Preview Changes: R7 v Carlton

[Scorpus]

So the threshold for bringing someone back in after injury is they need to guarantee they can play three cherry ripe games off the bat?

No, the threshold is someone coming back from injury shouldn't need to be "managed" after just two games. This isn't a typical plan for our players and the only times I can think of players getting managed so soon after returning is when a player is brought back too soon (eg. Jenkins, B. Crouch in recent years). Or maybe when we want to play Scott Thompson, leading to Greenwood getting "rested".

In any case, why does Riley Knight, who is "a bit sore" according to the club, need to be "managed" when a completely stuffed Rory Sloane gets the all clear to play against Collingwood?

Why have we chosen Riley Knight as the player to get this "management" after a bit of soreness (note that he's not listed as injured), when we've happily played Sloane, Jenkins, Brad Crouch, Brown, Hartigan, Greenwood, etc. when they aren't 100%, often to the detriment of their fitness down the track?

 

[kulak]

I have a theory that Knight is listed as managed because he is being managed.

1) Conspiracy theory that he is actually omitted and we don’t want to say so - bizarre. We have labelled plenty of players as omitted.

2) Conspiracy theory that he has an injured hammy and for some reason the club has had an attack of caring about what other people think so we don’t want to mention it - would become obvious when he doesn’t come back vs Port. Plausible but not likely, unless he misses another two...

Most likely - he has an injury history, he had a limited preseason, he busted a gut in the last two games - we are resting him in the anticipated Carlton walkover - he will be back vs Port.

 

[kulak]

No, the threshold is someone coming back from injury shouldn't need to be "managed" after just two games. This isn't a typical plan for our players and the only times I can think of players getting managed so soon after returning is when a player is brought back too soon (eg. Jenkins, B. Crouch in recent years). Or maybe when we want to play Scott Thompson, leading to Greenwood getting "rested".

In any case, why does Riley Knight, who is "a bit sore" according to the club, need to be "managed" when a completely stuffed Rory Sloane gets the all clear to play against Collingwood?

Why have we chosen Riley Knight as the player to get this "management" after a bit of soreness (note that he's not listed as injured), when we've happily played Sloane, Jenkins, Brad Crouch, Brown, Hartigan, Greenwood, etc. when they aren't 100%, often to the detriment of their fitness down the track?

IMO it is because we understood Collingwood would provide a real contest. We think Carlton will be a walkover.

 

[kulak]

Oh he has ability, like physically (if he was injury free) he has close to the perfect AFL build. Fast, strong, evasive etc.

Just he's such a suspect decision maker, and poor football IQ (and this harmed his career at GWS as well) which is crippling.

I watched him pretty closely at GWS as they have been my local team for a few years now, and decision making was always Curtly’s problem. I posted as much when we brought him in. Has never changed.

 

[Scorpus]

IMO it is because we understood Collingwood would provide a real contest. We think Carlton will be a walkover.

There are countless other examples of us not even hesitating to play injured/sore players.

Jenkins - 2016 finals series
Jenkins - brought back too early from rib injury
B. Crouch - brought back too early several times
Brown - 2015 (or was it 2016?) back half of season
Walker - how many times has he played with a dodgy foot now?
Hartigan - hamstring tightness, plays anyway, does a hammy this year
Sloane - St Kilda and Collingwood matches this year

But Riley Knight is apparently a special player who requires this "management" we haven't shown to other sore players previously.

Last year we "managed" Greenwood in round 16, just two weeks after our bye and after just six games of AFL ever. In a completely unrelated note we brought back Scott Thompson.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

He may well be sore and actually being rested.

In which case he wouldn't be an emergency though.

I think we're bullshitting him. It's crap that we've picked 8 defenders. Obviously we were too gutless to drop one and have had to squeeze someone else out from another role.

That's Knight.

He knows on merit it's a bullshit call so we've dressed it up as us doing him a favour as he eases into the 2018 season.

Kills two birds with one stone for us. Means we don't have to make a tough, unpleasant call. Plus have a ready-made player to sit out of the SANFL game just in case.

Or he's injured and we're panicking about the hamstring PR. Backing that we'd never have to delve into a 4th emergency player so it's no biggie to name him.

The only way we'll know the truth is by seeing what happens if someone other than Jacobs pulls out sick/injured between now and game time.

 

[LC40]

Perhaps they're trying a new approach with all these injuries and actually want fit players on the track.
Knight may have a slight problem, they don't tell us everything.

 

[Golumless]

IMO it is because we understood Collingwood would provide a real contest. We think Carlton will be a walkover.

No we didn't. We thought we would walk all over Collingwood and paid them no respect whatsoever with our selections.

