Will Welsh play this week ?

[TheLeftFist8]

I am pretty sure Roo's return to the middle has been planned from day one and whether Welsh comes back or not this timetable is not likely to be altered.

Stevens cannot be dropped as his form has been excellent.

i agree that Stevens does not deserve to get dropped. However, we cannot afford to not have Bock in our finals side. Is there anyway they can both play???

Bock would be first choice CHB IMO.

Could we afford to have Stevens on the bench? It would depend on the opposition and our ability to cover midfield rotations with only 2 midfielders/utilities on the bench given a Ruckman will occupy the other interchange spot).

A positive to this is flexibilty in the aerial contests. If McGregor is struggling which is quite possible - Stevens could provide an option up forward. Stevens up forward could also stretch the opposition defence at times. Stevens could also play down back (where he is very comfortable) if our defence is stretched for talls. For example when we play WC Rutten would play on Lynch, Bock would take Hansen, Bassett would be too small for Graham as proven in round 2, therefore Stevens would be a perfect match up, and bassett could take Embley if or when he as stints up forward (like when he killed us in round 2). Some would say Hart could do the job, but I don't rate him one on one in aerial contests these days (he's not accountable enough).

Bottom line... I think Bock has to come in and if Stevens does not get dropped maybe there is a role for him.

I doubt it though because I suspect we will need all 3 vacant interchange spots will need to be occupied by midfielders/utilities.

Thoughts??? Remember... we need to try at least be open minded.

 

[jmorg1]

There is no way Stevens deserves to be dropped.

Deserve's got nothin to do with it.

 

[Crow-mo]

Deserve's got nothin to do with it.

ok that made me laugh.

what I would say though is what is the real difference between Bock's revelatory good 2005 form versus Stevens revelatory good 2006 form?

seems pretty similar to me in some ways.

 

[CrowMagnum]

ok that made me laugh.

what I would say though is what is the real difference between Bock's revelatory good 2005 form versus Stevens revelatory good 2006 form?

seems pretty similar to me in some ways.

Good point. Bock was getting blasted by some (me included) in early 05 just like Stevens in early 06, and both have come good.

Bock provides more strength and rebound but Stevens is a linking option and has better disposal. You can never have too many big men, its hard to match up on all of them. I'd find a place for both.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

ok that made me laugh.

what I would say though is what is the real difference between Bock's revelatory good 2005 form versus Stevens revelatory good 2006 form?

seems pretty similar to me in some ways.

Spot on CrowMo. I think Bock maybe overrated on this board somewhat. He was handy last year but the way some people are carrying on it's as though we have an AA CHB waiting in the wings. Last year, I recall people having the same concerns about Bock as they currently have about Stevens ie gets out bodied and doesn't match up well against the monster key forwards, Hall, Pav, etc.

On current form if Stevens gets dropped he can consider himself very, very unlucky.

 

[arrowman]

On current form if Stevens gets dropped he can consider himself very, very unlucky.

I agree, on the other hand it may be worth getting some game time into Bock so we have maximum options come finals time.

I agree with Kane that Stevens was very good against the Weagles. Even though Hansen (that was who he was on?) did well, hell, any WCE forward was going to do well the way that game went. I thought Stevens was as good as you could expect given the constant flow of ball coming his way.

As for Welsh - as I have said before, I think Welsh and possibly Perrie are key to the forward line because they free up Roo and Thommo as midfield options.

Perrie is going to be better on a HFF than Thommo, and Welsh - he can play alongside Roo as has been noted above, but if you had to choose I'd prefer Welsh (in the forward line). It's line ball in terms of "lead and mark" but if the ball is getting bombed in I think Welshy is better (but only slightly).

 

[GoSarge]

I agree, on the other hand it may be worth getting some game time into Bock so we have maximum options come finals time.

I agree with Kane that Stevens was very good against the Weagles. Even though Hansen (that was who he was on?) did well, hell, any WCE forward was going to do well the way that game went. I thought Stevens was as good as you could expect given the constant flow of ball coming his way.

