Strategy Changes and Pre-match discussion (Freo 15/7, MCG 1.45pm)

[ThePhantom777]

Suns and Dogs both have tall forward lines and Frampton didn't start in defence against either. It seems like we've decided to go with a more mobile and switchable defence, but we'll see.

In finals which are generally lower scoring and a grind, our mobile and switchable backline is a little concerning. I'd prefer Moore and Frampton but that means dropping Howe or Murphy which is tough especially with Murphy who has been great.

 

[Jen2310]

Frampton was played forward this nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Finnishpie]

I’m happy to include my reasoning for those that ask and engage respectfully but I’m not going to write paragraphs upon paragraphs for every time I mention Cox’s ability to play out games in the ruck.

I said you can "do it in shorthand." You don't have to write is all out .

 

[eyeroller]

Maynard and Sidebottom available. Kreuger possibly available, but has a few more boxes to tick.

Injury Update: Round 18

All the injury news, thanks to AIA Vitality.

www.collingwoodfc.com.au

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

So outside Hoskin-Elliott, we're essentially full strength

Be very interesting to see how that plays out selection wise (I know Mihocek has an extra week off)

 

[sr36]

I said you can "do it in shorthand." You don't have to write is all out .

When he played first ruck, he played 70% game time with a fair bit of it up forward. He can play first ruck in a two ruck set up, but we wouldn't want him first ruck with a pinch hitter as relief ruck, as they'd have to pinch hit too often.

 

[Scodog10]

I don’t know. Neither Cameron nor Hipwood really play like tall contested marking forwards.

There’s an argument to play him against Geelong to match him up against Hawkins since he’s a brute. But I definitely wouldn’t play him against Brisbane.

Personally I’d be happy to run with Howe on both those guys.

Gut feel is he doesn’t play against either as a defender unless there’s injuries. I think the preferred structure will be:

Howe v Cameron/ Moore v Hawkins/ Murphy v Rohan

Howe v Rayner/ Moore v Daniher/ Murphy v Hipwood

The only curveball to that dynamic would be Brisbane selecting Fort. I also don’t see him playing against Port now (Howe v Marshall / Moore v Dixon/ Murphy v Finlayson). The biggest question is whether those matchups allow Moore to play to his maximum capacity? He struggled with his marking v the Dogs and has run hot and cold since the Blues match, IMO.

 

[sideswipe]

Good.

Heading into finals I don't want these ridiculous soft suspensions being handed out.

Reckon the only option to argue is the impact down to low. Which will be a pretty tough one to get over the line.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

So outside Hoskin-Elliott, we're essentially full strength

Be very interesting to see how that plays out selection wise (I know Mihocek has an extra week off)

ssssh.. don't say it out loud

 

[Scodog10]

Good.

Heading into finals I don't want these ridiculous soft suspensions being handed out.

Agree with the logic in terms of strength of opposition and the good of the game, but the only winners out of them taking this one to the tribunal are the AFL’s coffers and the lawyers. Stranger things have happened of course, but that one looks a quintessential outlawed action in 2023…

 

[sr36]

Reckon the only option to argue is the impact down to low. Which will be a pretty tough one to get over the line.

Under the guidelines, if one of these tackles is deemed classifiable, the player is stuffed. I think they'll go with precedent and argue whether or not the act was classifiable, by showing heaps of videos of similar occurrences that weren't deemed classifiable. The fact that he was pulling him towards himself may work in his favour - I think that's the only hope.

 

[LuckyLee]

Maynard and Sidebottom available. Kreuger possibly available, but has a few more boxes to tick.

Injury Update: Round 18

All the injury news, thanks to AIA Vitality.

www.collingwoodfc.com.au

Exciting to see how close to full-strength we now are, with Sidey and Bruzzy back for the Freo game.

Assuming no fresh injuries this week (fingers crossed), we’ll genuinely be full-strength for Port, with Mihochek and Krueger likely to both be available for selection for that game.

It was bad timing for WHE to break his hand. He’s going to find it hard to force his way back in, as will Ginni and everyone else in the VFL.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[unplugged]

Assume Frampton stays forward until Checkers is back.

McStay probably takes out Johnson although very stiff to take him our after the weekend.

Frampton once out is great depth. Would be first in for Howe/Moore/Murphy/McStay/Mihocek/Cox/Cameron probably.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Exciting to see how close to full-strength we now are, with Sidey and Bruzzy back for the Freo game.

Assuming no fresh injuries this week (fingers crossed), we’ll genuinely be full-strength for Port, with Mihochek and Krueger likely to both be available for selection for that game.

