Unofficial Preview Changes vs GWS

[MRB37]

Who is the bigger challenge, GWS or Richmond? When you consider that Sloane is a likely withdrawal, dropping Gibbs and Greenwood means you've lost half your midfield, replacing them with a slow and underdone M Crouch and a bloke we know won't give us Greenwood's grunt or composure. Im sorry mate, there is no justification for Douglas coming in. Not form, not runs on the board. GWS are quick and we bring in a bloke who doesn't chase and sucks under pressure.

There is no plan.

Greenwood doesn't chase either? And if Greenwood is toast physically at this point then you have to give him time off now, not play him cooked for another week and then give him a week off. There's no plan for you because you refuse to consider other options and have already made up your mind. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying just hold up and wait and see.

And Greenwood hasn't been able to bring his "grunt" consistently for 4 quarters for a few weeks now. When he and CEY get on top we're great, but over the last month we've won clearances in just one game and contested possessions in two, by a grand total of 3 possessions. Our midfield hasn't had a good all-around performance where we've clearly won since the Dockers game. So they'll try something different this week.

 

[GROTTO]

If our plan was to rest Greenwood, it would have been nice for the club to be upfront and honest about it like they usually are when we rest or manage players.

The club has specifically said it's "team balance" and "not form" for these omissions, plus Greenwood is named in the SANFL and as an emergency. So that suggests he isn't being managed.

If Greenwood plays in the SANFL then comes straight back for the Richmond game, we can add that to the list of odd selection choices

Totally missed that, thanks. That probably is the key, if they play in the SANFL.

I get the feeling they will play regardless and have match time even managed. Its been done previously.

 

[GROTTO]

It would be great if Don and the other coaches were upfront and said “ The last three weeks have been very tough and most of the boys are struggling after the match in Darwin. We will rest a couple of the guys and just hope the rest of the team can hold it together and then get ready for the Tigers off a 5 day break.”

IIRC when we played the Cats off a 5 day break at AO in R3, Scott didnt raise the issue at all.

In fact he said the players loved it as it is all about recovery and light training if that.

 

[feenix67]

Greenwood doesn't chase either? And if Greenwood is toast physically at this point then you have to give him time off now, not play him cooked for another week and then give him a week off. There's no plan for you because you refuse to consider other options and have already made up your mind. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying just hold up and wait and see.

And Greenwood hasn't been able to bring his "grunt" consistently for 4 quarters for a few weeks now. When he and CEY get on top we're great, but over the last month we've won clearances in just one game and contested possessions in two, by a grand total of 3 possessions. Our midfield hasn't had a good all-around performance where we've clearly won since the Dockers game. So they'll try something different this week.

Hughy didn't look like he was running on fumes in the last. And my point is, ANYONE but Douglas.

 

[Scorpus]

It would be great if Don and the other coaches were upfront and said “ The last three weeks have been very tough and most of the boys are struggling after the match in Darwin. We will rest a couple of the guys and just hope the rest of the team can hold it together and then get ready for the Tigers off a 5 day break.”

Yes, because I totally meant that.

All it requires is: "we're managing Greenwood's workload this week. He won't play SANFL but will resume playing the following week"

Instead we are saying he is omitted for team balance and is named in the SANFL. He isn't being rested, and if he is, there's no reason for us to be dishonest about it

 

[MRB37]

Hughy didn't look like he was running on fumes in the last. And my point is, ANYONE but Douglas.

And we have no idea how he recovered from that, how he trained during the week because of that, nothing. But you're choosing to assume the worst and it's nowhere near that level at this point in time.

 

[feenix67]

And we have no idea how he recovered from that, how he trained during the week because of that, nothing. But you're choosing to assume the worst and it's nowhere near that level at this point in time.

You continue to miss my point.

ANYONE but Douglas.

With the outs of Gibbs and Greenwood, for whatever reason, this game is ready made for Chayce Jones. We need pace and intensity. Jones has shown he has it. He's young, he needs to play. But no, we choose a 32 yr old who we know does not provide pace or intensity.

