Preview AFL Round 3 - Collingwood v Geelong, MCG, 7:50PM Saturday 5 April

[Stig_90]

Good. Clear definitive statements.

Blicavs has had 4 hitouts in total this season. He is being picked as a ruckman.
Simpson has had 43 hitouts in total this season. He is not being picked.

If you want Blicavs in the side as a winger - that's fine. But if he is playing as a ruckman - ahead of Simpson - then no way in hell is he in better form. He just isn't.

I think they anticipated Collingwood's side. Grundy is the only "full time" ruckmen in their side so we thought we could get through with the same structure with HMac and have Blicavs pinch hit on the odd occasion. The only worry there is HMac getting through the game on his own.

 

[sarah.13]

Not so much that Blicavs hasn't kicked goals, moreso that Simpson and McIntosh have. If the argument against having them both, and only them, is that they either don't do enough around the ground (no for McIntosh, possible for Simpson), or don't kick enough goals, so far this year they do.

Don't see how you can say Simpson kicks more goals, has 1 this year and a career average of .2 against Blicavs .3.

 

[Partridge]

Don't see how you can say Simpson kicks more goals, has 1 this year and a career average of .2 against Blicavs .3.

Wasn't my argument. This was the original post:

That's pretty much the core objection I would think. If it was Round 13 v St.Kilda, and we were 11-1 or something, absolutely, that's when maintenance becomes important. But this is a big game (we haven't beaten them since the 2011 Grand Final), and now that we've finally got a genuine ruck combination, I'd want them both out there. McIntosh gets more than enough disposals, and both have kicked goals this year.

Point me to where I mentioned Blicavs in there. Hint: I didn't.

 

[catempire]

Drawing a pretty long bow there CE.

I don't need to put words in your mouth. I'll be clear that this is my view: if, as alleged by many on this board, the administration repeatedly makes costly selection decisions (including the same incorrect selection decision over and over), some of which resulted in losing finals matches and potentially a Premiership, it will not last very long and will quickly be replaced.

We shall see.

 

[Partridge]

I think they anticipated Collingwood's side. Grundy is the only "full time" ruckmen in their side so we thought we could get through with the same structure with HMac and have Blicavs pinch hit on the odd occasion. The only worry there is HMac getting through the game on his own.

Yep that's the big gamble. Hopefully he'll get through fine.

 

[James1970]

I'd still go with two main rucks, who can both go forward. Might be old-fashioned, but I prefer teams picked on form, nouce, skill and brutal strength - play to our advantages, rather than what the opposition coughs up. Why go weaker if the oppositon does? Make them shit their pants if they only have one big man against us. Plus, if Hmac goes down in the first 10 minutes, then wha?

 

[Partridge]

I'd still go with two main rucks, who can both go forward. Might be old-fashioned, but I prefer teams picked on form, nouce, skill and brutal strength - play to our advantages, rather than what the opposition coughs up. Why go weaker if the oppositon does? Make them shit their pants if they only have one big man against us. Plus, if Hmac goes down in the first 10 minutes, then wha?

Think positive. Simpson could get injured tonight as well.

 

[FredLeDeux]

He is playing Collingwood as a winger who will relieve the ruck man.
Really, it's not that hard to get your head around Partridge.

Go look at the Collingwood structures.

We seem to be seeing a lot of examples of the fallacy of the excluded middle today. People need to appreciate that it is not always a case of either one thing or the other, there are very often a range of further alternative or plausible possibilities in between the two extremes of any given issue; including, in particular, the basis of Simpson's non-selection and Blicavs' selection. And many of them have actually been posted, if people were prepared to look at and consider them dispassionately. Doesn't mean they have to accept them, but it is less than useful to treat them as if they simply don't exist.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

Might I suggest an alternative.

The MC might be taking the long view with this one.

Having decided they want 2 ruckmen against WC and Hawthorn, they've made the call to rest simpson (I'd be surprised if he ran out in the 2's) and have him cherry ripe.

At last a poster who has exercised some lateral thinking rather than beating their own predictable drivel about player X over Player Y
I'd also suggest that after a truly ugly , humidity driven slogfest that Simpson ( 3 possies ?) would be the most logical to drop and ensure some much needed extra run is injected.
Pies do not have a true 2nd ruck so Ballroom should be fine if needed - with his elite endurance I'd be wiiling to bet he has been our best on the track this week. He also showed some good signs when played on the wing last week.
Horses for courses

 

[catempire]

We seem to be seeing a lot of examples of the fallacy of the excluded middle today. People need to appreciate that it is not always a case of either one thing or the other, there are very often a range of further alternative or plausible possibilities in between the two extremes of any given issue; including, in particular, the basis of Simpson's non-selection and Blicavs' selection. And many of them have actually been posted, if people were prepared to look at and consider them dispassionately. Doesn't mean they have to accept them, but it is less than useful to treat them as if they simply don't exist.

It's a good point. But to be fair to vc, I think he was more putting forward an explanation rather than what we are seeing quite a bit here which is a suggestion that this selection decision has no basis in logic and is inexplicable.

 

[sarah.13]

Wasn't my argument. This was the original post:



Point me to where I mentioned Blicavs in there. Hint: I didn't.

