Preview Gold Coast Suns v Adelaide Crows, Saturday 16th of March, People First Stadium, Gold Coast, 7.40pm Adelaide time.

[AFC979810]

Tom Lynch was the last time we selected someone with "subpar fitness" as the sub

Nope. Very different circumstances.

Tom Lynch played the first 5 football games of the AFL season before becoming the medical substitute in RD 6. The club claimed he was omitted - but his ankle was shagged. After the Sub debacle (April 25th) he didn't play again until end of May (2 weeks in the SANFL) before finishing out 2021 with the AFL side. Its clear and obvious that his ankle was injured and they stupidly made an injured player the sub.

Soligo is completely different. He had a good preseason before hurting his ankle in early Feb. He then missed almost 4 weeks of training and according to Nicks is underdone. He missed the Power preseason game but played in the Weagles game (which hopefully meant the ankle was healed). Conditions and 6 day break also a factor.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

The sub rule is a tricky one to use for Strategy IMO as it rarely plays out how you think it will.

For me the sub role should be filled two ways -

1. to get a player back into the team (from injury) and taste AFL football or
2. Have a specialist sub like McHenry who is known to perform well in the role.



I am just shocked that Sholl is in the side. I have been on the Sholl bandwagon for the past few years, but my hope faded in 2024.

Lets hope he dominates!

Yep normally agree on strategy thing , unique conditions could bring it into play however

FWIW I reckon Sholl will be sub this week

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Yes you are. You’re assuming Burgess is making the call he’s not fit enough to play and Nicks would make him sub based on that. Whereas Nicks could easily just make a call for him to be sub irrespective.

And do you really think one extra week on the track after a long preseason where he missed a few weeks but has been back training for 3 is going to make him fit all of a sudden? The only conjecture is limited game time and that’s not going to be improved by making him sub and there are no SANFL games.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Yep normally agree on strategy thing , unique conditions could bring it into play however

FWIW I reckon Sholl will be sub this week

In wet, slippery conditions ...this would make sense

 

[GreyCrow]

What's he getting; anybody know?

Probably less than Gollant


Oh wait wrong Burgess

 

[AFC979810]

So you’re not considering at all that Burgess could say that Soligo has the necessary fitness base to play but Nicks is being conservative and making him the sub because he wants to go with the team that’s played more practise games?

Yes - Burgess is saying he has the necessary fitness base to get out there. But what his fitness level is we don't know.

Is he at 80%? Is he at 92%? Is he at 72%? This we can't know. With how well Burgess knows the players individual recovery times - how does he think he will recover for the short break? How does Soligo's body hold up in the heat - does his body perform better or worse in those conditions....

We simply cannot know whether Nicks is being conservative or not because we don't know how fit Soligo is.

The issue I have is people getting ready to crucify Nicks for that. I think its a perfectly logical and reasonable decision if he is to make Soligo the sub.

 

[George Kramer]

So Wayne you’re suggesting there’s no way Burgess passes Soligo fit and Nicks still makes him the sub?

 

[George Kramer]

Yes - Burgess is saying he has the necessary fitness base to get out there. But what his fitness level is we don't know.

Is he at 80%? Is he at 92%? Is he at 72%? This we can't know. With how well Burgess knows the players individual recovery times - how does he think he will recover for the short break? How does Soligo's body hold up in the heat - does his body perform better or worse in those conditions....

We simply cannot know whether Nicks is being conservative or not because we don't know how fit Soligo is.

The issue I have is people getting ready to crucify Nicks for that. I think its a perfectly logical and reasonable decision if he is to make Soligo the sub.

It’s pretty easy, if Burgess passes Soligo fit to play and he says playing won’t have an impact on him for the following week, do you think Nicks could still make him sub?

 

[AFC979810]

What's he getting; anybody know?

Well in 2014 Port Adelaide made him the highest paid performance manager in the AFL. After doing what he did at Melbourne before we poached him, his value has only gone up.