You seem to think the club is seeing whether Douglas "still has it". Has what, exactly? He has been underwhelming for years now. We know what Douglas brings. We need to know what the kids bring. Especially kids with the attributes we need to actually win the game.

Plus, Hugh is on the emergency list, he cant be that cooked.

 

[Scorpus]

Plus, Hugh is on the emergency list, he cant be that cooked.

Well not only that, he's named to play SANFL on Saturday

 

[Elite Crow]

I already told you, it's because we were stuffed by quarter time (hence they were able to have 9 scoring shots), it took a lot to get back into the game down our best player who is also a midfielder which affected our rotation (especially with Seedsman underdone) and we were virtually stuffed by the last quarter. Given the inconsistency and how we meekly fold (even when leading comfortably) all season, I didn't didn't think we would even fight back especially after losing Sloane in the 1st quarter in Darwin in 27 degree.

9 scoring shots to 4 in the first qtr, they were already up by 15 points.

They were on top the WHOLE game. The only difference in the last they kicked 1.8 instead of 6.3 which they did in the first.

Stop talking nonsense.

 

[Elite Crow]

You continue to miss my point.

ANYONE but Douglas.

With the outs of Gibbs and Greenwood, for whatever reason, this game is ready made for Chayce Jones. We need pace and intensity. Jones has shown he has it. He's young, he needs to play. But no, we choose a 32 yr old who we know does not provide pace or intensity.

You seem to think the club is seeing whether Douglas "still has it". Has what, exactly? He has been underwhelming for years now. We know what Douglas brings. We need to know what the kids bring. Especially kids with the attributes we need to actually win the game.

Plus, Hugh is on the emergency list, he cant be that cooked.

We’ve made this cooked justification up, Hart’s explanation was with Matt back we are one too many inside mids and CEY is in better form.

We don’t see Greenwood as being able to play majority up forward whereas we’ve scene Douglas play that forward role.

We’ve seen Douglas play that role and he stinks at it. It’s a joke. If Douglas isn’t good enough to make it as a mid he plays sanfl. It’s funny, we talk up Douglas game in the sanfl but I’m pretty sure he was playing as a mid and not as a forward.

Our selectors are a bunch of ****ing idiots.

 

[Elite Crow]

And we have no idea how he recovered from that, how he trained during the week because of that, nothing. But you're choosing to assume the worst and it's nowhere near that level at this point in time.

Hart mentioned nothing about Hugh needing a break, he was dropped. Stop seeing things that aren’t there.

 

[Elite Crow]

Yes, because I totally meant that.

All it requires is: "we're managing Greenwood's workload this week. He won't play SANFL but will resume playing the following week"

Instead we are saying he is omitted for team balance and is named in the SANFL. He isn't being rested, and if he is, there's no reason for us to be dishonest about it

He’s been dropped for Douglas, pure and simple.

 

[Elite Crow]

That's fair enough, but i'd also hazard a guess and say you'd want to test them against a better team, rather than having them beat up on an easy one.

Do you honestly think we’ve selected Douglas so we can test him? They picked him because they rate him up forward.

Cmon your posting is normally better than this.

 

[crowsup]

Do you honestly think we’ve selected Douglas so we can test him? They picked him because they rate him up forward.

Cmon your posting is normally better than this.

Would you not do the same if you were a selector? Or would you play Greenwood (or any young player) even if you thought that that player would not be as effective as Douglas?

 

[feenix67]

Would you not do the same if you were a selector? Or would you play Greenwood (or any young player) even if you thought that that player would not be as effective as Douglas?

One of our main issues up forward is the ability to retain the ball inside 50 and apply pressure. The other is taking a contested mark. Who do you think provides more in both those areas - Hugh or Douglas?

 

[Firewalker]

Is Murphy the first player to ever have a 4 possession game and keep his spot? Surely McHenry should have come in.

It’s literally become Petrenko all over again, trying to turn a SANFL standard defender-mid with a bad field kick into a AFL standard forward for ‘pressure’ reasons.

 

[marty36]

I think its fairly stable after the top 15. Terribly run bottom clubs pump games into picks before they are ready , using the sink or swim method. Others look for the long term

I think this is part of the analysis Binuk is looking at

Does playing your draft picks earlier help hinder or not matter? DraftGuru presented a table that holds some interest

https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/pick-value-comparison

An example Picks 6-10 take on average 7 years to get to 50 games. 7

Pick 31-50 is the sweet spot

Thats a good analysis

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[marty36]

Do you honestly think we’ve selected Douglas so we can test him? They picked him because they rate him up forward.

Cmon your posting is normally better than this.

It was interesting to see greenwood dropped along with gibbs and mackay all of which werent playing that bad. When you consider what we have seen out of murphy and seeds last week and consider how tex and betts have held their spots this year with disgraceful efforts

Still think sloane is out he still hasnt passed a fitness test

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SaltPeter]

It would be great if Don and the other coaches were upfront and said “ The last three weeks have been very tough and most of the boys are struggling after the match in Darwin. We will rest a couple of the guys and just hope the rest of the team can hold it together and then get ready for the Tigers off a 5 day break.”

Why would they do that. That gives the players this week a public "get of jail free" card if they have a poor game. Doubt they'd want the players with thought bouncing around in the back of their heads

 

[SaltPeter]

Don preempted selection questions in his presser earlier in the week when he stated that the team to take the field would not be the best 22 players at the club and that selection would be about trying to find balance.

 

[Elite Crow]

It was interesting to see greenwood dropped along with gibbs and mackay all of which werent playing that bad. When you consider what we have seen out of murphy and seeds last week and consider how tex and betts have held their spots this year with disgraceful efforts

Still think sloane is out he still hasnt passed a fitness test

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Disgraceful efforts? Betts is 10th on the goal kickers.

Tex has had a couple of shockers but hasn’t been disgraceful. That’s over the top.

 

[Elite Crow]

Would you not do the same if you were a selector? Or would you play Greenwood (or any young player) even if you thought that that player would not be as effective as Douglas?

The fact they rate Douglas as a forward is the issue.

 

[marty36]

Disgraceful efforts? Betts is 10th on the goal kickers.

Tex has had a couple of shockers but hasn’t been disgraceful. That’s over the top.

come on

certain plyers are afforded the luxury of having some down ones which is fair enough Im actually not complaining, Tex needs to be in for us to have a chance this year he just needs his form, aswell as betts, but Seeds was worse than all three that were dropped, maybe because he was not fit who knows, as for murphy my god he should have had his walking orders.

Douglas for Murphy would have been a totally justified call

The players dropped was the unusual part not who was brought in

 

[Elite Crow]

come on

certain plyers are afforded the luxury of having some down ones which is fair enough Im actually not complaining, Tex needs to be in for us to have a chance this year he just needs his form, aswell as betts, but Seeds was worse than all three that were dropped, maybe because he was not fit who knows, as for murphy my god he should have had his walking orders.

Douglas for Murphy would have been a totally justified call

The players dropped was the unusual part not who was brought in

You referred to Tex and Betts as disgraceful and you’ve had cracks at Betts all year, despite that he’s ranked 10th on the goal kickers.

As for Murphy he should have gone, but I would have played Greenwood up forward and not brought in Douglas. We’ve seen what Douglas does up forward and it’s not much.

Douglas played well in the sanfl as a midfielder.

Also didnt think Seeds was that bad.

 

[Geoffa32]

So Gibbs is out every second week? Have these games all been at Adelaide Oval?

Played against Brisbane at the Gabba played well
Dropped against WCE at AO
Played against Melbourne in Darwin, shut down Oliver
Dropped against GWS at AO




Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk