Changes for Anzac Day

[good4footy]

In's - Dawes (let's do the obvious rather than the wishing- people asking for Rusling would be setting him up for failure - he is no where near ahead of Dawes or Anthony), Goldsack.

Out's- L.Brown, one of Toovey / Lockyer / Caff

Any of Toovey, Lockyer or Caff would be unlucky but we need pace & skill against Essendon. Toovey - pace but poor skill. Lockyer - skill but poor pace. Caff if one of the other two were required for a particular match up but prefer him in.


P.S. There is no way that this game or the West Coast game would be the time we went in with one ruck option. If we went with one ruck option then Essendon could leave Ryder forward most of the game which may hurt us and would require another tall backman to come into the side affecting our run.

 

[Invigoration]

How does having one ruckman affect Essendon's ruckman going forward?

It's not like we'd put Fraser back on Ryder when he goes forward, one of Ryder and Hille will go forward regardless, but they are both poor marking options and not of much concern to be honest. I imagine they'll be the ones that keep Leroy in the team though.

Toovey was good again on the weekend, I don't know why people waste the effort of naming him as an out every week. Move on people, it isn't going to happen, nor should it.

 

[good4footy]

How does having one ruckman affect Essendon's ruckman going forward?

It's not like we'd put Fraser back on Ryder when he goes forward, one of Ryder and Hille will go forward regardless, but they are both poor marking options and not of much concern to be honest. I imagine they'll be the ones that keep Leroy in the team though.

Toovey was good again on the weekend, I don't know why people waste the effort of naming him as an out every week. Move on people, it isn't going to happen, nor should it.

1) By us having one ruckman they can play their other ruckman forward - he won't need a rest as he will be rucking limited time. Less likely to keep a ruckman on the ground if he needs to challenge another ruck oppponent as opposed to one ruckman.

2) Toovey was not good. He was his average self. He get's the best out of himself, tries hard and good on him for that. He lacks skill and we have better options.

P.S Ryder is a very good mark

 

[Pies_10]

How does having one ruckman affect Essendon's ruckman going forward?

It's not like we'd put Fraser back on Ryder when he goes forward, one of Ryder and Hille will go forward regardless, but they are both poor marking options and not of much concern to be honest. I imagine they'll be the ones that keep Leroy in the team though.

Toovey was good again on the weekend, I don't know why people waste the effort of naming him as an out every week. Move on people, it isn't going to happen, nor should it.

Im with you Toovey was ok on the weekend he wont be dropped.

 

[smiddaz123]

1) By us having one ruckman they can play their other ruckman forward

Why can't they play him forward when we have two ruckmen?

 

[good4footy]

Why can't they play him forward when we have two ruckmen?

They can but it would be to our advantage as he will be required to also ruck if we had 2 ruckman. They are less likely to send him forward or if they do, time forward would be limited compared to not having to ruck against a 2nd ruckman.

My point is I would rather Ryder spent less time forward and the best way to do this is for us to have two rucking options. If Ryder or Hille went forward for a rest instead of the bench, i think it would give us an advantage the longer the game went in the ruck (if we had 2 ruckman) because of fatigue.

Additionally, having one ruckman deal with two ruckman would fatigue our ruckman the further the game went.

 

[Invigoration]

1) By us having one ruckman they can play their other ruckman forward - he won't need a rest as he will be rucking limited time. Less likely to keep a ruckman on the ground if he needs to challenge another ruck oppponent as opposed to one ruckman.

2) Toovey was not good. He was his average self. He get's the best out of himself, tries hard and good on him for that. He lacks skill and we have better options.

P.S Ryder is a very good mark

Good, I've got no problem with them playing one of Hille/Ryder as a permanent forward, they are both poor at it. Neither are recognised goal kickers, nor are they strong contested marks. Ryder has average hands (but a good leap), he clearly struggles when opposed to a decent backman as a key forward target. If bringing in Dawes, who is a recognised forward, means that in-turn they play one of their ruckman as a forward, we definitely win out.
You're logic is flawed anyway, as Smiddaz points out. Whether we have one or two ruckman doesn't alter their ability to play one of the ruckmen forward. Having Josh Fraser in the team has absolutely no bearing on that.

