Preview Changes: R7 v Carlton

[Scorpus]

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.

I don't have a problem whatsoever with managing players IF that is actually what we are doing

I'm disappointed the club would choose a young player like Knight to start this "managing" scheme when they really should have 5 weeks ago with Sloane and possibly even earlier with Jenkins and others in previous years. Did we suddenly have a change of heart about management, or is it just because Knight is young and expendable?

If we are fair dinkum about managing players through the season then not a single player with even slight soreness should play in any match. Will we do that? Or will we do what we've done in the past and suspiciously only manage young players like Knight and Greenwood?

I have seen enough bullshit from the club when it comes to injuries and "management" not to immediately take their word at face value

 

[jaytex]

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?

Hang on I can't quite keep up here...

AFC playing Sloane, Jenkins, Brad Crouch, Brown, Hartigan, Greenwood, etc when they aren't 100%, often to the detriment of their fitness down the track = grumpy Scorpus

AFC managing Knight when he perhaps isn't 100%, to potentially avoid any detriment to his fitness down the track = grumpy Scorpus

Gotcha

 

[Scorpus]

Hang on I can't quite keep up here...

AFC playing Sloane, Jenkins, Brad Crouch, Brown, Hartigan, Greenwood, etc when they aren't 100%, often to the detriment of their fitness down the track = grumpy Scorpus

AFC managing Knight when he perhaps isn't 100%, to potentially avoid any detriment to his fitness down the track = grumpy Scorpus

Gotcha

Like I said in my previous post, I think it's a double standard that some players get to play sore yet a young bloke like Knight gets a rare "management" during the season.

We should have one set of standards that applies to every player. Sloane, you're a bit sore, you're getting managed. Jenkins, your foot isn't right, you're managed this week. Knight, you're returning from injury, you're managed.

Instead we keep Sloane in the side for two weeks too long and refuse to give him a break until it's clear he is at 30% capacity. But Knight? Nah he's the one that gets immediately managed.

That doesn't sound right to me

 

[Iron]

I don't have a problem whatsoever with managing players IF that is actually what we are doing

I'm disappointed the club would choose a young player like Knight to start this "managing" scheme when they really should have 5 weeks ago with Sloane and possibly even earlier with Jenkins and others in previous years. Did we suddenly have a change of heart about management, or is it just because Knight is young and expendable?

If we are fair dinkum about managing players through the season then not a single player with even slight soreness should play in any match. Will we do that? Or will we do what we've done in the past and suspiciously only manage young players like Knight and Greenwood?

I have seen enough bullshit from the club when it comes to injuries and "management" not to immediately take their word at face value

Well sure I agree with what you've said about what we should do.

The reasons dont seem particularly good to worry about knights' predicament though.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Both games Knight covered the most Km's of any Crows player coming off a restricted pre-season with an ankle, think people are just looking for an excuse to sling off at the club personally

Im not looking for an excuse to go off at the Crows management. I smell BS in regards to the “managed” call though.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Almost worth putting 100 on Carlton.. if there’s a absolute upset you’d still be pissed off.. but you’d have a fatter wallet..

Or you could not and not lose $100. This would be the absolute mother of all upsets for Carlton to win this.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Great to see Fog & Eddie back

Gee, the Blues look shocking
I think this will get very ugly for Carlton

Just imagine if Betts, Gibbs and Jacobs manages to outscore the entire Carlton team!

 

[StonesThrow]

Or you could not and not lose $100. This would be the absolute mother of all upsets for Carlton to win this.

Stranger things have happened. It would be the mother of all upsets if we had our captain and vice captain out there. We are not a settled side, which makes us a little vulnerable. Still tipping a big win though.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

So wait, we were too tall a few weeks back, then brought in an extra tall player, and now we've brought in yet another tall player (I'm counting Kelly as a tall)?

Seems strange but I guess we'll see...

McGovern would have to be on his last chance, you'd think.

Doedee and Kelly are both less than 190cm. CEY is the same height or taller than them.

 

[Betts are off]

Now that FOG has been named i'm bloody excited to see what he does out there. I was a little on the fence about giving him a go based on performance, but I have to admit the kid does have a bit of buzz around him!

Would hate to be a Blue's defender dropping into the hole in front of FOG...

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Surely Knight is just dropped and being held back from the SANFL game in case there's a late out.

