Changes for Round 2 v Brisbane

[D's Corner]

Russell turned the ball over way too many times and didn't do much. He will be out for Walker straight up.

Johnson won't be going anywhere, anyone who says he got towled up needs to take another look at the 3rd quarter.

Grigg may come in for Joseph, but I don't rate Grigg all that much so it will be a call for the match committee I guess.

Fisher in for Cloke, he will get a week at least for his bump on Cousins.

Yarran will come in for Garlett eventually, when he is fit enough to play a full game.

The big question is who goes for Stevo next week?

your kidding right? no way will he get suspended...josephs second half on brown was sensational..if he stays in which i hope they do he will do the same job on hooper or mcgrath

 

[ECHUCABOY]

While Garlett is exciting he needs some more match fitness and a chance to string some decent game together for the Ants and then come back in. I think he makes way for Walker and after that I'm not sure at all.

If it was Grigg's hammy maybe give him another week to get it absolutley right, no harm in him missing another one....

It will really come down to the one on one match ups and this will continue for the rest of the year, because we finally have something called DEPTH.. I can remember ranting and raving about how important depth is at some stage last year and that now Wiggins, Russel, Hadley, Hoops etc reallly need to step up each and every week because there are up to 10 blokes that could possibly take their place.

Also I really think Stevens will struggle to get back in the side..JR will have to make way if so, so do we sacrifice JR's development to rush back someone who is passed their best???? Big call...

Walker and Grigg should be in our best 22...outs at the moment Garlett and Russell, but give grigg one more week on the sidelines.

 

[ECHUCABOY]

Simpson will play every game he is a star...dont be stupid. Also its sad but Brad Fisher will play less than 5 games this year.

 

[therubbernub]

Look I hate to keep laboring the same point but some of you just dont seem to get it. Russell does his job. Week in week out. Players that follow the coaches instructions to the letter dont usually get dropped. And the MC usually make like for like changes, not player in player out. Walker would if he were to "replace" anyone in the current team he would probably replace either Cloke or Wiggins as he is likely to play CHF/HFF, although Cloke brings the pack crunching bustle that is not Walkers game so more than likely Wiggo is the player to move aside. I am not saying this is my choice and I cant see the MC dropping the Chief after last nights game, but 26 into 22 dont go.

Russell plays the negating HFF to kill off the run from HB of the running key backflanker. In case you had not noticed the subtle change in footy over the last 10 years but HBF (or at least one of them) is now an attacking position, so in turn teams play defending half forwards on the attacking hbf. That is Russells job and he does it particularly well. Some mentioned he was not noticed much or didnt do enough, the key question is, was his opponent? Never mind him, what did his opponent do, and if you can hurt them the other way all the better, Russell did that too. Granted he sprayed one out on the full on the run from about 45 but he also snapped another, and he had mates missing much easier shots, Garlett and Wiggo missed from directly in front from about 30m. Even the great Judd and Gibbs missed getable goals, easily forgetable in a massive win.

So whilst we have selection headaches, maybe niggle injuries or suspensions may force the selectors hands. I cant see anyone being rubbed out from last nights match though. Clokes was a fair bump in the general vacinity of the play and Simmos contact whilst head high, Simmo was standing, Foley (I think) had gone to ground just before the bump and Simmo clearly tried to pull up. If anything an early plea will just mean a reprimand given Simmos clean record.

One other thing that selectors are loathe to do, is upset a winning balance. For example, Wiggo brings great team spirit to the side and Russell's work whilst it obviously goes un noticed by many on here it is clearly noticed by the selectors and no doubt the players. Some players get the easy posessions because of the work being done just behind the ball or to the side. Case in point is Hadley. For mine he was the reason our mids got unrestricted run and carry. He was one of the BOG for mine last night. He layed close to a dozen tackles. Once the opposition felt Hadleys presense he was then able to exert implied pressure where his presense in the area forced fumbles from Tigers expecting to be hit hard by him at any moment, this creates the opportunity for our un harrassed mids to swoop and move the ball forward. Selectors know and see these things and are unlikely to mess too much with the formula, it upsets not only the balance of the team but the moral or winning attitude.