Toovey was good, shut down his man and did his job. Skills weren't too bad either. And no, we don't have better options for small, shut down defenders.
People need to stop judging a shut down defender on what he does offensively.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Why can't they play him forward when we have two ruckmen?

We cant play ours forward because if we have one ruckman because he'll be chasing tail all day and will have to drop into the hole and contest at hit-outs deep in defence. We have recruited a goalkicking ruckman so that we have flexibility. If you take away his goalkicking and take away his second ruck to assist him, we're no better off than we have been in the last ten years.

 

[Invigoration]

We cant play ours forward because if we have one ruckman because he'll be chasing tail all day and will have to drop into the hole and contest at hit-outs deep in defence. We have recruited a goalkicking ruckman so that we have flexibility. If you take away his goalkicking and take away his second ruck to assist him, we're no better off than we have been in the last ten years.

Jolly hasn't played as a forward all year (or very rarely, I've seen him start down there probably once), all his goals have come from running forward of the play as a ruckman.

Fraser has been chopping him out for about 5 minutes a quarter anyway, for a grand total of 7 hits outs. People are talking as if we are going to lose some massive influence in the ruck if Fraser goes out, but at this stage, Dawes, Cloke and Brown could easily do the job he is doing at the moment and leave Jolly playing the exact same amount of time in the ruck as he has been.

 

[good4footy]

Good, I've got no problem with them playing one of Hille/Ryder as a permanent forward, they are both poor at it. Neither are recognised goal kickers, nor are they strong contested marks. Ryder has average hands (but a good leap), he clearly struggles when opposed to a decent backman as a key forward target. If bringing in Dawes, who is a recognised forward, means that in-turn they play one of their ruckman as a forward, we definitely win out.
You're logic is flawed anyway, as Smiddaz points out. Whether we have one or two ruckman doesn't alter their ability to play one of the ruckmen forward. Having Josh Fraser in the team has absolutely no bearing on that.

Toovey was good, shut down his man and did his job. Skills weren't too bad either. And no, we don't have better options for small, shut down defenders.
People need to stop judging a shut down defender on what he does offensively.

1) It's not not flawed just because you diasagree with it. Of course whether we play 2 ruckman has bearing a on it. We may need to agree to disagree.

2) Once again we may need to agree to disagree - I believe Goldsack is a better option than Toovey for that role.

3) Good smaller defenders do just that -stop their opponents and are offensive - hence my comment that Toov's is average rather than good.

 

[chop_me]

1) It's not not flawed just because you diasagree with it. Of course whether we play 2 ruckman has bearing a on it. We may need to agree to disagree.

2) Once again we may need to agree to disagree - I believe Goldsack is a better option than Toovey for that role.

3) Good smaller defenders do just that -stop their opponents and are offensive - hence my comment that Toov's is average rather than good.

Offensively speaking: Goldsack > Toovey
Defensively speaking: Toovey > Goldsack

i don't think an offensive element is a pre-requisite for a small defender (sure it's good if they can attack as well)...

The primary objective of a defender is to defend..
at the moment, i have more faith in Toovey than Goldsack to stop his opponent on the day...[not saying Toovey is a gun by any stretch] we need Goldsack to pick up the benchmark he set himself two seasons ago.. and i have to admit, Toovey was better defensively last year

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Offensively speaking: Goldsack > Toovey
Defensively speaking: Toovey > Goldsack

i don't think an offensive element is a pre-requisite for a small defender (sure it's good if they can attack as well)...

