Preview Round 17 - Essendon Bombers vs Adelaide Crows - Sunday, July 9th - 3:20 pm - Marvel Stadium

[andleanback]

Good to see coxys name back around the squad

 

[gunit_]

The final bench/sub selection seems very open - hard to narrow down to a final 5.

 

[TheUnicorn]

Unicorn

 

[dank420_]

Shiel for Snelling will be it.

 

[mcgrath_truther]

nic cox being picked is a good sign

 

[citizen-erased]

The final bench/sub selection seems very open - hard to narrow down to a final 5.

B: Shiel, Hobbs, Hind, Menzie
E: Cox

Cox/Hind interchangeable.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Cox hasn’t done much in VFL…be very surprised if he plays

 

[Beerfish]

3 Nicks. When was the last time that happened?

And another on the field with my boy.

 

[Vindicater]

What I want :

Hobbs Menzie, Cox and Hind
Sub: Snelling

What I think happens

Hobbs, Shiel, Kelly, Menzie
Sub: Snelling

 

[justlookingaround]

I'm not certain they'd see it like that since Truck's philosophy on fast tracking our 2020 draft hand through games played probably had a negative effect on Cox's confidence, playing tired and underdone.
I just see it as a lot more likely that Tsatas gets a run at half forward after banging the door down in the VFL than Cox on the wing or at CHB or wherever it is they decide he plays.
But again, I also think it's more likely than not that they both play in the seniors this year.

Confidently wrong.
I really hope we get the W. I'm still hurting from last week, and this is the last game I'll be able to watch before I'm in the US till next month.

 

[Kyptastic]

Don The Stat preview out now

 

[rumply]

Cox hasn’t done much in VFL…be very surprised if he plays

Liked his last game & did enough to get a look in I reckon. That said, he's not your prototypical sub (is there such a thing?) so I'll be surprised if he gets a start. Hope he does though.

Matter of time either way.

 

[Bjchan13]

Every game day thread I see people asking/demanding that Kelly gets dropped - why? And, has he been dropped once since arriving?

Yep, Truck dropped him once.

 

[ghostdog]

View attachment 1730403

Caldwell at the 50 games mark. He's going to be a gun.

Cox in seems premature.
...just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

[ghostdog]

3 Nicks. When was the last time that happened?

And another on the field with my boy.

It's illuminati code;
Nik Cox
Nick Hind
Nick Bryan

Vs. Matthew Nicks.

Then look at the first initial of each of their surnames. CHB. Centre Half Back.
And we're looking at bringing in a key defender.

Watch how we manipulate the 666 rule this weekend. We're playing 4D chess.

 

[jdstorm]

Every game day thread I see people asking/demanding that Kelly gets dropped - why? And, has he been dropped once since arriving?

He was bought in as a defensive back pocket to nullify SFs. He’s decent at that but he’s not that good of a ball user.

Now with McGrath playing that role (due to his ball usage being too poor to play as an attacking HB) Essendon is short one quality ball user at HB and Kelly is the most obvious candidate to miss out over Heppell and McGrath

 

[dank420_]

He’s decent at that but he’s not that good of a ball user.

This is the most common answer being given but I've never really noticed him having bad ball use.

Are you comparing him with people like Ridley?

 

[Lore]

So the same 26 from last week, and it could well be the same 23, although I'm not convinced Shiel starts as the sub. Sub would probably be Menzie or Snelling if the changes are conservative.

Last week:
Fwd (6.5): Wright, Weid, Langford, Perkins, Guelfi, Snelling + Menzie (sub out)
Mid (8.5): Phillips, Martin, Durham, Stringer, Caldwell, Hobbs, Parish, Merrett + Shiel (starting sub)
Def (7): Zerk-Thatcher, Ridley, Laverde, Kelly, Heppell, Redman, McGrath

This week:
Fwd (6.5): Wright, Weid, Langford, Perkins, Guelfi, Snelling + Menzie (starting sub)
Mid (8.5): Phillips, Martin, Durham, Stringer, Caldwell, Hobbs, Shiel, Parish, Merrett (one to be subbed out)
Def (7): Zerk-Thatcher, Ridley, Laverde, Kelly, Heppell, Redman, McGrath

