Preview Hawks vs Freo - Changes and discussion

[eldorado]

In reality, it's at least possible that neither of Hodge or Gibson will get up so I guess it's Osborne out but no idea who for...

No idea with Hodge, but I understand Gibson was reasonably close this week, so he should be back at least...

 

[Brant]

No idea with Hodge, but I understand Gibson was reasonably close this week, so he should be back at least...

If that's the case & Hodge doesn't get up then I'd make a straight swap:

In:
Gibson

Out:
Osborne

Sub:
Breust*

I'd be happy to see I.Omith play forward a bit & rotate onto a wing so as to keep Young in the side.

* Pretty sure Clarko is developing Breust's defensive & physical side (like WX last year) so wouldn't at all be surprised to see him play the whole game again, being that it's only Round 7 & this is the time for such developing.

 

[Flukey!]

I don't expect to see Hodge this week which means there will only be one change - Gibbo in for Ozzie. (unless of course the MRP has other ideas)

 

[Hodginator]

Gibbo in for Ossie and that's it unless we're forced to make changes.

Can't understand people wanting to drop Suckers. You must either be drunk or don't understand how important he is to our rebounding game plan.

Also don't know where the love for Hill is coming from. Bringing in someone who is effectively a first gamer makes no sense to me in a must win game against a pretty strong freo side. I'd bring in Murph or Cheney or a half cooked Hodge before Hill if we need to make another change.

 

[macdaddio]

I really want to see Gunston come in this week, has any one got any news on him and why we havent seen him for the past 3 weeks?
Im sure he will add value to our side for the simple fact that he is a kkp..

 

[Brant]

I really want to see Gunston come in this week, has any one got any news on him and why we havent seen him for the past 3 weeks?
Im sure he will add value to our side for the simple fact that he is a kkp..

Played at BH today apparently - don't think he kicked a goal.

 

[Spanish Sahara]

Hopefully Gibbo is back this week, and obviously Ossie out

Who is heading down to Launceston this coming weekend?

I am down for a Uni course in Hobart, staying the extra few days in Tassie to see the game

 

[illnino]

Bit late to be giving anymore than a few random thoughts and comments at this time of night...

Don't like the idea of either of Suckling or Breust being dropped, though looking through the list, it's hard to pick anyone other than Osborne to go out this week.

Depending on the opposition, I'm still not really sold on the idea of having 5 defenders who are all 190+ cm in defense at once. Grant(ed) Birchall (see what I did there ) and Gibson are fairly quick and agile, the other three, whilst fairly good on the rebound, just aren't as quick or clean when the ball hits the deck and is in dispute. Therefore I guess an out could come from one of them depending on how we think the Dockers will line up and how we want to play them, though I couldn't tell you which one would or should get the chop.

So I guess it's just Gibson in for Osborne for mine for now. If Hodge does get up in time, then....ahhh...I'll get back to ya on who goes out Possibly Lewis if suspended I suppose (haven't seen any footage so won't jump to conclusions). Wouldn't mind seeing Hill get another run again sometime soon either, even if it's only as the sub again for now, in which case I'd like to see him brought on a bit earlier than last time. You'd think the wide open expanses down in Launceston would suit him too

 

[caterina]

Guys you have noticed, haven't you, that our forward line is utter rubbish? Gilham, Stratton and Schoenmakers will have us covered with ease without Gibson. The only chance we have is in the midfield where I think you guys are struggling a bit this year. I am hoping the MRP take a haaaaard look at Lewis
I would be surprised if you didn't replace Osborne with your next best mid, whoever that is
Good luck next week

 

[Mojo]

Guys you have noticed, haven't you, that our forward line is utter rubbish? Gilham, Stratton and Schoenmakers will have us covered with ease without Gibson. The only chance we have is in the midfield where I think you guys are struggling a bit this year. I am hoping the MRP take a haaaaard look at Lewis
I would be surprised if you didn't replace Osborne with your next best mid, whoever that is
Good luck next week

I agree; our midfield has struggled this year... It's a bit odd.

Re. Box Hill - I've observed a couple of games this season and we're quite woeful. It's frustrating because the majority of the team are Hawthorn listed players (highest in VFL). It's difficult to be promoted if the collective team struggles - none too many look better than VFL players atm.

 

[go hawks!!!]

In the posts above, most of our issues have been covered. Another area that we struggle is the use of the 'sub'.