We have at least paid Carlton some respect despite a management.

 

[Golumless]

He may well be sore and actually being rested.

In which case he wouldn't be an emergency though.

I think we're bullshitting him. It's crap that we've picked 8 defenders. Obviously we were too gutless to drop one and have had to squeeze someone else out from another role.

That's Knight.

He knows on merit it's a bullshit call so we've dressed it up as us doing him a favour as he eases into the 2018 season.

Kills two birds with one stone for us. Means we don't have to make a tough, unpleasant call. Plus have a ready-made player to sit out of the SANFL game just in case.

Or he's injured and we're panicking about the hamstring PR. Backing that we'd never have to delve into a 4th emergency player so it's no biggie to name him.

The only way we'll know the truth is by seeing what happens if someone other than Jacobs pulls out sick/injured between now and game time.

I do partly agree with this, it would have been Mackay in the gun seeing Milera pulled a performance he could only dream of last week.

 

[hey shorty]

He may well be sore and actually being rested.

In which case he wouldn't be an emergency though.

I think we're bullshitting him. It's crap that we've picked 8 defenders. Obviously we were too gutless to drop one and have had to squeeze someone else out from another role.

That's Knight.

He knows on merit it's a bullshit call so we've dressed it up as us doing him a favour as he eases into the 2018 season.

Kills two birds with one stone for us. Means we don't have to make a tough, unpleasant call. Plus have a ready-made player to sit out of the SANFL game just in case.

Or he's injured and we're panicking about the hamstring PR. Backing that we'd never have to delve into a 4th emergency player so it's no biggie to name him.

The only way we'll know the truth is by seeing what happens if someone other than Jacobs pulls out sick/injured between now and game time.

I think you're a huge sceptic.

This kid is injury prone almost more than anyone on our list, and long term injuries too. He's not going to play at any level this weekend.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think you're a huge sceptic.

This kid is injury prone almost more than anyone on our list, and long term injuries too. He's not going to play at any level this weekend.

And that's fine. But if that's true he's not an emergency.

 

[CrowBloke]

Talia, Otten, Kelly, Doedee, Laird, Brown, Mackay, Milera. That's 8.



Which means one of three things:

1) Milera will go back to half forward.

I don't think we'd do this. Surely after 10 coaches votes we're not moving him.

2) Otten forward, Kelly/Doedee to take Harry McKay

Don't think we'd do this either. McKay too tall and with Fog in it would mean 5 tall forwards. Surely after Collingwood that isn't happening again.

3) Mackay to be trialled as a half forward.

Bullseye.

We'll exhaust every single possible option to keep this guy in the team. It is the club's No 1 priority. Makes sense of the ludicrous managed/injured/emergency story too.

Look... we just need to come up with a position for D-Mac. Seedsman, Atkins, Laird and Milera have been trading best-ons all season. So....? Knight and Poholke both have to go.

Why's Knight out?

Umm... form?

17 touches and 2 goals last week.

Injured?

No. He finished the game last week, D-Mac didn't.

Rested?

It's only his second game back. Soft game too, not exactly going to be an intense bruising encounter.

Look... just come up with something, ok? Anything. Just get rid of him.



The good news is that after half forward fails D-Mac only has extended chances as an inside mid and as a tagger to fail at before he might finally get squeezed out.

And this little half forward cameo gives him yet another role to be understudy to in case even the whiff of an injury pops up later.

Superb, comprehensive anti-Dmac rant. One of your best.

 

[CrowBloke]

I think you're a huge sceptic.

Isn't that AmericanCrow ?
No, wait, "sceptic" not Septic (Tank)

 

[CrowBloke]

Odds are $1.03 to $13.00. I actually can't remember odds like that.

Maybe Crows vs NM Round 7 last year?? Here's what Sportsbet had to say:
" North Melbourne finally got the monkey off the back with their first win of the 2017 AFL season last week. Unfortunately, it's unlikely they will be making it two in the row as they face the dreaded challenge of the Adelaide Crows in Round 7.

There isn't too much I can say about the Adelaide Crows that hasn't been said the last few weeks. They are simply having one of the best starts to an AFL season of all time. Their scoring prowess is unbelievable and if they keep it up, it's hard to see them losing too many games. It's not just the forward line that opposition need to worry about, however, with their midfield batting almost as deep as GWS and the Bulldogs, while Rory Sloane is now equal Brownlow Medal favourite (he's leading my 2017 Brownlow rolling leaderboard). Their defence isn't too shabby either, conceding the third least points in the comp - which is ridiculous considering they average 17 points more than their nearest scoring rivals Port Adelaide. On current form, it would be ludicrous to think North Melbourne can win this game, so the question becomes how much do the Crows win by? "

Oh, the irony ...

