Preview Changes: R4 vs Fremantle, Saturday April 8, 1.15pm ACST @ Adelaide Oval

[jackster83]

Unchanged if we win.

View attachment 1651927

Nope.

That philosophy needs to go in the bin if we're to be a finals worthy side.

 

[Burtonsgottago]

We have Worrell, Berry, Pedlar, McAdam, Fogarty not available. Ned McHenry is good depth.

He’s really not

 

[DJ75]

Got a feeling we are planning on using Jones on the wing, which will mean Sloane will take Berry's on ball role.
It seems reasonable, but I think Sloane will be exposed.
Last week Sloane played really well in the middle, but he went in the middle after most of the pace went out of the game. Using him in the guts in the last quarter is a good idea. Playing him there for a full game is not.

 

[Burtonsgottago]

Really don’t see the point of bringing McHenry in.

 

[jenny61_99]

Not that bad....Schoenberg's disposal was worse across the game..

View attachment 1651453

Just because he got it to another player doesn’t mean it was the right choice though.

 

[jenny61_99]

Just because he got it to another player doesn’t mean it was the right choice though.

Don’t know why you’re disagreeing Bicks… other than the final quarter where he was very good, the other three quarters he was kicking backwards and side ways and just poor choices.

 

[Mutineer]

Don’t know why you’re disagreeing Bicks… other than the final quarter where he was very good, the other three quarters he was kicking backwards and side ways and just poor choices.

FFS he hadn't played for a month and was resuming from a fractured Fibula with bandages up to his arseh*le....The coach thought he went alright all things considered and so did I.

Godden>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jenny

And he was never under any consideration to be up for selection after that kind of preparation.

 

[jackster83]

FFS he hadn't played for a month and was resuming from a fractured Fibula with bandages up to his arseh*le....The coach thought he went alright all things considered and so did I.

Godden>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jenny

All four of our mids played decent, if imperfect games. Hately played the most complete game of them all IMO.

 

[PoholkMe10]

McHenry selection makes sense, the outrage is dumb.

We have two best 22 small forwards coming back next week, McHenry comes in as cover, thats exactly how you want to see him used. Would expect this response if he was picked in round 1. He wasn't. He's being used as depth which is perfectly fine.

Schoenberg sub would be stupid, we dropped him for a reason. Let him go back and work on what he needs to work on.
Cook should be sub, can come on late and have an impact like Jones did last week.

 

[Mutineer]

All four of our mids played decent, if imperfect games. Hately played the most complete game of them all IMO.

Agreed.

 

[Bearded Clam]

So on form, you play Sloane or your boy Keayes over Murphy?

On current form I’d actually play both Sloane and murph over Keays. But my original comment never even mentioned Sloane and Keays.

all I’m pointing out with my comment is that we have all seen this before with Murphy.. it’s a mirage.. couple of good games then, bam, straight back to spudding it up.. rinse and repeat.. anyone that’s payed any attention to our games over the last 4 years knows it.

I’m picking Pedlar and McAdam, if they aren’t banned, in my forward line 100 times over before even looking at Murphy and McHenry.

just gotta accept that Murphy and McHenry are there this week because the better options aren’t allowed to play… and hope that next week when the better options return they slot straight back in..

 

[StonesThrow]

Aaaaaand they're back! Murphy and McHenry back baby!

You all thought having Rachele and Rankine in the side meant we'd never see them again!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Got a feeling we are planning on using Jones on the wing, which will mean Sloane will take Berry's on ball role.
It seems reasonable, but I think Sloane will be exposed.
Last week Sloane played really well in the middle, but he went in the middle after most of the pace went out of the game. Using him in the guts in the last quarter is a good idea. Playing him there for a full game is not.

Keays likely to play more on ball too.

 

[George Kramer]

The coach thought he went alright and so did I.

Would make a good sig

 

[moogerfooger]

"Don't blame me. I don't get it either"

 

[AFC979810]

McHenry selection makes sense, the outrage is dumb.

We have two best 22 small forwards coming back next week, McHenry comes in as cover, thats exactly how you want to see him used. Would expect this response if he was picked in round 1. He wasn't. He's being used as depth which is perfectly fine.

I don't understand the logic. It seems that everyone who is happy with McHenry in the side is also acknowledging that he is an automatic out next week.

What happens if Neddles comes to play inspired because its his 50th and kicks 4 goals, gets 15 touches and plays really well? You happy to make Pedlar / McAdam play in the 2's against Carlton? Surely you can't drop someone after a performance like that.

For mine - Including McHenry alongside Keays/Murphy makes us way too defensive.

Week 1 - We went with 6 goal kicking fwds (Tex, Fog, Rachele, Rankine, Mcadam, Pedlar) and 1 defensive (Keays)
Week 2 - We went with 5 goal kicking fwds (Tex, Fog, Rachele, Rankine, Pedlar) and 2 defensive (Keays/Murphy)
Week 3 - We went with 5 goal kicking fwds (Tex, TT, Gollant, Rankine, Pedlar) and 2 defensive (Keays/Murphy)
Week 4 - We are now 4 goal kicking fwds (Tex, TT, Gollant, Rankine) and 3 defensive fwds (Keays/Murphy/Ned).