To look at it positionally, the extended bench has 2 small forwards: Snelling vs Menzie, 2 front-half talls: Cox vs Bryan, 2 mids: Hobbs vs Shiel, and 2 small defenders: Kelly vs Hind. If it works out that one of each is in the 22 + 1 sub, then we won't be keeping the same structure as last week because there will be an extra tall in the midfield with either Cox as a winger/hff or Bryan second ruck. It would probably be similar to R1, R4, R13, R15, with one of the talls being subbed out for a small at 3QT if there are no injuries:

Fwd (6): Wright, Weid, Langford, Perkins, Guelfi, Menzie/Snelling
Mid (9): Phillips, Bryan/Cox, Martin, Durham, Stringer, Caldwell, Hobbs/Shiel, Parish, Merrett
Def (7): Zerk-Thatcher, Ridley, Laverde, Kelly/Hind, Heppell, Redman, McGrath

If the order of the emergencies means anything, then Cox is in, Hind is in as the sub, and Menzie and Kelly come out

Fwd (6): Wright, Weid, Langford, Perkins, Guelfi, Snelling, emg: Menzie
Mid (10): Phillips, Cox, Martin, Durham, Stringer, Caldwell, Hobbs, Shiel, Parish, Merrett, emg: Bryan
Def (6): Zerk-Thatcher, Ridley, Laverde, Heppell, Redman, McGrath + Hind (sub), emg: Kelly

If they run with that then you can almost guarantee that a rebounding small defender will be the starting sub, Cox or Weideman would be planned to be subbed out, and there will be a lot of Merrett/Shiel/Parish running back to sit in the hole over the first three quarters. But really it would be utter madness to start with only 6 defenders, especially when one of those is Hepp (sorry Hepp ).

So the only way it really works with the order of the emergencies as a guide, is if Langford starts back and Stringer or Caldwell play forward. Then when you activate Hind as the sub, Langford goes forward and Cox/Weid come off, and Stringer/Caldwell is fresher legs to the midfield. That would basically be a mimic of our structure against GWS in R4, although I don't think we necessarily planned for Weideman to come off with a concussion 5 minutes into Q1.

Fwd (6): Wright, Weid, Perkins, Caldwell (fwd>mid), Guelfi, Snelling, emg: Menzie
Mid (9): Phillips, Cox (sub off), Martin, Durham, Stringer, Hobbs, Shiel, Parish, Merrett, emg: Bryan
Def (7): Zerk-Thatcher, Ridley, Laverde, Langford (def> 3rd tall fwd), Heppell, Redman, McGrath + Hind (starting sub), emg: Kelly

 

[TheGrizz]

He was bought in as a defensive back pocket to nullify SFs. He’s decent at that but he’s not that good of a ball user.

Now with McGrath playing that role (due to his ball usage being too poor to play as an attacking HB) Essendon is short one quality ball user at HB and Kelly is the most obvious candidate to miss out over Heppell and McGrath

Well, Adelaide have more than one gun small forward (Rachele, Rankine) so having two defenders good at nullifying smalls will be helpful...

 

[The Devils Advocate]

The Redman Cup

 

[MiguelM]

So the same 26 from last week, and it could well be the same 23, although I'm not convinced Shiel starts as the sub. Sub would probably be Menzie or Snelling if the changes are conservative.

Last week:
Fwd (6.5): Wright, Weid, Langford, Perkins, Guelfi, Snelling + Menzie (sub out)
Mid (8.5): Phillips, Martin, Durham, Stringer, Caldwell, Hobbs, Parish, Merrett + Shiel (starting sub)
Def (7): Zerk-Thatcher, Ridley, Laverde, Kelly, Heppell, Redman, McGrath

This week:
Fwd (6.5): Wright, Weid, Langford, Perkins, Guelfi, Snelling + Menzie (starting sub)
Mid (8.5): Phillips, Martin, Durham, Stringer, Caldwell, Hobbs, Shiel, Parish, Merrett (one to be subbed out)
Def (7): Zerk-Thatcher, Ridley, Laverde, Kelly, Heppell, Redman, McGrath

To look at it positionally, the extended bench has 2 small forwards: Snelling vs Menzie, 2 front-half talls: Cox vs Bryan, 2 mids: Hobbs vs Shiel, and 2 small defenders: Kelly vs Hind. If it works out that one of each is in the 22 + 1 sub, then we won't be keeping the same structure as last week because there will be an extra tall in the midfield with either Cox as a winger/hff or Bryan second ruck. It would probably be similar to R1, R4, R13, R15, with one of the talls being subbed out for a small at 3QT if there are no injuries:

