Preview Geelong v Essendon - Country game @ MCG Sunday May 4 320 pm

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Country game

Danger game.

Not done well V Bombers in recent history.

The quick speed has been an issue.

As hard a task as any of the first 6 games and more importantly worked so hard to get the ladder position and % cant give it up easily.

Need to crack in hard and snuff them out early.

Go Catters
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #2
And we had no injuries from WC game either...

So does Clark come back in and if so whom goes out?

Good problems to have.

GO Catters
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'm not sure playing 8 defenders is a good idea so tough decision to make on Clark. I think he has to play VFL unfortunately. Hope they don't rest Miers or Atkins and play the extra defender. Need to stop the Bombers off half back so need the pressure forwards.
Bad policy.
If you talk blokes into resting, then drop them, none of the players are going to answer questions from the fitness staff honestly.
 
He was "managed" publically but who knows what was said behind closed doors. The VFL didn't play on the weekend after all.

If we start playing Kolo on the wing or Henry forward etc to shoe in the extra defender, well that is old Geelong. Can't fall back into those habits.

Clark is/will be a better players than Atkins but Atkins is playing a different role.

When Bews and Henderson are fit we will have 10 afl standard defenders. Only room for 7.
 
He was "managed" publically but who knows what was said behind closed doors. The VFL didn't play on the weekend after all.

If we start playing Kolo on the wing or Henry forward etc to shoe in the extra defender, well that is old Geelong. Can't fall back into those habits.

Clark is/will be a better players than Atkins but Atkins is playing a different role.

When Bews and Henderson are fit we will have 10 afl standard defenders. Only room for 7.
Most likely "mover" is Tuohy to the wing, where he's played successfully before.
 
For who Fred?
I was just responding to the suggestion that we'd have "too many" defenders if we brought in Clark and rested Atkins.
I never know what changes they'll make, and I have even less idea about what their 8-month program is for managing players.
Personally, I would have thought Atkins is the least likely of all our newbies to "need" a rest, given his long-term hard yakka as a 2nds on-baller.
 
If Parfitt is ready he will come in for Atkins, who while he is a tackling machine doesn’t have the versatility or skills of Parfitt. Clark can keep learning his trade in the 2s. MOC has grabbed his opportunity and has to stay. Good problems to have
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I would continue to give Clark some time in the twos. The club has shown faith by extending his contract early. Plenty of time.
He has made a few rookie mistakes in his last few games. No doubt he will be a good player for us going forward but let's ease him into it. Essendon smalls at the G may expose him.
 
Last edited:
Henry played his best game i thought yesterday, but if Clark were to come back in he would be the one I would drop unfortunately. Don't want to go back to playing kolo on a wing to fit in all the defenders.

MOC would have been the obvious candidate, but he has simply been in much better form than henry this year
 
Tippa yes, Joe not so much.
We showed yesterday that we have the opposition talls well catered for.

Absolutely we do, but he still needs stopping.
Of course I think we can quite easily but if, IF he got off the leash he'd cause massive problems.
He along with tippa are their barometers and it seems the team feed off them.
Stop them doing anything and you stop Essendon.
 
Absolutely we do, but he still needs stopping.
Of course I think we can quite easily but if, IF he got off the leash he'd cause massive problems.
He along with tippa are their barometers and it seems the team feed off them.
Stop them doing anything and you stop Essendon.
Hope Joe does the 2nd game back rule have a crap game
 
Bombers best is very good so a great test for our new game plan and our ability to stop run from their half back line.
Win this and the mental challenge starts as the four after that should be wins - on current form at least :)
We look to be really enjoying our footy at the moment and the way we scrapped till the end yesterday doing the 1%ers was a great sign :thumbsu:
 
This will be the hardest match committee meeting this year assuming Parfitt is fit and taking Scott at his word on Clark. There are no obvious outs and even trying to make the case that it should be any particular player is virtually impossible (yet I will try anyway).

I reckon the poorest performers over the first six rounds have been, in order:

1. Menegola
2. Henry
3. Ratugolea

<daylight>

4. Atkins (very harsh to even mention him)

Henry was back to his best yesterday and is perfect matchup for several Bombers so can’t see it.

Ratugolea isn’t the right swap for either Parfitt or Clark and structurally is important so can’t see it.

That leaves Menegola and an extremely stiff Atkins as the only two I can contemplate.

I would play Clark up the ground on a wing with Tuohy back.
 
This will be the hardest match committee meeting this year assuming Parfitt is fit and taking Scott at his word on Clark. There are no obvious outs and even trying to make the case that it should be any particular player is virtually impossible (yet I will try anyway).

I reckon the poorest performers over the first six rounds have been, in order:

1. Menegola
2. Henry
3. Ratugolea

<daylight>

4. Atkins (very harsh to even mention him)

Henry was back to his best yesterday and is perfect matchup for several Bombers so can’t see it.

Ratugolea isn’t the right swap for either Parfitt or Clark and structurally is important so can’t see it.

That leaves Menegola and an extremely stiff Atkins as the only two I can contemplate.

I would play Clark up the ground on a wing with Tuohy back.
I think they will bring them back over 2weeks Clark for Atkins (stiff yes) this week and Parfitt for Ablett v Norf.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top