Preview Round 10 Preview/Changes vs Sydney (#IndigenousRound) [Wells/Wright in for Ray/Mullett]

[Steele7]

Wood unlucky.

Just don't rate Robbie.

Tries his guts out. Makes momentum sapping mistakes.

Same here. Wood should be in. Yeah Nahas does try his guts out. Hope they do bring Wood in. Looked like he was ready to play on the big stage against Essedon.

 

[shinboner spiggs]

Wet weather certainly gives Nahas the advantage. Fully understand why no wood in the side.

 

[Wild Bill]

The small ground goes against wood. It's going to be hard with our 3 talls trying to find space - adding a 4th would be tough.

 

[Frank Thring]

Good changes, though if the weather does fine up then i would not be surprised that Wood comes in for Nahas. With the way the Swans defenders congregate 30 out from goal, i can see Wood being damaging by drifting inside 50 for the hit up kick. Either way, i hope our wingers do this to draw out the Swans defenders and segregate them as thats when we will nail them. Isolate and decimate

 

[Dirty_11]

We have to convert tomorrow night. We cannot afford to have a poor night in front of the sticks. Also, lets exploit this debutant backman at every opportunity, get him one out as much as possible. Nerves equal mistakes.

 

[LT Smash]

So this can only mean that bmac is now preferred over wood on the wing after 1 OK (11d, 4m, 81.8eff) match against carlton

No what it means is that a lot of our supporters still see the wing as an attacking position personified by the likes of Keith Greig, as opposed to the more defensive role that Brad Scott has imposed on that position over the past 7 years. That's not to say that Mason Wood can't become a terrific wing but Scotts would have to change his thinking and structure.

 

[czero]

Or it means the structure this week needs a HBF/wing more than it needs a 4th-tall-fwd/wing. I'm as keen to see wood playing regularly as anyone but I can kind of understand it.

BMac has been good for two weeks and would be very stiff. Nahas out before him.

When, in the last 2 games, has McKenzie lined up on the wing? Not a like for like replacement with Wood at all. Ridiculous comment.

That is such an idiotic post. You think the club don't know what they are doing?

Wood is a third tall. He doesn't not play like Nahas and plays at the other end of the ground to Bmac and Dumont is a midfielder. How you can compare them is beyond me.

Like it or not, Wood is competing with the 3 talks for a spot. Anything else hurts our structure imo.

Structure? You guys clearly don't even understand our structure.

Let me walk it through for you lads, because for some reason you believe that suddenly we have replaced a forward with yet another back in this game.

I am taking the bulldogs match as a benchmark. This game was a feature because it ALREADY had an extra down back.

From that game our OUTS are
Turner - Forward
Jacobs - Midfielder/Tagger
Higgans - Wing/Forward

Turners direct replacement is Nahas - This is a tick, we just do not have any other small forward available.
Jacobs direct replacement is Dumont - Tick, clearly going for a runwith role and possibly going to remain in the side if he proves he can do it - good luck son

Higgans is being replaced by Brad McKenzie. He is playing a Wing/Forward role - Just like he did last week you numpties.

Hmm, let me see, what does mason play. Wing/Forward.

In masons last game, for a half of footy on the wing, Mason had 13d @ 76.9, 6m, and 1 goal. * it, I'm gunna give him the last one. 2 goals.

Third tall. Bah. No clue.

 

[Phillyroo]

Nahas plays until Anderson, Garner or Turner are fit or available.

 

[McRobie]

Is this like how the undermanned Swans got torn up by Wells and Tarrant in the semi last year?

So youre saying we weren't under strength last year?

 

[Wild Bill]

Their backline is super small. We break even in the midfield we are a chance.

 

[czero]

Am sure the club sitting 9-0 has enough runs on the board to pick the side they believe gives us the best chance. It will be tough and tight, not Wood's bag currently.

Sure - Goes to my original comment. Holding him back. I hope he finds a team that gives him a game.

Just want to mention, woods average contested disposals from his games have been in our top 10%

 

[Phillyroo]

So youre saying we weren't under strength last year?

Both teams were missing significant players, which is normal at that time of year.

 

[McRobie]

Both teams were missing significant players, which is normal at that time of year.

Lol...enjoy the game.

 

[Phillyroo]

Lol...enjoy the game.

Lol..... You too.

 

[Wild Bill]

So youre saying we weren't under strength last year?

Yeah - Goodes played.

 

[jess_1804]

Structure? You guys clearly don't even understand our structure.

Let me walk it through for you lads, because for some reason you believe that suddenly we have replaced a forward with yet another back in this game.

I am taking the bulldogs match as a benchmark. This game was a feature because it ALREADY had an extra down back.

From that game our OUTS are
Turner - Forward
Jacobs - Midfielder/Tagger
Higgans - Wing/Forward

Turners direct replacement is Nahas - This is a tick, we just do not have any other small forward available.
Jacobs direct replacement is Dumont - Tick, clearly going for a runwith role and possibly going to remain in the side if he proves he can do it - good luck son

Higgans is being replaced by Brad McKenzie. He is playing a Wing/Forward role - Just like he did last week you numpties.

Hmm, let me see, what does mason play. Wing/Forward.

In masons last game, for a half of footy on the wing, Mason had 13d @ 76.9, 6m, and 1 goal. **** it, I'm gunna give him the last one. 2 goals.

Third tall. Bah. No clue.

