Opinion Round 6 Changes vs. West Coast

[Quokka]

Ha, no scratch and sniff sticker for you sucker.

 

[Purple Jesus]

I take it your a school teacher. You couldnt stop yourself. I's a forum so where does it say you have to spell correctly?

Why would you not want to improve yourself? Since when is embracing ignorance something to be proud of?

 

[scon]

Since Eagles offered membership?

 

[Freomaniac]

Great win last night.

I'm writing our derby preview thread.

If you'd like the chance to be featured in the preview, please respond to this post. The best contributions will be included and attributed accordingly.

Any comments about the game, the club or anything else you like will be considered.

Tough man Tony Abbott tactics!

 

[schnoods]

Did you see who gave McEvoy a chop out for the Hawks? 193cm O'Brien.

Did you see who lined up in defence for the Hawks? Not a player over 193cm - Frawley the tallest (193cm), then Burton (191cm) - the other 4 are under 190cm. We have Hamling (194cm) and Johnson (195cm). Ibbo, Hughes and Sheridan can all play on talls. And if we need more we have Logue who can shift back.

I'd take the learnings from the Hawks and apply them rather than being too reactionary on a one dimensional aspect (eg height). Hawks destroyed them with mobility. Adding height at the expense of speed and mobility would be the worst thing we could do imo. Like North were with their selections - WC should be worried about our speed more so than us about their height.

I agree with your view, but ultimately the game isn't played at the 'G and we aren't the Hawks. We looked vulnerable at times in defense with Wood and Brown getting a few marks and if it wasn't for the immense pressure from our mids and a couple of lucky bounces we should have lost.

The reactionary change would be if a player if one or both of Hill and Neale are out though. If not, unchanged with Mundy or Fyfe helping out back i would think.

 

[Square Peg]

What is wrong with Neale? I missed it.
If Hill is out, I don't think Balic is the replacement of choice. It would have to be Sutcliffe or <shudder> Danyle

 

[schnoods]

Neale was limping today, knock on the knee in the third quarter. Should be right i think.

 

[wayToGo_]

I agree with your view, but ultimately the game isn't played at the 'G and we aren't the Hawks. We looked vulnerable at times in defense with Wood and Brown getting a few marks and if it wasn't for the immense pressure from our mids and a couple of lucky bounces we should have lost.

The reactionary change would be if a player if one or both of Hill and Neale are out though. If not, unchanged with Mundy or Fyfe helping out back i would think.

Brown only took 1 mark inside 50 and Wood 2. These two are quality marks so I'd take that as a win for us personally, especially when we didn't play that great for more than a half. And yes, maybe if we didn't get a lucky bounce we would have lost but similarly maybe if North didn't score all but about one of their goals from free kicks we would have smashed them, or if those weird umpiring decisions in the first and second quarters didn't happen we would have built momentum rather than completely losing it, or perhaps Logue doesn't get put on a ridiculous angle and easily slots it, or SHill doesn't get injured maybe we would have won by more? There are lots of what ifs we can conjure up on both sides. We beat them across pretty much every statistical area so I don't think we should have lost.

The current group of young players found a way to win, and the defence only conceded 9 goals. I just don't get the obsession worrying too much about every opposition forward when team defence is clearly one of the main differences between good teams and poor teams. You just have to compare our Rds 1 & 2 vs 3, 4 & 5 to see the stark difference. People talk about our defence being no good if there is no upfield pressure. Well duh, it's not any different for the other 17 teams. The best teams expect to have good upfield pressure and build and structure their defence based on that and not from the point of view that 'the floodgates are open'. We've started winning since we embraced upfield pressure again - please lets not go back to the ineffective negate mentality at the expense of not being able to move the ball.

 

[Scham]

I can see us having a backline of Hamling, Ibbo, Hughes, Spurr, Sutty and Weller. Jonno then becomes our forward/ruck.

 

[E Shed]

Why would you not want to improve yourself? Since when is embracing ignorance something to be proud of?

unfortunately it does seem all the rage at the moment with the rise of the angry right and leaders like Trump who just says whatever comes into his head and claims anything that doesn't fit his worldview as fake news.
Hence events like the march for Science on the weekend.
What a world when people have to march to remind the world that empirically tested facts are in fact, you know, facts, not just inconvenient opinions that can be overridden with "alternative facts".

 

[go_the_dockers]

Walters badly needs a rest. Johnson will need a rest soon. Hill will more than likely miss a week, Sandi has been carrying the ruck almost single handedly for the last 3 weeks.

We need to ensure we manage players, and when required we give them a rest.

I have Walters out this week (was a shadow of the player he is when fit this week), and Hill out if the medical report determines it is needed.

 

[meima]

I can see us having a backline of Hamling, Ibbo, Hughes, Spurr, Sutty and Weller. Jonno then becomes our forward/ruck.

I prefer tucker to be at backline rather than sutty , can always switch them when needed. I try to fit Tab in but he might just slow freo forward line or going for the same ball in the forward line. Currently crozier and grey give flexibility in the forward line as both had the ability to tackle and drift back to allow langdon and b.hill to overlap. Both might not score as much as ballas or fasalo type but create more assist and flexibility moving forward with different scorer in the team.

 

[electricfeel]

Sutty in the backline.. :\

 

[wayToGo_]

I'm surprised the betting odds against us are so high. I'm not expecting us to be favourites but if you look at form over the past three games we have 3 wins and a percentage of 125.1% whereas West Coast have won 1 and lost 2 with a percentage of 86.8%.

