Preview Round 14, 2021: Hawthorn v Essendon @ UTAS, Sun 3:20PM

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Finn is the other option.

Don't think either Finn or Cousins should come into the side. We know what we get with them, and it's not enough - Finn's production isn't there and Cousins can't balance offence and defence.

O'Meara, Mitchell, Newcombe and Shiels through the middle is a good base and we can rotate others through.
 
Don't think either Finn or Cousins should come into the side. We know what we get with them, and it's not enough - Finn's production isn't there and Cousins can't balance offence and defence.

O'Meara, Mitchell, Newcombe and Shiels through the middle is a good base and we can rotate others through.
Chad will also roll through there.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Don't think either Finn or Cousins should come into the side. We know what we get with them, and it's not enough - Finn's production isn't there and Cousins can't balance offence and defence.

O'Meara, Mitchell, Newcombe and Shiels through the middle is a good base and we can rotate others through.
Agree with you re: Cousins, personally I think we've only ever seen Finn come in with a negating set of instructions, I'd be curious to see what he can do with an offensive set of instructions.
 
Another name that would be a welcome surprise inclusion given the forced changes is Pepper, if he's done the right things at training over the break. He has the hard, competitive mindset that was emphasised before the Swans game and was adjusting well to his forward role at Box Hill. We still seem to be looking for that next small forward who can get their offensive and defensive balance right. Saunders is another worth trying.
 
Don't think either Finn or Cousins should come into the side. We know what we get with them, and it's not enough - Finn's production isn't there and Cousins can't balance offence and defence.

O'Meara, Mitchell, Newcombe and Shiels through the middle is a good base and we can rotate others through.
Agree. 2 of Saunders, Brockman, Downie or Greaves for me to replace Morrison and Worpel. 1 of the above to replace Morris as sub.
 
The Worpel ban is ridiculous, but on the plus side Wingard and The Duke should get more midfield time.

Worpel has had another disappointing season to date, so hopefully the other two can add something to the mix that he doesn't.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Worpel suspended for that tackle speaks volumes about where the game is at.
I understand that the game is taking head injuries seriously (and rightfully so) but this just doesn't seem right at all. Worpel should have been cleared to play this weekend. There wasn't a lot he could have done differently there. The way these incidents are being graded is too complicated, too subjective and too inconsistent.

If their own system doesn't know how to grade incidents like the one in the Adelaide/Saints game after having it played on repeat 100 times and on slow motion, then how the hell do they expect players to make these decisions in the spare of the moment.
 
I understand that the game is taking head injuries seriously (and rightfully so) but this just doesn't seem right at all. Worpel should have been cleared to play this weekend. There wasn't a lot he could have done differently there. The way these incidents are being graded is too complicated, too subjective and too inconsistent.

If their own system doesn't know how to grade incidents like the one in the Adelaide/Saints game after having it played on repeat 100 times and on slow motion, then how the hell do they expect players to make these decisions in the spare of the moment.
The inconsistency is the bit that gets me with this one. The fact that this was considered a week yet the Mills tackle on Worpel from this very same game wasn't even worth a mention in the report as having been looked at (if we give them the benefit of the doubt when they say they did look at it) is mind boggling.

There's no real consistency in how incidents are graded in general with a constant flip-flop between "the action" and "the outcome" - and sometimes even "the intent".

It used to be a matter of being frustrated about inconsistencies from season to season, but at least they could claim the rules/interpretations had changed. Then it was from game to game in the same season. Now we're seeing it in the same round and in this case the very same game. Eventually we're going to get to the point where two players simultaneously strike each other in the same incident and one ends up with a suspension while the other doesn't get looked at.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top