Anyone catch Catalyst last night, whilst it may seem totaly unrelated it is very much related. They studied testosterone and cortisol levels in Wall street traders and they found what is called the winner effect. Winners are more likely to win again (and they have heightened Testosterone, the hormone created to make us fight) next up and losers more likely to lose next up (they had hightened levels of cortisone, the hormone that makes us cautious). All things being equal, (which is rarely the case in AFL anyway) you would not mess with the winner formula.

Anyway, whatever the MC decide (another of my mantras) it could hardly put a foot wrong given their track record recently and the depth of the players to come in. I dont envy their job but secretly the club must be stoked that for the first time in a long time, players have to really hold their spots with top performances each week.

excellent post. Agree totally with most of your footy observations. Tex can play tall so i see ratten possibly using him in the forward line which may allow cloke to go out, or depending on Fevs injury perhaps a weeks rest for Fev. It would also allow us to experiment with a forward structure without Fev. having said that I believe that last night was a deliberate strategy to use Fev as a foil to allow others to kick goals. Keep the opposition guessing on a weekly basis... will they go to fev or not this week. makes it hard for the opposition to strategize on the selection table. But i am also thinking that without Fevs defensive pressure in the forward line (not just him though) that the other goal kickers may not have been as successful. So that needs to be factored in as well.
The other prong to the "not so fev centric" forward line I believe is the use of the pockets to rest dangerous players - thinking specifically Judd and Kreuzer(hampson) here. The onus is then on the opposition coach to decide what to do -do I take the designated tagger/opponent with them while they rest or do I keep the positional player there. When i make selections for the back line who am I selecting for in the match ups... a Garlett/Yarran/Betts or a Judd or a Kreuzer.. Makes it hard- I love it. Now throw in a fit Andy Walker who can pinch hit at CHF or go back to a pocket and take the huge leaps. Or an in form Fish (lets not take him too far from goal in selections, as kicking is clearly not his strong point).
So Walker back in to the forward line to play "tall".
Grigg to come in for Garlett IMO. I dont buy the loss of confidence if dropped theory- absolute BS. Garlett is a ripper no doubt, but equally requires some protection. If we can rotate him in and out of the team on a regular basis in his first year he will maintain his fitness and become a real impact player. This will be explained to him and as a first year (rookie) he would be expecting to have more limited opportunities.

The analogy of wall street traders is a little flawed, on a number of levels IMHO.
Firstly.. the winner effect. Many traders recognise that there is a danger of euphoria when winning. That there becomes a feeling of being "bullet proof" and that is when serious trading errors occur,
Secondly in sport there is a well known "let down effect" where performance at or above normal peak performance can only last for so long. Adrenaline takes its toll and will result in sub par performance after players excell or play above themselves. This may manifest itself in our team being a little jaded next week particularly with the rookies who played so well this week. Again the supports the drop Garlett theory.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Walker if fit will come in for Garlett - who played well, but Tex will apply the same pressure, be a stronger body and his field kicking will be better.

i agree that walker should come in for Gartlett - but dont tell me walker is a good kick.

 

[johnsy14]

Do you have any idea at all? Players that play different roles dont just get dropped to make way for someone else. If we are gonna make silly suggestions then why not drop Jacobs and bring in Walker, we go in without a ruckman but surely Walker is better than a rookie with 1 games experience?

Make some sense at least. Say something like, drop Russell and play Walker as a defensive half forward but dont just throw out silly prejudices from last season of all things. Go have a think about it. I am sure you can post better than that.

Haven't you taken your tablets today you're getting all grumpy? Are you saying that nobody else on the list can play the role that Russell does? If that's the case we're going to struggle when he trips over the photographers and hurts himself next time he's running around outside the boundary line chasing blokes on the field.

I'm suggesting that Grigg or Walker should come in for Russell and you're not changing the team balance one iota as you are suggesting. Generally players of similar size, weight, and speed are interchangable in similar roles.

