Preview 2nd Semi Final, 2020: Richmond v St.Kilda - Metricon Stadium, Friday 9th October, 7:50PM AEDT

[Somebody]

A sensible Pie supporter. Rare, but I salute you

Couldn't bear to give a pie any kind of compliment without compensatory needle LOL.
The pie board is a lot worse with outsiders but.
Of course my motives are not entirely pure - def would like to see the Tiges dispatched next week

 

[The Boar]

Any word on Battle's fitness?
Marsh to Riewoldt must be looking more likely.

He would need Coffield and Wilkie to assist with 3rd man over thumps but Marsh could go with Riewoldt.

Out:
Ryder
Carlisle
Long

In:
Battle/Savage
Marsh
Hind (could also drive from HBF)

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[CaptainRisky]

13 times last 20 years/80 teams. St.Kilda did it in 2004.

If we can get Long off then fine, he plays. If not, no big deal. He is replaceable. Ryder and Carlisle are more difficult to replace. Obviously Battle goes in if fit. If not then Marsh. For the the other two I think Hind is a must for his sheer speed. And then - wait for it - Parker for the X factor. He could shadow Martin. Ratten is the key here; he needs to roll the dice.

So you want to play hind because he is fast so he can get his 7 possessions and Parker as a tagger , oh my thats going to work out well , possibly five changes is never going to happen

 

[triggering bro]

Ratts has been consistent in playing the same 25-27 players all year. I can’t see a left field pick such as Webster or Robbo. Marsh & Savage look almost certainties. Hind has played a few games so he will be in the calculations. But that would make us incredibly short...unless Ratts is happy to go short & quick. Battle, please be right to go!

 

[phantom13]

I think the reality is we will want to limit the changes.

Battle for Carlisle
Savage for Long

Are pretty much no brainers. I can’t understand the push for Marsh personally. Our key back match ups are okay without him

Lynch-Dougs, Riewoldt-Wilkie. Granted Chol/Nank might rest forward to try and stretch us but swing Marshall a kick behind play in that instance or throw battle back for that period. The Gabba at night isn’t a great place for a super tall forward line anyway.

I’d rather bring in another mid and win the offensive battle than Marsh playing back to cover a resting ruckman, neither of whom has proven that damaging before.

If Nank or Chol kicks 3-4 and they win, fair play to them, I don’t think the risk of that happening outweighs the potential reward of Bytel or Dunstan or even Parker or Hind.

If Battle doesn’t get up... then I’m stumped. But if he does I would say

Carlisle - Battle
Long - Savage
Ryder - Bytel

Also everyone saying Long isn’t a big loss, hard disagree, think he’s so important to the way we swarm and pressure in that defensive 50, we have a lot of class back their now, Paton is the lock down, Coff the third man, Long is the x-factor defensively, I think he’s a massive loss.

 

[triggering bro]

I think the reality is we will want to limit the changes.

Battle for Carlisle
Savage for Long

Are pretty much no brainers. I can’t understand the push for Marsh personally. Our key back match ups are okay without him

Lynch-Dougs, Riewoldt-Wilkie. Granted Chol/Nank might rest forward to try and stretch us but swing Marshall a kick behind play in that instance or throw battle back for that period. The Gabba at night isn’t a great place for a super tall forward line anyway.

I’d rather bring in another mid and win the offensive battle than Marsh playing back to cover a resting ruckman, neither of whom has proven that damaging before.

If Nank or Chol kicks 3-4 and they win, fair play to them, I don’t think the risk of that happening outweighs the potential reward of Bytel or Dunstan or even Parker or Hind.

If Battle doesn’t get up... then I’m stumped. But if he does I would say

Carlisle - Battle
Long - Savage
Ryder - Bytel

Also everyone saying Long isn’t a big loss, hard disagree, think he’s so important to the way we swarm and pressure in that defensive 50, we have a lot of class back their now, Paton is the lock down, Coff the third man, Long is the x-factor defensively, I think he’s a massive loss.

More likely Marsh replaces Marshall in the forward line.

 

[phantom13]

More likely Marsh replaces Marshall in the forward line.

Then I personally see even less need for marsh.

 

[hayes]

Roberton hasn’t played AFL for almost seven months. Big ask for him to come into a final after not playing for that long, you’d have to think he’d be no chance.

Battle for Carlisle
Marsh for Ryder - straight to Grimes
Hind for Long - Geary to replace Long in the backline.

 

[L_W_P]

I don't normally complain about the MRP but **** me dead this decision is so confusing.

For the last few years we have heard nothing from the AFL/MRP outside of "intent is irrelevent, outcome is everything". Now we have a player being suspended, not based on the outcome, but the "potential to cause injury".



If this is a shift in how the MRP assess incidents then it needs to be applied across the competition in it's entirety.

At 4:42 of the following we see Mark Blicavs KO Xavier Duursma.