Saves him from being publicly omitted.

I wonder if the 'managed' thing is to bullshit the fans. Or to bullshit Knight (you haven't had much footy... long season ahead... safety first)?

If he's actually sore and being managed then he's obviously not an emergency.

Are we really at the point where we feel the need to lie about fringe players being dropped?

 

[jenny61_99]

Please he has played two games and if the club feels that he needs to be managed then don't risk him, don't list him as an emergency and take him completely off the selection table

You know the cupboard is bare, right?

 

[hey shorty]

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

I think it's a case of "he could play if we REALLY need her too" but we would rather not. We also don't have much left to put on the emergency list !!!

I think they will play Poholke if we make a change.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

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 ...

Nek minnit - 68-0 at qtr time!

 

[jenny61_99]

He is listed as managed, which because it's become beyond embarrassing to list injured with a hamstring.

He clearly hasn't got a hamstring if he's listed as an emergency. FFS. Some of you people aren't happy unless you've got something to whinge about. He had ankle surgery. He's had a limited pre-season. He's probably pulled up a bit sore so they are managing him. He would play IF he had to. It really is just that simple.

 

[hey shorty]

Like I said in my previous post, I think it's a double standard that some players get to play sore yet a young bloke like Knight gets a rare "management" during the season.

We should have one set of standards that applies to every player. Sloane, you're a bit sore, you're getting managed. Jenkins, your foot isn't right, you're managed this week. Knight, you're returning from injury, you're managed.

Instead we keep Sloane in the side for two weeks too long and refuse to give him a break until it's clear he is at 30% capacity. But Knight? Nah he's the one that gets immediately managed.

That doesn't sound right to me

Seems to be happening now but it's taken too long to bring that philosophy.

 

[GreyCrow]

He clearly hasn't got a hamstring if he's listed as an emergency. FFS. Some of you people aren't happy unless you've got something to whinge about. He had ankle surgery. He's had a limited pre-season. He's probably pulled up a bit sore so they are managing him. He would play IF he had to. It really is just that simple.

Thats understandable . Except the part of 'he could play if he had to' . He is either being managed ( and I am all for it) but if this is the case then just say injury management , rest. No emergency no SANFL just rest. Or he is omitted . Then why not play SANFL. There is a mismatch in the message and the application

Poholke can play if he has to also.

 

[Vader]

Still reckon the club would lean to selecting Otten over Keath if fit & Cheney isn’t a KPD, nor is Hunter and how would they know about Dear especially in the current SANFL team, blooding him as a defender against Carlton would of been ideal to see if he’s ever going to be up to it.

They'd have a better idea from seeing him playing as a defender at training. I imagine they have a pretty good handle on what Dear is & isn't capable of - they don't need to see him playing an AFL game to figure that out.

 

[robboaustralia]

 

[jaytex]

Like I said in my previous post, I think it's a double standard that some players get to play sore yet a young bloke like Knight gets a rare "management" during the season.

We should have one set of standards that applies to every player. Sloane, you're a bit sore, you're getting managed. Jenkins, your foot isn't right, you're managed this week. Knight, you're returning from injury, you're managed.

Instead we keep Sloane in the side for two weeks too long and refuse to give him a break until it's clear he is at 30% capacity. But Knight? Nah he's the one that gets immediately managed.

That doesn't sound right to me

maybe it just took them this long to get the message / see the light / work their shit out?

not everything is a conspiracy or indelible incompetence

 

[hey shorty]

4 goals or more tomorrow, I can feel it.

 

[Vader]

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.

He's fast, strong, and a good tackler. That's the positives.

He doesn't get enough of the pill, has extremely poor situational awareness, and even worse decision making skills (i.e. low football IQ). Those are the negatives. Factor in his injury history, and he's highly likely to be delisted at the end of the year.

 

[Vader]

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?

I think you just answered your own question.

 

[flashcrow]

Apparently Star Wars Day, May the 4th (even though 4th of May)

 

[footy4ever]

my point is if the club list you as managed there is surely a reason to be managed and you take the player completely off the selection table

listing someone as "Managed"but having them as an emergency is a bit BS to me

At least it proves he's being managed rather than injured. If he was injured he wouldn't be on the emergency list.

In before 'Crows purposely deceiving the supporters'