2016 Brisbane Lions starting line up

[winged1]

I like this, I've always been of the belief that we should not be playing 3 true key position players. Walker + Freeman is who I'd pick

Yeah me too, since I want Schache to debut at the gabba and that WC game could be ugly. But gee it's nice to have options.

 

[Lace Out]

Yeah me too, since I want Schache to debut at the gabba and that WC game could be ugly. But gee it's nice to have options.

Two tall guys,I don't particularly care about their ability,in the forward half,will be a sight to behold.

 

[mikey127]

Is Dayne Beams going to be fit for round 1?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Is Dayne Beams going to be fit for round 1?

 

[WA Lion]

Clubs seems to have been seriously cautious in his recovery. Would rather he be available for majority of the season rather than return too soon but I am surprised he is so far behind tbh. Shoulder recons are usually well and truly healed by now unless he had it re-coned?

Edit - I will in fact go further and say he really should have been ready by now considering when he had surgery. Hopefully just being overly cautious

 

[Happy_Neale]

Took Ablett a while. Would rather him be spot on than hampered... even if it took to round 3 or 4

Ablett does not take certain medications for religious reasons. Plus his injury was much more severe than Beams'.

 

[DanT7]

Ideal team:

Clarke, Merrett, Andrews
Hanley, McStay, CBeams
Bastinac, Rich, Bell
Green, Walker, Zorko
Taylor, Freeman, Christensen
Martin, Rockliff, DBeams

Mayes, Schache, Paparone, Robinson

Changes due to fitness/circumstances:
- Clarke out, Paparone to FBP. Cutler to bench.
- CBeams out, Harwood to HBF.
- Green out. Robinson to HFF. Bewick to bench.
- Schache out. Lester in.

I think Hanley should play off Half back, along with CBeams. Both have brilliant ground making capacity. Many of our mids can play forward. Hanley is only one with real proof that he can do very well in a defensive set up. Given that Zorko, DBeams, Rockliff, Taylor, Christensen, Robinson, Bell can all play forward and mid, can we please focus on Hanley playing back & mid. we are so easily tempted to put all of our best players in front of the ball. We need one of our very best behind so the others might get it!

So round 1 team:

Paparone, Merrett, Andrews
Hanley, McStay, Harwood
Bastinac, Rich, Bell
Robinson, Walker, Zorko
Taylor, Freeman, Christensen
Martin, Rockliff, DBeams

Mayes, Lester, Cutler, Bewick

I'd go this team in week for the sake of maturity and capacity to run out the game. The drop offs we've seen in NAB cup games this week indicate clubs are not prepared for the changes to the bench and rotations. I expect this will continue in week 1. I've gone more mature bodies in week 1.

 

[Redeye Rambler]

At this point in time (end of NAB challenge), who is unavailable from our best 22?

I make it to be:
D. Beams, Christensen, Green, C.Beams, Rockliff, Mcgrath, Clarke, Mathison Gardiner and likely Zorko (and arguably Close)

That is a pretty fair chunk of our best 22.

Hopefully a few of them will get up by nest week.

 

[Kevvo]

At this point in time (end of NAB challenge), who is unavailable from our best 22?

I make it to be:
D. Beams, Christensen, Green, C.Beams, Rockliff, Mcgrath, Clarke, Mathison Gardiner and likely Zorko (and arguably Close)

That is a pretty fair chunk of our best 22.

Hopefully a few of them will get up by nest week.

As per Leppa's presser: Green and Christensen already fit and ready to go. Rocky looks likely. CBeams was best on ground for us in the twos last week. Gardiner has played twos. McGrath apparently likely to be a week or two: possibly ready for round 1. It's really not looking all that dire. Beams is frustrating, but our forwards and backs all looked pretty positive today I thought, and Bastinac should help to fill that hole.

 

[M Malice]

taking into account injuries the limited NAB form and leppa in the presser saying rocky, green and bundy should be fine for round 1. this is how i think we will line up.

back 6.
m.paparone d. merrett s.mayes
h.andrews d.mcstay t.cutler

midfield.
s.martin t.rockliff r.bastinac
d.rich p.hanley m.robinson

forward 6.
a.christensen j.freeman t.bell
j.green j.walker d.zorko

interchange.
l.taylor r.lester n.robertson c.beams travelling emergencies. r.harwood l.dawson d.gardner

i'm assuming matheison and mcgrath wont play due to injury and zorko escapes suspension. i think they might leave schache out round 1 and he will debut in round 2

 

[DanT7]

ideal team:

Clarke, Merrett, Andrews
Hanley, McStay, CBeams
Bastinac, Rich, Bell
Green, Walker, Zorko
Taylor, Freeman, Christensen
Martin, Rockliff, DBeams

Mayes, Schache, Paparone, Robinson

Changes due to fitness/circumstances:
- Clarke out, Paparone to FBP. Cutler to bench.
- CBeams out, Harwood to HBF.
- Green out. Robinson to HFF. Robertson to bench.
- Schache out. Bewick in.
- DBeams out. Lester in.
- Christensen out. McGrath in.

