Preview Changes: R4 vs Fremantle, Saturday April 8, 1.15pm ACST @ Adelaide Oval

[MrBarry]

I can understand why we picked Ned, it's safe the game may be wet and scrappy and that will suit him.

I was able to chat with a couple of the old Port Magpies boys from the 80s last week, they think Newchurch is someone you just play, would have been good for the coaches not to be conservative this week

Agree on Newchurch, I maintain slotting him into the seniors team will elevate his game.

 

[rabidcrow]

Mchenry in for Pedlar makes us weaker. His ceiling is about 1 goal, a handful of disposals, and a few ineffective tackes.

We saw what Pedlar could do last week.

Get ready for Mchenry fans to get all excited about a 10 disposal game, though. 'I just love his energy'.. after he gives away a free kick.

No one truly hopes he has a bad game. We just want the coaches not to lower their standards when assessing his game because the bar is so low for him.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

He has come in at about 26-28 player on our list with Pedlar, McAdam, Fog, Berry and Worrell all out
Doubt he stays in - in the past there hasn’t been the pressure from below. The pressure has come this year and he hasn’t made the team until multiple players in his area are out

Let’s hope he surprises us all


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Glenny83]

Where have you seen the latest team. Yesterdays side is still the same with Borlase, Cook and Himmelberg still not in it.

It was the listed team on the AFL.com match centre, this morning. They stream the game.

 

[MsTopG]

He has come in at about 26-28 player on our list with Pedlar, McAdam, Fog, Berry and Worrell all out
Doubt he stays in - in the past there hasn’t been the pressure from below. The pressure has come this year and he hasn’t made the team until multiple players in his area are out

Let’s hope he surprises us all


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

He won't. He's an average player which isn't getting any better at this point. They have tried their best to try and prove that his draft pick wasn't as bad as it was but there no point flogging a dead horse. It was a bad pick and it's time to move on from it. Nick's needs to have some faith in players that haven't had games yet, how do they get games without them being played.

 

[Mutineer]

 

[FR0GGY]

Speaks well.
His brother still a prospect?

 

[MrBarry]

He won't. He's an average player which isn't getting any better at this point. They have tried their best to try and prove that his draft pick wasn't as bad as it was but there no point flogging a dead horse. It was a bad pick and it's time to move on from it. Nick's needs to have some faith in players that haven't had games yet, how do they get games without them being played.

Agreed whilst I still have some hope on Jones, McHenry needs to have a line ruled through him at this point. It was a flop move on.

 

[hippyhippy]

Agree on Newchurch, I maintain slotting him into the seniors team will elevate his game.

Damn.. I thought we saw the last of ned ... I would go Newchurch before ned. Ned is a known quantity at this stage and he might have played 1 decent game in his whole career.

 

[GROTTO]

Damn.. I thought we saw the last of ned ... I would go Newchurch before ned. Ned is a known quantity at this stage and he might have played 1 decent game in his whole career.

It makes sense we play Ned so when we drop him for the squad we can say we wasted plenty of games on him, like Rowe.

 

[Crow_68]

Better not backchat tomorrow, the super-sensitive Craig Fleer is one of the four in green.

 

[maxlilly]

Better not backchat tomorrow, the super-sensitive Craig Fleer is one of the four in green.

#26

 

[Burtonsgottago]

It makes sense we play Ned so when we drop him for the squad we can say we wasted plenty of games on him, like Rowe.

Rowe had more talent than Ned

 

[hippyhippy]

Rowe had more talent than Ned

We don't use top draft picks on talent unfortunately...

Also Rowe was really ugly .. so he had to go

 

[AFC979810]

Wait wait wait, so Ned coming in and having a great game is bad?

You should have continued to wait and then decided not to post. Nowhere in my post did I suggest this.

Bizarre take

If Ned comes in and makes selection a headache next week, brilliant. Thats what we need if we're going to be a good team.

Not my take. Many posters came on saying the Ned selection was justified because he would automatically be replaced the next week. Thats the logic that doesn't make sense.

Thats why I asked the question. Would those posters happy with the NED selection - want to keep him in the side if he had a freak game and kicked 3 goals (his best return in his 50 games) over players who have shown much more over the journey (McAdam/Pedlar).

Omitting Rachelle from the forward group is weird, given he's not playing full time mid.