Fwd (6): Wright, Weid, Langford, Perkins, Guelfi, Menzie/Snelling
Mid (9): Phillips, Bryan/Cox, Martin, Durham, Stringer, Caldwell, Hobbs/Shiel, Parish, Merrett
Def (7): Zerk-Thatcher, Ridley, Laverde, Kelly/Hind, Heppell, Redman, McGrath

If the order of the emergencies means anything, then Cox is in, Hind is in as the sub, and Menzie and Kelly come out

Fwd (6): Wright, Weid, Langford, Perkins, Guelfi, Snelling, emg: Menzie
Mid (10): Phillips, Cox, Martin, Durham, Stringer, Caldwell, Hobbs, Shiel, Parish, Merrett, emg: Bryan
Def (6): Zerk-Thatcher, Ridley, Laverde, Heppell, Redman, McGrath + Hind (sub), emg: Kelly

If they run with that then you can almost guarantee that a rebounding small defender will be the starting sub, Cox or Weideman would be planned to be subbed out, and there will be a lot of Merrett/Shiel/Parish running back to sit in the hole over the first three quarters. But really it would be utter madness to start with only 6 defenders, especially when one of those is Hepp (sorry Hepp ).

So the only way it really works with the order of the emergencies as a guide, is if Langford starts back and Stringer or Caldwell play forward. Then when you activate Hind as the sub, Langford goes forward and Cox/Weid come off, and Stringer/Caldwell is fresher legs to the midfield. That would basically be a mimic of our structure against GWS in R4, although I don't think we necessarily planned for Weideman to come off with a concussion 5 minutes into Q1.

Fwd (6): Wright, Weid, Perkins, Caldwell (fwd>mid), Guelfi, Snelling, emg: Menzie
Mid (9): Phillips, Cox (sub off), Martin, Durham, Stringer, Hobbs, Shiel, Parish, Merrett, emg: Bryan
Def (7): Zerk-Thatcher, Ridley, Laverde, Langford (def> 3rd tall fwd), Heppell, Redman, McGrath + Hind (starting sub), emg: Kelly

Was a bit confused about your numbers for a minute (6.5, 8.5). I thought you were counting Hobbs & Snelling as .5!!

 

[Pweter]

Well, Adelaide have more than one gun small forward (Rachele, Rankine) so having two defenders good at nullifying smalls will be helpful...

Leave Pedlar to do his own thing at your own risk too, he's putting together a very decent season. Hard as a cats head too.

 

[jdstorm]

Well, Adelaide have more than one gun small forward (Rachele, Rankine) so having two defenders good at nullifying smalls will be helpful...

If you’re playing horses for courses this matchup is good for him. But then it becomes about the trade off of is Kelly’s defense good enough to be worth his offensive impact or is it better to have a Hind/Mass type who’s a scorer and risk that it’s a net positive with more attacking play.

I’m not sure what the answer to that question is, just framing it so that the popular reasons why this conversation is happening are out there

 

[Lore]

Was a bit confused about your numbers for a minute (6.5, 8.5). I thought you were counting Hobbs & Snelling as .5!!

I could well have mis-counted (notorious for it) but it's supposed to represent a sub on/off

 

[TheGrizz]

If you’re playing horses for courses this matchup is good for him. But then it becomes about the trade off of is Kelly’s defense good enough to be worth his offensive impact or is it better to have a Hind/Mass type who’s a scorer and risk that it’s a net positive with more attacking play.

I’m not sure what the answer to that question is, just framing it so that the popular reasons why this conversation is happening are out there

I might be old school, but I prefer my defenders being primarily able to, well, defend.

Especially because our transition defence is still terrible. We are holding up defensively because our defenders are working well together and winning enough 1v1s to make it work (barely).

We don't have the luxury of carrying defenders who can't defend well in favour of offensive burst. Good teams can because their structure or defence as a whole is strong enough to hide the poor 1v1 defenders. We are not that yet.
I imagine its why Scott dropped Hind as soon as Kelly was fit and why Mass just hasn't been able to cement a spot at half back.