2021 - Best 22

[Punts]

I've only seen highlights of course, but the way he strikes the ball and how smoothly the ball comes off his boot reminds me of Daniel Rich

10

Daniel Rich

Age

34

Ht

183cm

Wt

95kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.7

5star

K

12.6

5star

HB

7.0

4star

M

3.4

3star

T

3.2

5star

MG

430.3

5star

D

14.9

4star

K

13.1

5star

HB

1.8

1star

M

3.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

MG

384.3

5star

D

16.2

4star

K

10.4

4star

HB

5.8

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

5.2

5star

and Brodie Smith

33

Brodie Smith

Age

33

Ht

189cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.5

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

7.2

4star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.1

4star

MG

500.1

5star

D

17.1

4star

K

12.6

5star

HB

4.5

3star

M

3.5

3star

T

2.3

3star

MG

438.9

5star

D

17.2

5star

K

10.8

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

3.8

4star

T

3.6

5star

. Real crisp.

Love to make him rok type

 

[brad cooper]

Imo McDonald and Campbell will play very early on.

Also can't see playing 2 rucks with a maybe forward line of Reid and buddy (if gets up ) , plus McDonald. Just won't happen. Ball will walk out again. Horse loves Reid so can't see him in the 2s and imo McDonald plays even with Reid and buddy.

Mccartin will now be our chb all aus to come. No way goes forward.

Still think they will like to play Dawson as a somewhat ball distributer from the back half and a floater intercepter.

Would like to see Rampe play a 16 role but with Mccartin and Melican still learning he might have to still take the big guys at stages.

Florent and Hayward are going have to step up otherwise they will be running around in the 2s.

Imo Blakey will play mostly mid/Hf this year.

McInerney on one wing

Gould is the one I think will cement a spot by years end , maybe fox role

injuries are inevitable but a relatively healthy list is going to create a lot of pressure to keep your spot, a least now, well according to the draft, we have some top end talent that will be knocking down the door.

 

[RobbieK]

Well with our list complete for now, I thought I'd have a go at what I'd like our round 1 team to look like.

B - Fox, McCartin, Rampe
HB - Mills, Melican, Lloyd
C - Blakey, Hewett, McInerney
HF - Dawson, Franklin, Campbell
F - Papley, McDonald, Heeney
Foll - Hickey, Rowbottom, Parker
I/C - Kennedy, Cunningham, Stephens, Florent

Emergencies - Hayward, Sinclair, Brand, Clarke

I think the only problem with this team is the ruck. Who do you have that can give Hickey a break through the game, or cover him for the rest of the game of he is unable to complete it?

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Sinkers should just get game time in the 2s, until Hickey is injured or needs a rest. One ruck only with Reid and Melican to give chop outs. Sinkers is just too slow to play forward and can only ruck now. Tipping McLean will play more matches.

Our poor rucks are not the sole reason we were about the worst CS Clearance and I50 team. Know I am shooting Bambi but JPK has already played a season too long. Unhappily he is unable to play elsewhere. At the best I hope he gets max 50% game time off the bench.

 

[caesar88]

I think the only problem with this team is the ruck. Who do you have that can give Hickey a break through the game, or cover him for the rest of the game of he is unable to complete it?

A fair question, but also a fair question is who do you lose from the team to accommodate a guy like Sinclair, who will offer little beyond providing support to someone else?

Say you take out those guys in the 18th-22nd player range, like a Florent or a Stephens or a McInerney or a Campbell/Gulden, are you then losing a player who could provide that potential spark we need in the midfield?

Or do you remove a Fox or Cunningham, decent-not-flashy role players who shore up our back-line?

Or do you lose McDonald, who could very possibly be better as an under-sized 18 year old inside 50 than Sinclair?

The likely scenario is that we don't have a fully fit best 22 and these answers probably present themselves through injuries. But I'm really not a fan of the Hickey/Sinclair double-up because it increases the chances of us basically carrying a bloke who won't offer much at all.

 

[caesar88]

Sinkers should just get game time in the 2s, until Hickey is injured or needs a rest. One ruck only with Reid and Melican to give chop outs. Sinkers is just too slow to play forward and can only ruck now. Tipping McLean will play more matches.

