Prediction Changes: Round 15 Vs Essendon + prematch discussion

[apuchar]

Well then I hope I'm proven wrong. But I also expect him to get a lot more touches further up the ground if that's the case. It'll be between him and Freddy.

Why? Switta is a small. Banna's is a small.

 

[bfff]

Sturt barely earnt his spot. Plus he's not competing with those guys for a spot bar Banfield or maybe Freddie. He's a tall that plays like a tall and we already have 3 talls next week we don't need another one. It's not hard to get it through your head. Find me a single team all year that plays 4 talls in their forward line. Now find me one that plays 4 talls in their forward line in the wet. You won't. Because it doesn't happen.

His supposed pressure and defensive capability that people keep talking about is incredibly overrated.

I think he’s more of a medium than a tall. He could be a point of difference from the small brigade? Assuming that Darcy is back in maybe it’s worth a shot to play him alongside Treacy, Amiss and Jackson. I don’t think that’s too tall and rain isn’t a foregone conclusion 7 days out.

 

[s_wd6]

Why? Switta is a small. Banna's is a small.

Banners is already dropped. He's not part of the conversation. Amiss, Treacy, Jackson - Switta, Schultz, Walters, Freddy/Sturt is how I see things. 7 forwards. 3 tall, 4 small. Switta has stints in the midfield and centre bounce sometimes. Has versatilty there if needed. Sturt can't play that role. Walters and Schultz are more of your crumbing smalls. Again, I don't see that in Sturt.

Of all the smalls listed there the only one I could see him come in for is Freddy in terms of role. He's got the speed, and I assume he played higher up the ground in his last few Peel games?

 

[apuchar]

I think he’s more of a medium than a tall. He could be a point of difference from the small brigade? Assuming that Darcy is back in maybe it’s worth a shot to play him alongside Treacy, Amiss and Jackson. I don’t think that’s too tall and rain isn’t a fore gone conclusion 7 days out.

I agree with that. Our smalls are garden gnomes . A hybrid would be good.

 

[Gekko71]

Out: Everyone. This is sh*t.
In: My buddy Sebbie, coming off a six-goal performance in the WAFL this arvo!

Seconded!! It's time! He was playing witches hats, but checkout his last goal via the link below:

What a cracker! ...I Sebit - but I don't believe it!

Around the state leagues: Sun burns, axed Roo shines, Port forward fires

Check out all the best players from this weekend's VFL, WAFL and SANFL action

www.afl.com.au

 

[Ysaye]

Yes it's monotonous to read 9 posts in the last 2 pages bagging a guy who had the same number of tackles as Banfield, Switta and Schultz combined. Had 4 scoring shots which was pretty much half our score and had 184 metres gained which was nearly the same as O'Meara.
Banfield had 34 metres gained for the entire game which is almost the lowest of any Freo player to have played a full game all year.

Whilst I understand where you are coming from, from what I can tell, most of these selection threads run something along the lines of:

• "Whilst we mainly lost the game (IF we lost the game, note it is not a prerequisite that we lose to suggest changes!) in this part of the ground / aspect of the game, we should drop this player who DOESN'T play in that part of the ground for "reasons", where reasons is defined as that player is not a favored player of mine, we need to get another player in who is in my favored list.
• And then, people for whom that unfavored player is in their favored group will come into the discussion and argue the reverse.

Typical arguments will then revolve around:

• the potential of player or the lack thereof. Typically concentrating on one's impressions of skill, speed, and size you can and need to warp the argument on these by picking particular instances to counter - for example: "Brodie is not really a big-bodied midfielder because whilst he is 189cm he is only "slightly" built - heck most spectators weigh more than him". A key part of the argument/counter argument should refer to what draft pick they went at; if they were picked early then they either have potential or they are a bust (and we are not talking Olivia Motta Casta here) and if they were a rookie pick then we should just be giving them a go because they could be something good.
• The intent of the player - Example: "(even though I didn't see the WAFL game today) it seemed to me that Wilson was disinterested, only picking up 15 possessions". Or, "I saw Mundy in Garden City in a coffee shop and he looked so laid back you would have thought he had retired."
• Performance stats picked to suit the argument Example: "Worner had only 14 possessions in the WAFL this weekend but I know they were QUALITY ones".
• Experience of the need to get it Example: "Reidy is a mature player so if we don't play him now he will never get a go."
• The vibe - Example: "I just think Draper will be a good player, we gave him a contract extension you know"

It is all so predictable and repeatable you would think that we were all stable diffusion generators - B.T.W. I am #56412.

