Changes Vs The Dogs

[fpm84]

Bomber was reportedly very happy with Stokes' game (he held Shaw to 12 possessions in the last three quarters after he had 12 in the first quarter alone) so is zero chance of being dropped. Would like to see him start kicking some goals though.

I'd say Gamble is a good chance to come in for Varcoe who will miss at least this week (but then - who goes out for Chapman?). If Ottens comes in I'd like to see Mumford rested (ie no VFL this week) to freshen him up for finals. Surely Otto would be able to manage a few minutes per quarter in the ruck - Blake and Hawkins/Mooney could handle the rest.

As for Kelly I reckon we throw him in the deep end. It's too late in the season to be playing him at VFL level. Hopefully two AFL games is enough preparation to have him in decent shape for the finals.

IN: Ottens, Chapman, Rooke, Kelly
OUT: Varcoe (inj), Mumford (rest), Hogan (unlucky), Lonergan (no match up for him)

This could all change drastically if Mooney or SJ is suspended...

 

[witsend]

Bomber was reportedly very happy with Stokes' game (he held Shaw to 12 possessions in the last three quarters after he had 12 in the first quarter alone) so is zero chance of being dropped. Would like to see him start kicking some goals though.

I'd say Gamble is a good chance to come in for Varcoe who will miss at least this week (but then - who goes out for Chapman?). If Ottens comes in I'd like to see Mumford rested (ie no VFL this week) to freshen him up for finals. Surely Otto would be able to manage a few minutes per quarter in the ruck - Blake and Hawkins/Mooney could handle the rest.

As for Kelly I reckon we throw him in the deep end. It's too late in the season to be playing him at VFL level. Hopefully two AFL games is enough preparation to have him in decent shape for the finals.

IN: Ottens, Chapman, Rooke, Kelly
OUT: Varcoe (inj), Mumford (rest), Hogan (unlucky), Lonergan (no match up for him)

This could all change drastically if Mooney or SJ is suspended...

I agree completely...how about if Moons is out, give Trent West a crack at CHF? Probably Lonergan more likely as he knows the structures, though.
BTW I don't think Moons will go as he clearly wasn't loooking at His opponent and can reasonably argue he was pushing off. Plus the Sydney guy won't help his cause with the Luke Hodge delayed reaction syndrome.

 

[rocker_oz33]

IN rooke chappy kelly if fit but l think he is more likley to play the following week on a side note why 3 trips to WA OUT lonners varcoe inj l would play hogan in trav spot he has nice hands quick and can kick goals

 

[Fuzzyash]

IN rooke chappy kelly if fit but l think he is more likley to play the following week on a side note why 3 trips to WA OUT lonners varcoe inj l would play hogan in trav spot he has nice hands quick and can kick goals

There isn't three trips to WA, they got it wrong on the coverage - rnd 22 is at KP

 

[Generalissimo]

Mumford could do with a rest. Play Blake and Ottens for the last two H&A games and then, when Blake inevitably gets eaten alive by Aaron Fancypants, dump him back to the twos where he belongs. And then we'll have our best possible ruck combination for the finals.

 

[selwould]

Rooke and Chappy are definite ins and Ottens and Kelly need to play seniors so this really counts against Vegas as Bomber won't make 5 changes in round 21.

IN Rooke, Chapman, Kelly, Ottens
Out Varcoe, Stokes, Lonergan, Mumford

Then IMO we are only IN Milburn OUT Gillies away from our best 22.

DJ has gone past wojak and we will need him for Medhurst, Milne, Schneider type jobs with no Hunt

 

[thegerman]

I think Mooney may miss due to his little punch to Okeefes Chin. That could see Ottens in playing full forward, with Mumford & Blake in the ruck.

Agreed CF, Moons will likely be on the sidelines for at least one week. Even though OKeefe did a little more to enhance his chances of a free kick (Umpire only gave the out of bounds on the full).

 

[thegerman]

Bomber was reportedly very happy with Stokes' game (he held Shaw to 12 possessions in the last three quarters after he had 12 in the first quarter alone) so is zero chance of being dropped. Would like to see him start kicking some goals though.

I'd say Gamble is a good chance to come in for Varcoe who will miss at least this week (but then - who goes out for Chapman?). If Ottens comes in I'd like to see Mumford rested (ie no VFL this week) to freshen him up for finals. Surely Otto would be able to manage a few minutes per quarter in the ruck - Blake and Hawkins/Mooney could handle the rest.

As for Kelly I reckon we throw him in the deep end. It's too late in the season to be playing him at VFL level. Hopefully two AFL games is enough preparation to have him in decent shape for the finals.

IN: Ottens, Chapman, Rooke, Kelly
OUT: Varcoe (inj), Mumford (rest), Hogan (unlucky), Lonergan (no match up for him)

This could all change drastically if Mooney or SJ is suspended...

