Preview Changes for Round 16 vs Geelong

[Forget the Stats]

It is just me or is Chris Masten always on the cusp? ALWAYS

Yep he's either on the cusp of getting selected or on the cusp of getting dropped.
I don't think he will be back next game particularly with the bye giving our young mids a rest anyway.

 

[bali-dog]

It is just me or is Chris Masten always on the cusp? ALWAYS

hehe..yeah, its getting a bit tiresome for a number 3 pick who's been in the system awhile now..well, as long as kennedy..compare him to shuey+gaff who have pretty much got it from day one..the spark+sizzle..is it style over substance?
(i mean i do hope he comes good-its great for the team-but meanwhile, just where is that #3 pick hiding?)

 

[Strijkforce]

What are people thoughts on Schofield going forward and playing a semi defensive role on Scarlett?

I've seen a couple of footy show discussions with Brad Scott and Dunstall and on AFL 360 talking about how important Scarlett is to the Geelong backline and more importantly how he is a major player in their rebound 50 counter attacks.

Playing Schofield as a FF with Kennedy more at CHF with Darling and the rucks also rotating through the forward 50 is still pretty flexible for us. If Schofield can shut down Scarlett and kick a couple of goals on him that would be considered a major win.

That leaves down back:

FB: Smith Glass Waters
HB: Hurn EMac Butler

Basically Waters coming in for Lynch and Schofield moving forward.

 

[FrankenLynch]

Just re-watched the first quarter against the Blues and we're going to miss Lynch something amazing.

I'd bring in Brown to cover his loss and see if he can play forward again. Not too hopeful though, he's way better in defence.

Let's not forget that Brown primarily played FF in a season where we appeared to have no semblance of a forward line structure.

Brown was drafted as a CHF and would likely be better at that role than he suggested last year. Having been out for so long, his fitness level may be a concern though.

Having said that I'd probably rather shift Darling to Lynch's role and shift Ebert or Stevens into Darling's role.

 

[The Passenger]

not a bad idea at all above regarding playing schofield as a defender on scarlett.

 

[Evelyn208]

Yeah, give Darling a go at being Lynch 2.0 for a game and get Schofield on Scarlett. If Brown had a couple of games in him he would be the obvious choice but considering where he's at I really think Schofield could be given a run at it.

 

[ioppolo]

The idea sounds good, but I don't think the coaching staff will have the same approach.

 

[lynchy magic]

Schofield has actually been a defensive forward before hasn't he. I seem to remember him doing a pretty good job on Luke Hodge a few years ago

 

[Strijkforce]

The idea sounds good, but I don't think the coaching staff will have the same approach.

And what happens if / when Mitch Brown is available and say Lynch is out?

One of EMac, Schofield, Brown or Glass will need to play forward or not get picked.

EMac and Glass are backmen.

Mitch was drafted as a CHF but his knee problems have made CHF in a developing wooden spoon side difficult. Mitch looks a lot better at CHB with the game ahead of him.

Schofield has height, speed and agility. A good defensive mindset and has kicked a goal or two. For me he's an obvious choice to see if he can 'swing both ways', we find another Hunter type we are set.

 

[Mighty Eagles]

We need to give Stevens a crack, and I think he's a perfect swap for Swift.

I would love to see Gaff get another crack in the coming weeks.

Wilson to play his first game for 2011 with Lynchy suspended.

 

[sTeeL]

Perfect swap for Swift? He's played two decent games in a row. Let him keep playing.

 

[BradWCE]

One of EMac, Schofield, Brown or Glass will need to play forward or not get picked.

I don't think all 4 should be in the same backline either but the match commitee has already shown this year that they are willing to play all 4 in defence.

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

I don't think all 4 should be in the same backline either but the match commitee has already shown this year that they are willing to play all 4 in defence.

We're 0-2 in games where all 4 play. In both games we went into the last quarter with a lead and lost. Granted, neither lead was large and 2 games isn't exactly a massive sample but still...

Your point is very valid IMO.

 

[sTeeL]

This is BigFooty not a statistics class. Use your weak stats to back up your argument and pretend they are ROCK SOLID )

 

[Evelyn208]

Correlation, causation, same difference, right?

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

I'm a little bit surprised people are so okay with playing 4 tall defenders. It's not traditional for a reason.

I wouldn't mind one of them up forward though.