Would be on a very pretty penny.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

So Wayne you’re suggesting there’s no way Burgess passes Soligo fit and Nicks still makes him the sub?

You can be fit to play, and still lack endurance / match fitness ....Nicks would have discussed with Burgess, his endurance ....and of course he's played limited matchplay in the last 5 weeks

So building his match fitness with minutes off the bench is a play ....but also the Qld conditions are terrible to play, sweat was pouring off the MELB guys in the first Qtr last week .....did you see Oliver, he looked like a glazed Pig

So the conditions will determine the sub more IMO .....players couldn't mark the ball last week, so the ball will spend a lot of time on the deck ....I agree with Jeffcrowe, Sholl should be the sub in this type of game

 

[AFC979810]

So Wayne you’re suggesting there’s no way Burgess passes Soligo fit and Nicks still makes him the sub?

It's a simplistic and silly question Elite.

Burgess could be saying - If it was a final he should 100% play, but he is at about 70% fitness and will likely fade heavily if he has to play 3+ quarters. If he plays 3+ quarters he is going to really struggle to be at his best in 6 days for Geelong.

 

[George Kramer]

It's a simplistic and silly question Elite.

Burgess could be saying - If it was a final he should 100% play, but he is at about 70% fitness and will likely fade heavily if he has to play 3+ quarters. If he plays 3+ quarters he is going to really struggle to be at his best in 6 days for Geelong.

FFS, I’m asking you a pretty simple question, assuming Burgess is 100% confident Soligo is right to go and okay next week, could Nicks still make him the sub?

 

[George Kramer]

You can be fit to play, and still lack endurance / match fitness ....Nicks would have discussed with Burgess, his endurance ....and of course he's played limited matchplay in the last 5 weeks

So building his match fitness with minutes off the bench is a play ....but also the Qld conditions are terrible to play, sweat was pouring off the MELB guys in the first Qtr last week .....did you see Oliver, he looked like a glazed Pig

So the conditions will determine the sub more IMO .....players couldn't mark the ball last week, so the ball will spend a lot of time on the deck ....I agree with Jeffcrowe, Sholl should be the sub in this type of game

So Soligo could play a qtr as the sub and he’s now match fit for the following week.

But I’ll ask you the simple question you’re all ducking and weaving to answer, could Nicks still make Soligo sub even if Burgess declares him 100%, there are no fitness concerns about him running out the game?

 

[CrowBloke]

.....did you see Oliver, he looked like a glazed Pig

Loved the comparison, but that's his default appearance --- waxy/embalmed .

 

[Fayab99]

Will be shocked if you guys don't win this
suns are overrated.

 

[kirky]

When we lost Game 1 in 1997, Malcolm Blight said something similar to "winning Round one is overrated" We all know how hat season ended.

We won Round 1, 1997 against Brisbane @ Footy Park.

 

[crows dude]

When we lost Game 1 in 1997, Malcolm Blight said something similar to "winning Round one is overrated" We all know how hat season ended.

We smashed BRisbane that match in 1997. Mods kicked 7. Roo and Brett James dominated.

What you may be thinking off is this that he said on the 97 were the pride of South Asutralia Video

"I never get too excited about the result of round one. Sometimes when you win it the whole club can over the top. So ive always been relaxed about round one. But it was exciting, We had some new players playing. Brett James played a magnificent game first up and Mark Riccuito started on a role as did Tony MOdra. So it was a good start but not one that you could really get carried away with.

 

[dogs105]

We smashed BRisbane that match in 1997. Mods kicked 7. Roo and Brett James dominated.

What you may be thinking off is this that he said on the 97 were the pride of South Asutralia Video

"I never get too excited about the result of round one. Sometimes when you win it the whole club can over the top. So ive always been relaxed about round one. But it was exciting, We had some new players playing. Brett James played a magnificent game first up and Mark Riccuito started on a role as did Tony MOdra. So it was a good start but not one that you could really get carried away with.

Young Brent Williams played really well on debut too. Probably went on to a great career...