Didn't say you did, was just pointing out that in reality Simpson is no more a goal kicker than Blicavs.
this is what you said.
"Not so much that Blicavs hasn't kicked goals, moreso that Simpson and McIntosh have. If the argument against having them both, and only them, is that they either don't do enough around the ground (no for McIntosh, possible for Simpson), or don't kick enough goals, so far this year they do."
Your statement relies on the fact that Simpson has kicked 1 goal this year whilst Blicavs hasn't.
I merely pointed out that over their careers Blicavs has a slightly better average

 

[Partridge]

Didn't say you did, was just pointing out that in reality Simpson is no more a goal kicker than Blicavs.
this is what you said.
"Not so much that Blicavs hasn't kicked goals, moreso that Simpson and McIntosh have. If the argument against having them both, and only them, is that they either don't do enough around the ground (no for McIntosh, possible for Simpson), or don't kick enough goals, so far this year they do."
Your statement relies on the fact that Simpson has kicked 1 goal this year whilst Blicavs hasn't.
I merely pointed out that over their careers Blicavs has a slightly better average

Not quite. It was against the argument that by playing both Simpson and McIntosh, they don't do enough around the ground, or contribute enough in general. The indications in 2014 are that they do.

As Blicavs has played as a winger for pretty much all of the pre-season and the first two games, not sure how he's relevant to that particular argument.

 

[nohairandfair]

Not quite. It was against the argument that by playing both Simpson and McIntosh, they don't do enough around the ground, or contribute enough in general. The indications in 2014 are that they do.

As Blicavs has played as a winger for pretty much all of the pre-season and the first two games, not sure how he's relevant to that particular argument.

Simpson has racked up a total of 8 possessions in 2014... not exactly huge numbers.

 

[Partridge]

Simpson has racked up a total of 8 possessions in 2014... not exactly huge numbers.

Plus 43 hitouts and a goal. Remind me what position he is again?

 

[sarah.13]

Not quite. It was against the argument that by playing both Simpson and McIntosh, they don't do enough around the ground, or contribute enough in general. The indications in 2014 are that they do.

As Blicavs has played as a winger for pretty much all of the pre-season and the first two games, not sure how he's relevant to that particular argument.

Simpson averages 4 disposal per game this year???
What has Blicavs playing on the wing have to do with this game. He will be the 2nd ruckman and bet your bottom dollar he will get more than 4 possessions. He will be able to keep up with both Grundy and White around the ground and will be up against White in the main and should be able to neutralise him in the ruck.
I'm in agreement with the MC on this for this game , next week against WCE I would have Simpson back in as they have 2 ruckman.

 

[James1970]

Simpson averages 4 disposal per game this year???
What has Blicavs playing on the wing have to do with this game. He will be the 2nd ruckman and bet your bottom dollar he will get more than 4 possessions. He will be able to keep up with both Grundy and White around the ground and will be up against White in the main and should be able to neutralise him in the ruck.
I'm in agreement with the MC on this for this game , next week against WCE I would have Simpson back in as they have 2 ruckman.

Would prefer taps to advantage myself, and expose this weakness in the Pies. But we'll see how it goes, I guess.

 

[Partridge]

Would prefer taps to advantage myself, and expose this weakness in the Pies. But we'll see how it goes, I guess.

Only when he's injured.

 

[Partridge]

Simpson also gives us some handy taps near or around the goals which have resulted in scoreboard pressure. Like you said, his taps to advantage are sublime at the stoppages and that may be missed in this game but McIntosh will likely beat Grundy in that area anyways.

I would have loved to have had Simpson and McIntosh wearing Grundy down over 4 quarters. Anyway we'll find out soon enough how things will go.

 

[Partridge]

If Simpson is running around for the bankers then the MC should be sacked.

Get ready in that case.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

They'll rotate both in out all year Kitty.
Would be amazed if Simpson didn't play 60% of the VFL game tonight.

wow it's comments like this that really damage your brand, Seeds.

Grundy is the only recognised ruckman in the Pies line up so we don't need Simmo & HMac in this game. Blicavs can rotate on their second string ruckman when Grundy is resting. Dropping Simmo is about team structure, not because CS doesn't like him. HMac is clearly our No. 1 ruckman at the moment.

Starting to make sense, I think.

But why the hoopla about needing two rucks? I'd be happier with Simpson + HMac *feminine intuition*



Boris is named, Rivers is back, Simpson emergency.

Still, think I'll wait until I see who runs on to play

 

[Partridge]

Boris is named, Rivers is back, Simpson emergency.

Still, think I'll wait until I see who runs on to play

I'm not sure of the time, but presuming the final team will be named at some point tomorrow.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

I don't need to put words in your mouth. I'll be clear that this is my view: if, as alleged by many on this board, the administration repeatedly makes costly selection decisions (including the same incorrect selection decision over and over), some of which resulted in losing finals matches and potentially a Premiership, it will not last very long and will quickly be replaced.

We shall see.

On the basis we were going for a flag in 2013? CS has consistently said they are working towards 2015 as our next flag chance.
We should go for the flag every year, it's what we play for ???

 

[cynical]

There is a completely plausible explanation for it - we would be too tall with the extra ruckman and we would be a better chance of winning with more run in this match. No doubt, managing the workloads of the two monsters is a critical factor, but I seriously doubt we are jeopardising four points for the sake of future matches.

The too tall argument is a fallacy. Provided all tall players contribute and are good players you can play as tall as you like.

WCE have played 3 rucks as well as Kennedy and Darling in their first 2 games.

A goliath like Simpson offers way more than Blicavs. It would be very hard for Grundy and White to remain competitive late in a match against Simpson and HMac.

The fact that they don't have 2 genuine rucks isn't our problem it is their problem.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

I'd still go with two main rucks, who can both go forward. Might be old-fashioned, but I prefer teams picked on form, nouce, skill and brutal strength - play to our advantages, rather than what the opposition coughs up. Why go weaker if the oppositon does? Make them shit their pants if they only have one big man against us. Plus, if Hmac goes down in the first 10 minutes, then wha?

Needs a couple of more likes!

 

[Seeds]

It's not a matter of "can not". It's a question of the best combination to beat Collingwood this week and to manage the players over the course of the season. I know you're smart enough to understand that Partridge.

But Simpson is our best ruckman. Yes he is better than McIntosh.