Changes vs Collingwood @ MCG

[badbeats]

Not what I want to see but if Ken is true to form this is what we will see;

Out: Polec (tightness)
In: White or Pittard

I was just about to post this.

We won't get sweet f.a.
40 point win, boys did the job, reward the winning team, blah blah blah

Polec for White (who amassed a massive 6 disposals on the weekend)

 

[1954]

Given the Maggies never really looked like winning that game yesterday just has to make the 6 goal performance by Eddy very good, to even exceptional.

The mob down the road, who just happen to be on top of the ladder play three genuine tall forwards, but not our Kern, he is apparently looking for another way to invent the wheel.

 

[Papa G]

Out: Polec, Impey

In: Pittard Eddy.

For the love of God give Eddy a run Kern.

Impey's 10 possessions a game simply isn't good enough.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I agree
Dixon to CHF and Eddy FF .. do it Ken

The most obvious solution ever. Has worked for ever because it's a good structure.

We are still trying to be too clever by half.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I'm sure Westhoff lined up at CHF for the first bounce. Ball came out to him and he gave off the quick handball to player running past. I thought, finally this could work. Next bounce Westhoff on the wing, SGray at CHF. *Sigh*

Yeah Trengovr started on the bench and actually stayed there quite a while. Then came on into ruck and Ryder went to the bench.

Seemed like we were worried about their 2 rucks wearing us out but denied us a forward line early.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[PowerBaz]

The most obvious solution ever. Has worked for ever because it's a good structure.

We are still trying to be too clever by half.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Ken's thinking, 'if Neade can hold down FF then surely Lobbe as CHF locked away' ...... with Sam Gray to ruck!

Seriously he has to give Eddy a run, surely..... especially on the wide open spaces of the G.

 

[badbeats]

Let's all call for Matty White, guaranteed to not get a game then. Stop calling for Eddy, instant in.

 

[Coobk001]

Comments on the game day thread seemed to be that Lobbe was pretty good but the mids stuffed the advantage he was giving them.

Yep, he had his best quarter in the 3rd, a few clearances himself and we dominated clearances for the quarter but we couldn't hold it in our end, they just slowly transitioned to their end every time they got it. Then we struggled to do the same.

 

[Coobk001]

I probably would've voted

5 - Eddy
4 - Pittard
3 - Lobbe
2 - Austin
1 - Ahchee

 

[Forzaport]

My changes:

In: Pittard
Out: Polec (inj)

Broadbent replaces Polec on the wing, Hombsch takes on Broadbent's role, Pittard to +1 in defense. Pittard was 2nd best on the weekend so earns instant promotion through performance.

In: Howard/Eddy
Out: Hartlett

Howard or Eddy come in as 2nd genuine tall, replacing Trengove who returns to a KPD post. Trengove is still able to provide Ryder with a chop out as Hombsch can provide tall cover during this time. Hartlett dumped for serial under performance. I don't think a +1 in defense has ever given us so little so often - only cracked 20 touches twice this year and one of those times was after a "chat" from the coach.

In: Atley/Drew
Out: Neade

I currently view Neade as a depth player, a known quantity and one that we should not be playing in the middle of winter when we're already playing S.Gray. For the moment, I'd rather have Sam in the team. Debut Atley or Drew, familiarise them with the speed of AFL football and see how they go. Their SANFL form warrants that at least one should debut.

In: White
Out: Impey

White has had good SANFL form and with the injury to Polec and Amon, and Impey's inconsistent form, I think White should get another go. Impey just goes missing too often and for far too long. Needs a stint in the SANFL to find some consistency in his game.

*Note: Young holds his spot. Was dropped, had a BOG in the SANFL then returned and did enough to stay in. Besides, I've got bigger sinners in my sights.

In: Atley (or Drew), Howard (or Eddy), Pittard, White
Out: Hartlett (omit), Impey (omit), Neade (omit), Polec (inj)

B: Dan Houston ~ Tom Clurey ~ Darcy Byrne-Jones
HB: Thomas Jonas ~ Jackson Trengove ~ Jasper Pittard
C: Brad Ebert ~ Oliver Wines ~ Matthew Broadbent
HF: Sam Gray ~ Charlie Dixon ~ Sam Powell-Pepper
F: Chad Wingard ~ Dougal Howard ~ Justin Westhoff
R: Patrick Ryder ~ Robbie Gray ~ Travis Boak

Int: Jack Hombsch ~ Aaron Young ~ Matthew White ~ Joe Atley

Emg: Jesse Palmer ~ Willem Drew ~ Brendon Ah Chee


*Footnote: We all know it will be the 1 change; Pittard for Polec

 

[PatientMental]

No joke. He was always up against two defenders as far as I recall. Took 5 contested marks and looked ok IMO.
I was seeing the game from the wings ... where were you?

