Preview Changes: R22 v Collingwood

[Kane McGoodwin]

Just reinforces the obvious - winning a Flag is no longer the primary concern of the AFC.

& yet neither is playing the younger guys instead of those with average form who are near retirement...

 

[Jack is Back]

I was hoping for four changes but expecting zero so it’s better than nothing.

Based on the views of BigFooty posters we should have dropped Otten, Atkins, Hartigan, Kelly, Mackay, Jacobs, Gibbs, Knight, Lynch, Betts, Douglas and Murphy (and this doesn’t include the wabbit wanting the Crouches banished). This would mean promoting virtually every fit player in the Twos and possibly getting a permit for Seymour to join Butts.

O.K. Elite Crow, I have quoted my post above. The possible interpretations are

1) All BigFooty posters unanimously agreed that we should drop the 12 players mentioned or........

2) Between the Bigfooty posters who posted their suggested changes in this thread, more than half of our team was nominated by at least one poster. I believe this was a new P.B. for the changes Board and a reflection of the number of players who have not nailed down their spot in the team.

Since I can’t recall a single topic where there has been total agreement on this Board, I don’t think it is unreasonable for people to assume option 2.

My apologies for the confusion EC I will attempt to be clearer in my future communications.

 

[Elite Crow]

O.K. Elite Crow, I have quoted my post above. The possible interpretations are

1) All BigFooty posters unanimously agreed that we should drop the 12 players mentioned or........

2) Between the Bigfooty posters who posted their suggested changes in this thread, more than half of our team was nominated by at least one poster. I believe this was a new P.B. for the changes Board and a reflection of the number of players who have not nailed down their spot in the team.

Since I can’t recall a single topic where there has been total agreement on this Board, I don’t think it is unreasonable for people to assume option 2.

My apologies for the confusion EC I will attempt to be clearer in my future communications.

“this would mean promoting virtually every fit player in the twos”

 

[Jack is Back]

“this would mean promoting virtually every fit player in the twos”

My point was that there was little agreement between the posters on this thread regarding who should be dropped but everyone including me wanted plenty of changes. There was a lot of unhappiness when the changes were announced. My response was that to satisfy everyone, we would need to drop 12 players.

We currently have 17 AFC players listed in the Twos. If you exclude Keath and McAdam who are returning from injury, Atkins and Otten who were dropped, that leaves 13 players to will fill the remaining 10 spots.

I said “virtually every fit player” because absolutely no-one has suggested that Strachan should debut, there is very little love for Wilson and even less love for Jenkins. There has been suggestions for the promotion of the remaining 10 players (Butts, Sholl, Hamill, Davis, Jones, Gallucci, Himmelberg, Stengle, Greenwood and Poholke) and imho if they replaced Hartigan, Mackay, Kelly, Gibbs, Jacobs, Knight, Betts, Lynch, Murphy and Douglas we wouldn’t be much weaker.

Unfortunately we currently have a boatload of ordinary experienced players and quite a few promising KIDS who may or may not be ready to play in the AFL.

 

[robboaustralia]

In: Fog 6 goals
Out: Fog 5 goals

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Murray2503]

More tickets have just been released. I got cat 7 - only going so I can spend time with the old man.

I may go to my first game this year as it could be Betts last game. I had to print off a ticket as I threw out my membership out in disgust recently. I hold onto hope that both essendon and the bulldogs will lose. Don't feel overly confident with our team selection. Lets try out whether 2 rucks works in an elimination final. Righto. Should have made another 3 or 4 changes imo.

 

[Crow_68]

Godden said the two guys wont be on the ground together much.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Down one rotation then, smart.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ftmch]

The way you wrote it suggested posters wanted all those players dropped, ie 12 changes.

Dude, this forum is full of gross generalisations, many of which you've supported or liked. You're in no position to feign indignance at this one.

 

[Elite Crow]

Dude, this forum is full of gross generalisations, many of which you've supported or liked. You're in no position to feign indignance at this one.