 

[dirk pitt]

Well you clearly have no idea either. Drop Simpson? Thats all Australian Simpsons? Do you have a clue at all. Playmakers, creative types, the ones that move the ball into spaces to create oportunities often have the higher clanger rates because they are risk takers. Risk takers are essential to a side remaining unpredictable and dangerous.

Well since I don't have a clue perhaps you'd like to explain which season Simpson made All Australian? I assume you're referring to his representing Australia against Ireland (which is not actually the same).

I'm not saying he deserves to be dropped, but assuming Walker takes Garlett's spot, if you want to bring Grigg into the side next week as well these are the sorts of tough decisions the match committee will be making from now on. Who is likely to be dropped intead?

Not the hero Wiggins surely.

Not Robinson after that debut.

Not Hadley who was a revelation (for those who have forgotten how good the Lions of 01-04 really were).

Not Joesph or Russell, who are both doing defensive jobs and doing them well. I appreciate not everyone will agree with this assessment, but there is a fair bit of evidence from last season (where Russell played 21 games) that the MC rates the performance of these roles higher than the average supporter.

Houlihan's disposal set up at least four goals so he won't be going anywhere.

Johnson kicked out from FB about 12 times and only turned it over once that I recall. We haven't moved the ball out of our back 50 that easy in years. This is likely to be seen to outweigh his issues with Morton which were largely due to a poor match-up anyway.

As I said originally, I still think an unchanged side is the the most likely outcome. But if they were determined to squeeze both Walker and Grigg in, I wouldn't be at all suprised if Simpson was the omission. Yes he's a playmaker, but he was just plain sloppy for a fair bit of the game last night, and competition for non-specialist wing/flanker positions is going to be intense from now on.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Well since I don't have a clue perhaps you'd like to explain which season Simpson made All Australian? I assume you're referring to his representing Australia against Ireland (which is not actually the same).

I'm not saying he deserves to be dropped, but assuming Walker takes Garlett's spot, if you want to bring Grigg into the side next week as well these are the sorts of tough decisions the match committee will be making from now on. Who is likely to be dropped intead?

Not the hero Wiggins surely.

Not Robinson after that debut.

Not Hadley who was a revelation (for those who have forgotten how good the Lions of 01-04 really were).

Not Joesph or Russell, who are both doing defensive jobs and doing them well. I appreciate not everyone will agree with this assessment, but there is a fair bit of evidence from last season (where Russell played 21 games) that the MC rates the performance of these roles higher than the average supporter.

Houlihan's disposal set up at least four goals so he won't be going anywhere.

Johnson kicked out from FB about 12 times and only turned it over once that I recall. We haven't moved the ball out of our back 50 that easy in years. This is likely to be seen to outweigh his issues with Morton which were largely due to a poor match-up anyway.

As I said originally, I still think an unchanged side is the the most likely outcome. But if they were determined to squeeze both Walker and Grigg in, I wouldn't be at all suprised if Simpson was the omission. Yes he's a playmaker, but he was just plain sloppy for a fair bit of the game last night, and competition for non-specialist wing/flanker positions is going to be intense from now on.

Your reply to my (overzealous) criticism of an opposition supporters post on our board distinguishes you as not the usual troll. You have my apologies.

Your reply truly does highlight the selection dilemna we now face. Quality players that were regulars in recent seasons are now being pushed hard to get back in. Besides Grigg and Tex, we have Stevens, Carrrots and Fish trying to break back in. And little if any room for any of them.

Even if determined to get Tex and or Grigga back in (and this is in no way definately established but I, like you, cannot see Tex kept out of our best 22, nor for that matter Stevens, Carrots, although I am not as convinced as some that Grigg is an auto selection) I still cant see Simpson as the player that gets omitted.

I dont pay much attention to AA or even brownlow votes (and admit that I did not know that to be selected for the hybrid game wasnt an endorsement of the players standing in the comp), I set my values on our own B&F and the fact he has acted as Captain of the team for nearly a season whilst Big Red was injured. He is very highly regarded at our club so unlikely he would make way for either Tex or Grigg.

We must be the envy of many clubs now with the depth we now have. But depth is only of value if we get injuries and hopefully we dont have too many serious ones. I am not a subscriber to the theory that you drop players that are performing to give the depth players a go or to keep the mix fresh. I beleive if you strike a winning combo you dont make any changes that are not forced on you.

 

[BlueWorld]

I was there, although up in the nosebleeds. Hoops just seemed a bit sloppy. I see he racked up the possies, but I just didn't see his value last night. I may need to watch the replay?

Set up 4 goals. No other player managed that (next highest was 2). 90% of his disposals were effective- in top few in team- so why was he sloppy? And he had 6 tackles- 3rd highest in team (equal). What more did he need to do?

 

[40yearBLUE]

Haven't you taken your tablets today you're getting all grumpy? Are you saying that nobody else on the list can play the role that Russell does? If that's the case we're going to struggle when he trips over the photographers and hurts himself next time he's running around outside the boundary line chasing blokes on the field.

I'm suggesting that Grigg or Walker should come in for Russell and you're not changing the team balance one iota as you are suggesting. Generally players of similar size, weight, and speed are interchangable in similar roles.

I am always grumpy, you musnt read my posts often enough

Ok, I am not saying Russell cant be dropped, far from it, in fact, he is one of the few players that must keep performing to keep his spot, I would still have him as a fringe player, despite my defence of him on our board, it is not about the quality of his play more that he seems to perform exactly the tasks set for him and for that the MC rewards him with a spot each week. And rightly so. And on last night he has a spot next game for mine.

My point really is that to get Tex in for example you can only put him in Russells place if you intend for him to do Russells role. Not player in player out. Hence my rediculous example of dropping Jacobs to make way for him, this is only a reasonable swap if you expect Tex to do the ruck work, clearly preposterous. So if we want Tex in for the role Tex is most likely to play then the player to miss is the player currently playing that role, and that is down to either The Chief or Clokey. I expect if anyone, it would be Wiggo. Not saying it should happen, just the most likely. Wiggo is in the side next week for mine.

But that does not solve the problem of how to get Tex in. I admit to not knowing the answer.

 

[dirk pitt]

Your reply to my (overzealous) criticism of an opposition supporters post on our board distinguishes you as not the usual troll. You have my apologies.

Your reply truly does highlight the selection dilemna we now face. Quality players that were regulars in recent seasons are now being pushed hard to get back in. Besides Grigg and Tex, we have Stevens, Carrrots and Fish trying to break back in. And little if any room for any of them.

Even if determined to get Tex and or Grigga back in (and this is in no way definately established but I, like you, cannot see Tex kept out of our best 22, nor for that matter Stevens, Carrots, although I am not as convinced as some that Grigg is an auto selection) I still cant see Simpson as the player that gets omitted.

I dont pay much attention to AA or even brownlow votes (and admit that I did not know that to be selected for the hybrid game wasnt an endorsement of the players standing in the comp), I set my values on our own B&F and the fact he has acted as Captain of the team for nearly a season whilst Big Red was injured. He is very highly regarded at our club so unlikely he would make way for either Tex or Grigg.

We must be the envy of many clubs now with the depth we now have. But depth is only of value if we get injuries and hopefully we dont have too many serious ones. I am not a subscriber to the theory that you drop players that are performing to give the depth players a go or to keep the mix fresh. I beleive if you strike a winning combo you dont make any changes that are not forced on you.

I think we agree in principle that there is no need to make any changes to the side after that performance. I think the selections as the season go on are going to shock a few people though.

I think people are getting carried away with our depth a bit. We have great depth in runners. Midfielders, flankers, even (unbelievably) small defenders. We still have very limited KP depth though and that may find us out over the course of the season.

 

[Not My Real Name]

Assume no suspensions....

Then ratten will not change a winning team unless it is absolutely required

Grigg in for Russell. Easy one. Grigg wins Hard balls and breaks packs...and can kick.

