Unofficial Preview 2018 AFL Round 1 - Melbourne vs Geelong, Sunday March 25th, MCG

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bring-Back-Powell

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 27, 2005
5,918
1,139
Seattle
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Seattle Mariners
I cannot see how Danger can play round 1, the risks involved are just too great, make sure the Hammie is right.
I was under the impression that any strain, regardless of how minor it is, is at least 2 weeks on the sidelines. This should have Danger available for round 2 at the earliest

However, if the club can get him right for round 1 and he plays well without incident, then full credit to the fitness staff.

I don't care if he plays or not. The last time the Dees played an injury depleted side, they came in complacent and cost themselves a finals spot!
 
Stanley is the better ruck between those three, but unfortunately when he plays as second ruck he has a tendency to not have enough involvement across 4 quarters in other positions.

Smith's best position is the ruck and our best #1 ruck is Smith - does anyone want to argue that?

When they play Stanley as second ruck where he starts forward, if he fails to get involved during the first quarter, the coaches resort to throwing him into the ruck to get involved with the match which in turn means we lose the impact of Smith in the ruck and Smith isn't a great option up forward (handy at times, but I wouldn't want to rely on him as a forward for us to win matches), so he spends more time on the bench than is ideal for our midfield.

I was keeping track of the stats of our rucks last year (Smith, Stanley & Blicavs), and what was clear is that the longer the season went was that Stanley's inclusion was impacting Smith's role where Smith was spending up to 15 to 20% less time on ground when Stanley played, and it was to the extent that there were matches were both guys didn't get above 65% together because neither had enough of an impact outside of the ruck.

Ideally we start with Smith as #1 ruck where he spends 75/80% of the time with our #2 option able to successfully play another role with minimal time in the ruck required for them to have an impact.

Great post cats09 :thumbsu:

Considering Blitz's versatility + ignoring Stanley's recent injury, is Blitz the better #2 Ruck option? Blitz was terrific in the Colac game, where he began on the Wing, then had to Ruck when Stanley went off. Kicked a fantastic goal. Blitz had a terrific pre Season, finishing with pleasing stats.

How do you see Smith + Blitz having "enough of an impact outside of the ruck"? I reckon Blitz can be thrown anywhere + at times can have an impact upon the game. Whereas Stanley tends to be sent forward, but is ineffective in other positions.
 
Murdoch is the Austin McCrabb of his generation. Actually that's unfair to Austin.
Sadly, Murda doesn't have the personality, nor the 'cult here' adoration of the Geelong supporters that McCrabb had lol Murda needs to either sprout a huge moustache, or wear a bicycle tyre around his neck ;) He's never inspired the ire of Scotty either, it seems the #1 Rule - 'never kick across goal' is a thing of the past.
 
May 18, 2016
13,022
24,890
AFL Club
Geelong
I was under the impression that any strain, regardless of how minor it is, is at least 2 weeks on the sidelines. This should have Danger available for round 2 at the earliest

However, if the club can get him right for round 1 and he plays well without incident, then full credit to the fitness staff.

I don't care if he plays or not. The last time the Dees played an injury depleted side, they came in complacent and cost themselves a finals spot!
It will be exactly 2 weeks between the injury and the dees game.
 
Given the low-grade nature of Danger's hamstring injury, and working on the presumption he plays Rd 1, seems like a prefect opportunity to play him at FF.
Which is where I think we'll see him stationed.

A forward line of Hawkins, Menzel and Dangerfield is scary good.

Exactly what Mahlepi + I said on Sunday, to the amazement of some posters. Danger was brilliant booting five goals against Hawthorn. Played on one leg that day ;)

YES! YES! YES! The best option is for Dangerfield only to play when fully fit. Still I like the idea of him at FF if GFC wishes to be cautious.
 
Great post cats09 :thumbsu:

Considering Blitz's versatility + ignoring Stanley's recent injury, is Blitz the better #2 Ruck option? Blitz was terrific in the Colac game, where he began on the Wing, then had to Ruck when Stanley went off. Kicked a fantastic goal. Blitz had a terrific pre Season, finishing with pleasing stats.

How do you see Smith + Blitz having "enough of an impact outside of the ruck"? I reckon Blitz can be thrown anywhere + at times can have an impact upon the game. Whereas Stanley tends to be sent forward, but is ineffective in other positions.

If we go with Blitz as the #2 ruck then he needs to have an impact elsewhere - he looked ok in the Colac match and had a presence up forward, but he needs to stay in the match. Whether playing in the ruck or as a forward, he really needs to start using his athleticism to run his opponent around - we know that Blitz can run all day, so he should test his opponent to see how they go.

With question marks over the fitness of a couple tall defenders we might see Blitz playing in defence early in the season - if he is doing that can we afford for him to be playing as the #2 ruck also because we normally find defenders are more settled in terms of the role the play rather than switching in & out during a match.

And totally agree that Stanley is pretty much ineffective when playing outside of the forward line when not rucking - but unfortunately he can be pretty ineffective when up forward also. With interchange restrictions, I feel we really can't be in a position where the only option for our resting ruck is on the bench because it takes up an rotation that can be better used, especially if done a couple of times a quarter.
 
