Unofficial Preview SEASON 2025 - Best 22, Game Plan, Personnel

[Bloods86]

With all the talk about the grand final failures, players turning up or not, forward and tackle pressure etc... I have to say if people's 22s don't include Fox and Campbell, I don't really rate the analysis.

If we're serious about a harder, defensive edge, and turning up when it most counts, Fox should be one of the first named. I'm sure some will bring up that he wasn't in great form through the whole season, but here's a free suggestion. Cox in the box, lock Fox down back, he'll rock.

Campbell showed against the Bombers late on what he can offer up forward as a goal threat and in pressure (5 tackles, 3 tackles inside 50, 2 goals). Great cameo vs Giants (1 goal, 2 tackles inside 50), 6 tackles vs Port (2 inside 50). Just put him forward, let him go. For reference, only 1 player, min 10 games, averaged over 2 tackles inside 50 in the entire league in 2024.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

My R0 lineup based on Cox's promising comments:
B Rampe Melican Cunningham
HB Blakey McCartin Roberts
C Gulden Mills McInerney
HF Warner McDonald Cleary
F Papley McLean / Amartey Hayward
Foll Grundy Rowbottom Heeney
Int Lloyd Florent Jordan Sheldrick
Sub Campbell

Datolli, Fox, Bice, Wicks and Adams all in the mix.

Like this except one less slow forward please. Still too tall and slow! Dattoli in for McLean for mine. I've sort of tossed and turned whether Amartey or McLean goes but Amartey has a bit more leg speed they both offer the same amount up forward. I'd spread the second ruck between Logan and McLean.

Would consider Bice straight away but think he just misses out

 

[caesar88]

Cox in the box, lock Fox down back, he'll rock.

Have you considered a career as a tongue-twister creator?

 

[Wheresbuddy]

Like this except one less slow forward please. Still too tall and slow! Dattoli in for McLean for mine. I've sort of tossed and turned whether Amartey or McLean goes but Amartey has a bit more leg speed they both offer the same amount up forward. I'd spread the second ruck between Logan and McLean.

Would consider Bice straight away but think he just misses out

I've got either mclean or amartey, don't really mind which one.

 

[Bloods86]

Have you considered a career as a tongue-twister creator?

I've read Dr Seuss to my nieces.

I don't want any part of subjecting even more people to those horrors.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I've got either mclean or amartey, don't really mind which one.

Oh cool, either one is fine. Dattoli in.

 

[Bloods86]

Best team. Keep forgetting Jordon, so either Cleary or Sheldrick as sub. Going Gus in the 22 as likelier to play more midfield, but can still add to forward pressure.

Think Florent and Lloyd fight it out for the backup wing/HB spot.

FB: Cunners Tmac Fox
HB: Blakey Melican Roberts
C: Gulden Heeney Jmac
HF: Hayward Logan Warner
FF: Campbell McL/Ama Papley
R: Grundy Mills Rowbottom
Int: Rampe Florent Sheldrick Jordon
Sub: Cleary

E: Ladhams McL/Ama Lloyd (or Adams)

 

[caesar88]

This is the most beautiful paragraph I've ever seen. Almost brought a tear to my eye.



I feel like Dattoli aside, we didn't really draft for either of these things, which tells me the cavalry is going to come from the incumbents already on the list (which is probably no surprise - a bit of experience and maturity over the 18 year olds straight out of the draft was always likely to be the scenario.)

I would say Mills & Sheldrick would be the ones we'd likely look at for the contested side of things. There is Adams, too, though he lacks Mills' class & versatility, whilst Sheldrick has hopefully overtaken, or at least levelled with him after another pre-season.

And we probably turn to the smaller, faster forward types for that forward pressure. This could spell doom for the three talls-structure, or it could mean any of Dattoli, Wicks, Campbell, Hanily and even Warner Jr. have a battle for spots on their hands, which can only be a good thing.

The one I think could be the best-placed, aside from Mills obviously, is Cleary. Mainly because he has something to offer in both categories. He's a promising young midfielder who is suited to the contest, but as he showed late in the year, he could also have plenty to offer from a pressure sense inside 50. We would have reasonable confidence in his ability to do either, or both, because he has the exposure in both - forward at senior level and a fantastic VFL season in the midfield. I think having different pathways into the best 22 gives you an edge when there is competition for spots. He of course has to stay fit and perform well over the pre-season, like the rest.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

I appreciate the o in Jordon.

But this seems like it's flipping the bird at Fox.

Jordan

Jordon

 

[Neverwas]

This is the most beautiful paragraph I've ever seen. Almost brought a tear to my eye.

View attachment 2177367

I feel like Dattoli aside, we didn't really draft for either of these things, which tells me the cavalry is going to come from the incumbents already on the list (which is probably no surprise - a bit of experience and maturity over the 18 year olds straight out of the draft was always likely to be the scenario.)

I would say Mills & Sheldrick would be the ones we'd likely look at for the contested side of things. There is Adams, too, though he lacks Mills' class & versatility, whilst Sheldrick has hopefully overtaken, or at least levelled with him after another pre-season.

And we probably turn to the smaller, faster forward types for that forward pressure. This could spell doom for the three talls-structure, or it could mean any of Dattoli, Wicks, Campbell, Hanily and even Warner Jr. have a battle for spots on their hands, which can only be a good thing.

The one I think could be the best-placed, aside from Mills obviously, is Cleary. Mainly because he has something to offer in both categories. He's a promising young midfielder who is suited to the contest, but as he showed late in the year, he could also have plenty to offer from a pressure sense inside 50. We would have reasonable confidence in his ability to do either, or both, because he has the exposure in both - forward at senior level and a fantastic VFL season in the midfield. I think having different pathways into the best 22 gives you an edge when there is competition for spots. He of course has to stay fit and perform well over the pre-season, like the rest.

I am hoping he will be the sort of coach that can relate well to all the players, innovate, be adept at game day tactics, and reward form in the reserves players with senior selection.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[caesar88]

Looking forward to the announcement of the leadership group at some point over the summer. Whilst we did not publicise it last year, I hope we do so this time. In keeping with the greater emphasis on accountability I want to see at the club next year, I think I'd just like to see the players voted into the leadership group actually accepting the responsibility for the whole supporter base to see. There is nowhere to hide then, but anyone in that capacity shouldn't be afraid of that anyway.

Think we will see a Mills captaincy with a Papley and/or Heeney vice-captaincy, with Sir Dane probably moving on from that and continuing in more of a general leadership role. I think there is a good chance next year is his last, so it will give others a chance to step up.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

Looking forward to the announcement of the leadership group at some point over the summer. Whilst we did not publicise it last year, I hope we do so this time. In keeping with the greater emphasis on accountability I want to see at the club next year, I think I'd just like to see the players voted into the leadership group actually accepting the responsibility for the whole supporter base to see. There is nowhere to hide then, but anyone in that capacity shouldn't be afraid of that anyway.

Think we will see a Mills captaincy with a Papley and/or Heeney vice-captaincy, with Sir Dane probably moving on from that and continuing in more of a general leadership role. I think there is a good chance next year is his last, so it will give others a chance to step up.

Mills, Lloyd, Heeney .... and Gus.

 

[Crust]

Looking forward to the announcement of the leadership group at some point over the summer. Whilst we did not publicise it last year, I hope we do so this time. In keeping with the greater emphasis on accountability I want to see at the club next year, I think I'd just like to see the players voted into the leadership group actually accepting the responsibility for the whole supporter base to see. There is nowhere to hide then, but anyone in that capacity shouldn't be afraid of that anyway.

Think we will see a Mills captaincy with a Papley and/or Heeney vice-captaincy, with Sir Dane probably moving on from that and continuing in more of a general leadership role. I think there is a good chance next year is his last, so it will give others a chance to step up.

I'm wondering about leadership too, not so much regarding personnel or announcements, but rather the approach, particularly re Port Adelaide and the Grand Final. We don't seem to have the onfield leadership to drag us out of it.

Did we have the usual leadership group of six last year, and did that mean the players not in the leadership group felt required to step back? Did that contribute to the GF and Port performances?
Or is it better to have one captain, one vice captain, and all players being required to show leadership?

Midway through last season, there was a lot of talk about "being vulnerable", seeking help when having a down day, and the players then showing "care" by helping them. That all sounds a bit to new age for someone like me, who played in the 80s.

Anyway, did this "showing vulnerability" contribute to the players going into their shells, perhaps unwilling to put their hands up on the biggest stage of all?

Perhaps the reverse is better. Players are responsible for their teammates. They are required to observe to see how they are going, and then be responsible to provide help, regardless of their own game. Some words of encouragement. Get him involved with a handball etc. Even the act of forcing oneself to show leadership to another player may be enough to pull oneself out of a poor patch, so both players can benefit.

The vulnerability approach requires a player to ask for leadership, whereas the responsibility approach demands players show leadership regardless.

A player doesn't have to be in the leadership group to display leadership.

 

[Bloods86]

Looking forward to the announcement of the leadership group at some point over the summer. Whilst we did not publicise it last year, I hope we do so this time. In keeping with the greater emphasis on accountability I want to see at the club next year, I think I'd just like to see the players voted into the leadership group actually accepting the responsibility for the whole supporter base to see. There is nowhere to hide then, but anyone in that capacity shouldn't be afraid of that anyway.

Think we will see a Mills captaincy with a Papley and/or Heeney vice-captaincy, with Sir Dane probably moving on from that and continuing in more of a general leadership role. I think there is a good chance next year is his last, so it will give others a chance to step up.

Mills will be captain again.

I'd have Heeney, Rowy, Fox and Papley round out the leadership group. Maybe Cunningham if he was open to returning to the group. Rampe can still help organise the defence.

Because I won't get my way of just installing Rowy and Fox as captains.

Heeney can be VC.

 

[Kbroome]

Mills, Lloyd, Heeney .... and Gus.

Mills Heeney Rowbottom and maybe a sneaky Roberts or Errol

 

[Kiama Chris]

Mills will be captain again.

