Preview Changes vs GWS

[Golumless]

Matt Crouch is the last name on the bench, ergo Matt Crouch is the sub. That's the way our team sheets work.

I just can't see them doing that. You don't relegate a kid who has had a really amazing game considering the circumstances (First year and first full game) to sub.

Doing so is poor man-management.

 

[Vader]

No surprise about the final 22. Will be very interesting to see who gets to wear the lime green bib. Not hard to make a case for any of the 4 on the bench..

• Reilly - not playing at his best (nor anywhere near as bad as the BF lynch mob would have us believe either).
• Laird - Dropped from the starting 18 and could well be on the outer, despite Sando's mid-week spin explaining his eviction from the back half.
• Crouch - Started as sub on debut and this is only game #3. Could well be the 22nd man selected.
• Lynch - Coming back from injury, possibly short of match fitness, would be a perfect "impact" player if subbed into the game late.

 

[NTRabbit]

I just can't see them doing that. You don't relegate a kid who has had a really amazing game considering the circumstances (First year and first full game) to sub.

Doing so is poor man-management.

You might not see it, but the last name on our listed bench is the sub every single week bar late withdrawals. This week it's Crouch.

 

[Archie87]

Grigg's been playing a half-forward role which has been limiting is input, especially given the crap delivery in the first three rounds... he's a ball winning midfielder with elite disposal. Get him in the guts and he'll show us what he's got!

 

[Golumless]

You might not see it, but the last name on our listed bench is the sub every single week bar late withdrawals. This week it's Crouch.

I'd be bitterly disappointed if Crouch is relegated to sub.

Might even start a sack Sando thread for it.

 

[Sanders]

Do you never tire of trolling/baiting me? You really are a sad & pathetic little individual.

Oh c'mon surely you realise he is mocking you for the enjoyment of others. You're not the audience

Though you do bring it on yourself

 

[fabs33]

You might not see it, but the last name on our listed bench is the sub every single week bar late withdrawals. This week it's Crouch.

I thought the bench order was based on the player's numbers.

 

[Ravenous Crow]

Grigg's been playing a half-forward role which has been limiting is input, especially given the crap delivery in the first three rounds... he's a ball winning midfielder with elite disposal. Get him in the guts and he'll show us what he's got!

I feel like trying to develop him as an inside midfielder would be a waste of his potential.

I mean, he could probably do it but I'd much prefer to see him being fed the ball on the outside and putting that leg cannon to work.

 

[Vader]

Grigg's been playing a half-forward role which has been limiting is input, especially given the crap delivery in the first three rounds... he's a ball winning midfielder with elite disposal. Get him in the guts and he'll show us what he's got!

Ever stopped to think why he's playing the HFF and not in the midfield? Maybe they're not happy with his leg speed or endurance? Don't underestimate the importance of these characteristics - they're the main reason that Lyons will (in my opinion) never be a regular AFL player.

** That may not be the reason at all, but they're obviously not happy with some aspect of his game - otherwise he would be in our 22 this week.

 

[Paladin]

No surprise about the final 22. Will be very interesting to see who gets to wear the lime green bib. Not hard to make a case for any of the 4 on the bench..

• Reilly - not playing at his best (nor anywhere near as bad as the BF lynch mob would have us believe either).
• Laird - Dropped from the starting 18 and could well be on the outer, despite Sando's mid-week spin explaining his eviction from the back half.
• Crouch - Started as sub on debut and this is only game #3. Could well be the 22nd man selected.
• Lynch - Coming back from injury, possibly short of match fitness, would be a perfect "impact" player if subbed into the game late.

If you think Laird is on the outer you are more clueless than even I would give you credit for.

Sando LOVES him. He was moved forward to give us something extra.

Reilly was moved back because he failed as a mid and we had nowhere else to hide him. Surely you can see the difference.

 

[Vader]

If you think Laird is on the outer you are more clueless than even I would give you credit for.

Sando LOVES him. He was moved forward to give us something extra.

Reilly was moved back because he failed as a mid and we had nowhere else to hide him. Surely you can see the difference.

Yep.. he moved him forward, then to the interchange bench. Sando loves him. You keep telling yourself that.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The whole B&F thing is ridiculous IMO.