I think Clarko was clueless in the use of the sub all of 2011, and nothing has changed this year.

The use of the sub (and the player that went off) was one of the reasons we lost the 2011 prelim.

This year, we are utilising our sub in the last quarter, usually, 5=10 mins in (I think it should be 3rd quarter), but not sure on actual stats of opposition teams.

Further, the person we use as sub is so wrong. In the first 2 rounds we used Gunston, and since then I just have not seen the logic in the selection.

The most idiotic move was using Hill as sub in Perth (on debut).

I believe Bruest is the ideal sub, however with Ossie's injury i'm not sure. In the next few weeks, I'd like to see a system or strategy to the selection of the sub and how the sub can impact the game.

This week, Bruest as sub, coming in midway through 3rd quarter. Next round i'd like to see Savage as young as sub, as burst players.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Reading The Age article this morning, suggesting that Lewis could be in trouble for a punch to the stomach of Ricky Petterd in the 1st qtr. Apparently, "the short jab left Pettered doubled over briefly..."

he'll be right, despite the viedo eveidence, they can just show the stat sheet to half time and no one would believe Petterd was even playing!!!

 

[J0NNY B]

In the posts above, most of our issues have been covered. Another area that we struggle is the use of the 'sub'.

I think Clarko was clueless in the use of the sub all of 2011, and nothing has changed this year.

The use of the sub (and the player that went off) was one of the reasons we lost the 2011 prelim.

This year, we are utilising our sub in the last quarter, usually, 5=10 mins in (I think it should be 3rd quarter), but not sure on actual stats of opposition teams.

Further, the person we use as sub is so wrong. In the first 2 rounds we used Gunston, and since then I just have not seen the logic in the selection.

The most idiotic move was using Hill as sub in Perth (on debut).

I believe Bruest is the ideal sub, however with Ossie's injury i'm not sure. In the next few weeks, I'd like to see a system or strategy to the selection of the sub and how the sub can impact the game.
D
This week, Bruest as sub, coming in midway through 3rd quarter. Next round i'd like to see Savage as young as sub, as burst players.

good topic to raise. It was obvious that Wx was going to subbed last year. I think it was a massive mistake subbing someone who was physically capable of playing out 4 qtrs.
This year, what is the strategy? Easing players in seems to be the theme up until Osborne. But what is the best strategy? Surely you pick your best 21 players first, or the 21 that will matchup etc the best. After that, do you go defensive an pick a player that can cover the most positions? Do you go a player that can provide burst (Hill) and break lines to open the game up?

 

[WWSD]

Bit late to be giving anymore than a few random thoughts and comments at this time of night...

Don't like the idea of either of Suckling or Breust being dropped, though looking through the list, it's hard to pick anyone other than Osborne to go out this week.

Depending on the opposition, I'm still not really sold on the idea of having 5 defenders who are all 190+ cm in defense at once. Grant(ed) Birchall (see what I did there ) and Gibson are fairly quick and agile, the other three, whilst fairly good on the rebound, just aren't as quick or clean when the ball hits the deck and is in dispute. Therefore I guess an out could come from one of them depending on how we think the Dockers will line up and how we want to play them, though I couldn't tell you which one would or should get the chop.

So I guess it's just Gibson in for Osborne for mine for now. If Hodge does get up in time, then....ahhh...I'll get back to ya on who goes out Possibly Lewis if suspended I suppose (haven't seen any footage so won't jump to conclusions). Wouldn't mind seeing Hill get another run again sometime soon either, even if it's only as the sub again for now, in which case I'd like to see him brought on a bit earlier than last time. You'd think the wide open expanses down in Launceston would suit him too

Go take a look at Collingwood and Geelong back 6 talls, they have a taller set up then us, and are better. For Collingwood Tarrant, N.Brown, B.Reid, N.Maxwell and Goldsack, Geelong have Taylor, Scarlett, Lonergan and Mackie. Both of those teams have the best defense in the league. If we structure up tall, well nothing wrong with that.

B: Guerra Gilham Gibson
HB: Birchall Schoenmakers Stratton

That is your back 6.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Go take a look at Collingwood and Geelong back 6 talls, they have a taller set up then us, and are better. For Collingwood Tarrant, N.Brown, B.Reid, N.Maxwell and Goldsack, Geelong have Taylor, Scarlett, Lonergan and Mackie. Both of those teams have the best defense in the league. If we structure up tall, well nothing wrong with that.