I'd have Heeney, Rowy, Fox and Papley round out the leadership group. Maybe Cunningham if he was open to returning to the group. Rampe can still help organise the defence.

Because I won't get my way of just installing Rowy and Fox as captains.

Heeney can be VC.

Heeney is like JPK. Just let him play.

 

[SwansLifer]

This is what I would like to see:

FB: Harry McCartin Melican
HB: Blakey Fox Roberts
C: Gulden Warner Macca
HF: Lloyd Logan Jordon
FF: Papley Heeney Dattoli
R: Grundy Mills PaddleBum
Int From: Cleary Amartey Rampe Florent
Sub: Campbell

Short burst to start with for Heeney before bringing Amartey on and Heeney into the mids for rotations.

 

[Punts]

Paply isn’t a leader

Just my opinion

 

[caesar88]

Heeney is like JPK. Just let him play.

We are at an interesting point where some of the players who most exemplify the qualities that we want to impart on the rest of the team are not active leader-type personalities, while the leader-type personalities don't really exemplify those qualities enough. It's an odd imbalance.

 

[caesar88]

I'm wondering about leadership too, not so much regarding personnel or announcements, but rather the approach, particularly re Port Adelaide and the Grand Final. We don't seem to have the onfield leadership to drag us out of it.

Did we have the usual leadership group of six last year, and did that mean the players not in the leadership group felt required to step back? Did that contribute to the GF and Port performances?
Or is it better to have one captain, one vice captain, and all players being required to show leadership?

Midway through last season, there was a lot of talk about "being vulnerable", seeking help when having a down day, and the players then showing "care" by helping them. That all sounds a bit to new age for someone like me, who played in the 80s.

Anyway, did this "showing vulnerability" contribute to the players going into their shells, perhaps unwilling to put their hands up on the biggest stage of all?

Perhaps the reverse is better. Players are responsible for their teammates. They are required to observe to see how they are going, and then be responsible to provide help, regardless of their own game. Some words of encouragement. Get him involved with a handball etc. Even the act of forcing oneself to show leadership to another player may be enough to pull oneself out of a poor patch, so both players can benefit.

The vulnerability approach requires a player to ask for leadership, whereas the responsibility approach demands players show leadership regardless.

A player doesn't have to be in the leadership group to display leadership.

I've mentioned this before, but I heard the votes for the leadership group were so vast and the difference between those in and not in so little, that it was deemed not worth acknowledging publicly.

I won't sit here after the facts and pretend like I didn't think this was a good thing pretty much all season long. I thought the fact we obviously had SO many players considered 'leaders' at our club was a good thing, and that it not being known publicly who was and wasn't in the leadership would create something of an equal footing where anyone and everyone can be a leader.

Only with time and hindsight can I look at it now and think maybe it was not such a good thing after all. I think having so many players regarded as 'leaders' by their teammates (I'm told 7 made the cut and 6 others only narrowly missed out, which is 13 in total) possibly created less personal responsibility for the individuals involved. ie. It's not the end of the world if I have an off day, there are plenty others who will pick up my slack. And it not being known publicly who accepted the responsibility of being a 'leader' I think just further gave them an 'out' in regards to being accountable to the fans. (Outside of the captains and vice-captains obviously.)

I'd like a smaller, more streamlined leadership group this year, and for those in it to be acknowledged publicly, to show they are prepared for that responsibility. It doesn't have to mean the others can't lead by example where necessary and when required.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I've mentioned this before, but I heard the votes for the leadership group were so vast and the difference between those in and not in so little, that it was deemed not worth acknowledging publicly.

I won't sit here after the facts and pretend like I didn't think this was a good thing pretty much all season long. I thought the fact we obviously had SO many players considered 'leaders' at our club was a good thing, and that it not being known publicly who was and wasn't in the leadership would create something of an equal footing where anyone and everyone can be a leader.

Only with time and hindsight can I look at it now and think maybe it was not such a good thing after all. I think having so many players regarded as 'leaders' by their teammates (I'm told 7 made the cut and 6 others only narrowly missed out, which is 13 in total) possibly created less personal responsibility for the individuals involved. ie. It's not the end of the world if I have an off day, there are plenty others who will pick up my slack. And it not being known publicly who accepted the responsibility of being a 'leader' I think just further gave them an 'out' in regards to being accountable to the fans. (Outside of the captains and vice-captains obviously.)

I'd like a smaller, more streamlined leadership group this year, and for those in it to be acknowledged publicly, to show they are prepared for that responsibility. It doesn't have to mean the others can't lead by example where necessary and when required.

I think one other possible interpretation is that many of those voting had a poor understanding of leadership and its requirements.

 

[Bloods86]

Paply isn’t a leader

Just my opinion

I kind of agree, but he's the most experienced up forward.

 

[RUNVS]

Jordan
View attachment 2177467
Jordon
View attachment 2177474

I don't see the difference.

 

[caesar88]

I think one other possible interpretation is that many of those voting had a poor understanding of leadership and its requirements.

Well that would be the players so that's a worry LOL

 

[Kiama Chris]

Well that would be the players so that's a worry LOL

My point exactly