Preview Changes West Coast vs St Kilda - Rd 19, 2021

[RookiePick]

I don’t think the club thought a player would last till they are 34 years old. Unprecedented for us.

And if brander was a bit tougher, he’d play more.

I don't think we are disagreeing

 

[Priditor]

HUTCHINGS AGAINST THE TEAM THAT DIDN'T WANT HIM

Jamie Cripps against the team that didn’t want him.

 

[DickDunn]

Hutchings for the bigfooty board that didn’t want him

 

[ArdentEagle]

Don't worry Hutch...I want you mate.
Hope you come in, kick arse and give the big up yours to these plebs!

 

[Kwality]

I think the club believes they are still in their window and that maybe they have one more final shot at a flag next year with this group. It is not so much that Kennedy is the measure but more to the point that if he doesn't play on I reckon it is because the club is looking to rejig as you say and have conceded that the window is closed.
I will be very surprised if JK doesn't play on, I don't think Shuey is done at all.

We will both follow these guys ..... & Hurn. These three arent the measure of being 'in the window'.

 

[Grahame]

I wouldn't be surprised if Brander wants to go. We've completely cocked up his development in conjunction with him not really having the aggressive edge/confidence required at the level.

I think he would be well justified in feeling frustrated with how his career is tracking at this point in time.

I'm not yet convinced Brander is anything special. And, it seems most see him as a forward. All good but he sits behind JK, JD, OA and possibly even JakeW. It seems we simply have too many tall forwards on our list.

Our preference used to be for just two tall forwards. But with OA coming along that stretched out to three.

While it's fine to suggest Brander is first 22, I can't see he has (so far) shown enough to jump past JK, JD or OA. Even if JK retires next year, could or would Brander automatically could come in and play tall forward #3?

And if he does, then we create a similar situation with what to do with Waterman (although he seems to have more flexibility than just being a forward). I think a more balanced model would be two talls and Waterman with the occasional resting ruck. But in this scenario Brander still misses out even if JK retires.

And another issue with the three tall forward model is it has also reduced the possibility of the ruck 'resting' forward. That then affects discussions about the viability of 'blooding' Williams - despite the fact he will be the replacement for NN.

So, I wonder if the bigger question actually is a list mgt question. Have we got ourselves into a bit of a bind by having too many tall forwards - and then trying to play most of them at once? I think one current weakness is not holding the ball in our forward line. Having an army of talls there doesn't help that.

(And FWIW, I like the idea of Shuey going forward. Esp until we find a Rioli replacement or the man himself comes back and finds form.)

 

[The_Gambler]

I'm not yet convinced Brander is anything special. And, it seems most see him as a forward. All good but he sits behind JK, JD, OA and possibly even JakeW. It seems we simply have too many tall forwards on our list.

Our preference used to be for just two tall forwards. But with OA coming along that stretched out to three.

While it's fine to suggest Brander is first 22, I can't see he has (so far) shown enough to jump past JK, JD or OA. Even if JK retires next year, could or would Brander automatically could come in and play tall forward #3?

And if he does, then we create a similar situation with what to do with Waterman (although he seems to have more flexibility than just being a forward). I think a more balanced model would be two talls and Waterman with the occasional resting ruck. But in this scenario Brander still misses out even if JK retires.

And another issue with the three tall forward model is it has also reduced the possibility of the ruck 'resting' forward. That then affects discussions about the viability of 'blooding' Williams - despite the fact he will be the replacement for NN.

So, I wonder if the bigger question actually is a list mgt question. Have we got ourselves into a bit of a bind by having too many tall forwards - and then trying to play most of them at once? I think one current weakness is not holding the ball in our forward line. Having an army of talls there doesn't help that.

(And FWIW, I like the idea of Shuey going forward. Esp until we find a Rioli replacement or the man himself comes back and finds form.)

haven’t seen anything to suggest brander or waterman is a tall forward at AFL. With Kennedy almost gone and darling pushing 30 we don’t have enough tall forwards or defenders, but copious flankers and softy midfielders

 

[ArdentEagle]

haven’t seen anything to suggest brander or waterman is a tall forward at AFL. With Kennedy almost gone and darling pushing 30 we don’t have enough tall forwards or defenders, but copious flankers and softy midfielders

Neither are a first tall but both could be 3rd talls.
Waterman could of had 3-4 yesterday had his radar been on...Nice linking 12 marks.

Brander needs a settled role.
Like everyone else, I have an idea on this. I'd like to see him play as a big bodied tagger. Learn of players like the Bont and the like and eventually become damaging the other way.

 

[squashface]

Out: Allen (rest), Ryan (injured)
In: Williams, Winder

Could make a case for any of Nelson (32 touches and a goal in the WAFL), Witherden or Foley (both 25 touches) to come in.

 

[Kwality]

Neither are a first tall but both could be 3rd talls.
Waterman could of had 3-4 yesterday had his radar been on...Nice linking 12 marks.

Brander needs a settled role.
Like everyone else, I have an idea on this. I'd like to see him play as a big bodied tagger. Learn of players like the Bont and the like and eventually become damaging the other way.

Are you suggesting we carry a midfielder as a tagger. Surely we only tag where it is necessary (there arent too many of the Bont).

 

[ArdentEagle]

Are you suggesting we carry a midfielder as a tagger. Surely we only tag where it is necessary (there arent too many of the Bont).

Yes I am...Having someone who could not only help negate a Bont for example but damage the other way would be very valuable.
They'd have to be able to play on other types of mid too. Oliver, Miller, Neale ect too.
Offensive (lol) tagger.

 

[Kwality]

Yes I am...Having someone who could not only help negate a Bont for example but damage the other way would be very valuable.
They'd have to be able to play on other types of mid too. Oliver, Miller, Neale ect too.
Offensive (lol) tagger.

My view is Hutchings only gets in the 22/23 with a specific job, so I agree with a tagger where appropriate, not full time.
That said I support finding a way to get more game time into Brander although I was unimpressed with his efforts v the Saints.