Emotional speculation based on a factless perception..if you saw Kelly's interview he is very aware of his trade implications to the club, the timing of it and how it didn't quite work out the way everyone wanted due to the changing circumstances and fortunes of the club, out of his control. He is totally committed to getting the best out of himself and giving the team his all. He carried the midfield last season, shouldered a heavy load and rarely gets injured.
Prediction Round 3, 2024: Changes vs Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter Bleedblueandgold
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Dom sheed pocket
All Australian
- Aug 15, 2023
- 844
- 1,654
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I saw Kelly running harder defensively than what he ever has previously to be honest.
THE A5
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 26, 2020
- 9,365
- 16,650
- AFL Club
- West Coast
It was noted a few times in the commentary as well
Schofield said the exact opposite during the broadcast. Said that it was noticeable that Kelly was forgoing his usual high possession game to become more defensive and accountable. The 'here for the pay check" jab is pure rubbish.
Agree with the defence of Edwards, sure he isn't quick but he makes good and fast decisions, and his disposal is solid. Looking at the highlights of his game (I only watched the 2nd half) there was only 1 missed target.
Good decision makers with good disposal are the type of player we dont have in abundance. He stays.
Get_The_Gaff
Premiership Player
- Apr 4, 2021
- 4,672
- 10,624
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Saw him multiple times during the game running hard forward then jogging when we turned it over .
Just like our first goal of the game running forward .
If its his role to do that so be it but when his man is running back linking up and Tim not even trying to go with him it looks bad.
As for fact less perception ? When you sitting on centre wing watching him jog multiple times whilst his man is gonski ?
Maybe he did a McGovern and stuck his hand up for someone else to cover his man
Last edited:
DeckedOut20
Rookie
- Sep 4, 2023
- 42
- 202
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Another reason I can't see Barnett being dropped, is the height of the Bulldogs forward line:
- Sam Darcy: 205cm
- Jamarra Ugle-Hagan: 197cm
- Aaron Naughton: 195cm
I can't imagine we will be able to call upon Jamieson to assist in the ruck and will probably have to rely on Baily Williams and Barnett.
I wouldn't mind seeing:
- Jamieson (2m) on Darcy. Both relatively young and raw, Jamo drops 5cm but has been cracking in.
- Barrass (197cm) on the deeper forward of JUH & Naughton (assuming JUH).
- Potentially Hough (191cm) on the higher one, especially if they're looking to get up the field to draw Gov away. Hough generally gets a smaller opponent and handles them reasonably well, however, there isn't often three +195cm forwards to deal with.
- Which would ideally leave Gov (197cm) in an intercepting role away from all that. Albeit he might be required to take Naughton.
As always, I could be completely off the mark.
I don't want to see Barnett dropped as I hate seeing any player (especially a young player) picked for one game and dropped. I also think he competed well (but is obviously still not physically ready at this level - unsurprisingly). But I have no confidence in BBW as a forward in a team without OA, a functioning JD etc and think we are best suited as a team at the moment with BBW in the ruck and Jack Williams as the main forward. Fitness aside, it is probably what should have happened last week.
Thats good he must've got a rocket.
As the first goal that GWS got was easy for them due to him not getting back and cruising just inside the D50 on the same side of the ground watching that play unfold without getting back.
eaglevision
Club Legend
- Jul 27, 2023
- 2,264
- 6,029
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Barnett will play. JJ and LEdwards for Burgiel and Hall I’m hoping for.
Your guess or has that been reported somewhere?
Issue is we are too tall, once again (albeit at least this time there are reasons and we are playing youth).
3x KPD
2xKPF (or 3 if we count BBW) who are mostly ineffective currently (granted limited supply)
2x ruck
Maric at 196 can be a mobile KPF, and we need another forward target (especially one who roams to give us an exit from defence).
Would prefer Barnett out for an alternate tall - not because of output but because of structure.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Who knows what you think you saw?...If you watch the Schoey vision he explains Tk's role and explains how his goal worked off the back of Cripps. But to say he's only there for the paycheck is just lazy and wrong, if you say that about Kelly, you could say it for half the team also...besides Simpson has said those days are over, carrying underperforming players..Saw him multiple times during the game running hard forward then jogging when we turned it over .
Just like our first goal of the game running forward .
If its his role to do that so be it but when his man is running back linking up and Tim not even trying to go with him it looks bad.
As for fact less perception ? When you sitting on centre wing watching him jog multiple times whilst his man is gonski ?
Maybe he did a McGovern and stuck his hand up for someone else to cover his man
LittleFires
Preseason nuffy
Same journo that reported on "young goalsneak" Coby Burgiel's bag of 4 goals in the WAFL a couple weeks ago
Not sure why so many want to see JJ dropped.
Last year he and Hunt were the standouts who took the game on and played in a fashion we need to compete.
One game back with some skill errors in a developing young team shouldn't be instant dismissal. He had a go, took the game on and at least tried to be creative and find some cracks to break through.
With a game under his belt I am sure he will be cleaner next week.
If we start dropping guys after one game back, unless they were putrid and he wasn't, then we will not get consistency and "synergy".
We need speed and creativity against the dog's so dropping one of the few players we have with this doesn't make sense.
Last year he and Hunt were the standouts who took the game on and played in a fashion we need to compete.
One game back with some skill errors in a developing young team shouldn't be instant dismissal. He had a go, took the game on and at least tried to be creative and find some cracks to break through.
With a game under his belt I am sure he will be cleaner next week.
If we start dropping guys after one game back, unless they were putrid and he wasn't, then we will not get consistency and "synergy".
We need speed and creativity against the dog's so dropping one of the few players we have with this doesn't make sense.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 1,567
- 3,298
- AFL Club
- West Coast
So what you’re basically saying is that Simpson has said that previously he has continually selected underperforming players, but that he’s not going to do that anymore…………..jeez thanks Simmo, you beauty!
Kelly is playing more forward which is what we have wanted more of? I think he has been totally fine.
Simmo wants speed and JJ offers that in spades. I think once the team gets continuity those mistakes become less and less.
Id be dropping cole before i drop JJ.
Yep same. Cole now has a body of work that suggests he should be thinking about a spell in the two's. He looks fumbly, tentative and unsure of himself. He needs confidence in his ability and his body so go beat up on some forwards in the magoos.
Man that's about as personal a statement you can make ?
Have the rules of this page been lessoned that we make make such personal statements now,
no matter how silly someone else comments are ?
Rotham doesn't play like a tall and if given a good run at 1/2 back in Cole's role, would be superior to Cole as he is quicker (Cole's lack of pace means he constantly being exposed going back towards goal), doesn't spud as many simple marks as Cole (although arguably line ball) and can dispose of the ball with penetration (as opposed to Cole's little dinky up and unders).
If its coming straight back it may as well come back from 55m rather than 45m, and be outside the 50m arc as opposed to being within range.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