The primary objective of a defender is to defend..
at the moment, i have more faith in Toovey than Goldsack to stop his opponent on the day...[not saying Toovey is a gun by any stretch] we need Goldsack to pick up the benchmark he set himself two seasons ago.. and i have to admit, Toovey was better defensively last year

I disagree with this, Goldsack is probably the best natural defender at the club. Watch his Adelaide final last year - he was best on ground and it was because of his defensive ability more than his offensive ability. He was brilliant in that game and that's the difference between the two players. Toovey is an untalented trier who can always do "decent" whereas Goldsack actually has the ability to be a very good player. He can have an influence. He is also far more versatile and can play well on mediums and some talls. He is good on smalls just as Toovey is. Toovey played out of his skin last year and he was still only "decent". This season he has been worse and has been less than average. To be that poor offensively you need to be brilliant defensively (ala Presti) but Toovey is not. Also, to say he is our best shutdown small defender is a joke. If he was so good at it he would have played on Rioli all game but he didn't. Why? Because MM didn't have enough faith in him. He used O'Brien, a taller player who plays nowhere near as close and runs off a lot a hell of a lot more. Toovey was not even very good on the weekend. Again, he was average. Round 1 he was decent and rounds 2 and 3 he was absolutely shocking. It always makes me laugh when our fringe players play a decent game where they do nothing more than justify their selections. Everyone comes in with, "he was very good"...."he was brilliant"...."he is the first picked every week".

Also, I agree that having Fraser in the team will have no bearing on their ability to play a ruckman forward but it will destroy our ability to even the ledger. It also means that Jolly will get smashed in quarter 4. It's not like Jolly's playing so well he doesn't need help against a top line ruck duo. He was smashed in the ruck by Renouf on the weekend. His 2 goals made his game much better but he mightn't have ran forward hard enough to be able to kick either if he knew he had to run out the whole game in the ruck.

 

[StillWaiting5689]

They can but it would be to our advantage as he will be required to also ruck if we had 2 ruckman. They are less likely to send him forward or if they do, time forward would be limited compared to not having to ruck against a 2nd ruckman.

My point is I would rather Ryder spent less time forward and the best way to do this is for us to have two rucking options. If Ryder or Hille went forward for a rest instead of the bench, i think it would give us an advantage the longer the game went in the ruck (if we had 2 ruckman) because of fatigue.

Additionally, having one ruckman deal with two ruckman would fatigue our ruckman the further the game went.

Against WCE the Essendon rucks spent a fair bit of time forward and WCE have 2 rucks so it wont make a difference how many we play. If Fraser and Wood can ruck solo last year with only chop outs then Jolly can, he is used to shouldering majority of the ruck duties anyway.

Fraser out
Dawes in

I don't think they would drop Frase and L brown at the same time and would rather Lbrown as much as pains me to say. Did anyone else see Fraser tackle the smallest guy on the field and not be able to take him down despite trying his hardest - it was quite pathetic. He has been close to hopeless up forward and is pretty much a cardboard cutout in the ruck for the short amount of time he is there.
Fraser has played his best football as the first ruck that can float around the ground and work as a tall midfielder, this year playing the second ruck role he has been disappointing. I thought he would be better having Jolly in the team but he has gotten worse. There is no point having him out there with the output he has been giving.
How many times did we seem to kick long to a contest to Davis? Need a target down there and Fraser or brown aren't it but Brown is better than Fraser.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Jolly hasn't played as a forward all year (or very rarely, I've seen him start down there probably once), all his goals have come from running forward of the play as a ruckman.

Maybe not yet - he's only played four games for us so far - but he has kicked nearly 50 goals in the past two years at the Swans. Considering we have some problems in the forward line (with only one key forward in two games and a hopelessly out of form Anthony in the other two) it would be wise to use Jolly's ability to kick a goal to give us extra options. He cant do that as effectively - either by playing forward or by drifting forward - if he is forced to ruck solo.

One of Fraser or L Brown will be playing this Sunday. Brown is better around the ground while Fraser is the better ruckman. It will be a close call.

 

[Invigoration]

Maybe not yet - he's only played four games for us so far - but he has kicked nearly 50 goals in the past two years at the Swans. Considering we have some problems in the forward line it would be wise to use Jolly's ability to kick a goal to give us extra options. You cant do that if he is forced to ruck solo.