B: Guerra Gilham Gibson
HB: Birchall Schoenmakers Stratton

That is your back 6.

Gibson can play the Mackie role in terms of 3rd man in and runner off the back flank, as can Stratton. Like that back 6. Not sure where it leaves Burger though as he's sort of been across half back too. Would like to see him in the midfield rotation too so maybe we'll see him in there more

When Hodge gets back, its going to be on for spots.....then when Bailey gets back......sheesh

 

[Changa10]

I really hope not for my sake........

Why does it have any impact on you Macdaddio? FFS

 

[illnino]

Go take a look at Collingwood and Geelong back 6 talls, they have a taller set up then us, and are better. For Collingwood Tarrant, N.Brown, B.Reid, N.Maxwell and Goldsack, Geelong have Taylor, Scarlett, Lonergan and Mackie. Both of those teams have the best defense in the league. If we structure up tall, well nothing wrong with that.

B: Guerra Gilham Gibson
HB: Birchall Schoenmakers Stratton

That is your back 6.

It is? Gee, thanks...I guess.

Total Points Against

1. Coll - 610 points from 363 inside 50's - 1.68 points conceded per inside 50

2. Haw - 585 points from 340 inside 50's - 1.72 points conceded per inside 50

3. Geel - 630 points from 348 inside 50's - 1.81 points conceded per inside 50

There's not much in that at all, and in fact when you take into account the respective draws thus far for the 3 clubs, it's very hard to accurately argue that either Collingwood or Geelong's defenses are better than our own, let alone "the best in the league".

Didn't say I was totally against the idea of playing 5 talls in defense, especially against the right teams, I'm just not completely sold on it either. If it's to work, those 5 guys need to compliment each other well by collectively having a good blend of aerial, crumbing, one-on-one and rebounding abilities as well as pace, and finally the ability to work together cohesively, as a unit, over time...Something the injury gods haven't really allowed thus far.

 

[Brant]

It is? Gee, thanks...I guess.

Total Points Against

1. Coll - 610 points from 363 inside 50's - 1.68 points conceded per inside 50

2. Haw - 585 points from 340 inside 50's - 1.72 points conceded per inside 50

3. Geel - 630 points from 348 inside 50's - 1.81 points conceded per inside 50

There's not much in that at all, and in fact when you take into account the respective draws thus far for the 3 clubs, it's very hard to accurately argue that either Collingwood or Geelong's defenses are better than our own, let alone "the best in the league".

Didn't say I was totally against the idea of playing 5 talls in defense, especially against the right teams, I'm just not completely sold on it either. If it's to work, those 5 guys need to compliment each other well by collectively having a good blend of aerial, crumbing, one-on-one and rebounding abilities as well as pace, and finally the ability to work together cohesively, as a unit, over time...Something the injury gods haven't really allowed thus far.

And dispose effectively by foot.

As much as we need pace to defend fast forwards & to run to make space, we also need to be able to dispose effectively by foot as that will likely form the basis of our rebound.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing:

Stratton Gilham Guerra
Gibson Schoey Birchall + either of Hodge/Burgoyne/Suckling

But the trade off in playing "effective disposal" as a means for rebound is that we need a 7-man defence. Speedy players can usually 'run off' their opponents, but 'good kickers' usually need space to operate in. As such, a good kicker will often get cramped if the forwards go 'man on man' at a turnover. Hence, we send a designated player (Sucko) into defence without an opponent so as to give us the space we require.

If we are happy to have a rolling midfield that plays in defence to increase numbers/options then we can effectively go with a 'slower/taller' backline. IMO, the slow/tall backline is only really an issue if we try to implement a running game out of defence - which I don't believe is our style.

 

[illnino]

And dispose effectively by foot.

As much as we need pace to defend fast forwards & to run to make space, we also need to be able to dispose effectively by foot as that will likely form the basis of our rebound.

I (maybe wrongly) grouped disposal in with rebounding ability, but yes, it's also an important factor to consider.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing:

Stratton Gilham Guerra
Gibson Schoey Birchall + either of Hodge/Burgoyne/Suckling

But the trade off in playing "effective disposal" as a means for rebound is that we need a 7-man defence. Speedy players can usually 'run off' their opponents, but 'good kickers' usually need space to operate in. As such, a good kicker will often get cramped if the forwards go 'man on man' at a turnover. Hence, we send a designated player (Sucko) into defence without an opponent so as to give us the space we require.