Garlett is the only other one in danger. Not that he didnt play well, but his light frame was pushed off the ball too easily last night. Against Brisbane, he will get smashed. Perhaps Walker will play that role, but Stevens will get a game ahead of him.


Otherwise, everyone else needs to earn his spot via the magoos

Rucks...brilliant. No change until an injury

Kruezer / Jacobs vs Leuenberger / Charman will be great

 

[40yearBLUE]

The analogy of wall street traders is a little flawed, on a number of levels IMHO.
Firstly.. the winner effect. Many traders recognise that there is a danger of euphoria when winning. That there becomes a feeling of being "bullet proof" and that is when serious trading errors occur,
Secondly in sport there is a well known "let down effect" where performance at or above normal peak performance can only last for so long. Adrenaline takes its toll and will result in sub par performance after players excell or play above themselves. This may manifest itself in our team being a little jaded next week particularly with the rookies who played so well this week. Again the supports the drop Garlett theory.

Yes, actually the Catalyst piece was to dispell the theory that modern comms and increased speed in the spread of information reduce the likelihood of boom and bust cycles and the hormone test actually supported the theory that the markets have are and will always be subject to psychology. And you in fact prove my/their point with your assertation of the bulletproof attitude. Noone would deny that the traders got it seriously wrong again and the bubble has burst again leaving many (most traders) bust again.

I did not intend for the comparison to be exactly literal, just that winning brings with it a certain confidence that goes a long way to improving the chances of the next win. This hormone test puts some science to the analogical evidence to that theory.

 

[40yearBLUE]

If we weren't looking to increase our depth by rotating younger players through the team early in the season, how do you explain the four rookies last night? I agree that players are rewarded with spots after showing endeavour, but I smell a long-term plan with this year's finals in mind. It makes sense that you'd explore the worth of the whole list by throwing them into games where it means more than the NAB Cup. That means you've got more options to cover injury, counter specific opposition strengths, and become multi-dimensional to make it harder to get shut down.

Sorry, I cant agree with you on this. The four debuts last night ALL earnt their place in the team. Tex was not ready, or he would have been in. But none of the players were second chioce selections. I said as much in answer to the doubters before the game. Take any selection on their own as if they were the only debut for the game and you would agree they had earnt that spot with their performance on the track or the pre season practice games (NAB cup/challenge). Now that they have made their debut and all performed well their is no reason to drop any of them just to make way for someone else. If they are dropped it is for 1 of 2 reasons. Either they did not do quite enough to convince the MC that they can sustain that level into the next game OR as a player management strategy to ensure they stay tip top toward the end of the year. It is well documented now that the newer players start to strugle late in the season especially late in games and that a management strategy may be invoked. Remember 3 of them were rookies. One of them will go back to the rookie list when Warnock is ready. So they had limited expections of a game anyway (perhaps not in their minds but they would know that any games in their first year on the list is a bonus) so there will be no problem with their confidence sending them back down to Preston at times but conversely, except for player managemant reasons, if the player has performed he has a reasonable expectation of playing next up.

So in summary I dont subscribe to the theory we rotate players through the team to give everyone a go. This is not under 10's. Players must earn a spot or earn thier right to stay in a spot. There will be very few that will be auto selections back into the team if they should miss through injury. But if their form warrants and/or the form of the player they replace drops away then the selections are made on that basis. I do however agree we need to keep options available to cover injuries or strategies against certain oppositions. For example I beleive Carlos will struggle to get a regular spot but there will be games, and if he had had a decent preperation the Bris game on Brown might have been on of them, where he is picked as a big bodied defender on a monster forward.

Anyway I am sure you agree, selection is now the nice headache to have where we have quality players being left out every week.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Great first win for sure, but the young fellows will be in and out of the team as needed, and this is the way it should be.
We can't expect Garlett, Joseph and Jacobs making the seniors every week from here on in. (Robinson may well be the exception though)
We will have Walker, Stevens and Grigg in our best 22 and Browne, Carrazzo, Armfield and Fisher not far behind also and when the occasional injury comes along the young guys will come in.

