Changes for Richm'd (see team in OP, Aish & Broomy in, Varcoe out, Cox omit, & Daicos an emergency!)

[TheGreatGrundy]

Geez, your confidence in the club's medical staff has been well and truly shattered! My understanding is that he hasn't been decapitated, and so I'd be surprised if he ever doesn't play again.

What did the teachers at school tell you about using double negatives?!

 

[PIrOed]

In: Aish Broomhead
Out: Varcoe Mayne

If Elliot is fit he comes in for Blair.

Although I appreciate the debate around the tall forward set up I don't see them as the problem. The ball spent most of the game in Collingwood's forward half and most of that time it was at ground level. On most if not all of the occassions when the ball got to either Cox or Moore in a fashion where they could have marked, they may not have done so but they did bring the ball to ground. The problem was they had no support from the small forwards in a game that better suited smalls over talls. If I break down the players who spent significant time forward by type it would look something like:

Talls: Moore Cox
Mediums: Fasolo White Mayne
Smalls: Blair Varcoe

The problem was that neither Blair or Varcoe are noted for their offensive qualities up forward but rather their defensive work. Hence despite the I50 count heavily favouring Collingwood they only managed to generate one more scoring shot than the Dogs. Now if they were replaced by two more productive small forwards and the turn overs cleaned up just a little(Blair was a major culprit on this front) then Collingwood should have generated many more scoring shots and won by a decent margin. Alternatively if Moore and Cox had of held their marks then Collingwood may have had an extra 2-3 scoring shots which still may not have been enough to claim victory. In my opinion there is more upside from addressing the issues with the smalls, especially when there are better credentialed smalls currently outside the 22 but no such options when it comes to talls.

 

[BPikkers]

I'd bring Daicos in.

 

[rand corp]

Out: Varcoe, (Susp.)
In: Aish

Elliot is almost automatic but will need a run in the 2's, half a game in over a year just isn't enough match conditioning IMHO.

 

[Quicky]

In: Aish Broomhead
Out: Varcoe Mayne

If Elliot is fit he comes in for Blair.

Although I appreciate the debate around the tall forward set up I don't see them as the problem. The ball spent most of the game in Collingwood's forward half and most of that time it was at ground level. On most if not all of the occassions when the ball got to either Cox or Moore in a fashion where they could have marked, they may not have done so but they did bring the ball to ground. The problem was they had no support from the small forwards in a game that better suited smalls over talls. If I break down the players who spent significant time forward by type it would look something like:

Talls: Moore Cox
Mediums: Fasolo White Mayne
Smalls: Blair Varcoe

The problem was that neither Blair or Varcoe are noted for their offensive qualities up forward but rather their defensive work. Hence despite the I50 count heavily favouring Collingwood they only managed to generate one more scoring shot than the Dogs. Now if they were replaced by two more productive small forwards and the turn overs cleaned up just a little(Blair was a major culprit on this front) then Collingwood should have generated many more scoring shots and won by a decent margin. Alternatively if Moore and Cox had of held their marks then Collingwood may have had an extra 2-3 scoring shots which still may not have been enough to claim victory. In my opinion there is more upside from addressing the issues with the smalls, especially when there are better credentialed smalls currently outside the 22 but no such options when it comes to talls.

You've identified Blair as a problem but leave him in? Why is that? I'm guessing the idea is to drop Mayne a medium for a crumber Broomhead? Or do we address the extra crumber from within the list such as WHE (who I like offensively but don't consider a crumber) or Sidebottom (who I rate as the best crumber on the list)?

 

[Vicky Park]

Langdon has absconded to an outer-metro ashram, where it's believed he lays at the feet of the Great H. It is believed he harbours hopes of one day occupying the Thinking Chair and making it his own.

I keep seeing the Great H around my way, in Smith St and Gertrude St. Has cut his hair short, and looks pretty fit. Just sayin'. No sign of long flowing robes, or not yet anyway.

 

[JB1975]

What did the teachers at school tell you about using double negatives?!

Can't remember, never paid much attention in science class...

And as for grammar, well, it wouldn't have been the only lesson lost on me!

 

[JB1975]

I keep seeing the Great H around my way, in Smith St and Gertrude St. Has cut his hair short, and looks pretty fit. Just sayin'. No sign of long flowing robes, or not yet anyway.

Confirms my theory. Langdon has supplanted the Great H, student has become the master, former master now seeks anonymity in the teeming hordes of the inner city. Like TGG, I'd now be surprised if Langdon (or 'Langdon the Learned') plays another game.

