obvious match up for Buddy again, I thought he did really well?
Also, it'll be interesting to see Rocca's impact, as he didn't play last year, and from memory, Maxwell copped a dodgy knee and then had Roughead land on him later, so wasn't that effectual. Also there was no Brown last year for you guys.
At the other end, Boyle went off with a hammy, but has not had a big impact this year, whereas Willo is back, and Junior is just a joy to watch.
Hanging out for this match....hope we get a great crowd there. Finally a match on a saturday arvo.
Why is Goldsack not an obvious match up for Buddy again, I thought he did really well?
Because O'Brien has him covered in speed, strength, agility, spoiling ability and tackling.
Rioli will give us massive problems. We still don't have anyone on our list that even resembles a small defender.
PIES_MAGIC
30 Apr 2008, 15:18
Rocca and burns wont play due to the week off, might go with an unchanged lineup
smiddaz123
30 Apr 2008, 16:32
Because O'Brien has him covered in speed, strength, agility, spoiling ability and tackling.
Rioli will give us massive problems. We still don't have anyone on our list that even resembles a small defender.
He doesn't have him in strength, but that's ok since Buddy rarely uses his strength.
He doesn't have him in strength, but that's ok since Buddy rarely uses his strength.
I meant O'Brien/Goldsack, not O'Brien/Franklin.
smiddaz123
30 Apr 2008, 17:00
I meant O'Brien/Goldsack, not O'Brien/Franklin.
Oh, sorry.
Also, about your comment about us not having a small defender, Heath Shaw would be considered a small defender wouldn't he? Marty Clarke as well...
Oh, sorry.
Also, about your comment about us not having a small defender, Heath Shaw would be considered a small defender wouldn't he? Marty Clarke as well...
I think he means of the close checking, negating type. Both the above are rebounding types although Heater can freeze out a player, but we dont want to lose that run by him being purely defensive.
magpiewarrior
30 Apr 2008, 20:21
I know we haven't seen a lot of him in the backline but I reckon you might see Mick put Leon on Rioli. IMO Leon has the speed for Rioli and the discipline and commitment to task to totally blanket him.
bennymac1
30 Apr 2008, 21:02
what way does every1 think the game go saturday....? i think myself it will be a tight 1 to call
shawthing09
30 Apr 2008, 21:10
I know we haven't seen a lot of him in the backline but I reckon you might see Mick put Leon on Rioli. IMO Leon has the speed for Rioli and the discipline and commitment to task to totally blanket him.
Not worth it at all, you don't take players as creative as Leon, who has been good in the middle this year two and then give them a negating role on a first year small foward, the same way you don't give Heath Shaw a totally negatting role because you don't want to loose his rebound.