So round 1 team:

Paparone, Merrett, Andrews
Hanley, McStay, Harwood
Bastinac, Rich, Bell
Robinson, Walker, Zorko
Taylor, Freeman, McGrath/Schache (can't decide)
Martin, Rockliff, Lester

Mayes, Robertson, Cutler, Bewick

I'd go this team in week for the sake of maturity and capacity to run out the game. note that I haven't included Schache, Mathieson, Keayes for this reason.

Lester really deserves a run after playing well in NAB game.

McGrath or Paparone may also be unable to play I suspect.

Maybe I would play Schache, in which case McGrath misses out.

 

[POBT]

Mike Whiting's best 22

B: Dan McStay, Daniel Merrett, Ryan Harwood
HB: Sam Mayes, Harris Andrews, Tom Cutler
C: Pearce Hanley, Daniel Rich, Marco Paparone
HF: Tom Bell, Josh Schache, Allen Christensen
F: Josh Green, Josh Walker, Dayne Zorko
FOLL: Stefan Martin, Tom Rockliff, Dayne Beams
INT: Ryan Bastinac, Mitch Robinson, Lewis Taylor, Ryan Lester


A couple of interesting points in this:

- Whiting has gone with only 2 tall forwards. I keep putting all three talls in the side but I get really concerned when we go in too tall. It might be a horses for courses approach where we go tall on dry tracks.
- Paparone on a wing would be an interesting move at odds with what has happened during the preseason. I suspect he'll play back at first (rotating with Mayes, Harwood and Cutler) but I'm not at all opposed to him playing on a wing if team balance dictates. I'm not sure his role would change all that much.
- Lester ahead of a couple of others for the last spot in the best 22. The first month without Beams will be telling - if he doesn't perform, we'll surely move onto the likes of Matho, Jansen, Keays etc.

 

[carnthemlions]

Mike Whiting's best 22

B: Dan McStay, Daniel Merrett, Ryan Harwood
HB: Sam Mayes, Harris Andrews, Tom Cutler
C: Pearce Hanley, Daniel Rich, Marco Paparone
HF: Tom Bell, Josh Schache, Allen Christensen
F: Josh Green, Josh Walker, Dayne Zorko
FOLL: Stefan Martin, Tom Rockliff, Dayne Beams
INT: Ryan Bastinac, Mitch Robinson, Lewis Taylor, Ryan Lester


A couple of interesting points in this:

- Whiting has gone with only 2 tall forwards. I keep putting all three talls in the side but I get really concerned when we go in too tall. It might be a horses for courses approach where we go tall on dry tracks.
- Paparone on a wing would be an interesting move at odds with what has happened during the preseason. I suspect he'll play back at first (rotating with Mayes, Harwood and Cutler) but I'm not at all opposed to him playing on a wing if team balance dictates. I'm not sure his role would change all that much.
- Lester ahead of a couple of others for the last spot in the best 22. The first month without Beams will be telling - if he doesn't perform, we'll surely move onto the likes of Matho, Jansen, Keays etc.

I'm not a big fan of going with the 2 talls given our lack of backup in the ruck. Leaves us very short when Martin has a break.

 

[chopperduck]

Im a fan of the 3 talls, especially when we have some quality smalls like Green, Bundy, Taylor rotating through. When Martin has his break and Walker rucks for the last 5-6 minutes of each quarter i like still having the 2 talls. I think it is when this happens that we put a Lester or Rocky at FF and get Schache and Freeman to work up the ground isolating that match up deep.

Paps returning to a wing is a possibility, he was playing a wing type role before he was forced back as more of a key defender last year. His experience back there will probably only help his defensive work on a wing.

 

[Fatcat08]

I'm not a big fan of going with the 2 talls given our lack of backup in the ruck. Leaves us very short when Martin has a break.

I'd imagine that's when we may see mcstay go forward and paps take 3rd talk down back

 

[Dylan12]

Based off Whiting's team, when Walker rucks, assuming Martin goes to the bench, there is also no reason why Lester couldn't go forward and play as that second tall, which he has the ability to do.

 

[POBT]

I'm not a big fan of going with the 2 talls given our lack of backup in the ruck. Leaves us very short when Martin has a break.

I agree but that's not an insurmountable problem. Firstly, I don't expect Martin to spend too much time out of the ruck. So whatever we do is just a short term thing. Secondly, it is not unusual for sides to play smaller and we've got a couple of guys (Bell, Robinson) who are good overhead for their size and can play as undersized CHFs. Thirdly, we've shown a desire to play a midfielder as the deepest forward on occasion. That does give a bit of flexibility as your main tall target can still provide a marking option further afield. There's also the option of pushing a tall defender to the forward line, although I don't think we'd be looking to do that every quarter.

The advantages of playing only two talls are fairly obvious. It allows us to select one more runner and it means we are more likely to be able to bottle the ball up in our front half with a smaller forward line. They might not be the things that excite supporters but footy these days is a running game where territory is so important.