The important thing is not the robustness of the arguments at play, but the following psychological reactions of the human poster who posts:

• A sense of outrage when the suggested changes don't happen, resulting in feeding either the vent thread or the relevant head coach thread (do we still have one for Gerard Neesham? I just think the rot started with him because he favored Claremont players and traded Winston Abraham and didn't listen to Andrew Mcleod). This is important because it allows people to stress their muscles to a point where they can remember to relax them again when they inevitably have to go back into work.
• A sense of justification if the favored player comes in and plays well (again playing well can be manipulated to be whatever you want it to be - eg. "Matthew Johnson had one of the best games by a youngster ever last weekend, getting 25 possessions will be a rising star") and an allowance to run around the room like a golden retriever telling people you were right and that their favored player should NEVER leave the team ever again!
• Distraction from the fact that we lost and the negative feelings associated with it, and constructive feelings for constructing a hypothetical approach to address the issues (whether they are addressed or not).

 

[gungho]

First thing.
* Henry off. There’s nothing there, there’s nothing special.

Second- NOD should get a spell.

Now something has to be said about Fyfe and Switkowski. Fyfe has struggled big time. Up forward he’s slow and in the middle he relies so much on his ball winning that he doesn’t run both ways.
Switkowski hasn’t kicked goals for weeks. 9 goals from 12 games isn’t elite.
He won’t be dropped, but he just doesn’t do enough apart from elite pressure

Banfield, Hughes, Clark, Ryan have been horrendous the last two weeks.

In: Darcy, Worner, Erasmus, Frederick
Out: Henry, NOD, Fyfe, Banfield

We’ve got 3 or 4 guys who are forwards that can’t make the distance from 45 metres out. Switta, shoota, Henry (not a forward, and sometimes Banners). Then there is Fyfe who you have no confidence in regardless.
I think Amiss just had a bad day yesterday.
Walters can’t kick that far either.
In fact, apart from Treacy, not many can kick a goal from 50 at all which is worrying.

 

[ImperialPurple]

Seconded!! It's time! He was playing witches hats, but checkout his last goal via the link below:

What a cracker! ...I Sebit - but I don't believe it!

Around the state leagues: Sun burns, axed Roo shines, Port forward fires

Check out all the best players from this weekend's VFL, WAFL and SANFL action

www.afl.com.au

Ball was out of play by a mile more than once, but the boundary umpire was watching in awe at the agility and dance ability of Sebby that they missed it altogether.

 

[Lach72]

My favourite Lach work was once calling Silent Alarm the 'Coke Zero' version of Clay.

i’m a talent…just ask me

 

[BigRang]

In - Swaggy O. Please.
Out - Henry.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Polo342]

Who would he come in for. We saw having Brodie and jom in there didn't work.

Honestly id say Fyfe

 

[freo1]

I was confused with Banfield's role yesterday - he was regularly flying in packs for a mark - maybe that's what they want him to do but when he was doing this we had no one at ground level. He seemed to be congesting things yesterday. I'm probably on the Banfield support team, but yesterday i was very puzzled to see him contesting in pack situations when we had no crumbers available.

more than this though, i couldnt believe how low our intensity was from the start - it was as if we'd been given a monstrous block of training and were all buggered.

The 1st qtr issue we have is one of the most significantly alarming trends in the whole AFL for mine (in terms of team performance). I can't believe the media dont blow this up more. It's laughable how for the better part of 2 seasons, the team simply arent inspired to start the game appropriately.

Against Essendon our Grand Final moment must be to simply win the first quarter - then bring effort. End result for me is irrelevant, we're not finals worthy, we just need first quarter effort and consistent effort for the remainder of the season.

 

[Footskill]

I was confused with Banfield's role yesterday - he was regularly flying in packs for a mark - maybe that's what they want him to do but when he was doing this we had no one at ground level. He seemed to be congesting things yesterday. I'm probably on the Banfield support team, but yesterday i was very puzzled to see him contesting in pack situations when we had no crumbers available.

more than this though, i couldnt believe how low our intensity was from the start - it was as if we'd been given a monstrous block of training and were all buggered.

The 1st qtr issue we have is one of the most significantly alarming trends in the whole AFL for mine (in terms of team performance). I can't believe the media dont blow this up more. It's laughable how for the better part of 2 seasons, the team simply arent inspired to start the game appropriately.

Against Essendon our Grand Final moment must be to simply win the first quarter - then bring effort. End result for me is irrelevant, we're not finals worthy, we just need first quarter effort and consistent effort for the remainder of the season.

Unfortunately, without the triple J structure due to the makeshift ruck, he had to at times play more tall and go make a contest. Otherwise with the shit delivery that was coming into the fwd line the gws def would just mark it unopposed. Also guess they prefer see Sturt and amiss on the lead rather than going for pack marks.