Champion data disagrees strongly. He did take 5 marks - only one of which was contested.

 

[Adam Marrett23]

I'm assuming the only change will be Pittard for Polec but after the second half when we looked so much better with Ryder deep forward and Charlie roaming the ground, and Eddy kicking 6 yesterday that surely Neade goes out for Eddy. I'd like to think the second half was the wake up call Ken needed but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Port01]

not much point arguing around Howard or Eddy.
tall forwards are a team, if one of them ran around dragging a defender out so the other can take advantage one on one there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[thundercloud]

The number 1 thing is to win a game of footy. Agree?
Then blooding players for experience is not a criteria Agree?
Players form is considered to go up or down. Agree?
Players going up have to be able to fit the game plan, structure what ever you want to call it. Agree?
So a player going up has to have form and fit the role to fit into the game plan, stucture? Agree?
So should a player with good form go up if does not fit the role for the game plan?

 

[Mangus Onfries]

Matt White 4 kicks 2HB 2Tackles.
Surely not even in the conversation.

 

[Magus]

The number 1 thing is to win a game of footy. Agree?
Then blooding players for experience is not a criteria Agree?
Players form is considered to go up or down. Agree?
Players going up have to be able to fit the game plan, structure what ever you want to call it. Agree?
So a player going up has to have form and fit the role to fit into the game plan, stucture? Agree?
So should a player with good form go up if does not fit the role for the game plan?

Our structure is shithouse. Agree?

 

[Steve Dore]

Matt White 4 kicks 2HB 2Tackles.
Surely not even in the conversation.

How'd he go the week before he got a call up for the GWS game?

 

[PowerBaz]

Matt White 4 kicks 2HB 2Tackles.
Surely not even in the conversation.

He can run like Neade though.... likes to run....

 

[thundercloud]

Our structure is shithouse. Agree?

A main structure seems to be push up when the balls in our forward line and lock the ball in. Hence balls directed to a contest near the boundary for a secondary throw up. If agree then this is a given and what ever i think, feel, write etc cannot change this but need to recognize this.
Hence i guess the point i am making is that player selections are based on form yes but also more importantly of how it will support the team pattern, form, wall, structure, tactic etc and selections can be judged by this?

 

[JAlexG]

Just something of a structure up forward would be nice. Another traditional stay at home forward type (and no, not Jacko).
Our inside 50 numbers are decent but it's a) coming out wayyy to easily b) No other decent target to kick to if Charlie pushes up or we kick to a 2+v1 to him c) gets intercepted (see b).
Our inside 50 supply bar a couple games this year to our 50 has been ok. It's the actual execution of that last kick and what happens when it gets there that is the problem.

 

[1954]

Champion data disagrees strongly. He did take 5 marks - only one of which was contested.
View attachment 383142

Eddy's 6 contested marks is right up there regardless of the level of the comp, surely he has to be rewarded for that performance.

 

[240volt]

Eddy in and dont care who goes out.

 

[mic59]

I'm assuming the only change will be Pittard for Polec but after the second half when we looked so much better with Ryder deep forward and Charlie roaming the ground, and Eddy kicking 6 yesterday that surely Neade goes out for Eddy. I'd like to think the second half was the wake up call Ken needed but I won't hold my breath.

Neade kicked a goal in the second half, surely that is enough for him to stay in. But cynical as that may sound I get the idea that it is part of the thinking floating around Alberton these days. I also have the feeling that Lobbe may have been given an extended run in the reserves as Ken may want to run two rucks against Grundy. Seems pointless to me as Grundy smashed the one Melbourne ruck but they lost their last game and Ryder is in top form palming the ball to players. Grundy has an average of 5 more hit-outs a match but from the games I've seen he appears to be away from very few ball-ups.

 

[Alyx]

Matt White 4 kicks 2HB 2Tackles.
Surely not even in the conversation.

Eddy's 6 contested marks is right up there regardless of the level of the comp, surely he has to be rewarded for that performance.

 

[Magus]

You're not going to see a more dominant display from a forward at this level.