Oh, we do still have Yarran too.
I am sure we will see him in our side from time to time as well.

We are heading towards a time of even better player management in terms of how many games a player should play throughout the year. I believe that a rotation policy will start coming into effect over the coming years in order to keep the overall team in the best shape possible to attain just one thing: The Premiership Cup.

Oh, and let's not get too carried away thinking we have 36 superstars just yet, but having said that it is evident that our depth will reach truly awesome status.

Yes pretty much agree with you, but assuming for a moment that Carrots, Fish, Tex and Grigg were not injured and Stevo not suspended. More than likely we would still have seen Jacobs rucking and maybe Robbo, but would we have seen Joseph and Garlett? Who knows. And I agree some of the new players will probably need to have their seasons managed.

But further to my assertations of depth, we have depth in a variety of players now, ruck, midfield outside, mid in and under, tagger about the only area we are still lacking is KP (but then not many teams have a lot of KP depth). We dont have a true CHF but of the players rotating through we do have a number of options, none of them nailing it as their own but all of them capable of competing.

We still have a long way to go, but we are definately well down the right track now

 

[Warsaw]

Trust the MC for this one. IMO although he played his part Russel should be dropped for Grigg. But because the club's persisted with Russ for all this time something tells me he he'll probably keep going.

 

[Smell The Glove]

In: Grigg
Out: Garlett or Joseph

Cant imagine any other possible changes.

 

[blues4flag]

Trust the MC for this one. IMO although he played his part Russel should be dropped for Grigg. But because the club's persisted with Russ for all this time something tells me he he'll probably keep going.

Given that Riley (and by extension, the match committee) thinks he's "on the cusp of becoming a very good player", I can't see him being dropped any time soon.

 

[Alpha1]

Tough decisions, AW and Grigg have to come back in. Although JR did a few nice things his disposals haven't improved much, the MC will most likely have a look at him. I don't know I give up, AJ and JG did very well, JG has a great defensive side and I love his chases and tackles.

 

[Banga19]

Can't see Russ going anywhere. The MC obviously value his contribution, even if it isn't pretty to the naked eye.

 

[Malifice]

In: Grigg
Out: Garlett or Joseph

Cant imagine any other possible changes.

Pretty close to my thoughts.

I was going with:

In: Walker (on the HFF), Grigg (up the guts/ wing/ center).

Out: Gartlett, Joseph.

Although arguably we could use Josephs tagging...

 

[ESKIE]

AJ was brilliant on Brown If there is a matchup for him- He will Stay in
Russell was very un Russell like and had a very Solid Game - Will Stay in
Cloke gives our Forward line structure, and his job is to compete and create goals for Betts, Gartlett and Co. - Will Stay in

The two that would have the most concerns are
Gartlett - He was good with what he, did but did he do enough
Chris Johnson - Was mauled aerially by Mitch Morton, and did not have great awareness defensively, but was good when we were going forward. Walker on Morton would have been brilliant.

Seriously I would make 1 change Gartlett out for Walker or Grigg, and put the heat on the rest of the team with the knowledge that Stevo and Walker or Grigg are still out, and if you do not play hard for the entire game, then you will be dropped the following week.

How Good was Robinson for a first gamer !!

I agree with this, I think at times defensively he was slightly suss, I would make 2 changes, out Johnson and Gartlett and in Walker and Grigg..
Phew but then again, hmm just looks good all round suddenly we;ve got depth Yipeeeee
(I;m being told it;s only round 1 but hey just gonna bask in it over the weekend, we need to back it up next week and string a few together, must beat those Bummers !!)

 

[thylacine60]

What do people think of a Carlos/Brown match-up?

 

[jonoman89]

What do people think of a Carlos/Brown match-up?

Is he allowed to play yet? I don't think so, we have to get games into our future back 6. Carlos is depth.

Thornton did well on JB when he moved onto him last year.

 

[thylacine60]

Shit that's right. How embarrassment.