Don't think SJ has anything to answer for. Moons though, probably gone. Was random and definitely made contact with the fist to the face of OKeefe when he didn't have the footy.

Will get one or two.

 

[True Blue Cat]

Absolutely agree with you Catman....Gamble should have fired in a few games, and just hasn't.

I think that is a bit unfair. Hawkins should have fired in a number of games and didn't. I am not trying to be negative towards Hawkins but it's the same thing. The way we defend the criticism of Hawkins is the fact he is improving and given the continued game time will become a great forward which i agree with. You can't expect Gamble to play extremely well when he doesn't get the game time. If Gamble managed several games in a row at Afl level he would improve vastly and perform much better but he isn't given the chance. 1 or 2 games at a time simply isn't enough.

 

[thegerman]

Several came to the same conclusion about Prismall, that he was starved of opportunity, therefore, one or two games at a time isn't enough to get the experience and learning development.

Are we forgetting this when analysing Gamble's experiences?

 

[vealesy]

Several came to the same conclusion about Prismall, that he was starved of opportunity, therefore, one or two games at a time isn't enough to get the experience and learning development.

Are we forgetting this when analysing Gamble's experiences?

No, we should give Gamble to Essendon for free so he can be a star there too.

 

[True Blue Cat]

Several came to the same conclusion about Prismall, that he was starved of opportunity, therefore, one or two games at a time isn't enough to get the experience and learning development.

Are we forgetting this when analysing Gamble's experiences?

I was extremely disappointed we lost Prismall. I was so excited by his talent. He would have become an excellent midfielder at Geelong. I thought when we did his knee he would stay as it was unsure when he would be back to Afl. I understand why he left but to give him away for nothing and then for him to become such a start really hurts. Although credit to the club. They knew he wanted to go somewhere where he could get some gametime and they let him even if it was to cost them. I am sure they could have rejected essendons offer of next to nothing and kept Prismall although they did what was best for which is what i like.

I don't think we will lose Gamble or at least i hope not. However if we don't give him a lot of game time next year we will be wasting his potential and quite possibly blocking his chance to become a great Afl player.

 

[Jack-Packenham]

In: West Moles Rooke Chapman Kelly Wocjinski

Out: Mumford Varcoe Hogan Lonergan Gillies Stokes

 

[JUBJUB]

In: West Moles Rooke Chapman Kelly Wocjinski

Out: Mumford Varcoe Hogan Lonergan Gillies Stokes

Can't

 

[selwould]

As if West is getting a game ahead of Ottens and wojak is going to really struggle to move dj out of the side

I agree Rooke, Chapman and Kelly will all play this week and Varcoe, Lonergan and maybe Gillies go out

 

[Cats Eye]

In - Ottens, Rooke, Chapman

Out - Varcoe, Stokes, Mumford

If Kelly plays then Lonergan/Gillies will go out. I cant see Gamble getting a game if Rooke and Chapman both come back.

On a side note, do you guys think if Johno is still playing injured come finals that he is better than a 100% fit Stokes, Varcoe, Gamble (who ever misses out)? The last thing I would want to see is Geelong make the same mistake as last year and play unfit players who could ultimately cost us the game.

 

[selwould]

In - Ottens, Rooke, Chapman

Out - Varcoe, Stokes, Mumford

If Kelly plays then Lonergan/Gillies will go out. I cant see Gamble getting a game if Rooke and Chapman both come back.

On a side note, do you guys think if Johno is still playing injured come finals that he is better than a 100% fit Stokes, Varcoe, Gamble (who ever misses out)? The last thing I would want to see is Geelong make the same mistake as last year and play unfit players who could ultimately cost us the game.

Cats Eye - I think the match committee and coaches have decided that SJ will play from here on in, and he was much better this week against Sydney. Maybe he gets a jab in the hip before each game but he must play for us to be a hope and keep our structure. He also takes the best defender (C Bolton on the weekend) and that is invaluable for Hawkins in particular as he slips to the third best defender (L Barry) and can expose them.

He is better than a fit stokes and varcoe combined and also has the x factor that he was missing from the saints rd 14 game so they have to rethink their matchups next time

 

[Cats Eye]

Yeah I agree, but obviously they will have to have a line drawn in the sand at some stage. If his performance decreases under a certain % then they will have to strongly consider bringing someone else in. As you said his performance against Sydney was by far his best since returning (albeit off an 8 day break), hopefully this trend continues.

 

[selwould]

Yeah I agree, but obviously they will have to have a line drawn in the sand at some stage. If his performance decreases under a certain % then they will have to strongly consider bringing someone else in. As you said his performance against Sydney was by far his best since returning (albeit off an 8 day break), hopefully this trend continues.

