Preview Round 6 2023: GWS Giants vs Brisbane Lions

[Dalions]

Giants

B: N.Haynes, S.Taylor, I.Cumming

HB: L.Whitfield, J.Buckley, L.Ash

C: F.Callaghan, J.Kelly, D.Lloyd

HF: B.Daniels, H.Himmelberg, C.Ward

F: T.Greene - C, J.Hogan, J.Peatling

FOLL: M.Flynn, H.Perryman, S.Coniglio

I/C: H.Rowston, A.Cadman, C.Idun, X.O‘Halloran

EMG: C.Brown, J.Riccardi, R.Angwin, A.Kennedy

IN: B.Daniels, H.Perryman

OUT: A.Kennedy (omitted), C.Hamilton (injured), T.Green (suspension)

Still a pretty strong team.

 

[Section 5]

From footywire

 

[Section 5]

Still a pretty strong team.

They have been competitive but losing Tom Green is a bit of a blow to their chances.
Wins - Crows 16, Hawks 2
Loss - Eagles 19, Blues 10, Bombers 13

They have been up and down like a lot of teams so far this year.

 

[luthor]

That is why I gave the post a like . It's obvious meant that way.

Thank you

My ironic posts often don't get the recognition they deserve

 

[luthor]

They have been competitive but losing Tom Green is a bit of a blow to their chances.
Wins - Crows 16, Hawks 2
Loss - Eagles 19, Blues 10, Bombers 13

They have been up and down like a lot of teams so far this year.

They were ripped off in their game against the Blues bit in reality, are Carlton all they are cracked up to be anyway?

The Crows shot themselves in the foot with wasteful kicking for goal and beating the Hawks by a whisker last week is hardly a great form line.

Losing to the Eagles albeit in Perth, franks the idea in my mind that they are not really much good.

If we turn up with the right attitude and play to our ability, this should be a comfortable win.

 

[Grasshopper17]

They were ripped off in their game against the Blues bit in reality, are Carlton all they are cracked up to be anyway?

The Crows shot themselves in the foot with wasteful kicking for goal and beating the Hawks by a whisker last week is hardly a great form line.

Losing to the Eagles albeit in Perth, franks the idea in my mind that they are not really much good.

If we turn up with the right attitude and play to our ability, this should be a comfortable win.

On form I agree. On paper their team looks bloody good. Mind you there's no easy game in the AFL any more. The draft and salary cap have made sure of this.

 

[martinson]

I loved the forward set up with Fort who can take contested marks something the others aren't flash at . Hipwood seemed to play with a lot more freedom with that structure .

Don't see that Gunston offers better with what he does but obviously there's a pecking order and that's all there is to it.

 

[Elixuh]

I loved the forward set up with Fort who can take contested marks something the others aren't flash at . Hipwood seemed to play with a lot more freedom with that structure .

Don't see that Gunston offers better with what he does but obviously there's a pecking order and that's all there is to it.

I wonder whether had the AFL implemented 5-man benches Fort would play every week.

 

[martinson]

I wonder whether had the AFL implemented 5-man benches Fort would play every week.

Absolutely no doubt. For someone who's seen as a ruckman first and foremost he's quite versatile and not bad when the ball hits the deck.

I don't see how anyone who played as he did should get dropped . Obviously we need to get games into Gunston and playing in the twos is not something that would be palatable for all concerned. Personally I like the idea of a contested marking target in the forward line. It's no big deal ,we're one injury away from him playing as a forward or a ruck, or both.

 

[Elixuh]

Absolutely no doubt. For someone who's seen as a ruckman first and foremost he's quite versatile and not bad when the ball hits the deck.

I don't see how anyone who played as he did should get dropped . Obviously we need to get games into Gunston and playing in the twos is not something that would be palatable for all concerned. Personally I like the idea of a contested marking target in the forward line. It's no big deal ,we're one injury away from him playing as a forward or a ruck, or both.

I think we know what Fort looks like in the side. It is extremely unlucky but I want to see a bigger sample size from Gunston. I think Gunston is the type that in a final could sneak 2-4 goals and be really handy.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Feel for Fort. We looked much better with him up forward. Straightened us up. I think the Daniher up the ground move is here to stay (thanks fk) which means Fort to give way. But tbh is probably have kept him and leave gunners out another week.

In: Gunston
Out: Fort (Whipping Boy)

 

[rye]

In: Gunston
Out: Fort (Whipping Boy)

is gunston a pet?

 

[3KZ is Football]

is gunston a pet?

It might go deeper than that … you be the judge.

 

[Gadzorks]

is gunston a pet?

I think we got him to be a senior teaching influence. I mean he's good so not losing with him on the field but he has all that experience to help stabilise and develop the team.

I think he will be rested quite a bit with other players getting chances to build experience.

 

[DERRINALPHIL]

Thank you

My ironic posts often don't get the recognition they deserve

I have two things to say. I am a terrible speller. Gardener and Raynor.

Are you being ironic again?

 

[DERRINALPHIL]

Ripper thanks for that mate. We just arrived today, so was hoping to catch a session tomorrow if it was on. Will head down to check it out. Cheers again ️


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Could you do a report?

I arrive at about 6.00 and willl probably have a spare ticket as my son's hockey match is on at the same time.

I will post tonight if it's definitely available.

Go Lions and I am hoping Gunners kicks five.