 

[CrowBloke]

I have a theory that Knight is listed as managed because he is being managed.

Bizarre, if not revolutionary idea. Bold statement.

 

[WetCrow1991]

And that's fine. But if that's true he's not an emergency.

No he can play if needed, but they don't think he will, and if he did he'd play **** all minutes. It is better than having someone else miss out of game time in the SANFL to be the emergency.

 

[cmndstab]

He may well be sore and actually being rested.

In which case he wouldn't be an emergency though.

I think we're bullshitting him. It's crap that we've picked 8 defenders. Obviously we were too gutless to drop one and have had to squeeze someone else out from another role.

That's Knight.

He knows on merit it's a bullshit call so we've dressed it up as us doing him a favour as he eases into the 2018 season.

Kills two birds with one stone for us. Means we don't have to make a tough, unpleasant call. Plus have a ready-made player to sit out of the SANFL game just in case.

Or he's injured and we're panicking about the hamstring PR. Backing that we'd never have to delve into a 4th emergency player so it's no biggie to name him.

The only way we'll know the truth is by seeing what happens if someone other than Jacobs pulls out sick/injured between now and game time.

Any theory which has the club trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans, I can perhaps entertain.

But the club trying to bullshit Knight? I think we can give him a bit more credit than that, surely?

I think it's pretty simple. He's obviously sore but could play if necessary. Not that uncommon to come up sore in the first couple of matches after a while off. The club has decided to rest him - and can afford to do so against the bottom side. He sits out of the SANFL game as well and probably doesn't play. If it turns out he's needed, well then he plays and perhaps has a rest next week instead.

 

[AmericanCrow]

Isn't that AmericanCrow ?
No, wait, "sceptic" not Septic (Tank)

If you are gonna drag me into this can we at least spell skeptic correctly?

 

[Iron]

No, the threshold is someone coming back from injury shouldn't need to be "managed" after just two games. This isn't a typical plan for our players and the only times I can think of players getting managed so soon after returning is when a player is brought back too soon (eg. Jenkins, B. Crouch in recent years). Or maybe when we want to play Scott Thompson, leading to Greenwood getting "rested".

In any case, why does Riley Knight, who is "a bit sore" according to the club, need to be "managed" when a completely stuffed Rory Sloane gets the all clear to play against Collingwood?

Why have we chosen Riley Knight as the player to get this "management" after a bit of soreness (note that he's not listed as injured), when we've happily played Sloane, Jenkins, Brad Crouch, Brown, Hartigan, Greenwood, etc. when they aren't 100%, often to the detriment of their fitness down the track?

Just to be clear. Your problem is partially that we aren't making the same mistake with Knight we have in the past with others?

Could this be a response to the injury concerns Pyke was taking about during the week? Seems far more likely to me than pretending he's not injured and postponing a better plan for the other weeks.

 

[conVINCEd]

And that's fine. But if that's true he's not an emergency.

What about my theory - Poholke is emergency #1 so in the highly unlikely scenario that two players withdraw, we’d rather play a sore Knight than force Murphy to miss another week of football.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What about my theory - Poholke is emergency #1 so in the highly unlikely scenario that two players withdraw, we’d rather play a sore Knight than force Murphy to miss another week of football.

If Poholke sits out the SANFL game you might be right

 

[conVINCEd]

If Poholke sits out the SANFL game you might be right

It looks likely as he isn’t named for the SANFL team despite being an AFL emergency. Time will tell.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

No he can play if needed, but they don't think he will, and if he did he'd play **** all minutes. It is better than having someone else miss out of game time in the SANFL to be the emergency.

So he's sore or slightly injured

Going around in circles here

I'm sure Wilson for instance would be happy to miss a game to be on standby should Betts or Mackay or anyone else doesn't come up. It would be his AFL debut after all.

Any theory which has the club trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans, I can perhaps entertain.

But the club trying to bullshit Knight? I think we can give him a bit more credit than that, surely?

You think players agree with all the selection calls a club makes? Especially those that result in them sitting out of the team?

What if we play well this week and have Sloane to come back in next week? Possession is nine tenths the law as Knight and all the players would well know. No one would want to miss, especially someone near the fringes like Knight.

Or he's injured and better off not playing at all in which case he shouldn't be an emergency.

 

[mistylake]

Surely you aren't running 16 km's in a game if you are sore ?

Maybe he’s sore because he’s run 16ks straight out of the box.

 

[Geoffa32]

Knight "managed" however still listed as an emergency

surely your either managed or you are not?

Nice way of saying "ommitted".



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk