Preview Changes vs GWS

[Vader]

Would Sando pick his best 22, then pick the sub?

Maybe he should be picking his best 21, and THEN the sub. (if that makes sense)

Just as long as nobody is stupid enough to suggest that the sub should be drawn from the "best 21".

 

[GROTTO]

I would actually dare to say that if Craig stayed we may have lost Tex after a couple of years IMO.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Tex is a very different beast to LJ. Tex needed to improve his work rate. He did - and was reaping the rewards prior to injury. LJ needed to improve his work rate and has done naff all about it for 5 years, and now looks likely to be delisted at the end of the year.

I'm happy for you to have an opinion, it would just be nice if you weren't 100% wrong every single time you expressed it. There's opinions and facts. Opinions can be made to look really stupid when they directly contradict the known facts, which yours most certainly do.

Bullshit - you were so cockahoot that he would be delisted and stuck at Norwood when Neil Craig was dropping him every second week.

 

[GROTTO]

Just as long as nobody is stupid enough to suggest that the sub should be drawn from the "best 21".

Thats an opinion. Not a fact.

Even if someone says otherwise, who are you to call someone "stupid".

Were you not the poster that would say "Play the ball and not the man". Poor form from you, I expected more.

 

[whattagun07]

Just as long as nobody is stupid enough to suggest that the sub should be drawn from the "best 21".

Yeah which is exactly why I wouldn't suggest Mackay or Jaensch for the role currently.

 

[Vader]

Bullshit - you were so cockahoot that he would be delisted and stuck at Norwood when Neil Craig was dropping him every second week.

WTF? I have never, ever, called for Tex to be delisted. Now you're just being delusional and making rubbish up in a sad and pathetic attempt to discredit me.

Yes, I supported Craig in dropping him to the SANFL. Tex's work rate at the time was unacceptable. He had all the potential in the world, but was looking increasingly unlikely to fulfill it as a result of his lack of work ethic. To Tex's credit, he turned that around completely - and I'm sure Sando & Tredders deserve a lot of credit for making that happen. The end result was that Tex's form in 2012 was considerably better than anything he had shown before then. I just hope he is able to return to that form post-injury.

 

[Vader]

Thats an opinion. Not a fact.

Even if someone says otherwise, who are you to call someone "stupid".

Were you not the poster that would say "Play the ball and not the man". Poor form from you, I expected more.

I agree that the best 21 is subjective. It's the concept of picking the sub from within the best 21 that I consider to be monumentally stupid.

Pick the best 21 and make them your starting team. Then pick the sub. Whether that's player #22, or #25 (if player #25 has characteristics making him better suited to being the sub) is an interesting philosophical debate.

Apologies if you've misunderstood my intention.

 

[PKnox]

Loved his game such a champ. Really added a spark around the ball and up front. Brown and Laird are locks for the next 10 years. Sando has a man crush on both. Can't understand the criticism he dosent back youth in just look at these 2 he has played them at every opportunity and they have flourished

I can see why Laird doesn't get much attention because he's a small fella and is the epitome of the 'no frills' player, but the guy can seriously play. Very smart footballer and rarely wastes it. Another Rendell ripper.

 

[GROTTO]

I agree that the best 21 is subjective. It's the concept of picking the sub from within the best 21 that I consider to be monumentally stupid.

Pick the best 21 and make them your starting team. Then pick the sub. Whether that's player #22, or #25 (if player #25 has characteristics making him better suited to being the sub) is an interesting philosophical debate.

Apologies if you've misunderstood my intention.

Well for starters you were not directing the "stupid" comment at me, but I felt it was a bit rich for you to be calling others stupid.

The best player for the sub is the best for team balance. Although look at the Cats in R1, they selected a ruckman, in which all day every day IMO was wrong, but it proved a masterstroke.

 

[Vader]

Well for starters you were not directing the "stupid" comment at me, but I felt it was a bit rich for you to be calling others stupid.

The best player for the sub is the best for team balance. Although look at the Cats in R1, they selected a ruckman, in which all day every day IMO was wrong, but it proved a masterstroke.

The best player for the sub is never one of the best 21 players. If a player is in the best 21 then you want them on the ground for the whole game, not just the last quarter. Suggesting otherwise is monumental stupidity.

Who you choose to be sub, from those outside the best 21, is entirely a different matter. Should it be the 22nd best player? Should it be an "impact player" who is slightly further down the pecking order? That is an interesting philosophical discussion worth having. On the one hand, selecting the 22nd best player ensures you have the best possible coverage if a player gets injured early in the game. On the other hand, selecting an "impact" player from further down the pecking order may provide a better outcome if there is no injury and the player comes on late in the game. In an ideal world, the 22nd best player is someone who is capable of coming on and having an immediate impact, rather than someone who has to work their way into the game. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where that isn't always the case - and it is frequently a choice of one or the other.

That said, I do agree (up to a point) that the sub should be the best player for "team balance". But how you achieve this, given that the sub is likely to play only one quarter, is beyond me. Most teams opt for a small-mid sized player as sub, because they are the most numerous on the field and thus (by the laws of probability) the most likely to need replacement. That can bite them in the backside if they need to replace an injured tall, but that's what the laws of probability say is the most likely outcome.

 

[GROTTO]

The best player for the sub is never one of the best 21 players. If a player is in the best 21 then you want them on the ground for the whole game, not just the last quarter. Suggesting otherwise is monumental stupidity.

Who you choose to be sub, from those outside the best 21, is entirely a different matter. Should it be the 22nd best player? Should it be an "impact player" who is slightly further down the pecking order? That is an interesting philosophical discussion worth having. On the one hand, selecting the 22nd best player ensures you have the best possible coverage if a player gets injured early in the game. On the other hand, selecting an "impact" player from further down the pecking order may provide a better outcome if there is no injury and the player comes on late in the game. In an ideal world, the 22nd best player is someone who is capable of coming on and having an immediate impact, rather than someone who has to work their way into the game. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where that isn't always the case - and it is frequently a choice of one or the other.

That said, I do agree (up to a point) that the sub should be the best player for "team balance". But how you achieve this, given that the sub is likely to play only one quarter, is beyond me. Most teams opt for a small-mid sized player as sub, because they are the most numerous on the field and thus (by the laws of probability) the most likely to need replacement. That can bite them in the backside if they need to replace an injured tall, but that's what the laws of probability say is the most likely outcome.

So with Scott having a ruckman as a sub is monumentally stupid?

There is no way that Scott intended to activate the sub until the third at least.

Your opinion may be right and it may be wrong, but because someone may disagree with you is just such poor form. Even if someone has alternative opinions to your who are you to call them monumentally stupid.

You need to look hard at yourself before you deliver cheap shots at others. I don't disagree with what you said for the record, but I'm sure others may do.

 

[Vader]

So with Scott having a ruckman as a sub is monumentally stupid?

There is no way that Scott intended to activate the sub until the third at least.

Your opinion may be right and it may be wrong, but because someone may disagree with you is just such poor form. Even if someone has alternative opinions to your who are you to call them monumentally stupid.

You need to look hard at yourself before you deliver cheap shots at others. I don't disagree with what you said for the record, but I'm sure others may do.

Scott having a ruckman as sub is bizarrely unusual. I wouldn't say it was monumentally stupid.

 

[jackster83]

Grigg would be my choice for sub this week. Give him a half and let him run amok.

(Lynch in for Martin, Reilly or Rutten to "rest" depending on match ups)

 

[Sanders]

I Blame petrenko for playing.

Petrenko is twice the player you are a judge.

And Petrenko is putrid

 

[Sanders]

LOL - now you remind me. Robert Harvey killed us that night. Another fine performance by the best tagger EVER!!

Harvey was matched up on Goodwin that night. Super coach decided to let them go head to head.

 

[Bailey01]

Scott having a ruckman as sub is bizarrely unusual. I wouldn't say it was monumentally stupid.

Probably the most athletic player in the comp Blicavs

 

[spenze]

Grigg would be my choice for sub this week. Give him a half and let him run amok.

(Lynch in for Martin, Reilly or Rutten to "rest" depending on match ups)

Seeing they have Patton, I reckon they won't give Rutten a weekend off

 

[Bailey01]

Seeing they have Patton, I reckon they won't give Rutten a weekend off

Yer true, he may get a week off against the bulldogs who don't have many talls.

 

[Schulzycrow]

Lynch for Wright.
CEY for Martin as Sub.
Radar gets one more week.

 

[Spitter9]

is dangerfield carrying an injury guys? doesn't seem to be 100%

 

[Bailey01]

is dangerfield carrying an injury guys? doesn't seem to be 100%

Rolled his ankle against Sydney. Copped a lot so far this year.

 

[WeeBlake]

Lynch for Reilly
Grigg/CEY/Atkins for Martin
Also sympathetic to Wright getting done time in the 2s.

 

[Bailey01]

Lynch for Reilly
Grigg/CEY/Atkins for Martin
Also sympathetic to Wright getting done time in the 2s.

Wright in the 2's?

 

[Schulzycrow]

Wright in the 2's?

Betts gift wrapped him his goals last week. Out of the forwards he's the one I'd punt...in front of Pets...I can't believe I just said that.

 

[Bailey01]

Betts gift wrapped him his goals last week. Out of the forwards he's the one I'd punt...in front of Pets...I can't believe I just said that.

Still had 22 touches