Our poor rucks are not the sole reason we were about the worst CS Clearance and I50 team. Know I am shooting Bambi but JPK has already played a season too long. Unhappily he is unable to play elsewhere. At the best I hope he gets max 50% game time off the bench.

I think it's unfair to say he's played a season too long. Evidently that wasn't the case, as he was still certainly good enough to be getting games for us, and was arguably our best mid when he did play.

However the reality is... HE WILL RETIRE. He is 32, and for a bloke who was already not blessed with pace, he is looking even slower. Father time catches up with everyone. If it's not next year, it'll be the year after. Why it's so controversial to prolong the inevitable and prepare the midfield for life without him, I don't know. He was out for a block of six or seven games this year and the midfield was pretty much the same. Some good games, some bad games, just like when Kennedy was playing.

That six or seven stretch should be the blueprint for how we move forward with Kennedy. He can still be in the team without him being the main guy in there.

 

[Punts]

Kennedy will play every game in his last year

He won't imo play on after next year

 

[RobbieK]

A fair question, but also a fair question is who do you lose from the team to accommodate a guy like Sinclair, who will offer little beyond providing support to someone else?

Say you take out those guys in the 18th-22nd player range, like a Florent or a Stephens or a McInerney or a Campbell/Gulden, are you then losing a player who could provide that potential spark we need in the midfield?

Or do you remove a Fox or Cunningham, decent-not-flashy role players who shore up our back-line?

Or do you lose McDonald, who could very possibly be better as an under-sized 18 year old inside 50 than Sinclair?

The likely scenario is that we don't have a fully fit best 22 and these answers probably present themselves through injuries. But I'm really not a fan of the Hickey/Sinclair double-up because it increases the chances of us basically carrying a bloke who won't offer much at all.

Certainly it is a dilemma, and one that we probably never gave because the list will never be 100% fit, but I think you do have to remove a small player from the forward or back line to accommodate Sinclair or Reid.

Their selection is not just about covering the ruck, either.

McDonald will ultimately be able to do hold down his position at full forward and chop out in the ruck, but not at 18. I think we need to give him supoort as his body develops by having mature bigger bodies around him to make sure he is getting the third key defender from the opposition, not first or second.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I think it's unfair to say he's played a season too long. Evidently that wasn't the case, as he was still certainly good enough to be getting games for us, and was arguably our best mid when he did play.

However the reality is... HE WILL RETIRE. He is 32, and for a bloke who was already not blessed with pace, he is looking even slower. Father time catches up with everyone. If it's not next year, it'll be the year after. Why it's so controversial to prolong the inevitable and prepare the midfield for life without him, I don't know. He was out for a block of six or seven games this year and the midfield was pretty much the same. Some good games, some bad games, just like when Kennedy was playing.

That six or seven stretch should be the blueprint for how we move forward with Kennedy. He can still be in the team without him being the main guy in there.

That is why I am saying ltd minutes off the bench. He did not adapt to our transition game and cannot chase. Get him off after cs contests and reinsert when needed next. Use him as a NFL specialist team type player.

 

[caesar88]

Certainly it is a dilemma, and one that we probably never gave because the list will never be 100% fit, but I think you do have to remove a small player from the forward or back line to accommodate Sinclair or Reid.

Their selection is not just about covering the ruck, either.

McDonald will ultimately be able to do hold down his position at full forward and chop out in the ruck, but not at 18. I think we need to give him supoort as his body develops by having mature bigger bodies around him to make sure he is getting the third key defender from the opposition, not first or second.

Fair points. So who are you removing then? Campbell/Gulden?

Would be a huge call to not play a super talented academy kid just to make way for a very average Sinclair or Reid.

 

[RobbieK]

Fair points. So who are you removing then? Campbell/Gulden?

Would be a huge call to not play a super talented academy kid just to make way for a very average Sinclair or Reid.

I don't think it is such a huge call. It is a pretty sensible and in my eyes necessary structural selection.