Looking at the mix going in we have it wrong. We are too defensive. We are going to need a massive massive effort from a clearly hobbled Tex to become that 3rd scoring option behind TT & Rankine.

For the record Murphy and McHenry have combined for 127 AFL games. Out of those 127 games they have only kicked multiple goals 10 times.

Edit - for reference Multiple goal games - TT - 7 from 26, McAdam - 19 from 44, Rachele - 5 from 16, FOG 26 from 60, Rankine -18 from 51.

 

[GreyCrow]

Next week's selection is the really interesting one.

McAdam, Pedlar and likely Fog all to come back in. Maybe Berry as well. Five day break also.

Should definitely be no gold passes.

Should be an opportunity to refresh the side and to give some players earned rests and others form rests

 

[1970crow]

Zac has had an excellent preseason and was clearly BOG against Glenelg. IMHO, selection should be based on the last month not the last week.

Ned has also had a good month and is more of a like-for-like replacement (smal forward v inside mid) for Pedlar so I have no complaints with the selection.

Arguably we have five of our best 22 unavailable (Fogarty, McAdam, Pedlar, Berry and Worrell) so I am not surprised that we have quite a few back up players this week.

is the 4 week form thing another example of selection 'authenticity'. Did TT get a month to sort out his form, or does that only apply to senior players?

 

[maxlilly]

Would have been a good opportunity to see Tarek get one game.
And being a home game, it would have given him a big boost
At least it would have given him an idea of the level he needs to get to and he may surprise and find that he isn't that far away

 

[Trigger13]

Post showdown weekend, a couple of injuries, an unjust suspension, questionable selection and a crappy Saturday time slot against a team we are suddenly favourites against…


This one has a real stench about it.

 

[Eddie Murphy]

With Borlase preferred as emergency it's pretty obvious Keane is not yet up to AFL fitness and why Butts is being persisted with. Wish the club kept supporters a bit more in the loop on that.

 

[Betts are off]

Well, Ned and Murphy squeezed back in by round 4.

Not thrilled by that conceptually. But also not super surprised given the 3 outs in the forward line, and probably a less then 100% Tex.

Good news is Pedlar Fog and McAdam should all be immediate selections next week.

 

[Wazzy36]

What happens if Neddles comes to play inspired because its his 50th and kicks 4 goals, gets 15 touches and plays really well? You happy to make Pedlar / McAdam play in the 2's against Carlton? Surely you can't drop someone after a performance like that.

If Ned kicks 4 goals and plays really well I’d be fine with Murphy/keays/Gollant dropping for McAdam and Pedlar.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Would have been a good opportunity to see Tarek get one game.
And being a home game, it would have given him a big boost
At least it would have given him an idea of the level he needs to get to and he may surprise and find that he isn't that far away

Would have been a good option as a sub, which would allow Schoenberg another full game.

 

[PoholkMe10]

I don't understand the logic. It seems that everyone who is happy with McHenry in the side is also acknowledging that he is an automatic out next week.

What happens if Neddles comes to play inspired because its his 50th and kicks 4 goals, gets 15 touches and plays really well? You happy to make Pedlar / McAdam play in the 2's against Carlton? Surely you can't drop someone after a performance like that.

For mine - Including McHenry alongside Keays/Murphy makes us way too defensive.

Week 1 - We went with 6 goal kicking fwds (Tex, Fog, Rachele, Rankine, Mcadam, Pedlar) and 1 defensive (Keays)
Week 2 - We went with 5 goal kicking fwds (Tex, Fog, Rachele, Rankine, Pedlar) and 2 defensive (Keays/Murphy)
Week 3 - We went with 5 goal kicking fwds (Tex, TT, Gollant, Rankine, Pedlar) and 2 defensive (Keays/Murphy)
Week 4 - We are now 4 goal kicking fwds (Tex, TT, Gollant, Rankine) and 3 defensive fwds (Keays/Murphy/Ned).

Looking at the mix going in we have it wrong. We are too defensive. We are going to need a massive massive effort from a clearly hobbled Tex to become that 3rd scoring option behind TT & Rankine.

For the record Murphy and McHenry have combined for 127 AFL games. Out of those 127 games they have only kicked multiple goals 10 times.

Edit - for reference Multiple goal games - TT - 7 from 26, McAdam - 19 from 44, Rachele - 5 from 16, FOG 26 from 60, Rankine -18 from 51.

Wait wait wait, so Ned coming in and having a great game is bad?

Bizarre take

If Ned comes in and makes selection a headache next week, brilliant. Thats what we need if we're going to be a good team.

Omitting Rachelle from the forward group is weird, given he's not playing full time mid.

Rest of your reply is irrelevant given availability. No body is arguing its our ideal or best 22 out there. You've basically just argued that our best 22 is better than not our best 22. Well done, very insightful.