First of all, never assume you are talking exclusively to 'lads' on here.

Secondly, it's Higgins, with an i.

Thirdly, is it not possible that since the Bulldogs game we have indeed changes our structure to accommodate another half back flanker? The fact that you even think BMac played a wing/forward role last week makes me think you didn't actually watch the game.

No one is even denying that Mason doesn't deserve a game, but to say he is a like for like replacement with BMac is just wrong.

 

[Horizons_00]

Wright hasn't played footy for ages??

don't understand bringing in a under done player

 

[Orange Peanut]

Structure? You guys clearly don't even understand our structure.

Let me walk it through for you lads, because for some reason you believe that suddenly we have replaced a forward with yet another back in this game.

I am taking the bulldogs match as a benchmark. This game was a feature because it ALREADY had an extra down back.

From that game our OUTS are
Turner - Forward
Jacobs - Midfielder/Tagger
Higgans - Wing/Forward

Turners direct replacement is Nahas - This is a tick, we just do not have any other small forward available.
Jacobs direct replacement is Dumont - Tick, clearly going for a runwith role and possibly going to remain in the side if he proves he can do it - good luck son

Higgans is being replaced by Brad McKenzie. He is playing a Wing/Forward role - Just like he did last week you numpties.

Hmm, let me see, what does mason play. Wing/Forward.

In masons last game, for a half of footy on the wing, Mason had 13d @ 76.9, 6m, and 1 goal. **** it, I'm gunna give him the last one. 2 goals.

Third tall. Bah. No clue.

Reasonable points, interesting debate. Not sure why you'd feel the need to be a douche about it.

 

[Mullett]

Huge fan of Dumont and McKenzie getting another crack at it.

More and more convince that Wells' "injury" was just us foxing and resting him. Didn't need him against Carlton, we need him now. Automatic inclusion. Ray has to consign himself to the fact that he is pure depth, you'd think he's made his peace with that. Any games he plays with us are a bonus. Wright is an automatic inclusion and Mullett is the obvious exclusion. McDonald's had a good month, Atley is steadily improving, MacMillan may never be dropped again.

Just about the perfect changes. Wouldn't have minded seeing Wood in but there isn't a spot for him. Team looks balanced.

Genius

 

[brickstobricks]

I think the reason why wood is not playing is purely because the SCG doesn't have wings, the ground is to small and realistically the teams should inly play 16 per side.
So wood out.
Bmac keeps his spot because his greatest weapon, is by foot. In the top 5 kicks in our team.
Which will be so damaging on this small ground.

 

[czero]

First of all, never assume you are talking exclusively to 'lads' on here.

Fair enough, I apologise - I did assume.

Secondly, it's Higgins, with an i.

Right, whatever.

Thirdly, is it not possible that since the Bulldogs game we have indeed changes our structure to accommodate another half back flanker? The fact that you even think BMac played a wing/forward role last week makes me think you didn't actually watch the game.

No one is even denying that Mason doesn't deserve a game, but to say he is a like for like replacement with BMac is just wrong.

Its not a question about it being possible since the doggies. Its in the past and we all watched the games. So no. We ran our new defensive structure in the game against the doggies. Since that time we had a few missing personal issues and experimented against essendon with 2 rucks, apart from that its been players filling the role that went out.

BMac has woods spot - end of story.

Statistically wood has provided better results in that position - in all categories.

 

[Rod Stroker]

Wood stiff. Or is that stiff Wood?
Either way, he should be playing. He's an upgrade on Nahas; he's a better mark and kick and can bring defensive pressure.
Baffling decision.

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

Wright hasn't played footy for ages??

dpnt understand bringing a under done player

Not just underdone, but out of form and with no ideal matchup.

 

[kangaspurs]

Structure? You guys clearly don't even understand our structure.

Let me walk it through for you lads, because for some reason you believe that suddenly we have replaced a forward with yet another back in this game.

I am taking the bulldogs match as a benchmark. This game was a feature because it ALREADY had an extra down back.

From that game our OUTS are
Turner - Forward
Jacobs - Midfielder/Tagger
Higgans - Wing/Forward

Turners direct replacement is Nahas - This is a tick, we just do not have any other small forward available.
Jacobs direct replacement is Dumont - Tick, clearly going for a runwith role and possibly going to remain in the side if he proves he can do it - good luck son

Higgans is being replaced by Brad McKenzie. He is playing a Wing/Forward role - Just like he did last week you numpties.

Hmm, let me see, what does mason play. Wing/Forward.

In masons last game, for a half of footy on the wing, Mason had 13d @ 76.9, 6m, and 1 goal. **** it, I'm gunna give him the last one. 2 goals.

Third tall. Bah. No clue.

Haha what? Did you actually watch the last two games? McKenzie certainly did not play mid/fwd (although with his kicking ability, I sort of wish he did). When Wood was playing he was mainly half forward with some license to roam, but most of his work was done in the forward half. He wasn't playing on a wing, just as McKenzie wasn't. It seems like you're saying that Wood and McKenzie are competing for the same role, which is categorically not the case. It could be argued that they are competing for the same spot in the tea, but if that was the case then the structure would change depending on which is selected.

 

[Phillyroo]

Not just underdone, but out of form and with no ideal matchup.

Is Heeney a good match up?
Watch the last 1/4 of the Bulldogs, game... Sammy was enormous.