It was bad timing for WHE to break his hand. He’s going to find it hard to force his way back in, as will Ginni and everyone else in the VFL.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I have a feeling we'll be using a fair few players for trade bait end of the year.

 

[3rdMan]

In finals which are generally lower scoring and a grind, our mobile and switchable backline is a little concerning. I'd prefer Moore and Frampton but that means dropping Howe or Murphy which is tough especially with Murphy who has been great.

My thinking had been that we'd want Frampton paired with Moore, but so far that's not the way we seem to be going.

We've conceded the least points in the comp and are #1 for generating scores from defence so hard to argue with what we're doing.

 

[sr36]

Assume Frampton stays forward until Checkers is back.

McStay probably takes out Johnson although very stiff to take him our after the weekend.

Frampton once out is great depth. Would be first in for Howe/Moore/Murphy/McStay/Mihocek/Cox/Cameron probably.

I think it'll be Frampton out and Johnson to get another week to try to push Cox out.

In: McStay, Sidey, Maynard
Out: Frampton, WHE and Bianco

With Daicos now a mid, that area is where the surplus player is, so one of the mids to be sub: Adams this week.

 

[Finnishpie]

When he played first ruck, he played 70% game time with a fair bit of it up forward. He can play first ruck in a two ruck set up, but we wouldn't want him first ruck with a pinch hitter as relief ruck, as they'd have to pinch hit too often.

Yeah that's a reasonable argument.

 

[sideswipe]

Under the guidelines, if one of these tackles is deemed classifiable, the player is stuffed. I think they'll go with precedent and argue whether or not the act was classifiable, by showing heaps of videos of similar occurrences that weren't deemed classifiable. The fact that he was pulling him towards himself may work in his favour - I think that's the only hope.

where does it say that in the guidelines?

Reckon he is stuffed. Arm pinned, head hits deck, game ovah.

 

[stormskye]

where does it say that in the guidelines?

Reckon he is stuffed. Arm pinned, head hits deck, game ovah.

I think his other problem is he didn’t have to take him to ground. Was basically held up, then he dropped him

 

[sr36]

where does it say that in the guidelines?

Reckon he is stuffed. Arm pinned, head hits deck, game ovah.

I didn't say it said it in the guidelines. I meant if its classified as careless he's stuffed by the guidelines. So they've got to challenge whether it's classifiable - that's where the grey area is for these tackles, as there looks to be a heap of similar tackles each week that don't get pinged - assumedly as they're not classified as careless.

 

[Bianconeri]

I think it'll be Frampton out and Johnson to get another week to try to push Cox out.

In: McStay, Sidey, Maynard
Out: Frampton, WHE and Bianco

With Daicos now a mid, that area is where the surplus player is, so one of the mids to be sub: Adams this week.

Crisp played at half back last week and probably played his best game for the year so unless we move back to the midfield the defence will be the surplus area.

In saying that Adams could probably do with a spell in the sub role before the Port Adelaide game.

 

[sideswipe]

I didn't say it said it in the guidelines. I meant if its classified as careless he's stuffed by the guidelines. So they've got to challenge whether it's classifiable - that's where the grey area is for these tackles, as there looks to be a heap of similar tackles each week that don't get pinged - assumedly as they're not classified as careless.

Sorry, I thought when you wrote "under the guidelines", you might be able to point me to where it was under the guidelines. Guess its more a vibe thing?

 

[sr36]

Crisp played at half back last week and probably played his best game for the year so unless we move back to the midfield the defence will be the surplus area.

In saying that Adams could probably do with a spell in the sub role before the Port Adelaide game.

Yeah true. We'd have 7 defenders, plus Crisp in the Nick role. It probably depends on whether you want the dash of Markov or one of the mids chopping out on the wing as the other half of their role, as to where the surplus is. I'd go with Markov.

 

[sr36]

Sorry, I thought when you wrote "under the guidelines", you might be able to point me to where it was under the guidelines. Guess its more a vibe thing?

Mammamia.

I meant under the guidelines, due to factoring in potential, it's high and medium impact and very hard to dispute. To get it overturned, their best bet is to take on the careless aspect, as that isn't clear cut in terms of how the guidelines are written or applied.

 

[sideswipe]

Mammamia.

I meant under the guidelines, due to factoring in potential, it's high and medium impact and very hard to dispute. To get it overturned, their best bet is to take on the careless aspect, as that isn't clear cut in terms of how the guidelines are written or applied.

Arguing the impact doesn't meet the classifiable threshold at all(rather than meeting low/medium) is their only go. Impact is where the classifiable piece lies.

Can't argue against careless. If it happened, how can the action be characterised if it isn't careless or intentional?