Now one could argue that he was trying to mark the ball however, I would argue that because Blicavs chose to leave the ground the potential to cause injury was greatly increased. In fact, Duursma was taken from the field and did not return.

Blicavs had a number of options he could have safely taken. He could have attempted to mark to ball while staying on the ground. He could have tried to spoil Duursma's attempt at a mark. He could have slowed down, pressured Duursma into a mistake, and laid a tackle.

The point here being that the potential to cause injury was escalated because of Blicavs actions, however he was not suspended.




We could also highlight any number of bumps and blocks that have happened this year that have gone without suspension or even a fine.

Hopefully we appeal and common sense is applied.

Personally though I don't think the AFL will want to lose face by having a bump cleared to play, despite it being perfectly fair and within the match day rules of the game.

Next year they should just come out and ban it. The potential to cause injury is just too grey an area to have players trying to perform any kind of physical contact.

 

[Ricmel]

I think the coaching team preparing for this game probably has to concede that Richmond will stretch us with height. Even if Battle is fit Lynch and Riewoldt will be a handful in the air and no doubt Soldo will drift forward occasionally to create some match up issues. I think Billings and Hill are the key to negating the Richmond big forwards.

Both Lynch and Riewoldt are lead up payers and rely on balls on a lead to kick most of their goals (yes, I know both can take a pack mark but it is not the way they kick most of their goals). Hill and Billings have got to play deeper than usual and drop into the lead up holes. The Richmond small forwards are very dangerous but compressing their forward line will also give them less space to break away.

I think we have to be prepared for a lot of Richmond forward entries and for the ball to spend a lot of time in their forward line. On the flipside, I think our best hope for kicking a score is fast breaks. So compress their forward 50 and when we get possession flood forward - much the same way Richmond do. It would be a challenging game plan and a bit of a roll of the dice but I can't see us picking our way through the Richmond defence with anything but manic ball movement with the whole team moving forward. Exposes us to easy turnover goals but that is the risk I think we have to take.

 

[CaptainRisky]

I think you need to take Battle out of the equation ,

 

[puntking]

Anyone checked the tigers board? Guess we shouldn’t even turn up

 

[Veer Right]

Got a feeling Abbott will be called up for this game which makes sense although i don't know if he's up to AFL standard let alone a final.

Austin could be a good call up down back but reading the practice game reports he's lost all form as he's never mentioned so probably not.

Do we roll the dice with Roberton? We could sure use his class but he hasn't played senior football in so long. We don't need a passenger.

Savage, yes i want him in, he will hold his own.

Marsh, nope he's not AFL standard, he's a battler.

Battle plays if fit but if not that creates such a selection dilemma. I am assuming he's not right to go.

Phillips i don't mind, he creates a bit of defensive pressure and offensive.

Hind i am not buying into, not in finals football although happy to be proven wrong.

Out: Long, Carlisle, Ryder
In: Abbott, Savage, Phillips/Roberton

 

[PoppedCorn]

I think you need to take Battle out of the equation ,

Elaborate

 

[BrutThough]

Ratts has been consistent in playing the same 25-27 players all year. I can’t see a left field pick such as Webster or Robbo. Marsh & Savage look almost certainties. Hind has played a few games so he will be in the calculations. But that would make us incredibly short...unless Ratts is happy to go short & quick. Battle, please be right to go!

Robbo has been emergency a lot in recent weeks. Seems like the next defender in line.

 

[triggering bro]

Then I personally see even less need for marsh.

Playing King & Membrey as our only two bigger bodied or marking forwards is not a wise decision. It will lead to extreme frustration with Tiger defenders constantly marking all our entries. Look, that will probably occur to an extent even with three talls.

Marsh is not a rock star that kicks 2-3 goals a game. His brief will be to body his opponent & stop them from going third man up, make them accountable on clean entries & occasionally compete in the ruck. If he can play that role & have 2-3 decent moments (goal, goal assist, etc) then he has fulfilled his role.

We need to be careful how short we go in because Ryder going down along with Carlisle & likely Battle leaves us extremely vulnerable. Usually we have Marshall & Ryder filling the hole at either half forward. Membrey will need to play higher up the ground to backfill meaning King will get exposed.

 

[CaptainRisky]

Elaborate

He wont be playing

 

[phantom13]

Playing King & Membrey as our only two bigger bodied or marking forwards is not a wise decision. It will lead to extreme frustration with Tiger defenders constantly marking all our entries. Look, that will probably occur to an extent even with three talls.

Marsh is not a rock star that kicks 2-3 goals a game. His brief will be to body his opponent & stop them from going third man up, make them accountable on clean entries & occasionally compete in the ruck. If he can play that role & have 2-3 decent moments (goal, goal assist, etc) then he has fulfilled his role.