From the 22 you had selected I think Fox is the one who makes way, with Dawson moving into the back 7.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I don't think it is such a huge call. It is a pretty sensible and in my eyes necessary structural selection.

From the 22 you had selected I think Fox is the one who makes way, with Dawson moving into the back 7.

Depending on the Oppo we only play Melican or Brand when there are two big and capable oppo fwds.

 

[RobbieK]

Depending on the Oppo we only play Melican or Brand when there are two big and capable oppo fwds.

I think that is going to be almost every team, if not every team.

 

[caesar88]

I don't think it is such a huge call. It is a pretty sensible and in my eyes necessary structural selection.

From the 22 you had selected I think Fox is the one who makes way, with Dawson moving into the back 7.

I believe Heeney can offer more inside 50 than Sinclair or Reid. He and Buddy should provide enough of a buffer for McDonald.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I think that is going to be almost every team, if not every team.

Meh would prefer Ramps' silencing Lynch to that campaigner kicking 6 on Melican and prolly Brand.

 

[RobbieK]

I believe Heeney can offer more inside 50 than Sinclair or Reid. He and Buddy should provide enough of a buffer for McDonald.

I agree that Heeney can offer more than those two inside 50... but again, Sinclair and Reid aren't just being selected for what they offer inside 50, but also what they can offer in the ruck too.

 

[caesar88]

I agree that Heeney can offer more than those two inside 50... but again, Sinclair and Reid aren't just being selected for what they offer inside 50, but also what they can offer in the ruck too.

I would not want them getting games and doing very little in those games, simply in case the scenario arises where we suddenly need them in a match.

 

[RobbieK]

I would not want them getting games and doing very little in those games, simply in case the scenario arises where we suddenly need them in a match.

We do need to have a second ruck throughtout the game for relief and we do need to protect McDonald at the start of his career... so, from my perspecive, we are selecting them because they are actually needed, not because we foresee potential scenarios in which they could be.

 

[caesar88]

We do need to have a second ruck throughtout the game for relief and we do need to protect McDonald at the start of his career... so, from my perspecive, we are selecting them because they are actually needed, not because we foresee potential scenarios in which they could be.

I don't think we do need a second ruck, and I think Heeney would benefit McDonald more than Reid/Sinclair. So I don't see the need for them beyond a potential scenario where Hickey gets injured.

 

[RobbieK]

I don't think we do need a second ruck, and I think Heeney would benefit McDonald more than Reid/Sinclair. So I don't see the need for them beyond a potential scenario where Hickey gets injured.

I really don't think it is realistic to expect Hickey to ruck without relief for the whole game.

 

[caesar88]

I really don't think it is realistic to expect Hickey to ruck without relief for the whole game.

Why not?

 

[RobbieK]

Why not?

How many ruckmen in the league are expected to be at every ruck contest for the entire game?

 

[caesar88]

How many ruckmen in the league are expected to be at every ruck contest for the entire game?

I don't know, but it's not inconceivable. Nankervis rucked solo the entire last three games of the finals en route to a premiership with Richmond. Astbury and Lynch pinch-hit. I don't see why we couldn't do that.

We also have the opportunity now with two rucks to be able to give one a rest for a few games, and play the other during that time. So it's not as if we'd be running them into the ground.

 

[RobbieK]

I don't know, but it's not inconceivable. Nankervis rucked solo the entire last three games of the finals en route to a premiership with Richmond. Astbury and Lynch pinch-hit. I don't see why we couldn't do that.

We also have the opportunity now with two rucks to be able to give one a rest for a few games, and play the other during that time. So it's not as if we'd be running them into the ground.

Nankervis isn't "rucking solo" if Astbury and Lynch are "pinch hitting".

So, who are the players that are pinch hitting in your 22 that you named with no Sinclair or Reid?

 

[caesar88]

Nankervis isn't "rucking solo" if Astbury and Lynch are "pinch hitting".

So, who are the players that are pinch hitting in your 22 that you named with no Sinclair or Reid?

I would call that rucking solo.

We've had Dawson and Fox pinch-hit in the ruck before. Would much rather them pinch-hit and allow a better player to be included in the 22.