I reckon that line in the sand is really low - the fear he puts into opposition is worth heaps to us - he is also the ideal guy to have in a structure that includes Ablett (sometimes) Chapman and Rooke as is he is the best in our side at clearing space and ensuring the fwd line is organised - the number of times the opposition can get an extra man up at the contest is so much less with him in the side - something that really hurt us against the saints

 

[Claude Balls]

Most will disagree with me on this one, but apart from a few patches of 3-4 games last year and earlier this year, I don't think Stokes has ever recaptured his best form of 2007, when he would frequently kick 2 and ocassionally 3 important goals, outmark a taller opponent, and generally look a hell of a lot quicker and more energetic than he has looked over the last 2 years, and especially since he got murdered in last year's GF.

These days, I associate Stokes primarily with making a lead into a pocket, and having the ball spoiled well clear by a taller opponent, or else falling over and failing to apply a respectable amount of forward pressure. This happened twice against Sydney.

Harsh I know, but his latest game has just brought to the fore a few discreet opinions I've been musing over for some time now. I expect a few habitual Geelong player defenders to quote me various stats that suggest Stokes' '09 has been better than his '08, which was better than his '07, but I won't be convinced by numbers to reconsider what is apparent from simple obersvation.

 

[rizzo]

Most will disagree with me on this one, but apart from a few patches of 3-4 games last year and earlier this year, I don't think Stokes has ever recaptured his best form of 2007, when he would frequently kick 2 and ocassionally 3 important goals, outmark a taller opponent, and generally look a hell of a lot quicker and more energetic than he has looked over the last 2 years, and especially since he got murdered in last year's GF.

These days, I associate Stokes primarily with making a lead into a pocket, and having the ball spoiled well clear by a taller opponent, or else falling over and failing to apply a respectable amount of forward pressure. This happened twice against Sydney.

Harsh I know, but his latest game has just brought to the fore a few discreet opinions I've been musing over for some time now. I expect a few habitual Geelong player defenders to quote me various stats that suggest Stokes' '09 has been better than his '08, which was better than his '07, but I won't be convinced by numbers to reconsider what is apparent from simple obersvation.

Bluntly, unless he recaptures any resemblence of the form he showed in 2007, he is just warming the spot until A.Varcoe and Motlop are ready.

 

[selwould]

Bluntly, unless he recaptures any resemblence of the form he showed in 2007, he is just warming the spot until A.Varcoe and Motlop are ready.

I agree although i don't think he is even warming a spot for that long - him and varcoe go out this week for chapman and rooke - we only need one pure crumbing forward and that is byrnes

 

[Claude Balls]

Bluntly, unless he recaptures any resemblence of the form he showed in 2007, he is just warming the spot until A.Varcoe and Motlop are ready.

I wonder if the coaches see it this way though. Bomber said of the Sydney game that Stokes kept Shaw to 12 disposals after quarter time, as if that was something to be proud of!!! The way I see it, Shaw still had 4 effective touches per quarter and our small forward was essentially unproductive in his primary role....

 

[selwould]

I wonder if the coaches see it this way though. Bomber said of the Sydney game that Stokes kept Shaw to 12 disposals after quarter time, as if that was something to be proud of!!! The way I see it, Shaw still had 4 effective touches per quarter and our small forward was essentially unproductive in his primary role....

I am concerned that you are right Claude Balls - Bomber seemed happy with him hopefully though they see that Rooke is the best man for that type of job and stokes may have been the worlds worst one game tagger - i cringed every time his stumpy little legs chased Shaw out from a kick in.

Don't get me wrong i wish we had the Stokes 07 model but i definitely think he is not in our best 22

 

[TMS]

Most will disagree with me on this one, but apart from a few patches of 3-4 games last year and earlier this year, I don't think Stokes has ever recaptured his best form of 2007, when he would frequently kick 2 and ocassionally 3 important goals, outmark a taller opponent, and generally look a hell of a lot quicker and more energetic than he has looked over the last 2 years, and especially since he got murdered in last year's GF.

These days, I associate Stokes primarily with making a lead into a pocket, and having the ball spoiled well clear by a taller opponent, or else falling over and failing to apply a respectable amount of forward pressure.

You're not alone. I made a similarly-themed post a month or so ago in another thread, basically saying that Stokes is a most disappointing player at the moment because he can play so much better.

He seems to be going through the motions of being a footballer, without actually putting in the effort. Interestingly, Exhale You and thegerman made good points (in the thread about pulling faces during the song) about Stokes rarely celebrating/singing or even smiling - perhaps his current form could be a result of something personal happening off the field? Not saying he needs to be extroverted to be a good player, far from it - but he doesn't seem happy.

I miss 2007 Stokes too - there just haven't been enough Mooney-hug-moments in his game in recent months.