2011 Rd. 1 Lineup

[Coast_Watch]

Love people playing Waters forward because he's kicking is such a liability across the half back line.

Mmm . . Beau's kicking sure has to improve a lot, but with his game fitness returning, I think he will improve a lot in that area (last year it was shocking). That said, I name him as a "floating half forward" in my team - that is, he probably spends half of his time as a loose man playing across the half back zone. I think Beau lacks both the truly defensive mentality and the closing speed to play regularly as a close-checking half back. As an opposition coach, I'd play my most elusive half forward on Beau (if Beau plays down back), knowing that Beau will get sucked up the ground and not have the speed to get back when the ball gets turned over. I saw it happen time and again last year - and Beau's wayward kicking increased the chances of those turnovers.

It will be interesting to watch where he gets played this year. I think he would struggle to get to play any role other than as the floating half forward. And HFF can be a bit of a death sentence. . .

 

[Coast_Watch]

We're just hoping for improvement we desperately need some run and pace out of defence. I rate him much higher than Stevenson.

Mmmm . . I struggle to separate these two, Both are quick and have good delivery (Stevo off either side), but both lack positioning and body pressure defensively. Both were vastly improved in 2010 over 2009 form, but both were well below required AFL level defensively. It will be interesting to watch them this year, as both are at the stage where big step improvements can be expected. I think I very marginally favour Stevenson to get the first shot at a defensive slot in R1.

 

[Coast_Watch]

Last seasons impressive Roos will go into Round 1 West Coast game without three star players -- McIntosh , Bastinac , Grima .

I was impressed with the Kangaroos Round 22 last year when they came from behind to beat us quite comfortably at Subi ! and they will be good chances of making the eight after drafting well in the past two seasons .

The Roos injuries may make us favourites but we need to play very well to win I would suggest

I too doubt we will go in as favourites, as the average punter looks at last year's ladder and our last match against the roos and gives us no hope of winning. But I will be truly shocked if we don't beat the Kangaroos this time !!!

The circumstances are so vastly different this year. In R1 we will field a side with much the same level of experience as the Kangaroos - not a side with half the level of experience as happened in the last match. We essentially got over-run by a side with more mature bodies and greater experience last year. Our R1 team will match up much better with the Kanga's this time around. I just don't understand the gloomy predictions of some of our supporters. . . .

 

[Wirra for PM]

I too doubt we will go in as favourites, as the average punter looks at last year's ladder and our last match against the roos and gives us no hope of winning. But I will be truly shocked if we don't beat the Kangaroos this time !!!

The circumstances are so vastly different this year. In R1 we will field a side with much the same level of experience as the Kangaroos - not a side with half the level of experience as happened in the last match. We essentially got over-run by a side with more mature bodies and greater experience last year. Our R1 team will match up much better with the Kanga's this time around. I just don't understand the gloomy predictions of some of our supporters. . . .

If you remember back to some - most - of our performances last year, it should come as no surprise that a few people are pessimistic about our chances against the Roos.

We'll have to wait and see how the sides ultimately line up, but personally I don't see us bringing a "vastly different" line up to the park. yes a fit Cox and Glass make a difference, but we're still going to have a massively inexperienced midfield. Kerr fit and playing might be a game changer, but you wouldn't bet on that happening.

I watched a few of the Roos games in the second half of last year and could see plenty to like, even when they got spanked a couple of times. And keep in mind they'll have Petrie and Ziebell back, which IMO offsets the loss of HMac, Bastinac etc.

We both have young sides, and given its the first game back and at Subi really it's pretty hard to predict. But on exposed form Roos deserve to be favourites.

 

[Obeanie1]

Roos have injury issues to several of their best 22, McIntosh, Balanastic and their #1 FB, two won't play and McIntosh may be picked but would be severely underdone.

As for our inexperienced midfield Masten and S Selwood are entering their 4th seasons so the lack of experience excuse is running out for these two.

Cox, Priddis, Rosa, A Selwood, Butler and Embley do provide some experience.

It would be interesting to line up the two sides midfielders to see how they compare.

 

[X_box_X]

You guys are on drugs if you don't think Embley and Selwood aren't in your best 22.

 

[wcesam]

You guys are on drugs if you don't think Embley and Selwood aren't in your best 22.

why didn't you just say "you guys are on drugs if you think Embley and Selwood are in your best 22"?

 

[WCE_phil]

You guys are on drugs if you don't think Embley and Selwood aren't in your best 22.

Embley's second half of the year was very good but his first half of last year was absolutely horrible and would have been lucky to be best 22 in the VFL or WAFL.

A selwood is best 22 but it's about structure and team balance where does he get put. If he can't improve his disposal he can only be played as a close tagger (which he'll start getting too slow for in coming years) or as a close checking back pocket which is probably his better position going into the future. You know what they say about the back pocket though, it's the last place you play before you get dropped.

 

[PRANKSTER666]

You guys are on drugs if you don't think Embley and Selwood aren't in your best 22.

If you don't follow a club it is hard to see why some players are not rated by their supporters because you just don't get enough exposure to their games.

Adam Selwood continues to turn the ball over at every opportunity even when under zero pressure, he and Ebert were the worst users of the ball last year by a long way, luckily for Ebert he can still pull the inexperience card, but he won't have that luxury for too much longer.

If Adam Selwood is not used purely in a negating role I simply can't make a case for him in our team, which is sad because he has heart and courage in spades, but the game has moved on and left players with poor disposal in its wake.

 

[Obeanie1]

Took this off the Norths site - Best 22 round 1 thread;

Red are experienced players black are youngsters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jezaroo
B Mcmahon Thompson Rawlings
HB Macmillan Tarrant Firrito
C Anthony Wells Campbell
HF Ziebell Hansen Harvey
F Edwards Petrie Thomas
Foll Goldstein Greenwood Swallow
Int- Richardson, Adams, Garlett
Sub- Warren/McKinley

Wright, McIntosh and Cunners probably won't be right for round one

Versus

F Waters Wilson Naitanui
HF Strijk Kennedy Lecras
C Shuey Mastern Rosa
HB Hurn Mackenzie Smith
B Butler Glass Schofield
Fol Cox Priddis Scooter
Int Embley Ebert Sheppard
Sub Swift




Fairly even if I haven't got too many wrong.

No A Selwood in the side above either, I'd have Butler on the other half back, Smith out and A Selwood in the pocket.

 

[BOND 007]

Took this off the Norths site - Best 22 round 1 thread;

Red are experienced players black are youngsters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jezaroo
B Mcmahon Thompson Rawlings
HB Macmillan Tarrant Firrito
C Anthony Wells Campbell
HF Ziebell Hansen Harvey
F Edwards Petrie Thomas
Foll Goldstein Greenwood Swallow
Int- Richardson, Adams, Garlett
Sub- Warren/McKinley

Wright, McIntosh and Cunners probably won't be right for round one

Versus

F Waters Wilson Naitanui
HF Strijk Kennedy Lecras
C Shuey Mastern Rosa
HB Hurn Mackenzie Smith
B Butler Glass Schofield
Fol Cox Priddis Scooter
Int Embley Ebert Sheppard
Sub Swift




Fairly even if I haven't got too many wrong.

No A Selwood in the side above either, I'd have Butler on the other half back, Smith out and A Selwood in the pocket.

How experienced is experienced ? Edwards might be older than Ebert but has he played as many games?

Cant see Smith being in best 22 at this stage and Swift would be lucky to be best 30. Adam Selwood will be an automatic selection unless injured and Gaff will play

 

[The Nostradamus]

seen many people post our best 22 but here is what i believe will be our team

this is our first 22 FOR ROUND 1
FB:McMahon thompson rawlings
HB:firrito tarrant richardson
C: wells ziebell anthony
HF: boomer hansen wright
FF: thomas petrie adams
foll:Goldstein greenwood swallow
int: Garlett Atley warren
sub McIntosh

emergencies: McKinley,Macmillan,Pratt

Wright is back at training and will play round 1, Hmac from all reports should begin running in 2-3 weeks time so i think we will use him as a sub so he only has to play 1 half.

Injured: Cunnington,bastinac,grima

 

[bodazoka]

Goldstein has a big game ahead of him then.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Goldstein has a big game ahead of him then.

not really cos Hmac will sub on in the 2nd half for garlett and shoulder most of the ruck duties in the 2nd half

 

[bodazoka]

not really cos Hmac will sub on in the 2nd half for garlett and shoulder most of the ruck duties in the 2nd half

Still going to be 2 v 1.

And the 2 are pretty good ruckmen....

Besides, wouldnt you want Goldy to play a whole game if he can? pretty talented player id prefer 4 quarters out of him.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Still going to be 2 v 1.

And the 2 are pretty good ruckmen....

Besides, wouldnt you want Goldy to play a whole game if he can? pretty talented player id prefer 4 quarters out of him.

goldy will play 4 quarters, hmac will sub on in the second half for garlett the midfielder.
so in the first half its just goldy but in the 2nd half it will be goldy and a fresh HMAC

 

[tesseract]

I hope Norf do use MacIntosh as a sub. It's just 1 less running option for them, and I'd back Cox and NicNat to have their way with a fresh but underdone MacIntosh in the 2nd half.

 

[The Nostradamus]

I hope Norf do use MacIntosh as a sub. It's just 1 less running option for them, and I'd back Cox and NicNat to have their way with a fresh but underdone MacIntosh in the 2nd half.

what you just said makes no sense. In reality we have 1 more runner than you. Because in the first half you will have 2 ruck but we will have 1 thus NORTH have the extra runner in the first half then it becomes even again once HMAC comes on

 

[AwesomeWellsBro]

Still going to be 2 v 1.