Well that settles it

 

[LC40]

I'm quite happy with this selection.
I like the idea of having two ruckman continuously jumping into the main opposition ruck and wearing them down.
I wished we had done this for the Essendon game. We got smashed in the second half of that game and a different mixture thrown at their rucks may have blunted those centre clearances.
I think the same tactic could have been used against the power as they throw multiple rucks at us.
ROB has been a revelation but sometimes I want to see change from the coaching staff.
This may or may not work but at least recognising that we need to take on Collingwood's main offensive weapon in Grundy is a change of mindset we've seldom seen.
Sure we are down a runner but if we can get first hands on the ball over the whole game we might not need to get in a sprint.
You don't employ this tactic every week, horses for courses but I'm not critical of at least trying something different.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Hope our talls take plenty of marks, because otherwise the ball is going to come out of our forward line with ease...

 

[Tex200]

Hope our talls take plenty of marks, because otherwise the ball is going to come out of our forward line with ease...

Not it could come out any quicker and with less pressure than the Carlton game!

But yes agreed it will be critical that if either of the rucks are down there they must mark or provide a very strong contest

 

[Carmo]

We won't be much slower than last week, ROB's got otten for pace and defs tank and seed is about the same as atkins but with the ability to tackle thrown in.

The advantage is that our game relies on us getting the ball where we want it from the ruckmen (yes I know we could do something called "be flexible" where we develop some plans for when this doesn't happen and I'd be all for that, but for the moment we don't) which will mean our mids should break even or even dominate (which is good because we don't have flexibility to setup well for them to chase or block oppo mids in if we dont). So the ball should get in to our forwards a lot.

A classic example of how we need ruck domination for game domination is the geelong game. Early on when ROB was killing stanley we were winning. All geelong did was change their ruck setup and split rucking duties between blicavs and stanley with the instruction to the mids to hit up these guys when they were pushing forward to make ROB accountable to make him have to run and tire. Of course we did what we always do on gameday in response (nothing) and I think stanley might have even ended up with the most shots on goal of any player in that game (but most of them I think dropped short, sprayed wide etc).

If I were coaching us and assuming that both Tex and Jenkins were playing in that game(cant remember if it was jenkins or himmelberg), what I would've done in response is I would've rucked Tex rather than Jenkins who would've been the obvious choice. The reason being is while Tex isn't fast or agile, he does have a decent tank to run with Blicavs. This leaves ROB back purely against Stanley, which he was winning and then runs Tex head to head against Blicavs, which pits Blicavs ability to get on the end of things with his tank with Tex's footy nous and deadly skills now being up around the ball all the time. This assumes that Tex has had a bit of practice rucking (a flexibility thing - so it may be an incorrect assumption). Tex probably would get killed at center bounces but there's not that many of those, whereas his weight would allow him to go ok around the ground.

FWIW I still think our issues will be our gameplan at the defensive end and our stubborn refusal to ever put extra numbers back down there. Heaven forbid, we could be FLEXIBLE like that.

 

[Brenton Davy]

If I were coaching us and assuming that both Tex and Jenkins were playing in that game(cant remember if it was jenkins or himmelberg), what I would've done in response is I would've rucked Tex rather than Jenkins who would've been the obvious choice. The reason being is while Tex isn't fast or agile, he does have a decent tank to run with Blicavs. This leaves ROB back purely against Stanley, which he was winning and then runs Tex head to head against Blicavs, which pits Blicavs ability to get on the end of things with his tank with Tex's footy nous and deadly skills now being up around the ball all the time. This assumes that Tex has had a bit of practice rucking (a flexibility thing - so it may be an incorrect assumption). Tex probably would get killed at center bounces but there's not that many of those, whereas his weight would allow him to go ok around the ground.

Good grief NO!

Blicavs would lap Tex around the ground. Would get leather poisoning.

 

[Carmo]

Good grief NO!

Blicavs would lap Tex around the ground. Would get leather poisoning.

Impossible logic.

2 configs: Blicavs and Stanley V ROB , Blicavs and Stanley V ROB and Tex.
Your saying he would've done more well when he had an opponent as opposed to when he had none???

Blicavs would've done less well than he did.

 

[Brenton Davy]

Impossible logic.

2 configs: Blicavs and Stanley V ROB , Blicavs and Stanley V ROB and Tex.
Your saying he would've done more well when he had an opponent as opposed to when he had none???

Blicavs would've done less well than he did.

Do you remember what an athlete Blicavs is?

Tex wouldn't have kept within the same postcode as Blicavs. Would have been effectively unmatched outside of the ruck contest.