 

[deck]

If it were me, and assuming Elliott is fit and not an elevated injury risk, i'd go:

INS: Elliott, Aish, Broomhead
OUTS: Blair, Varcoe (susp), White

Blair goes out because he lacks hurt factor. I'd replace him with Elliott if fit. Elliott is a no brainer, he provides the pressure but also hurts the opposition.

Varcoe will be out suspended. I'd bring in Broomhead because we will need to bring in pace and skill. This is a risk given his injury history but he was an emergency last week so must be close to a return.

White unlucky but we need to go smaller so he makes way. Cox we need to get games into. I liked what he offerred in the ruck and hope be improves forward.

I'd like to see Sidebottom forward to give us something a bit more potent in the front half because that's where we lost the game last week.

Other considerations, should Dunn come in for either Goldsack or Schade? I didn't want to make 4 changes but can see the logic. Who would Dunn match up on though?

Anyway this is what the 22 would be:

FB: ~ Howe ~ Schade ~ Maynard
HB: ~ Smith ~ Reid~ Ramsay

Mid: ~ Crisp ~ Treloar ~ WHE
Fol: ~ Grundy ~ Adams ~ Pendlebury

HF: ~ Sidebottom ~ Moore ~ Mayne
FF: ~ Fasolo ~ Cox ~ Elliott

Int: Goldsack, Phillips, Aish, Broomhead

If where dropping a tall it will be Cox. White was close to the best tall on the ground from either team.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

They are awfully inexperienced so I get the sentiment. But I don't think playing three talls is the answer either. It's a bit like thinking having three talls will make up for having no good (performing) talls. It won't imo.

Cox has to give way then

 

[Finnishpie]

What would your changes be?

Out: Varcoe, Blair
In: aish, broomhead

One more week for cox to see if he can play forward. Then hopefully Elliot will be ready to take his place if he fails again.

 

[Finnishpie]

Not at all. But Whites not playing key position and we need to go smaller imo so he makes way. I'd back Sidebottom to play better off the half forward flank and that would improve our chances of winning. If you're arguing that White should play instead of Cox in a key position I could take that argument, although he hasn't prospered with the responsibility of the key position in the past.

Fair enough.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Was listed on last Monday's club injury report...

Theres a typo

It should read

De Goey Knucklehead

 

[Scodog10]

Edit to my previous post because I'd like to add a further change.

Out: Schade
In: Dunn

For the past few days I've been pondering how exactly we improve our defense using what we already have on the list without sacrificing offensively.

The main solution that I keep coming back too is that we don't have a general barking instruction as we once had Maxwell and Heater ( ). Until the end of 2017 when we can maybe go out and get someone like Spurr or Howe comes on further as a leader the best I have is Dunn.

We aren't going to sacrifice the poor defenders (Maynard and Smith) so that's the best solution I have. Despite the attempts of some to hose down the pressure on the coach that is the make or break for him in 2017 he needs finals and going up to Sydney at 0-2 spells danger.

As it stands I have us with a bottom 4 defense and top 6 offense so if we shave 2-3 goals off defensively it's the difference between a top 8 and bottom 6-8 finish.

 

[jmac70]

What did the teachers at school tell you about using double negatives?!

I'm not opposed to the use of double negatives.

 

[jmac70]

Edit to my previous post because I'd like to add a further change.

Out: Schade
In: Dunn

For the past few days I've been pondering how exactly we improve our defense using what we already have on the list without sacrificing offensively.

The main solution that I keep coming back too is that we don't have a general barking instruction as we once had Maxwell and Heater ( ). Until the end of 2017 when we can maybe go out and get someone like Spurr or Howe comes on further as a leader the best I have is Dunn.

We aren't going to sacrifice the poor defenders (Maynard and Smith) so that's the best solution I have. Despite the attempts of some to hose down the pressure on the coach that is the make or break for him in 2017 he needs finals and going up to Sydney at 0-2 spells danger.

As it stands I have us with a bottom 4 defense and top 6 offense so if we shave 2-3 goals off defensively it's the difference between a top 8 and bottom 6-8 finish.

I was surprised they went with Shade over Dunn last week, especially after the talk about Dunn being a good leader down back. Now that Shade is in the side I doubt they will drop him after just one game. I agree that Thursday night is a season shaping game, the first real crunch moment of the year. We have to limit Martin somehow.

 

[CFC2010]

Was listed on last Monday's club injury report...