We need to be careful how short we go in because Ryder going down along with Carlisle & likely Battle leaves us extremely vulnerable. Usually we have Marshall & Ryder filling the hole at either half forward. Membrey will need to play higher up the ground to backfill meaning King will get exposed.

I get what your saying but I actually think that’s us playing into their game. I’d much rather we go with best available as Smalls, if we have to dump it long make sure we’re competing and get the ball to ground. He’ll play Geary on Balta and just tell him to punch the ball all night. I just did a best 22 both ways and it’s truly weird reading. Plus they’ll have to drop Chol for Lynch I suspect.

Our forward line of Geary, Membs, Billings, King, Lonie, Butler will just completely disrupt their back 6 of Vlaustin, Balta, Grimes, Houli, Short and Astbury. It’s reliant on us playing to our forward line (lower eyes, scrub the ball forward if we have to) but I think Marsh just gets outbodied/outmarked if he plays anyway.

 

[phantom13]

I think the coaching team preparing for this game probably has to concede that Richmond will stretch us with height. Even if Battle is fit Lynch and Riewoldt will be a handful in the air and no doubt Soldo will drift forward occasionally to create some match up issues. I think Billings and Hill are the key to negating the Richmond big forwards.

Both Lynch and Riewoldt are lead up payers and rely on balls on a lead to kick most of their goals (yes, I know both can take a pack mark but it is not the way they kick most of their goals). Hill and Billings have got to play deeper than usual and drop into the lead up holes. The Richmond small forwards are very dangerous but compressing their forward line will also give them less space to break away.

I think we have to be prepared for a lot of Richmond forward entries and for the ball to spend a lot of time in their forward line. On the flipside, I think our best hope for kicking a score is fast breaks. So compress their forward 50 and when we get possession flood forward - much the same way Richmond do. It would be a challenging game plan and a bit of a roll of the dice but I can't see us picking our way through the Richmond defence with anything but manic ball movement with the whole team moving forward. Exposes us to easy turnover goals but that is the risk I think we have to take.

Don’t think Soldo will be doing anything of the sort in a knee brace.

 

[tomjoad]

I don't normally complain about the MRP but fu** me dead this decision is so confusing.

For the last few years we have heard nothing from the AFL/MRP outside of "intent is irrelevent, outcome is everything". Now we have a player being suspended, not based on the outcome, but the "potential to cause injury".

View attachment 978464

If this is a shift in how the MRP assess incidents then it needs to be applied across the competition in it's entirety.

At 4:42 of the following we see Mark Blicavs KO Xavier Duursma.

Now one could argue that he was trying to mark the ball however, I would argue that because Blicavs chose to leave the ground the potential to cause injury was greatly increased. In fact, Duursma was taken from the field and did not return.

Blicavs had a number of options he could have safely taken. He could have attempted to mark to ball while staying on the ground. He could have tried to spoil Duursma's attempt at a mark. He could have slowed down, pressured Duursma into a mistake, and laid a tackle.

The point here being that the potential to cause injury was escalated because of Blicavs actions, however he was not suspended.




We could also highlight any number of bumps and blocks that have happened this year that have gone without suspension or even a fine.

Hopefully we appeal and common sense is applied.

Personally though I don't think the AFL will want to lose face by having a bump cleared to play, despite it being perfectly fair and within the match day rules of the game.

Next year they should just come out and ban it. The potential to cause injury is just too grey an area to have players trying to perform any kind of physical contact.

If it keeps going that way, the AFL will resemble the unwatchable glorified handball that is Gaelic football. No thanks.

 

[AirWinmar]

Ratts has been consistent in playing the same 25-27 players all year. I can’t see a left field pick such as Webster or Robbo. Marsh & Savage look almost certainties. Hind has played a few games so he will be in the calculations. But that would make us incredibly short...unless Ratts is happy to go short & quick. Battle, please be right to go!

Re Webster, has been injured most of the year so wasn't in the frame

 

[Jade Buddha]

He wont be playing

Just your thoughts or word?

 

[Dr Spaceman]

He wont be playing

So now we know who’s behind the beard

 

[CaptainRisky]

Just your thoughts or word?

Several sources ,

 

[L_W_P]

Assuming Long is left to hang -

OUT - Ryder
IN - Marsh

Everyone moves up one spot in the chain. Marshall into the ruck, King to back up, Marsh forward. I would have him tag Vlastuin.

OUT - Long
IN - Savage

Next best option. Has the build and experience to play finals. Will do a job.

OUT - Carlisle
IN - Dunstan/Bytel

Big call but I don't think we need another tall defender. Howard on Lynch, Wilkie on JRoo, Coffield on Caddy. The rest are smalls so I'd like to see us bring in an extra inside mid to try and free up Jones and Hanners a little more and get moving on the outside.

Seb Ross can tag Cotchin so these guys can go head to head with Prestia. Don't need to dominate, just break even and get the hands out to the runners.

Can we win? Absolutely.

Will need to throw everything we have at it though.