Preview Round 16 - Bombers vs Swans - Saturday 02 Jul @ 1:45pm MCG

[Kirkswan]

I think the Bombers are going to try to get at Parker after his work on Shiel. I know Parker's big enough to handle himself, but I'd like to see the team back Parker up if Essendon do try to target him. Parker's been flying the flag for the best part of a decade, I hope he has a few mates going hard at Essendon and showing that we're willing to go harder than our opposition.

This is a real statement game for us, both in how we respond to any off the ball stuff, but also in how we win, anything less than a big win to show that there's a gulf between us and the poorer sides in the comp and I'll be pretty disappointed. We have the talent and experience to put a side like Essendon to the sword early, and keep our foot on their throat. A big win is a must for me to show that we're heading into a period of consistent performances. If we win a narrow battle, I'd personally be disappointed because we're much better than that.

I totally agree with the first paragraph.

I agree with the second paragraph in theory, but anything can happen on game day... they may play the game of their season, and if so, as long as we win, I'll be happy. But yes, a nice big statement win would be just what the doctor (or in this case the supporters) ordered!

 

[rustycrate]

Let them attack Parker all they want. We'll get the frees and 50s, and keep kicking goals.

And Parker will love the attention and thrive off it.

 

[momentbymoment]

Still not sure what the fuss was about. Parker was clearly looking forward to a nice hot toastie once the Dons had been put away.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

I totally agree with the first paragraph.

I agree with the second paragraph in theory, but anything can happen on game day... they may play the game of their season, and if so, as long as we win, I'll be happy. But yes, a nice big statement win would be just what the doctor (or in this case the supporters) ordered!

The rational part of me completely agrees. The one eyed swans fan part wants the team to be absolutely ruthless and really turn the corner this season.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

View attachment 1436362
Still not sure what the fuss was about. Parker was clearly looking forward to a nice hot toastie once the Dons had been put away.

I have it on good authority that Parker's sledge was "Dylan you weak prick, I bet this is how you look when you eat toasties"

 

[adam waite]

Even though they have an obvious Hawks bias, either one of those would offer better insights than the two sopranos.

I actually dont mind Dunstal, Dermie drives me mad! His insights and autopsy of the player movements involved in play s**t me off. Sometimes he has a valid point, but most of the time he just waffles on about nothing!

 

[Nuggetz]

Reckon buddy and logan to kick 10+ goals between em

Hope we get a nice % boost from this game

 

[Indie_]

Every football fan has been conditioned to expect a certain kind of commentary voice (whether it be play by play or colour) - which is generally a low, male voice. Makes sense, that’s basically all there has been in the commentary box for all of footy history. It’s the same with other sports - I still do a double take any time it’s not some posh English bloke commentating the soccer.

Anyone that doesn’t fit into that mould is automatically a bit confronting. I don’t think it means they aren’t a good commentator or don’t have the voice for it - it’s just different and not what we’ve all grown up with. I guarantee you that 7-15 year olds watching footy for the first time on tv aren’t put off by Daisy Pearce or anyone else that doesn’t fit the mould because they don’t have years of watching footy coverage inculcated into their brains. Note, I doubt Daisy Pearce as a boundary rider would draw 5% of the critique she gets because women on the boundary is nothing new.

Personally I think it’s up to us to adjust and change as opposed to resisting any changes to the types of commentators we have. Lack of diversity in footy media is a disgrace, and the commentary box is definitely part of it.

 

[caesar88]

McInerney in, Clarke out

Clarke very stiff. McInerney needs to perform

 

[Punts]

Jmac walks in as expected

Been down but best 22 every day of the week

 

[Punts]

Good to see fox hold his spot

Better form than Harry

 

[Mister B]

McInerney in, Clarke out

Clarke very stiff. McInerney needs to perform

Hoping Clarke is retained as medical sub. Real stiff.

 

[Dan87]

Side is looking pretty toight.

Campbell a little lucky but hope he finds the next step soon

 

[swanssince2002]

Went just about as expected, they dont want JMac to come in the Dogs game cold. We need him fit and firing. That will be a more important one. Harsh on Clarke, but I think the selectors got it right.

 

[The King!]

told ya clarke out

 

[Dan87]

Not a lot of heavy players, hard running squad

 

[Nuggetz]

Wrong change imo. Clarke deserved his spot and Jmac performances this season haven't warranted an auto selection. I wonder if we were playing a better team would Clarke have been dropped?

 

[caesar88]

Not a lot of heavy players, hard running squad

Last week was the same though. In fact last week was played almost entirely on the outside. Maybe Horse is anticipating this game to be similar?

 

[Punts]

Wrong change imo. Clarke deserved his spot and Jmac performances this season haven't warranted an auto selection. I wonder if we were playing a better team would Clarke have been dropped?

Clarke is depth and not even signed for next season

They don’t rate him highly

 

[SSwans2011]

Sorry but Clarke out is utter BS. We are not rebuilding, we are supposed to be competing and should be picking players based on performance, not potential. Also sends a terrible message to the reserves that you can come in and play your role well, and still be dropped. Not like JMac has been in ripping form or anything either. That change stinks IMO.

 

[Punts]

Jmac when up and about would be our next A grader , ball use probably top 5 at the club

Clarke is in contracted depth

 

[The King!]

Wrong change imo. Clarke deserved his spot and Jmac performances this season haven't warranted an auto selection. I wonder if we were playing a better team would Clarke have been dropped?

cmon clarke was semi handy v a rubbish performance

jmac is best 22

 

[Bloods86]

Clarke unlucky. Was brought in to do a run with role, which is his forte at senior level, did his job well, dropped. Maybe it's a match up thing, but hopefully he remains as sub, though I never like to say I hope the sub gets a run. Campbell, Hayward, JMac fairly fortunate re: form.

Would make sense for him to be sub as he's more versatile in case of any late outs. Expect Ronke and Ladhams to be kept out of VFL too.

Good to see Fox and Stephens remain.

 

[SSwans2011]

Jmac when up and about would be our next A grader , ball use probably top 5 at the club

Clarke is in contracted depth

When up and about.

When was the last time he was up and about? Against the Kangas 2-3 months ago?

 

[caesar88]

I am fine with McInerney being in providing he actually performs. I'm still of the belief that his form has been more injury-related than anything. Having the forced week off might've actually been good for him and so he might be back to his best this week. However if he's still in the same form and comes out and plays as he was playing before, and we dropped Clarke and selected him just because he's the preferred option, then I think it would be a questionable decision.

Reckon it's one of those coaching decisions that we'll have to actually see play out before we can say it was the right call or not.