I've noticed a lot of comments about our percentage (78.4%) on the AFL ladder but you take out those two first games where we played nothing like we are playing now and it's probably about where we are at (somewhere in the 6-12 ladder position range). I'm not certain West Coast should be above us but I guess we'll find out on the weekend.

 

[Alfonz]

As far as bringing in another tall, I hate making changes based on the other side. Worry about ourselves and how we want to play (both now, and in the future). If we had a good tall to bring in, then by all means it might be worth a look. But we don't have that luxury.

I hope they react to getting smashed by McEvoy and go back to Giles + Vardy and are even taller.

The only inclusions should be running players for whoever out of Hill, Neale and Walters misses. And if Sutcliffe plays, keep him out of the back line and play him on the wing.

 

[Scham]

Sutty in the backline.. :\

Generally does a great job on Darling.

 

[Sweetback]

I reckon Sutty would do okay in this new young side that watches each others backs.

 

[Docker82]

This won't be popular but I actually think we should be bringing old mate Danyle Pearce back into the side if Balic isn't available. Most like for like replacement for Hill. Everything else can stay the same for mine although I'd rather get Balic back in there if fit.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DannyTheDoorman]

This won't be popular but I actually think we should be bringing old mate Danyle Pearce back into the side if Balic isn't available. Most like for like replacement for Hill. Everything else can stay the same for mine although I'd rather get Balic back in there if fit.

On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

What about bringing in Dawss given his big game experience?

 

[Mr Fonebone]

Out: Shill ( inj) Walters ( rest )
In: Sutcliffe, Tabs

Agree that Walters looks a bit sore. Sutcliffe back could release Weller to take Shill's spot.

Tabs to give Sandi help. Not entirely comfortable using MJ as back ruck.

 

[theGav56]

Out: Shill ( inj) Walters ( rest )
In: Sutcliffe, Tabs

Agree that Walters looks a bit sore. Sutcliffe back could release Weller to take Shill's spot.

Tabs to give Sandi help. Not entirely comfortable using MJ as back ruck.

Significant changes to a winning game plan there. I think Johnson has been great. You don't measure the role purely on hitouts or clearances, and I think he has been pretty functional in each game so far. And moving Weller would be pretty low on my to do list. He is delivering really well for us in his current position.

 

[holy diver]

As long as Two More doesn't come back in. That would just be going backwards.

 

[Gussman]

We could see Walters moved onto the wing to replace S.Hill. Hopefully this can kick start his season, because he hasn't been as influential as some of us would of liked.

Does leave a hole in our forwardline though. Balic could come in, if his injury lets him. Or maybe Tabs if we plan to play taller.

 

[Big Animal]

I watched that enjoyable game yesterday at the G. WC's strength is in their contested/intercept marking with players like JK, Barrass, Darling, and McGovern. Their mids are strong but not particularly quick (maybe Shuey, Gaff aside but even they are not super quick). They seem to get many of their goals from intercept marking and shooting the ball back past the running offense (now defense) through the middle to one on ones or Hill or Darling out the back. Hawthorn beat them by (1) maintaining possession as much as possible in the first 5 to 10 mins kick to kick style and getting those couple of goals ahead, (2) applying lots of pressure around the ball for 4 quarters making Priddis ineffective, (3) doing everything in their power to stop those mentioned above from marking the ball by wearing them like a glove, double teaming JK, and (bar McEvoy) punching everytime rather than try and compete for the mark (and lose), and most importantly (4) rarely kicking big to a pack unless down the wings with mids covering the middle ground towards the corridor (where WC usually rebounds it back through) or to the top of the square. You could tell Clarkson won this game with some good pre-planning and understanding of the WC game. Hopefully we do the same.

 

[schnoods]

Brown only took 1 mark inside 50 and Wood 2. These two are quality marks so I'd take that as a win for us personally, especially when we didn't play that great for more than a half. And yes, maybe if we didn't get a lucky bounce we would have lost but similarly maybe if North didn't score all but about one of their goals from free kicks we would have smashed them, or if those weird umpiring decisions in the first and second quarters didn't happen we would have built momentum rather than completely losing it, or perhaps Logue doesn't get put on a ridiculous angle and easily slots it, or SHill doesn't get injured maybe we would have won by more? There are lots of what ifs we can conjure up on both sides. We beat them across pretty much every statistical area so I don't think we should have lost.

The current group of young players found a way to win, and the defence only conceded 9 goals. I just don't get the obsession worrying too much about every opposition forward when team defence is clearly one of the main differences between good teams and poor teams. You just have to compare our Rds 1 & 2 vs 3, 4 & 5 to see the stark difference. People talk about our defence being no good if there is no upfield pressure. Well duh, it's not any different for the other 17 teams. The best teams expect to have good upfield pressure and build and structure their defence based on that and not from the point of view that 'the floodgates are open'. We've started winning since we embraced upfield pressure again - please lets not go back to the ineffective negate mentality at the expense of not being able to move the ball.

Its not about the expense of moving the ball if we cannot get our hands on in it, Its a delicate balance but if they run 3 talls with Vardy pushing up, it will make life difficult for our backs. Clogging the backline is even worse, as less targets to hit up ahead should you get the ball, by the time you move the ball or switch to opposite sides the opposition setup their zone. Im definitely not saying bring back Dawson or Sutcliffe, but the way WCE play with a more traditional Forwards it might get a bit hairy with our stopping power whether on the lead or even in the pack.