Soon.. not too soon.. but soon.

GO Catters

Until Rd 1, only
Screen Shot 2018-03-16 at 17.27.33.png


But who's counting?
 
If we go with Blitz as the #2 ruck then he needs to have an impact elsewhere - he looked ok in the Colac match and had a presence up forward, but he needs to stay in the match. Whether playing in the ruck or as a forward, he really needs to start using his athleticism to run his opponent around - we know that Blitz can run all day, so he should test his opponent to see how they go.

With question marks over the fitness of a couple tall defenders we might see Blitz playing in defence early in the season - if he is doing that can we afford for him to be playing as the #2 ruck also because we normally find defenders are more settled in terms of the role the play rather than switching in & out during a match.

And totally agree that Stanley is pretty much ineffective when playing outside of the forward line when not rucking - but unfortunately he can be pretty ineffective when up forward also. With interchange restrictions, I feel we really can't be in a position where the only option for our resting ruck is on the bench because it takes up an rotation that can be better used, especially if done a couple of times a quarter.

It's quite a quandary, isn't it? Agree with all of your points, especially about whether we can afford to have Blitz as #2 Ruck + roaring through defence. Perhaps as #2 Ruck, rotating through the Wing + dashing forward to kick a goal or three is the most effective use of his skills.

While he has the capacity to run his opponent into the ground, could he play as #2 Ruck + a tagger?
 

ShaunWDT

Premiership Player
Nov 18, 2013
4,638
8,514
AFL Club
Geelong
Exactly what Mahlepi + I said on Sunday, to the amazement of some posters. Danger was brilliant booting five goals against Hawthorn. Played on one leg that day ;)

YES! YES! YES! The best option is for Dangerfield only to play when fully fit. Still I like the idea of him at FF if GFC wishes to be cautious.
If he isn't fit enough to play in the midfield we shouldn't be picking him, you don't pick a guy that's not right in Round 1 just because they can play injured as a forward.
 

The_Todd07

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 8, 2008
12,336
15,226
Geelong
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Red Sox 76ers
Thanks

I love our second verse and believe we should sing it more often

I dont mind the second verse either but not how its been done
Like most of the songs its too clean and lost all oomph to it. Its as if they got whoever made west coasts trainwreck of a song to do the same thing to everyone else
 

AndyMac05

Senior List
Aug 28, 2012
166
425
AFL Club
Geelong
I dont mind the second verse either but not how its been done
Like most of the songs its too clean and lost all oomph to it. Its as if they got whoever made west coasts trainwreck of a song to do the same thing to everyone else
Agreed. I am confident in the early 90s they played the original version sung by the fable singers which included the second verse. Not the revamped Leigh Colbert version but the original one. I have tried to make enquirers with the club but never received a reply. I like the second verse and think we should have used it more often but I’d love to hear the original recording of it because I am confident it would sound better then this version. I can imagine a lot of non diehard supporters will be against the second verse because they simple don’t know it and it’s different but given a lot of our recent marketing around membership has been based around the second verse of the song it’s good to see it’ll be used in our song again. I’m interested to know how much involvement the club had in this and if they decided to use the second verse or if they afl decided it. Also why was there no consultation with members... seems a big change with no consultation from the supporter base. I can only assume the club didn’t have much say in it.
 

ADA23

Senior List
Jun 4, 2005
235
196
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Geelong
Stewart Harry Bews
Kolo Thurlow Tuohey

Duncan Ablett Blicavs

Gregson Hawkins Parfitt
Menegola Menzel Jones

Smith Selwood C Guthrie

Z Guthrie Kelly Constable Fogarty

Not our best team but I can’t see them risking Danger or those who didnt play JLT

In Crameri, Cocky
Out Jones, Fogarty
 

ATSAM

Club Legend
Mar 6, 2009
2,913
2,733
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Sadly, Murda doesn't have the personality, nor the 'cult here' adoration of the Geelong supporters that McCrabb had lol Murda needs to either sprout a huge moustache, or wear a bicycle tyre around his neck ;) He's never inspired the ire of Scotty either, it seems the #1 Rule - 'never kick across goal' is a thing of the past.
Is that Murdoch dishing out a perfect tackle in the new Telstra ad???
 

ATSAM

Club Legend
Mar 6, 2009
2,913
2,733
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Agreed. I am confident in the early 90s they played the original version sung by the fable singers which included the second verse. Not the revamped Leigh Colbert version but the original one. I have tried to make enquirers with the club but never received a reply. I like the second verse and think we should have used it more often but I’d love to hear the original recording of it because I am confident it would sound better then this version. I can imagine a lot of non diehard supporters will be against the second verse because they simple don’t know it and it’s different but given a lot of our recent marketing around membership has been based around the second verse of the song it’s good to see it’ll be used in our song again. I’m interested to know how much involvement the club had in this and if they decided to use the second verse or if they afl decided it. Also why was there no consultation with members... seems a big change with no consultation from the supporter base. I can only assume the club didn’t have much say in it.
According to Eddie the clubs had nothing to do with and didn't even know that it was happening
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back