 

[DERRINALPHIL]

One thing I liked about Fort's game last week were his entries into the forward 50. At least thrice he marked at CHF, quickly wheeled and isolated Joe/Hipwood as the deepest forward. I liked his kicking at goals less.

Yes he kicked at the goals only.

 

[scott_the_man]

Too many people writing off Gunston. He is an exceptional forward with loads of experience - just a matter of time before he kicks a bag and proves the doubters wrong.

Yes Fort looked good against North, but then again so did our entire team. Gunston still clearly the better forward for mine.

 

[Brett C]

View attachment 1665970
It might go deeper than that … you be the judge.

For a guy calling week after week for Matho and Lyons to both be in the side I think we should treat your opinion for what it’s worth.

 

[martinson]

Too many people writing off Gunston. He is an exceptional forward with loads of experience - just a matter of time before he kicks a bag and proves the doubters wrong.

Yes Fort looked good against North, but then again so did our entire team. Gunston still clearly the better forward for mine.

I'm not writing Gunston off at all.

My main point was that the forward line structure with Fort in there worked as good as I've ever seen our big forwards work together. Agreed against North . And Fort has made a habit of doing well whenever he's drifted forward. I'm not unhappy about Gunston playing , if he's still as capable as what he was then he's worth having. I don't see much of a contested marking presence in there and hopefully he makes up for it in other ways.

We rested him so obviously he needed a break and now should be ready give us the point of difference we got him for.

 

[POBT]

Gunston's movement is much better than Fort's, albeit that he looks to have lost a yard. But he still provides more of a medium tall contribution than a key tall and has much better skill and decision making. Fort, for all his attributes, is a more stagnant target with the skill of a typical ruckman.

Playing very tall lineups looks great when your midfield is dominant but it's a massive risk otherwise. And I think naming a ruckman and then not using them much in the ruck contest is a luxury that we can't afford. If Joe is going to spend time in the ruck, then I think our best lineup only includes one ruckman - the question then becomes whether we play Gunston or a small IMO. If we decide to play Joe as a permanent forward and not use him in the ruck, then Fort absolutely should come into the equation.

The other thing I'm comfortable with is a horses for courses approach. I think footy is a bit too focused on "best 22", whereas a lot of sports now have squad approaches where selection depends on a range of factors and not just who is nominally in the best side.

 

[morsie]

I still think we played in bursts against North and gave up some easy goals I.e. Stephenson.I don't think it was as good a performance as Collingwood and Melbourne games.North were obviously experimenting and it didn't work.

 

[martinson]

Gunston's movement is much better than Fort's, albeit that he looks to have lost a yard. But he still provides more of a medium tall contribution than a key tall and has much better skill and decision making. Fort, for all his attributes, is a more stagnant target with the skill of a typical ruckman.

Playing very tall lineups looks great when your midfield is dominant but it's a massive risk otherwise. And I think naming a ruckman and then not using them much in the ruck contest is a luxury that we can't afford. If Joe is going to spend time in the ruck, then I think our best lineup only includes one ruckman - the question then becomes whether we play Gunston or a small IMO. If we decide to play Joe as a permanent forward and not use him in the ruck, then Fort absolutely should come into the equation.

The other thing I'm comfortable with is a horses for courses approach. I think footy is a bit too focused on "best 22", whereas a lot of sports now have squad approaches where selection depends on a range of factors and not just who is nominally in the best side.

That's true.

Just a couple of things. It's just my view that Fort is one of those players who's underestimated and is capable when he gets near the ball of dishing it off very effectively. Much more so than Oscar . And also to agree with your point re Joe in the ruck , I'm a bit in the camp that he's unlikely to see the season out against the better sides in the roles he played the last 2 weeks. But could do it in small bursts if we look after him.

Re Gunston I guess we see what he delivers. He's looked ok in small doses so far and probably needs games to get right up to speed.

 

[Section 5]

Gunston's movement is much better than Fort's, albeit that he looks to have lost a yard. But he still provides more of a medium tall contribution than a key tall and has much better skill and decision making. Fort, for all his attributes, is a more stagnant target with the skill of a typical ruckman.

Playing very tall lineups looks great when your midfield is dominant but it's a massive risk otherwise. And I think naming a ruckman and then not using them much in the ruck contest is a luxury that we can't afford. If Joe is going to spend time in the ruck, then I think our best lineup only includes one ruckman - the question then becomes whether we play Gunston or a small IMO. If we decide to play Joe as a permanent forward and not use him in the ruck, then Fort absolutely should come into the equation.

The other thing I'm comfortable with is a horses for courses approach. I think footy is a bit too focused on "best 22", whereas a lot of sports now have squad approaches where selection depends on a range of factors and not just who is nominally in the best side.

Agree as i prefer 1 ruck + Joe relief. However, i also agreed with the Lions selection of 2 rucks v Gawn & Grundy.
Jo gets a better feel of the game & more involved when playing ruck.
Also, Jo or the coaches have finally realised he does not need to get off the ground much during ruck contests especially around the ground.

Oscar over Fort when one ruck needed.
Gunston, Hippy & Daniher over Fort for our three natural forwards.

It is a long season and Fort will get his chances.
We have only played 5 games and Fort has played in 3 of them.
Subbed off in the Dogs game after 47 % TOG.

Fort was a great trade at that time.

 

[Nathan Barley]

My issue with Gunston is that he offers no forward pressure so he really has to have an impact with the ball otherwise his contribution is a net negative which we saw in rounds 1,2 and 4