Didn't Greenwood have hip surgery??

 

[jmac70]

Didn't Greenwood have hip surgery??

Hip or hamstring, close enough for our medical team.

 

[Scodog10]

I was surprised they went with Shade over Dunn last week, especially after the talk about Dunn being a good leader down back. Now that Shade is in the side I doubt they will drop him after just one game. I agree that Thursday night is a season shaping game, the first real crunch moment of the year. We have to limit Martin somehow.

I agree, but for the sake of the group as a whole I think it's the change we need because I can't see them replacing Goldsack with Dunn. The surprise for me was the criticism of King because he was correct structurally we are very poor defensively because our guys just don't hold their shape.

FWIW given my overall outlook it doesn't bother me if the change isn't made, but for short term benefit that's the one we need down back.

 

[CFC2010]

I agree, but for the sake of the group as a whole I think it's the change we need because I can't see them replacing Goldsack with Dunn. The surprise for me was the criticism of King because he was correct structurally we are very poor defensively because our guys just don't hold their shape.

FWIW given my overall outlook it doesn't bother me if the change isn't made, but for short term benefit that's the one we need down back.

Sorry Sco but you're wrong on the King love in...........we got burnt because we played a team that punishes you on the rebound if you butcher the ball (like we did). We could have the Flash in our team and he wouldn't be able to get back in "formation" after a teammates errant kick forward.

I know you haven't seen the game but the extra man on the wing for the Dogs helped them punish us easier also.

By the way I don't think Schade did much wrong Friday night.........Goldsack on the other hand........

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Edit to my previous post because I'd like to add a further change.

Out: Schade
In: Dunn

For the past few days I've been pondering how exactly we improve our defense using what we already have on the list without sacrificing offensively.

The main solution that I keep coming back too is that we don't have a general barking instruction as we once had Maxwell and Heater ( ). Until the end of 2017 when we can maybe go out and get someone like Spurr or Howe comes on further as a leader the best I have is Dunn.

We aren't going to sacrifice the poor defenders (Maynard and Smith) so that's the best solution I have. Despite the attempts of some to hose down the pressure on the coach that is the make or break for him in 2017 he needs finals and going up to Sydney at 0-2 spells danger.

As it stands I have us with a bottom 4 defense and top 6 offense so if we shave 2-3 goals off defensively it's the difference between a top 8 and bottom 6-8 finish.

Dunn in for Goldsack would do the trick

 

[Scodog10]

Sorry Sco but you're wrong on the King love in...........we got burnt because we played a team that punishes you on the rebound if you butcher the ball (like we did). We could have the Flash in our team and he wouldn't be able to get back in "formation" after a teammates errant kick forward.

I know you haven't seen the game but the extra man on the wing for the Dogs helped them punish us easier also.

By the way I don't think Schade did much wrong Friday night.........Goldsack on the other hand........

25 scoring shots from 44 I50's is bad, real bad actually, and a continuation of the 50-55% scoring efficiency of the pre-season. Regardless of whether King was right or not that won't cut it throughout the year and is a sign of our early 2016 issues.

Unfortunately for Schade he's in a 50/50 battle with Dunn and right now I'd go with Dunn's leadership over Schade's need to work into the level.

Same page on Goldsack, but until the match committee deem Shaz or Langdon are ready we just have to cop it sweet because we can't play Dunn in his place.

 

[Countrypie]

25 scoring shots from 44 I50's is bad, real bad actually, and a continuation of the 50-55% scoring efficiency of the pre-season. Regardless of whether King was right or not that won't cut it throughout the year and is a sign of our early 2016 issues.

Unfortunately for Schade he's in a 50/50 battle with Dunn and right now I'd go with Dunn's leadership over Schade's need to work into the level.

Same page on Goldsack, but until the match committee deem Shaz or Langdon are ready we just have to cop it sweet because we can't play Dunn in his place.

Just a dumb question - could Schade fill Goldsack's role(whatever that's meant to be)? I just haven't seen enough of Schade to know what he's capable of.

 

[DaVe86]

We'll know a bit more about Elliott after training today. He'd be a long shot, but if he puts a full session in then he may be some chance. We really need him.

Otherwise I'd go with:

In: Aish, Broomhead
Out: Varcoe, Blair

If Elliott is fit, he comes in for Cox and we go smaller, basically using Elliott as a lead-up full forward.

 

[The Plowking]

So.
We recruited Mayne for Blairs position.

So.....Blair OUT.

FFS.

And thanks for your service Blair.