If we are happy to have a rolling midfield that plays in defence to increase numbers/options then we can effectively go with a 'slower/taller' backline. IMO, the slow/tall backline is only really an issue if we try to implement a running game out of defence - which I don't believe is our style.

While it's all well and good for the rolling midfield to provide ground support in defense in general play, and they do it well, come each and every center bounce there's no rolling midfield to help out should the opposition get a quick clearance and inside 50, which has happened regularly this year. A team with a few quick leading mediums/smalls, which is most I'd suspect, could really take advantage of their pace and one-on-one ability against what they may perhaps perceive to be an overly tall/slow defense. Same goes for quick turnovers or interceptions forward of center for the opposition, in which case it's pretty hard for our mids to get back in time to help out in defense.

I'm really not against the idea, and I'd be quite surprised if we actually didn't see all 5 of Birch, Gibbo, Stratts, Gilly and Schoey playing together in the near future, such is the way I think Clarko might choose to structure us up. It'll be great to see how it goes too, I'm just....well, not completely sold on it, like I said before.

 

[macdaddio]

Why does it have any impact on you Macdaddio? FFS

If you read earlier in one of my post, me and my wife are trying to start our own family and to read that Bruce is supposedly an old man and just had a baby boy gives me hope that I'm not too old...

So hope that makes you feel better about what you wrote ...

 

[Henry Jr]

In the posts above, most of our issues have been covered. Another area that we struggle is the use of the 'sub'.

When your in front, I reckon you hold onto your sub as long as possible. You don't want to sub then go a man down like Friday night.

In fact, given our run of 6 day turnarounds ect. I believe he is using the sub purely as a medical ploy. Yes, you can use it early but if someone gets injured after the sub has been deployed, then the whole team suffers.

However, if you hold onto your sub longer than one normally would, only the player subbed off (spending longer on the ground that liked) and the sub coming on suffer (from lack of game time)

 

[Badesumofu]

I'm not sure how anyone can suggest Suckling out. Maybe it's just that some people don't appreciate that type of player.

Osborne out, of course. Ins depend on who is available. Gibson and Hodge come in if they are ready. If they are both ready, someone else has to go out as well. I'm struggling with who it would be, though. It might end up being about who pulls up a bit sore (maybe Young, though I hope not, his game was really pleasing and you'd want to see him string some games like that together) or who could use a rest.

 

[Brant]

I'm not sure how anyone can suggest Suckling out. Maybe it's just that some people don't appreciate that type of player.

Osborne out, of course. Ins depend on who is available. Gibson and Hodge come in if they are ready. If they are both ready, someone else has to go out as well. I'm struggling with who it would be, though. It might end up being about who pulls up a bit sore (maybe Young, though I hope not, his game was really pleasing and you'd want to see him string some games like that together) or who could use a rest.

In response to your question re: Suckling:

Not sure if you read my post from earlier but I suggested that Suckling would come out (of my team) for Hodge to play. In my Ins/Outs I was bringing in Gibson (HBF) & Hodge (play behind the ball) & as such I couldn't keep Suckling in there, especially with Burgoyne playing predominantly in defence.

 

[halfback dasher]

In Gibbo Out Ossie
Shiels too Hill ...head to head ....has the pace and tank but harder at it ...
Lyon will push numbers around the ball and clog it up ala the Swans two weeks ago ....Lets see if we learn't any thing ....
Birch , Issy and Poppy will make a massive diff imo too what we saw in that game .....
The balance of the side is now nearly right imo , now its time too fine tune it .
Goo , Gilham , Stratts
Birch . Shoey , Gibbo
Really love'n that back line ......

 

[Harper_Hawk]

In Gibbo Out Ossie
Shiels too Hill ...head to head ....has the pace and tank but harder at it ...
Lyon will push numbers around the ball and clog it up ala the Swans two weeks ago ....Lets see if we learn't any thing ....
Birch , Issy and Poppy will make a massive diff imo too what we saw in that game .....
The balance of the side is now nearly right imo , now its time too fine tune it .
Goo , Gilham , Stratts
Birch . Shoey , Gibbo
Really love'n that back line ......

I agree. There's a back team developing right there. One for all..all for one.