As for Welsh - as I have said before, I think Welsh and possibly Perrie are key to the forward line because they free up Roo and Thommo as midfield options.

Perrie is going to be better on a HFF than Thommo, and Welsh - he can play alongside Roo as has been noted above, but if you had to choose I'd prefer Welsh (in the forward line). It's line ball in terms of "lead and mark" but if the ball is getting bombed in I think Welshy is better (but only slightly).

It's the bigger picture we are looking at here and that is fielding our best team for finals football. Our best team for finals footy would include a match hardened, fit, Bock, Perrie and Welsh IMO and so they should be played immediately and worked in to the team slowly but surely.

Make no mistake, Stevens has performed admirably and I thought he did an excellent job on Hansen, but will he get found out come finals ? Personally I think its probable. For us to win big finals, Roo will be needed in the midfield in some capacity, thus freeing up another position up forward giving room for Welsh or Perrie to come in to the team. Whilst not in good form at the moment for the chooks, a fully fit Perrie would provide another important dimension to the team and should be played.

 

[Alex99]

I agree, on the other hand it may be worth getting some game time into Bock so we have maximum options come finals time.

I agree with Kane that Stevens was very good against the Weagles. Even though Hansen (that was who he was on?) did well, hell, any WCE forward was going to do well the way that game went. I thought Stevens was as good as you could expect given the constant flow of ball coming his way.

Can you explain how Scott Steven played well?

Isn’t his main objective as a defender to stop his direct opponent?

If Ashley Hanson played well and had a lot of influence on the game, how did Scott Steven do his primary job and limit Hanson effectiveness on the game?

The ball moved from the defensive end of the ground to the forward zone via Ashley Hanson because he was leading Steven to the ball or simply getting to more contest because he was quicker and stronger than him. Isn’t it Scott Steven job as a centre half back to either limit this option or stop him from getting the ball, then that would allow the running player like Johncock, Hart and Mattner to turn defence into offence (sorry for the Americanism)?

I appreciate the West Coast midfield were on top all day and this made Ashley Hanson job a lot easier but surely as a defender he couldn’t be relying on a solid midfield to help him out when he is zoning off.

I am not bagging (well I am) but I am just trying to get an explanation on how he played well when the centre half forward was quite dominate in helping the transition of the ball from defence to offence.


Just a bit perplexing.

 

[RogerRabbit69]

If Ashley Hanson played well and had a lot of influence on the game

I didn't think Hansen had a big influence on the match. He had about a half-dozen marks for the match - many of them way up the field. I thought he was fairly well contained, considering the amount of ball the West Coast won.

I'd still think a fully fit Bock is a better option than Stevens - but not by nearly as much as would have been the case at the start of this season.

 

[GoSarge]

Can you explain how Scott Steven played well?
...

Just a bit perplexing.

A lot of the ball that Hansen got was lace out on his chest and would have been difficult for almost any defender to stop.

The 50/50 balls that came Hansen's way, were more often than not, won by Stevens and on numerous occasions he outmarked Hansen in this situation.

Couple that with the fact that Hansen was chasing Stevens on occasions as he rebounded from the D50, I thought that he was one of our better players for the day.

So in answer to your question :

1) He won more than his fair share of the 50/50 contests against Hansen, often outmarking him and
2) Led Hansen to the ball on a number of occasions as he rebounded from 50.

 

[RogerRabbit69]

^^^^ what they said.

 

[Alex99]

I didn't think Hansen had a big influence on the match. He had about a half-dozen marks for the match - many of them way up the field. I thought he was fairly well contained, considering the amount of ball the West Coast won.

I'd still think a fully fit Bock is a better option than Stevens - but not by nearly as much as would have been the case at the start of this season.

            Player  K   H   P   M   HO  T   FF  FA    G   B  
Ashley Hansen   11  4   15  7    0    2    1    0    3   1

I don’t know 11 kicks and 4 handballs for 15 possessions, with 7 marks and a return of 3 goals 1.

Not to bad from centre half forward, arguably the hardest position on the ground to play.

 

[RogerRabbit69]

I don’t know 11 kicks and 4 handballs for 15 possessions, with 7 marks and a return of 3 goals 1.

Not to bad from centre half forward, arguably the hardest position on the ground to play.

I don't think those figures are particularly impressive when you consider West Coast had the most disposals in AFL history and the side kicked more than 20 goals. Did Hansen take a contested mark for the match?

 

[Alex99]

I don't think those figures are particularly impressive when you consider West Coast had the most disposals in AFL history and the side kicked more than 20 goals. Did Hansen take a contested mark for the match?

Does anyone theses days?

 

[arrowman]

Can you explain how Scott Steven played well?

What the others said. I think there were at least 15 other players who were worse than Stevens on Saturday.

 

[GoSarge]

What the others said. I think there were at least 15 other players who were worse than Stevens on Saturday.

And at least 15 Eagles who had better games than Hansen.

 

[GoSarge]

Does anyone theses days?

What was Stevens stats for the weekend ? I'd be interested in his contested mark tally aswell.

 

[absolutezero]

So is Welsh playing this week or what? Help a Melbourne based supporter out here!

 

[Alex99]

So is Welsh playing this week or what? Help a Melbourne based supporter out here!

we all find out in 3 hours

5:30 pm EST

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So is Welsh playing this week or what? Help a Melbourne based supporter out here!

I guess the answer is no, given he is not even an emergency!

 

[Stiffy_18]

Can you explain how Scott Steven played well?

Isn’t his main objective as a defender to stop his direct opponent?

If Ashley Hanson played well and had a lot of influence on the game, how did Scott Steven do his primary job and limit Hanson effectiveness on the game?

The ball moved from the defensive end of the ground to the forward zone via Ashley Hanson because he was leading Steven to the ball or simply getting to more contest because he was quicker and stronger than him. Isn’t it Scott Steven job as a centre half back to either limit this option or stop him from getting the ball, then that would allow the running player like Johncock, Hart and Mattner to turn defence into offence (sorry for the Americanism)?

I appreciate the West Coast midfield were on top all day and this made Ashley Hanson job a lot easier but surely as a defender he couldn’t be relying on a solid midfield to help him out when he is zoning off.

I am not bagging (well I am) but I am just trying to get an explanation on how he played well when the centre half forward was quite dominate in helping the transition of the ball from defence to offence.


Just a bit perplexing.

Well you obviously can't see a major difference between the Gary Ayres' game plan and Neil Craig's game plan. If you are after a negator then play McGregor there BUT Neil Craig is NOT after a negator. He wants a rebounding defender that will defend by attacking. Thats why the likes of Bock and Stevens are played at CHB and why we struggled a bit when McGregor was at CHB. Craig wants run from the HB and Stevens provides that as well as anyone.

Isolating a game where the team got smashed by 80+ points is hardly relevant point. Why was Ben Rutten beaten on the day? Should we drop him too?

This crap that a lot of you dribble out about Stevo not being strong enough in one on one contests is no different to how Bock plays. May I remind you of a couple of embarassing Bock moments? 1. Going for a spoil against Jay Schulz, missing the ball completely and Schulz outmuscling him for the easier of marks. I mean it was Jay Schulz FFS. Or how about that time when Matthew Pavlich kicked 8 GOAL in a half on the same saviour that is Nathan Bock. The game that we were comfortable leaders in and Bock's man singlehandedly almost pinched the game from us with an inspiring 2nd half of football.

Please people some perspective here. Bock is a good player but he wouldn't be a hell of a lot better in one on one contests. He is no more of a negator than Scott Stevens. That is a fact.

 

[beartoo]

What he said.