 

[The Passenger]

i wasn't entirely comfortable with out talls set up earlier in the year when we had 9 in the team - schoey, glass, brown, emac, nicnat, cox, darling, lynch, JK.... that's far too many for mine.

i found it funny how the media talked of our forwards stretching clarton for height on the weekend but we still only played 7 talls in that game.... that's pretty standard for me. 8 is the absolute max any team should be playing.... we only stretched them because our talls - JK, NicNat and Darling - are so mobile. Even Lynch is playing more moblie than most big blokes getting a game in other clubs. and admittedly when jamison went down they were reduced to 5 key position players - austin (who looks pretty ordinary too), kreuzer, henderson, warnock and thornton.... so that obviously stretched the too. they went short and lost a KPP. not we went with some crazy arse tall set up.

 

[ziad]

I'm a little bit surprised people are so okay with playing 4 tall defenders. It's not traditional for a reason.

I wouldn't mind one of them up forward though.

Depends if the opposition play 4-6 tall forwards or not.

I am comfortable the match committee is on the ball with match ups and look forward to their decision.

Our back line is becoming a hard place to get a game.

 

[Strijkforce]

I don't think all 4 should be in the same backline either but the match commitee has already shown this year that they are willing to play all 4 in defence.

We're 0-2 in games where all 4 play. In both games we went into the last quarter with a lead and lost. Granted, neither lead was large and 2 games isn't exactly a massive sample but still...

Your point is very valid IMO.

For years I've though we play too tall down back, this tear injuries have forced us to play only 2 KP backs and 4 mid sized defenders and look how well thats been going.

I really hope the match committee actually learn from this experience.

So developing a tall who can play roles at both ends is very important to our structure and team balance.

 

[Alexwce]

If there was a game where we could use 4 key defenders it is against Geelong. They have 3 key forwards at all times + Steve Johnson. Don't like having all 4 in the team personally. Should be interesting too see what the match committee comes up with provided Mitch Brown gets picked.

 

[new breed]

Last year Woosha was canned for playing the land of the Giants game , now with the new SUB rule teams are not running out games as well and West Coast are using the height advantage it seems quite well .

Thanks AFL

 

[Strijkforce]

Last year Woosha was canned for playing the land of the Giants game , now with the new SUB rule teams are not running out games as well and West Coast are using the height advantage it seems quite well .

Thanks AFL

I don't think its that simple (whenever is anything simple these days?).

Last season we had heaps of injuries and played the kids. Our talls last year included Hansen, Kennedy, Lynch, EMac, Brown, Schofield and Naitanui and for the bulk of the season excluded Cox and Glass.

This season Darling has replaced Hansen which is a massive improvement speed and agility wise, Cox and Glass are back to pretty much AA form, Lynch is back to 2006 form and Kennedy is going along great.

Where the difference has really been is only playing 2 tall KP backs due to injuries to Brown and EMac, this has forced us to be shorter down back, which is a good thing IMO.

I think the combination of a shorter backline, better quality talls all round, the Forward Press game plan and the sub rule has helped us immensely.

 

[BradWCE]

I don't think its that simple (whenever is anything simple these days?).

Last season we had heaps of injuries and played the kids. Our talls last year included Hansen, Kennedy, Lynch, EMac, Brown, Schofield and Naitanui and for the bulk of the season excluded Cox and Glass.

This season Darling has replaced Hansen which is a massive improvement speed and agility wise, Cox and Glass are back to pretty much AA form, Lynch is back to 2006 form and Kennedy is going along great.

Where the difference has really been is only playing 2 tall KP backs due to injuries to Brown and EMac, this has forced us to be shorter down back, which is a good thing IMO.

I think the combination of a shorter backline, better quality talls all round, the Forward Press game plan and the sub rule has helped us immensely.

Most of this sounds about right but a couple of things I don't get, like you saying Cox was out most of last season. He played every game, he wasn't at 100% but he wasn't out of the side. Hansen only played 2 games so to have him listed as part of our talls playing and to then say Cox was not is baffling.

 

[Suma Magic]

We would be crazy to bring in Mitch Brown as a defender before Waters.

Playing 4 tall defenders means both Waters and Smith miss out. Ludicrous.

No place for Mitch Brown unless he takes Schofield's spot, despite them being different players. EMac and Glass are locks IMO.

 

[beatlesmith]

Wilson kicked 4 in the WAFL, having had a good game before that.
Replacement for Lynch? Or will we replace him with a small and use Cox predominantly up forward?
Don't like the idea of Scarlett on Darling if we go in undermanned up forward...