SwansProudly
Moderator
- Sep 5, 2016
- 8,849
- 24,880
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Sydney Swans AFLW
- Moderator
- #451
We are excited too Errol
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At the same time, you don't want to load up too much on talls. I'm hoping we can be solid at the back, allowing for turnovers and rebound, with decent delivery into the forward line and hey presto you don't need pack marks (I definitely wouldn't rate McDonald over Buddy or Amartey in this anyway). Heeney, Papley and Hayward become just as dangerous as a hulking brute (which we don't have on our list) and Reid is injured as our best relief mark anyway.You can tell Longmire's emphasis by the INs and outs this week. The main one being Macdonald out for Brand. Gulden on for Wicks is like for like. But to send a key forward out for a key back trumpets a total defensive mindset.
I think the three talls would have been very beneficial against Port, who are a little undersized in defence. But not to be. This now puts far more pressure on Amartey and Franklin. Franklin has never been a pack mark specialist and for a few weeks now we have seen him in that sort of role. Not his forte. As far actually taking a pack Mark it will be left to Amartey and Hickey
On JAT-L29 using BigFooty.com mobile app
I agree with that but when there is no alternative, in other words all options are covered, you need coveragePack marks? Most effective i50s this season have been medium kicks to leads or one-on-ones. Bombing to packs is not a typical forward entry.
So that the team gains a KPD?Why drop Logan thats just one less focus point forward.
So that the team gains a KPD?
Maybe he isn't. Maybe he is though. Crazy to think but he's actually only played 4 games for us. And never in consecutive weeks.
Guys who seem to have preference over him like Melican and Fox (and even Rampe and McCartin) have had more poor games in that time than Brand but are at least given chances to atone.
And down the other end, Horse has stuck fat with McLean and McDonald's not-so-great games for the sake of keeping structure. But he doesn't seem as willing to do so with Brand... Very strange.
We've seen him do a decent job on opposition bigs a few times now. I don't need him to be peeling off defenders and initiating the offense.Agree. Hasn't been played enough to get that answer. Which I've always thought why the **** pick him up ? Roos was always good at playing blokes for blocks of games to find out just that. Use Ted Richards as an example. Told what he was specifically brought into the club to do, was tried at it and look how that turned out. Got to give Brand a block of games and he either sinks or swims. Only opinion I have of the bloke of the small sample size we have had is he has a crack, has reasonable size and strength for the position he was supposed to fill but can he play ? Would not have a ****ing clue.
He also needs to show he deserves his spot back. There's a few in ressies I'd bring in before him.Sorta get the selections but gee the Swans match committee must be really seething about Blakey's performance against Freo. Resulted in a long stint in the 2s... not high on Blakey but sorta expected him there in place of Bell at least.
Sorta get the selections but gee the Swans match committee must be really seething about Blakey's performance against Freo. Resulted in a long stint in the 2s... not high on Blakey but sorta expected him there in place of Bell at least.
So ronke then if gulden not ready
We need forward pressure as we lack it and ball walks out
Bell < McD
Bell < Stephens
Bell < Blakey
And yet Bell gets selected. Again.
Bell was better than McD, DS and the lizard vs Hawthorn.Bell < McD
Bell < Stephens
Bell < Blakey
And yet Bell gets selected. Again.