Preview Changes: Round 3 v Port Adelaide

[Redleg Crow]

Good - and correct

Good and even more correct

 

[MRB37]

I was too but after watching the footage again its clear Sloan wasn't even looking at him and running in a straight line towards the contest down the field. Mitchell just ran into his shoulder. It looked worse than what it was. Mitchell got up straight away which indicated it really wasn't forceful. Stratton got done for belting Betts I reckon. I didn't see the incident but usually someone in the Hawks defence tries to belt our players cowardly behind the contest. If only it was 30 years ago. The defender would have been royally decked for taking cheap shots.

Whatever Stratton did to Betts it was enough for Eddie to be PO'd and have a go back at him. Don't normally see that reaction from him from your usual footy niggling.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Whatever Stratton did to Betts it was enough for Eddie to be PO'd and have a go back at him. Don't normally see that reaction from him from your usual footy niggling.

Maybe its a combination of several years of playing Hawthorn and getting punched in the guts behind the play.

 

[Mattrox]

Don't think we can rely on 191cm Otten playing 2nd ruck again. That's break glass in case of emergency type situation, not a game plan.

ROB probs can't play in the same side as Sauce but with those contested marks last week and Port's fairly average key defenders...maybe have ROB ruck and Sauce play forward and give him a chop out when required? Maybe.

I'd be tempted to throw Dear in. Thought he showed glimpses in the pre season. Throw him into a showdown and see what he's made of.

IN: Lever, Dear
OUT: Kelly, Jenkins

If ROB were to play, I'd drop Sauce to def to rest and bring Otten forward when ROB rucks.

On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Vader]

Yes really

What makes you think that? Beech was our best performed SANFL player last year, winning the B&F. Beech played in JLT1 and would have played at least one more JLT match if not for injury. I like Greenwood, but I can't think of any arguments to suggest that Beech would not be rated ahead of him.

 

[hey shorty]

What makes you think that? Beech was our best performed SANFL player last year, winning the B&F. Beech played in JLT1 and would have played at least one more JLT match if not for injury. I like Greenwood, but I can't think of any arguments to suggest that Beech would not be rated ahead of him.

We seem to have pigeonholed Beechy as a forward only, whereas Greenwood appears to have the flexibility Pyke loves.

Given their relative match fitness you'd have to have Greenwood in front at this stage.

 

[ad victoriam]

Otten has a proven ability to pinch hit in the ruck. He's done it in the past, and he did it again on Saturday. It's not ideal, but it's probably the least worst option available to us. If mobility is your concern, then why would you even think about playing O'Brien? Dear might be more mobile, but he's also very inexperienced, and not ready for AFL action. Given the speed we have in our current midfield, the thought of Port's ruckmen running away from Otten does not exactly give me night terrors.

Brad missed a large chunk of the pre-season, having been injured since mid-January. He hasn't missed 2 years of football, but nor is he coming back from a 2- week hamstring strain. History shows that Brouch takes a while to get up to speed. I think 4-5 weeks in the SANFL is far more likely than 1-2 weeks.

Not thinking about ROB I would have Dear or Hunter in before him against Port as they both have Speed and endurance, to Me Hunter quicker and has more endurance than any of the rucks, and he is a Better Ruck than Dear, but Dear a promising forward and will get the nod ahead of Hunter. But both offer more against Port as a Forward Ruck than Otten, as I have said my worry is Otten's leg speed, which could cause a few issues if he plays as a forward and then there Jacobs who will need a chop out against Port if Otten is the backup ruck Port will run Trengove, Dixon hard at Jacobs and leave Ryder to take over late in the quarter against Otten giving the Port mids first touch.

Brad has missed less Pre-season than we think he has been running for all but 2 weeks, and yes it was not 2 years but 18 months with only 1 AFL game. Late August 2014 to March 2015 with only 1 AFL game and 1 SANFL game.
Also do not how we get, "he takes time to get going", 2014 2 AFL games then missed 9 games leg, played 2 SANFL game suspended then Played a very good game against Port. and went reasonably well for the next 8 games, 2015 injured Pre-season plus 9 games out (ankle) then 1 SANFL game he then he plays a very good game against Brisbane. injured his ankle again did not play until round 1 2016.
2016 he was not fit enough to return under Pyke game plan so he needed a mini preseason. and it showed.
From the 3 times, he returned from Long-term injury 2 times he played very good football with only 1-2 games in the SANFL as a warm up.
He is Fitter today than anytime last year.

But this was a Left field selection, and he will play AFL barring injury by round 5.

 

[Shaz2012]

What makes you think that? Beech was our best performed SANFL player last year, winning the B&F. Beech played in JLT1 and would have played at least one more JLT match if not for injury. I like Greenwood, but I can't think of any arguments to suggest that Beech would not be rated ahead of him.

A need for an inside clearance player vs an outside HFF/goal kicker. Different positions.

 

[DD#23]

Good and even more correct

three weeks!

friendly reminder from the MRP he doesn't play for Hawthorn anymore.

 

[crows dude]

What makes you think that? Beech was our best performed SANFL player last year, winning the B&F. Beech played in JLT1 and would have played at least one more JLT match if not for injury. I like Greenwood, but I can't think of any arguments to suggest that Beech would not be rated ahead of him.

Greenwood has X Factor but Beech is the footballer. I'd go Beech

 

[BRL121]

I'm honestly surprised that Lynch didn't get at least a week given that Burchill's jaw was broken. Yes, I know it was not deliberate, but that didn't stop the MRP from rubbing out Sloane last year for an attempted spoil on Brad Ebert.

I'm not surprised about either of them. Both only had eyes for the ball, and in Lynch's case, he took a hit to the head himself simultaneously with impacting Burchill, and he was in front. In fact, on my initial viewing, I was disgusted that he didn't get a free for high contact in a marking attempt. Apart from that point, the umpires got the two incidents exactly right.

I think the current obsession with the "victim's" injury status is wrong. In the old days, the intention was the main factor, the result being irrelevant. That's the way it should still be, IMO.

 

[Vhaluus]

I'm not surprised about either of them. Both only had eyes for the ball, and in Lynch's case, he took a hit to the head himself simultaneously with impacting Burchill, and he was in front. In fact, on my initial viewing, I was disgusted that he didn't get a free for high contact in a marking attempt. Apart from that point, the umpires got the two incidents exactly right.

I think the current obsession with the "victim's" injury status is wrong. In the old days, the intention was the main factor, the result being irrelevant. That's the way it should still be, IMO.

Agreed, the injury is way too random to judge an act by.

It should be what you do, not what it causes.

 

[Murray2503]

Feel Jenkins will play this week. If there is no structural damage, I cannot see a reason to not play him.

 

[TexForPM]

Out JJ Kelly
In lever Menzel

 

[Vhaluus]

Feel Jenkins will play this week. If there is no structural damage, I cannot see a reason to not play him.

The reasons are:

1)Jenkins plays terribly even when slightly injured.
2)Power are thugs who will punch him in the ribs off the ball all game, so if there's any damage there they will make it worse.

 

[GreyCrow]

The reasons are:

1)Jenkins plays terribly even when slightly injured.
2)Power are thugs who will punch him in the ribs off the ball all game, so if there's any damage there they will make it worse.

Any team would be smart to attack a known injury site. Once you cross the line its fair game

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I'm not surprised about either of them. Both only had eyes for the ball, and in Lynch's case, he took a hit to the head himself simultaneously with impacting Burchill, and he was in front. In fact, on my initial viewing, I was disgusted that he didn't get a free for high contact in a marking attempt. Apart from that point, the umpires got the two incidents exactly right.

I think the current obsession with the "victim's" injury status is wrong. In the old days, the intention was the main factor, the result being irrelevant. That's the way it should still be, IMO.

The injury should be a major consideration IMO in everything but accidental incidents.

 

[DD#23]

The injury should be a major consideration IMO in everything but accidental incidents.

I agree, but not at the expense of intent like it often seems to be.

I don't care if they play the rest of the game, a shot to the guts off the ball should be one week, none of this fine crap. If you want to wind someone find a way to lay a legal bump at a centre clearance.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I agree, but not at the expense of intent like it often seems to be.

I'm sure Jordan Lewis didn't intend to break Cripps' jaw.

Irrelevant IMO.

 

[Vhaluus]

I'm sure Jordan Lewis didn't intend to break Cripps' jaw.

Irrelevant IMO.

on the other hand Scott Thompson clearly intended to injure Dangerfield. The fact he failed is irrelevant.

 

[DD#23]

I'm sure Jordan Lewis didn't intend to break Cripps' jaw.

Irrelevant IMO.

nah you've taken this in a different direction to what I intended, I want penalties upgraded due to intent, you'd never downgrade.

any deliberate strike off the play should be one week full stop. You add weeks based on the severity of any injury as a result.

if you only penalise incidents that involve injuries you don't discourage people from taking the shot and running the risk in the first place, which is what really needs to be rubbed out.

 

[DD#23]

on the other hand Scott Thompson clearly intended to injure Dangerfield. The fact he failed is irrelevant.

exactly, this is my point.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

on the other hand Scott Thompson clearly intended to injure Dangerfield. The fact he failed is irrelevant.

With barely a modicum of force, hence no injury. Which is why it is good that it gets treated far, far, far more leniently than Lewis' actions.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

nah you've taken this in a different direction to what I intended, I want penalties upgraded due to intent, you'd never downgrade.

any deliberate strike off the play should be one week full stop. You add weeks based on the severity of any injury as a result.

if you only penalise incidents that involve injuries you don't discourage people from taking the shot and running the risk in the first place, which is what really needs to be rubbed out.

Ok.

Under my system there would be levels of penalties guided by the injury they cause. Thinking out loud:

Eg if the player continues to play without interruption then there cannot be any games given.

Player is out of the game - winded, receiving treatment onfield etc - 0 to 1 games (if guilty)

Player forced to leave the field but continues the game - 1 to 2 games

Player forced to leave the field and unable to continue - 2 to 3 games

Player will be out of the game for a period of time - x weeks, depending on severity

 

[DD#23]

With barely a modicum of force, hence no injury. Which is why it is good that it gets treated far, far, far more leniently than Lewis' actions.

should still be at least a game - if anybody is actually serious about rubbing out the dirty acts that Hawthorn especially have popularised.

just because you made it most of the way home drunk before the cops pulled you over doesn't mean you get to keep your license. Zero tolerance act. Of course however if you run somebody over you get a far more severe punishment.