Of course he can, how do you think he kicked those goals at Sydney. He never played as a forward at Sydney. Every one of those 50 odd goals was scored from running forward of the play as a ruckman and at Sydney it was done when he was the sole ruck, as he was virtually every week.

1) It's not not flawed just because you diasagree with it. Of course whether we play 2 ruckman has bearing a on it. We may need to agree to disagree.

2) Once again we may need to agree to disagree - I believe Goldsack is a better option than Toovey for that role.

3) Good smaller defenders do just that -stop their opponents and are offensive - hence my comment that Toov's is average rather than good.

Goldsack isn't a like for like for Toovey at all. Goldsack is virtually key position defender size, if he played on the same blokes as Toovey he'd get his pants pulled every week.

Somehow, without playing any league football in the last 6 months, Goldsack's stocks have soared severely. He was poor last year and despite being given multiple chances at the top, continued to fail. But now suddenly after a poor pre-season, disappointing turn outs in the praccys, an illness, a stunted restart to the year, 2 very average showings in the VFL (although he was reportedly better on the weekend) he is now considering back in our best 22 and better than players who are competently doing their jobs.
Makes no sense.

Down the track I wouldn't mind seeing Goldsack back, but nothing he has done in the last year suggests to me he is anywhere near taking the spot of someone from our current back 6. He is average offensively, no where near damaging enough and isn't any stronger shutting down defenders than someone in our first 22 already.

I don't agree with point 3 either. We have more than enough options to rebound from the back 50. Toovey is there to do jobs on dangerous smalls, anything outside of that is a bonus. Tooves is a good shut down defender in the same way Clinton Jones is a good shut down mid. Neither are particularly strong offensively, but they both do the jobs they are assigned and because of that, they'll continue to get picked.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Of course he can, how do you think he kicked those goals at Sydney. He never played as a forward at Sydney. Every one of those 50 odd goals was scored from running forward of the play as a ruckman and at Sydney it was done when he was the sole ruck, as he was virtually every week.

Sydney also failed to make the finals while Jolly was there trying to play ruck/forward. Clearly he wasnt being utilised properly nor given proper support in 2009. When they won the flag he had Ball helping him out.

When he left he was replaced by not one, but two ruckmen.

 

[Zahki]

Sydney also failed to make the finals while Jolly was there trying to play ruck/forward. Clearly he wasnt being utilised properly nor given proper support in 2009.

Wait, wait...Are you seriously suggesting that the Swans didn't make the finals last year because Jolly wasn't properly utilised?

Whatever you're on I want some, it must be a magical world of fantasy 24/7.

 

[Go Pies!!!!!]

IN: Dawes

OUT : Brown

Need Brown or Fraser playing and at this stage would prefer Fraser against the Dons.

 

[Invigoration]

Yeah needless to say, I don't this their ruck situation was the reason they didn't make finals for the last couple of years.

The fact he was replaced by two ruckman is more a testament to Jolly as a player, rather than a change in gameplan from Roos. Plus, the two ruckman they brought in are both half arsed AFL players, you would hardly feel confident with just having one of them step in to replace Jolly.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Wait, wait...Are you seriously suggesting that the Swans didn't make the finals last year because Jolly wasn't properly utilised?

I'm saying having two rucks is important to our structures, as it is to the structures of other sides. Needless to say its preferable if both of them can win a hitout or get a kick. But even with one out of form its better to have two out there than one.

We need to keep Fraser in the side, despite his poor form - or at a pinch keep Brown and use him as a shit second ruck but a handy crasher and basher - or thirdly take a punt on Wood and select him despite playing only one VFL game. Or we could select Shea!!!!!!!

 

[Old Spice]

Don't know what Woods form was like, but Fraser has been as powerful as a wilted lettuce for us. I'm for Jolly with help from Wood / Leroy / Dawes / 3rd man up. Cannot carry Leroy and Fraser. If OBree deserved to be dropped, then Fraser definitely does on current form.

 

[Lockyer24]

B: Nick Maxwell, Simon Prestigiacomo, Harry O'Brien
HB: Dane Swan, Ben Reid, Heath Shaw
C: Dale Thomas, Scott Pendlebury, Alan Didak
HF: Steele Sidebottom, Chris Dawes, Brent Macaffer
F: Leon Davis, Travis Cloke, Paul Medhurst
Foll: Darren Jolly, Luke Ball, Sharrod Wellingham
Inter: Dayne Beams, Ben Johnson, Tarkyn Lockyer, Josh Fraser

In: Ben Reid, Chris Dawes
Out: Leigh Brown, Alan Toovey

Our core defensive group of four picks themselves. Swanny to start at half back, he is excellent at assisting the defenders clear the ball and he can move up field whenever he wants as he will more than likely have an opponent just follow him out. As he and Shaw may be tagged this creates a very dour forward line for the Bombers in the process.

Ben Reid comes in for matchups, as we will have to mark Gumbleton and Ryder who are both tall/quite mobile, leaving Hurley for Presti. Maxwell will do his usual job on a smaller type whilst giving a chop out. Harry for Davey.

The midfield is pretty much settled and deep, although Fraser as backup ruck is labouring and needs to lift. Jolly and Ball need to continue to improve and learn our game style too.

Dawes is the fresh face in the forward line, he will allow Travis to play deeper if necessary and assert his strength against Pears or Fletcher. Medhurst will more than likely get Fletcher though. Dawesy needs to get on his bike and give us a lead up target, and be prepared to really crash the packs inside 50 for our crumbers.

Time to put some faith in our young talls Mick and stop persisting with battler types.

Gunna be a tough game but think our midfielder can get the job done and give us plenty of supply again.

 

[P0508]

Don't know what Woods form was like, but Fraser has been as powerful as a wilted lettuce for us. I'm for Jolly with help from Wood / Leroy / Dawes / 3rd man up. Cannot carry Leroy and Fraser. If OBree deserved to be dropped, then Fraser definitely does on current form.

I called for Fraser to be dropped last week and almost got red carded for such a call. He has shown nothing this year and as Old Spice and many others have said it's time to make way for someone that might have some form in a lower level.

I am not saying Fraser is finished but it could be good for him to have a run in the VFL and see if he can capture some form even maybe a little passion...

 

[Number 10]

Lets look at the match-ups here:
Ideally
Jolly and Hille (tough bodies, both mobile)

This leaves Fraser and Ryder.

It may not pan out like this but I would much rather see Jolly take on both of these top ruckman, than Fraser taking on either in the ruck. (Going on current form)

I am worried about their tall forward line though, which can comprise of Hurley, Gumbleton, Ryder, Hille. Thus we need to keep L Brown In, to go back when one of Hille or Ryder heads forward. And Fraser is not nearly as capable of containing those two as Brown could be.

If Goldsack is fit, he could be the option for Brown, but judging on match fitness I'd take Brown.
The rest of the forward line comprises of Lonergan, Widerlich, Williams, Gumbletom, Hulrey, Reimers - All will be easily covered by Toovey and co.

Lockyer won't be dropped, he's a gun having a bad patch, but we all know he can do match winning things. Which is sometimes what you need on days like these. He will go forward this week, while L Brown goes back, so will be in his more favoured position.

With Fraser out this leaves a void in our forward line in the shape of Dawes. If Dawes comes in I could see Caff being pushed out by Anthony, I can see the likes of Cloke, Dawes, Anthony, Medhurst,running amock over Essendons backline.
BUT, I dont know how JA's fitness is so its a 50-50.

In summary

IN: Dawes, 50-50 Anthony
OUT: Fraser, 50-50 Macaffer

P.S - O'bree shouldnt come in, there was nothing he would have brought to the Hawthorn game, our tackling and pressure was first class without him. And he's only going to get run down each time he has the ball anyway against the Dons.

 

[pauly_moss]

No change!!!!