All that being said, I really want us to go in with three tall forwards. I saw a lot to like last week, albeit that we allowed GWS to rebound way too easily. I thought we stretched GWS and, despite the wet conditions, the trio of talls looked consistently dangerous.

It is a difficult one. I don't know that there is a right answer. I think the conservative approach is to play only two talls but I kinda hope we play all three and see what comes of it.

I guess the other question is whether Subi is the right place to go overly tall.

 

[SizeMatters]

I'm not a big fan of going with the 2 talls given our lack of backup in the ruck. Leaves us very short when Martin has a break.

I agree. I've always been big on 2 key forwards and a forward-ruck but going by news from out of the club we will be trying to ramp up forward half pressure to try to lock the ball inside our forward 50. Having 3 talls limits us in this perspective given that forward 50 pressure and rebound footy is now the bread and butter of winning AFL games these days. Having an extra runner helps a lot in this regard.

Anyway, on a side note I'm glad Lester has had a decent preseason and has given himself every opportunity to play games early. He is dangerous resting forward and is an awkward matchup for a 4th or even 5th defender.

 

[carnthemlions]

I'd imagine that's when we may see mcstay go forward and paps take 3rd talk down back

I considered that idea. Not sure, seems like a lot of moving parts.

I agree but that's not an insurmountable problem. Firstly, I don't expect Martin to spend too much time out of the ruck. So whatever we do is just a short term thing. Secondly, it is not unusual for sides to play smaller and we've got a couple of guys (Bell, Robinson) who are good overhead for their size and can play as undersized CHFs. Thirdly, we've shown a desire to play a midfielder as the deepest forward on occasion. That does give a bit of flexibility as your main tall target can still provide a marking option further afield. There's also the option of pushing a tall defender to the forward line, although I don't think we'd be looking to do that every quarter.

The advantages of playing only two talls are fairly obvious. It allows us to select one more runner and it means we are more likely to be able to bottle the ball up in our front half with a smaller forward line. They might not be the things that excite supporters but footy these days is a running game where territory is so important.

All that being said, I really want us to go in with three tall forwards. I saw a lot to like last week, albeit that we allowed GWS to rebound way too easily. I thought we stretched GWS and, despite the wet conditions, the trio of talls looked consistently dangerous.

It is a difficult one. I don't know that there is a right answer. I think the conservative approach is to play only two talls but I kinda hope we play all three and see what comes of it.

I guess the other question is whether Subi is the right place to go overly tall.

I think another argument for playing the 3 talls is the structure of West Coast's backline. If we go with 2 + taller mids like Bell and Lester (decent targets in the right matchup, but not against key defenders), McGovern will zone off all day and make life extremely difficult for Walker + Schache/Freeman. Not sure if we'd want to voluntarily leave our forward line a bit short after having little choice in the matter for most of last season. Whether 3 talls can work probably depends on Schache's ability to cover a reasonable amount of ground, I don't think Freeman has made much progress in that regard.

 

[POBT]

Talk is McGovern might go forward a bit more.

 

[cotter101]

I agree but that's not an insurmountable problem. Firstly, I don't expect Martin to spend too much time out of the ruck. So whatever we do is just a short term thing. Secondly, it is not unusual for sides to play smaller and we've got a couple of guys (Bell, Robinson) who are good overhead for their size and can play as undersized CHFs. Thirdly, we've shown a desire to play a midfielder as the deepest forward on occasion. That does give a bit of flexibility as your main tall target can still provide a marking option further afield. There's also the option of pushing a tall defender to the forward line, although I don't think we'd be looking to do that every quarter.

The advantages of playing only two talls are fairly obvious. It allows us to select one more runner and it means we are more likely to be able to bottle the ball up in our front half with a smaller forward line. They might not be the things that excite supporters but footy these days is a running game where territory is so important.

All that being said, I really want us to go in with three tall forwards. I saw a lot to like last week, albeit that we allowed GWS to rebound way too easily. I thought we stretched GWS and, despite the wet conditions, the trio of talls looked consistently dangerous.

It is a difficult one. I don't know that there is a right answer. I think the conservative approach is to play only two talls but I kinda hope we play all three and see what comes of it.

I guess the other question is whether Subi is the right place to go overly tall.

This is the main question for me too. I liked the look of our three tall forward set up of Walker, Schache and Freeman and I think it could certainly stretch sides throughout the year. But for mine, I think I'd play two first up at Subi. And I'd rather not have Schache fly over there for his first game. Feel he's much better of playing at the Gabba for his first senior match. Need to manage him carefully throughout the year.

 

[HowYouDoin]

Schache confirmed to be playing in round 1.

Feels good to be seeing our number 1 forward on the field so quickly

 

[Eons]

That was great, very heartwarming seeing how excited he was and when Leppa mentioned his Dad. Good luck Josh, very exciting time for him and us as supporters.

 

[BuntonRules]

Awesome, just awesome.

 

[Nunez]

Jansen will play with his back to goal at the stoppages and then drift forward as another marking target.

Back to goal to lay off the pill to your runners.

Finally!