You're going to have a winner every year. Three people will always finish top three. Ten players will always finish top ten. No matter how well or badly the team plays.

Is McLeod's 1997 B&F win the equal of Matt Connell 1995 or Dougie's 2010?

 

[Paladin]

Yep.. he moved him forward, then to the interchange bench. Sando loves him. You keep telling yourself that.

Haha you think teams lineup how they are named in the paper how cute

 

[Vader]

The whole B&F thing is ridiculous IMO.

You're going to have a winner every year. Three people will always finish top three. Ten players will always finish top ten. No matter how well or badly the team plays.

Is McLeod's 1997 B&F win the equal of Matt Connell 1995 or Dougie's 2010?

That's undeniably true. It's also completely and utterly pointless. You don't finish in the top-10 if you've been playing anywhere near as badly as the BF ignorentsia would have us believe Reilly was.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Over the journey He has been a average player in an average side with a list that has lacked depth that has been managed with a golf pass selection policy

Again my point was that my assessment of Radar is a C grade AFL player, nothing more and nothing less

How many C graders get to 200 games ......not many even if you reckon he was lucky to play in the prelim finals and during our strong years ......guess he was hiding in a corner

 

[WaynesWorld19]

This board is seriously weird

Where's all the indignation about Grigg not playing ......why isn't he being given games to groom him & fast track him ?

Nope ....silence ....crickets .....where's the next new toy?

So, no-one demanding he be played ? ....anyone?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Perhaps but I would use wright as sub

 

[Elite Crow]

Come on, nobody is going to finish in the top-10 at the club's B&F if they weren't performing to a standard that the coaches weren't happy with. That's just disingenuous rubbish.

There is no doubt that his performances in 2013 were sub-standard. His performances thus far in 2014 haven't been to his usual standard either. However, anyone trying to argue that his performances prior to 2013 were unacceptable is spouting crap.

You are not that bright are you? In 2011, a year in which we had numerous injuries and were shit, we had 6 players play more than 20 games. Reilly finished 9th. Not hard to scrape into the top 10 if you play enough games.

Can you even recall what position he played in 2011? How did he go?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It is bullcrap Grigg's not playing.

I blame Good Friday... plus not quite the team selection drum roll on a Friday night for a Sunday game. Creeps up on people.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Matt Crouch is the last name on the bench, ergo Matt Crouch is the sub. That's the way our team sheets work.

They name the bench in number order!

 

[Southerntakeover]

Come on, nobody is going to finish in the top-10 at the club's B&F if they weren't performing to a standard that the coaches weren't happy with. That's just disingenuous rubbish.

There is no doubt that his performances in 2013 were sub-standard. His performances thus far in 2014 haven't been to his usual standard either. However, anyone trying to argue that his performances prior to 2013 were unacceptable is spouting crap.

The same coach who didn't last the year out in 2011? That's your supporting evidence?

The 'top 10' best and fairest standard is just a repetition of your 'he was selected' argument. Indeed the measures are closely related. How did Reilly fare on 'votes per game'? Are you really taking the position that best and fairest rankings shouldn't be viewed in the context of the performance of the rest of the team? A ranking tells you nothing outside of the ranking. It does not tell us how Reilly performed objectively. How does fourth at the Crows in 2011 compare to say... 15th at Geelong?

Riddle me this: why did we move Reilly from the roles he played in those years? If his performance was as strong as you assert, would he not have been maintained in those roles?

 

[StonesThrow]

F##king why isn't Grigg playing?!?!

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Perhaps but I would use wright as sub

Sounds about right ......not exactly burning it up

 

[Elite Crow]

This board is seriously weird

Where's all the indignation about Grigg not playing ......why isn't he being given games to groom him & fast track him ?

Nope ....silence ....crickets .....where's the next new toy?

So, no-one demanding he be played ? ....anyone?

Yep, no one has been arguing Reilly should be dropped, no one. No one suggested Grigg play either. The only weirdness is your posting.........style...........and..............drivel.........

 

[Sanders]

Riddle me this: why did we move Reilly from the roles he played in those years? If his performance was as strong as you assert, would he not have been maintained in those roles?

Holy pertinent point batman