 

[lunacy]

Well you obviously can't see a major difference between the Gary Ayres' game plan and Neil Craig's game plan. If you are after a negator then play McGregor there BUT Neil Craig is NOT after a negator. He wants a rebounding defender that will defend by attacking. Thats why the likes of Bock and Stevens are played at CHB and why we struggled a bit when McGregor was at CHB. Craig wants run from the HB and Stevens provides that as well as anyone.

Isolating a game where the team got smashed by 80+ points is hardly relevant point. Why was Ben Rutten beaten on the day? Should we drop him too?

This crap that a lot of you dribble out about Stevo not being strong enough in one on one contests is no different to how Bock plays. May I remind you of a couple of embarassing Bock moments? 1. Going for a spoil against Jay Schulz, missing the ball completely and Schulz outmuscling him for the easier of marks. I mean it was Jay Schulz FFS. Or how about that time when Matthew Pavlich kicked 8 GOAL in a half on the same saviour that is Nathan Bock. The game that we were comfortable leaders in and Bock's man singlehandedly almost pinched the game from us with an inspiring 2nd half of football.

Please people some perspective here. Bock is a good player but he wouldn't be a hell of a lot better in one on one contests. He is no more of a negator than Scott Stevens. That is a fact.

well actually the 8 goals weren't all kicked on Bock. Yes he did get beaten, but bassett had a go on him and got well beaten as well. You say we can't isolate a 80 point loss, yet you highlight an isolated incident against Bock. Contradiction? Pavlich beat everyone that day. That example does not prove anything. It's not like Stevens had a go on him and shut him down. How do we know Steven's wouldn't have done worse?

I didn't realise you had a separate set of rules re isolating a game stiffy. I may have to read your rule book which sets you apart from the rest of us.

 

[jenny61_99]

We seem to have two threads running in this one... firstly Welshy: will he play (again?).

I am not as enamoured with Welsh as many of you seem to be. To me he promises much and rarely delivers. His injury prone body makes me feel like he's like a Matty Liptak, great when you had him but more often than not he was injured. How can you maintain a settled forward line when he's in and out more often than a dance of hokey pokey. . Frankly, I'd rather see a fit Perrie than Welsh back in our forward line. Perrie and McGregor provide great marking contests. Combine them with Hentschel Roo and Burton, WOW!

Secondly: Bock v Stevens

A fully fit Bock MUST play ahead of Stevens every day. I am not a huge fan of Stevens - in fact I positively seethed when he kept holding his position in the line-up after ordinary (at best) performances. HOWEVER, he did redeem himself in a couple of exceptional displays. Is this enough to keep a fit Bock out of the team going in to the finals? IMO, NO. We must start with our BEST 18 on the ground and Stevens isn't one of them.

 

[Stiffy_18]

well actually the 8 goals weren't all kicked on Bock. Yes he did get beaten, but bassett had a go on him and got well beaten as well. You say we can't isolate a 80 point loss, yet you highlight an isolated incident against Bock. Contradiction? Pavlich beat everyone that day. That example does not prove anything. It's not like Stevens had a go on him and shut him down. How do we know Steven's wouldn't have done worse?

I didn't realise you had a separate set of rules re isolating a game stiffy. I may have to read your rule book which sets you apart from the rest of us.

Load of bull****.

What has Stevens done, slept with your missus? He has played as well this year as Bock has last year. Bock wasn't beaten only once. He was beaten a number of times last year. Sure he had some great games but he is prone to having an absolute shocker in between. I was at that game, and Pavlich took Bock to cleaners. He kicked a huge bag on him and the only way he was somewhat quietened down was when McGregor was sent back to double team Pavlich.

What about Jay Schulz giving Bock lessons on outmuscling opponents. Should I also mention Troy Simmonds? I think selective memory is playing a big part here. We all seem to remember Bock's good games but forget about his stinkers. Bock in 2005 was no better than Stevens has been this year and that is a fact supported by number of stats and games played to date.