And the 2 are pretty good ruckmen....

Besides, wouldnt you want Goldy to play a whole game if he can? pretty talented player id prefer 4 quarters out of him.

Goldstein and Petrie will swap ruck/full forward playing deep in the first half and a bit with Petrie subbing off for Mcintosh at the 10 minute mark of 3rd qtr. I think Petrie and Goldstein looks alot more dangerous up forward than Natanui and Cox. It will be about nullifying your guys in the hit out department not winning it I wouldn't think.

 

[tesseract]

what you just said makes no sense. In reality we have 1 more runner than you. Because in the first half you will have 2 ruck but we will have 1 thus NORTH have the extra runner in the first half then it becomes even again once HMAC comes on

With my reading of many of your comments that are scattered around BF, it's of little surprise to me that you can't make sense of it.

WC are going to have a ruck advantage no matter whether Norf field 1 or 2 Ruckman. So if Norf play MacIntosh in the 2nd half as a sub as a means to somewhat offset the Eagles ruck dominance, it won't make much of a difference, especially considering that HMac is underdone.

What I said is that playing HMac will give Norf 1 less runner. (With HMac not considered a runner, what part of that statement is incorrect?) I didn't compare the 1 less runner comment to the Eagles. (You assumed that intent. Re-read what I typed.) It says without actually saying it, that with 1 less runner, Norf won't be pressing their running advantage as much as they could/should. (Some can read between the lines, obviously you can't)

By Norf playing an extra runner rather than HMac, they can press their advantage in the running department, rather than trying to offset WC's ruck advantage, but somewhat nullifying their own advantage, by doing so. If Norf play HMac, they'll be playing into the Eagles hands because HMac will get dominated, and Norf will have 1 less runner than they could've had to help in overrunning the Eagles.

 

[The Nostradamus]

With my reading of many of your comments that are scattered around BF, it's of little surprise to me that you can't make sense of it.

WC are going to have a ruck advantage no matter whether Norf field 1 or 2 Ruckman. So if Norf play MacIntosh in the 2nd half as a sub as a means to somewhat offset the Eagles ruck dominance, it won't make much of a difference, especially considering that HMac is underdone.

What I said is that playing HMac will give Norf 1 less runner. (With HMac not considered a runner, what part of that statement is incorrect?) I didn't compare the 1 less runner comment to the Eagles. (You assumed that intent. Re-read what I typed.) It says without actually saying it, that with 1 less runner, Norf won't be pressing their running advantage as much as they could/should. (Some can read between the lines, obviously you can't)

By Norf playing an extra runner rather than HMac, they can press their advantage in the running department, rather than trying to offset WC's ruck advantage, but somewhat nullifying their own advantage, by doing so. If Norf play HMac, they'll be playing into the Eagles hands because HMac will get dominated, and Norf will have 1 less runner than they could've had to help in overrunning the Eagles.

lol . I understood what you said but i didn't understand how you thought you had an advantage by us playing HMAC. By using HMAC as a sub it means we will have 1 extra runner in the first half compared to you since you will play 2 rucks to our 1. Then when HMAC comes on in the 2nd half both teams will have 2 ruckman so we lose our runner advantage but it will still be even. So i expect us to over run you in the first half with the extra runner then when Hmac comes on we should dominate the ruck.

HMAC AND GOLDY>NIC NAT AND 30year old Cox

 

[Quinz]

HMAC AND GOLDY>NIC NAT AND 30year old Cox

McIntosh and Goldstein got beaten pretty easily last year. Why would it be any different? Both Cox and Naitanui should improve from last season- NN due to regular improvement, and Cox coming off an injury free pre-season for a change.

 

[The Nostradamus]

McIntosh and Goldstein got beaten pretty easily last year. Why would it be any different? Both Cox and Naitanui should improve from last season- NN due to regular improvement, and Cox coming off an injury free pre-season for a change.

quinz can you do me a favour and make a poll on the polls board HMAC + GOLDY vs NicNat and Cox.

I think the north duo and you think the eagles duo. I think neutrals should decide. I can't make threads because of my yellow card so can you please make one and settle the argument.
Very few neutral supporters including i don't rate nicnat.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

HMAC AND GOLDY>NIC NAT AND 30year old Cox

Naitanui isn't a conventional ruckmen and nobody can be sure of his progress over the off season. What will he bring as far as a forward and through the middle we can't yet know, im pretty confident of seeing similar improvement to what we observed from 2009 to 2010.

Cox is close to being in the best shape of his career and he will be running Goldy into the ground. You will probably need HMAC just to keep up with Cox in the second half.

Cox ran Jamar into the ground last season and he wasn't anywhere near peak fitness.

 

[Juddernaut33]

c'mon north supporters don't over analyse still 2 months to go. west coast by 36 no reasons. U WONT BEAT US ROUND 1