Not really weird at all. Look at his CBA attendance - went from 29%, 35%, 53%. We have since rested Berry (71%,68%,38%) and Schoenberg isn't in the best 22. I know it doesn't mean a whole lot, but on the team sheet Rachele was listed as a follower alongside Soligo. The signs are there that Rachelle is going to spend a lot more time in the middle - just like he did against Port.

It will be interesting to see what Nicks decides to do. Does he move Keays from the forward line to the midfield for Rachele so our forward line is more attacking?

Rest of your reply is irrelevant given availability. No body is arguing its our ideal or best 22 out there. You've basically just argued that our best 22 is better than not our best 22. Well done, very insightful.

Well aren't you a snarky little poster. But thank you for incorrectly stating what I am arguing.

I have argued that we have gone from a forward line that is very attacking (6 goal scorers / 1 defensive) to entering round 4 with a very defensive forward line (4 goal scorers / 3 defensive fwds). Our mix would be much better off playing Newchurch than Ned.

Its more about selecting players that can kick goals in the forward line rather than selecting 3 defensive forwards.

 

[Crows I Am]

Having McHenry come in now is actually how he should be used. Cover for better players when they're not able to play. Pure depth.

The problem is if he stays in when those better players become available again - and sadly, the club has form on this. Bringing in a player who is there ostensibly as depth and then deciding to persist with them all year long. If that happens (and it certainly wouldn't surprise me) then outrage is absolutely fair.


As for those worrying that McHenry might play a blinder, that's fine. If he plays a blinder, you still bring the good players back, you just omit the next most expendable player who didn't play a blinder. We've got plenty of them in the side right now, after all. If he continues to play blinders, then he actually deserves to be in the side. If not, drop him then.

And if everybody plays a blinder? Then drop him anyway - clearly there was no heat in the game, and the likes of Pedlar etc have earned an immediate recall.

Good post, I feel the same way. It just show how much we have improved our forward line this year where Ned only comes in as depth when we have 3 first choice forwards out of the side. I am fine with him coming in this week, it is most likely for just the 1 week as cover for Pedlar. If the seltectors do leave him in then fair enough to have a melt down.

To those saying we should have brought in Newchurch, would you then be happy when he is dropped back out after 1 week? We have always said we want our first gamers to come in for a string of at least 3 games which will be very unlikely as Pedlar and McAdam are both back next week. To me Ned makes the most sense to come in this week.

The selection next week will be interesting, Murphy would be the obvious one to come out for McAdam, but he has played quite well, do we instead drop Keays and leave Murphy in? Good position to be in when it is not obvious who should make way.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Good post, I feel the same way. It just show how much we have improved our forward line this year where Ned only comes in as depth when we have 3 first choice forwards out of the side. I am fine with him coming in this week, it is most likely for just the 1 week as cover for Pedlar. If the seltectors do leave him in then fair enough to have a melt down.

To those saying we should have brought in Newchurch, would you then be happy when he is dropped back out after 1 week? We have always said we want our first gamers to come in for a string of at least 3 games which will be very unlikely as Pedlar and McAdam are both back next week. To me Ned makes the most sense to come in this week.

The selection next week will be interesting, Murphy would be the obvious one to come out for McAdam, but he has played quite well, do we instead drop Keays and leave Murphy in? Good position to be in when it is not obvious who should make way.

McHenry has 50 games and Newchurch zero because it would be unfair to give Newchurch only one game.

 

[WheresGroomgone]

Tragic end? That sounds final. Got my mixed up with someone else.

So you're not the former posters;
Crow2crow
Alexgotfired
Morningfog
that Texan oil worker guy?

and others I forget.

 

[FR0GGY]

So you're not the former posters;
Crow2crow
Alexgotfired
Morningfog
that Texan oil worker guy?

and others I forget.

No, this is Murray

 

[cm_perfect]

No, this is Murray

Pffft, they all look the same.

 

[Mutineer]

No, this is Murray

Lefty Luke...

 

[Mutineer]

So you're not the former posters;
Crow2crow
Alexgotfired
Morningfog
that Texan oil worker guy?

and others I forget.

Lefty Luke

 

[FR0GGY]

Lefty Luke...

Who was Murray

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

Lefty Luke...

Who was Murray?

I thought LL was Murray's previous account before his current one?

 

[cleanhands]

Who was Murray

What the hell is going on, why do people change ?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What the hell is going on, why do people change ?

Pipe down Alex