But agree losing the first quarter certainly puts us on the back foot

 

[freo1]

Unfortunately, without the triple J structure due to the makeshift ruck, he had to at times play more tall and go make a contest. Otherwise with the s**t delivery that was coming into the fwd line the gws def would just mark it unopposed.

I do see your point - but there were times when he was 3rd up in packs as well and we had no one at ground level. A whole bunch of issues going on there - but to simplify it - we were poo

 

[blue shark]

We’ve got 3 or 4 guys who are forwards that can’t make the distance from 45 metres out. Switta, shoota, Henry (not a forward, and sometimes Banners). Then there is Fyfe who you have no confidence in regardless.
I think Amiss just had a bad day yesterday.
Walters can’t kick that far either.
In fact, apart from Treacy, not many can kick a goal from 50 at all which is worrying.

You can make the same argument about the midfield.
But JLo won’t change it up?
Seriously I can’t understand what the hell they are doing with Erasmus.
Guy can also play medium tall and kick them from 50.
How long before Milky is playing HB?

 

[hoss]

We’ve got 3 or 4 guys who are forwards that can’t make the distance from 45 metres out. Switta, shoota, Henry (not a forward, and sometimes Banners). Then there is Fyfe who you have no confidence in regardless.
I think Amiss just had a bad day yesterday.
Walters can’t kick that far either.
In fact, apart from Treacy, not many can kick a goal from 50 at all which is worrying.

Compared to Richmond last week where multiple players could kick them from 55m out. Even Amiss didn't make the distance from 40m yesterday but I expect that was a one off.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[hoss]

I think they just went by stats?

Nah, I know they don't always get it right, but more likely because it was judged by someone more objective than you or me. We get that he's not your favourite.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[hoss]

I dont think Freddy's form has been strong enough to push Sturt out after being injured. I think everyone's form over the full year has been shakey enough that a wake-up call is needed and Peel / AFL performances need to be rewarded.

Agree. Fred's recent form has been poor, perhaps because he was carrying an injury but I wouldn't give him an automatic call up, especially if wet. Even in a whole team that doesn't do wet weather well, Freddy struggles even more. I persist with Sturt.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[hoss]

Freddy's form this year has been much better than Sturt's form. This is the first game Sturt has played where he had more than a 5 minute cameo. Freddy has 14 goals. Has kicked multiple goals 5 times this year. He's had two poor games in the last 6 weeks, and only goalless in one of them. I really don't think Sturt needs to be rewarded for one OK game if Freddy, who has played better ALL year, is fit and ready to go.

Freddy has been poor more than 2 games this year. Yeah, he's got some cheap goals towards the end of games but his pressure and tackling has been almost non-existent of late. Either he's been instructed just to corral or he's been lazy. In any case, he can't play in the wet.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[s_wd6]

Freddy has been poor more than 2 games this year. Yeah, he's got some cheap goals towards the end of games but his pressure and tackling has been almost non-existent of late. Either he's been instructed just to corral or he's been lazy. In any case, he can't play in the wet.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

Or he's been injured. Has been on light duties for several weeks and then late out with his ankle.

 

[Demons09]

I doubt kuek gets a game if Darcy is fit, he was playing on a guy who only plays league because Perth have a lack of defenders still got a kick them though.

 

[hoss]

Or he's been injured. Has been on light duties for several weeks and then late out with his ankle.

I acknowledged that. I guess more to the point, when did he last have a great game? Can't remember it this year. Rocks up, gets his 10- 12 touches, kicks a goal or two.... not much more than Sturt did yesterday.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[kingswood71]

I was confused with Banfield's role yesterday

I was confused when I saw him deep in defense....

 

[StingBitten]

Last week's performance 100 percent needs a heavy-handed response - not just the regulars in Darcy and/or Aish, Freddy returning.

Drop Pearce for Hamling, Serong stand-in captain. Didn't Coniglio get dropped from GWS a while back?

Worner in for Noddy is a given.

Kuek for Banfield. Erasmus starting.

 

[s_wd6]

I acknowledged that. I guess more to the point, when did he last have a great game? Can't remember it this year. Rocks up, gets his 10- 12 touches, kicks a goal or two.... not much more than Sturt did yesterday.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

What constitutes a great game? If 10-15 touches and a couple goals isn't good enough for a small forward to keep a b22 spot then you're setting really high standards. He played poorly vs Melbourne and Richmond, and should have been dropped anyway. But he played well vs Geelong. That's the last time he had a good game.