Round 21 Changes vs Sydney

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Shane_Mag

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 5, 2007
5,128
2,405
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Adel United, Man United, LA Lakers
Out: Dixon In: Frampton

Lycett unlucky cause I believe he should be in the team but Ladhams and Ryder were a great combination against the Bombers.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

raptalia

Premium Platinum
Mar 1, 2014
6,560
8,688
People's Republic of Onkaparinga
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
I'd still have Lycett back in over Ryder.
I'd put Lycett in over Dixon. Any one of Lycett or Ryder played as permanent forward would have done more than Dixon did today. If you drop a big man who has 20 possessions and 22 hit outs surely you have to drop a guy who has just 5 possesionbs and 2 hit outs the following week.

We won well today in spite of Charlie not because of him.
 

*PAF

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 17, 2005
21,924
10,026
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I'd put Lycett in over Dixon. Any one of Lycett or Ryder played as permanent forward would have done more than Dixon did today. If you drop a big man who has 20 possessions and 22 hit outs surely you have to drop a guy who has just 5 possesionbs and 2 hit outs the following week.

We won well today in spite of Charlie not because of him.
Don't agree.
Dixon may have had a bit of a stinker but he still opened up the forward line as Essendon were too afraid to play him loose.

That is the thinking that got Marshall, Frampton etc dropped and replaced with midfielders that eventually morphed into a humongous amount of inside fifties for next to no return.
 

Long live PAFC

Club Legend
Sep 25, 2013
1,966
1,744
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I'd put Lycett in over Dixon. Any one of Lycett or Ryder played as permanent forward would have done more than Dixon did today. If you drop a big man who has 20 possessions and 22 hit outs surely you have to drop a guy who has just 5 possesionbs and 2 hit outs the following week.

We won well today in spite of Charlie not because of him.
Not disagreeing with Dixon’s lack of impact but I think our best forward line is Dixon, Marshall and a resting ruck.
I wouldn’t be touching the forward line - give them time to gel.

Butters looked sore after that tackle so I would give him a rest. Sutcliffe played well but should also come out. Ryder gives little up front or around the ground so should come out but I don’t think he will.

For mine:

Out: Butters
In: Farrell or Woodcock
Out: Sutcliffe
In: Drew/Atley, I wouldn’t rush Wines
Out: Ryder
In: Lycett


What I suspect may happen:
Butters for Motlop
 

Andre

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 3, 2002
23,791
26,558
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The balance was right. If we drop Dixon for a small it’ll be peak Ken. Ken will be so desperate to not have the obvious lesson of a forward structure of talls who are forwards, with small forwards able to play as small forwards validated as the right one (and hence invalidating his 7 year coaching career here), I’m going to be surprised only if Dixon isn’t dropped for a small. Or Ladhams out.
 

raptalia

Premium Platinum
Mar 1, 2014
6,560
8,688
People's Republic of Onkaparinga
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
Don't agree.
Dixon may have had a bit of a stinker but he still opened up the forward line as Essendon were too afraid to play him loose.

That is the thinking that got Marshall, Frampton etc dropped and replaced with midfielders that eventually morphed into a humongous amount of inside fifties for next to no return.
A bit of a stinker? Charlie's game stunk more than Bolivar in the middle of summer.

How many more times are we going to make excuses for this guy? He has no run in him at all. I am watching the replay as we speak and Charlie doesn't run anywhere he walks. Charlie has no pace, no athleticism at all. Dixon has to l;arn to lead but I don't I don't think he can run run fast enough to do it. I think his injury has taken it's toll and his time is about up.

As I watch the replay the Essendon defenders simply stand with Charlie stop him from marking then run off him at will. They are able to do this because they know he is not fast enough to chase them or to make position up the field. You may be happy with a man mountain whose only purpose is to draw defenders but I am not, I want a leading KPP who can kick goals and that isn't Charlie atm.

We have options other than Charlie Dixon and if he can only get one kick in half a game we should use them.

We have just had our Coach tell us they weren't happy with a tall who had 20 possessions and 22 hit outs the previous week and yet you and a few others want to retain a guy who had only 5 kicks for an entire game. We do not have to replace Dixon with a small forward as we can replace him with Lycett and use Paddy up forward. Paddy isn't a career forward but he is certain to do more than Dixon.

One possession in a half a game and you think Dixon is earning his 700k per annum pay packet? Give me a break.
 
Last edited:

GremioPower

"You Are Not Port Adelaide"
May 26, 2017
7,328
12,406
Uruguayana, RS (BRA) [last: Rockville, MD (USA)]
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Grêmio, DC United, Clev. Indians
Not disagreeing with Dixon’s lack of impact but I think our best forward line is Dixon, Marshall and a resting ruck.
I wouldn’t be touching the forward line - give them time to gel.

Butters looked sore after that tackle so I would give him a rest. Sutcliffe played well but should also come out. Ryder gives little up front or around the ground so should come out but I don’t think he will.

For mine:

Out: Butters
In: Farrell or Woodcock
Out: Sutcliffe
In: Drew/Atley, I wouldn’t rush Wines
Out: Ryder
In: Lycett


What I suspect may happen:
Butters for Motlop
Those are my changes. Although, I would might consider bringing Howard back.
 

*PAF

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 17, 2005
21,924
10,026
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
A bit of a stinker? Charlie's game stunk more than Bolivar in the middle of summer.

How many more times are we going to make excuses for this guy? He has no run in him at all. I am watching the replay as we speak and Charlie doesn't run anywhere he walks. Charlie has no pace, no athleticism at all. Dixon has to l;arn to lead but I don't I don't think he can run run fast enough to do it. I think his injury has taken it's toll and his time is about up.

As I watch the replay the Essendon defenders simply stand with Charlie stop him from marking then run off him at will. They are able to do this because they know he is not fast enough to chase them or to make position up the field. You may be happy with a man mountain whose only purpose is to draw defenders but I am not, I want a leading KPP who can kick goals and that isn't Charlie atm.

We have options other than Charlie Dixon and if he can only get one kick in half a game we should use them.

We have just had our Coach tell us they weren't happy with a tall who had 20 possessions and 22 hit outs the previous week and yet you and a few others want to retain a guy who had only 5 kicks for an entire game. We do not have to replace Dixon with a small forward as we can replace him with Lycett and use Paddy up forward. Paddy isn't a career forward but he is certain to do more than Dixon.

One possession in a half a game and you think Dixon is earning his 700k per annum pay packet? Give me a break.
Certainly not making excuses, although after having seen players recover from big injuries in the past one should also not expect much more than he has been delivering. Next year it will be a different question.

The point is that our forward line has functioned better when we have had multiple KPFs plus a resting ruck not Marshall plus a resting ruck and a bunch of midfielders.

So yes Dixon played his part today. Not individually well but the collective was greater than the individual. The collective does not equal to the sum of champion data points. Today it worked.
 

Top Bottom