 

[AFC979810]

FFS, I’m asking you a pretty simple question, assuming Burgess is 100% confident Soligo is right to go and okay next week, could Nicks still make him the sub?

Of course he could.

 

[Geoffa32]

I would play McHenry as sub.

It is his best role. He makes an impact and being a cheeky shit has the ability to get on the nerves of the opposition.


No one else we play as sub makes an impact as much as him.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Rabish Binney]

Young Brent Williams played really well on debut too. Probably went on to a great career...

Was Simon Goodwin's first game as well...

 

[40porpoise]

I would play McHenry as sub.

It is his best role. He makes an impact and being a cheeky s**t has the ability to get on the nerves of the opposition.


No one else we play as sub makes an impact as much as him.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Agree. I don't understand what's wrong with playing the same guy as a sub every week. Make it a specialised role and get a comparative advantage by doing it. He's useless as a full time player anyhow

 

[StickerMan]

Agree. I don't understand what's wrong with playing the same guy as a sub every week. Make it a specialised role and get a comparative advantage by doing it. He's useless as a full time player anyhow

Absolutely agree. It is also how best we can maximise Ned's value to the Club.

His games last year when he came on as sub were some of his best.

Adds a level of energy that seems to be beneficial when other teams are a little fatigued.

 

[Interloperer]

Was Simon Goodwin's first game as well...

he immediately tore his hamstring off the bone if I remember correctly. And Aaron Keating dislocated his hip in his first game as well

 

[crows dude]

Abbreviations key #=Jumper GM=Games played KI=Kicks MK=Marks HB=Handballs DI=Disposals DA=Disposal average GL=Goals BH=Behinds HO=Hit outs TK=Tackles RB=Rebound 50s IF=Inside 50s CL=Clearances CG=Clangers FF=Free kicks for FA=Free kicks against BR=Brownlow votes CP=Contested possessions UP=Uncontested possessions CM=Contested marks MI=Marks inside 50 1%=One percenters BO=Bounces GA=Goal assist %P=Percentage of game played SU=Sub (On/Off) ↑=subbed on ↓=subbed off​

Adelaide Match Statistics [Season][Game by Game]
#	Player​	KI	MK	HB	DI	GL	BH	HO	TK	RB	IF	CL	CG	FF	FA	BR	CP	UP	CM	MI	1%	BO	GA	%P
26​	Bickley, Mark	13​	1​	12​	25​				1​					1​	2​
18​	Bond, Troy	10​	2​	3​	13​	2​			5​						1​
14​	Connell, Matthew	13​	6​	6​	19​									2​
9​	Edwards, Tyson	3​		5​	8​				1​					1​	1​
36​	Goodwin, Simon	7​	2​	1​	8​
34​	Hart, Ben	6​	2​	3​	9​				1​						2​
11​	James, Brett	7​		26​	33​				3​					1​		3​
35​	Jameson, Rod	8​	3​		8​									1​	1​
3​	Jarman, Darren	18​	5​	8​	26​				7​					1​	2​	1​
28​	Johnson, Kane	2​		1​	3​										2​
20​	Keating, Aaron	1​		1​	2​			10​	1​					1​	1​
8​	McCartney, Jason	2​	2​	3​	5​		1​
23​	McLeod, Andrew	12​	3​	7​	19​	3​	2​		1​						1​
6​	Modra, Tony	11​	7​	1​	12​	7​	3​							3​	1​
15​	Pittman, David	6​	3​	8​	14​	1​		23​	2​					3​	1​
32​	Ricciuto, Mark	19​	6​	17​	36​				1​					1​		2​
42​	Rintoul, Chad	2​		2​	4​									1​
7​	Smart, Nigel	18​	2​	3​	21​		1​		1​					3​
16​	Standfield, Barry	9​	4​		9​	5​	1​		1​					1​	1​
30​	Vardy, Peter	12​	1​	2​	14​	1​	3​		4​
29​	Williams, Brent	8​	1​	6​	14​	1​			1​					2​	1​
Rushed	1​
Totals	187​	50​	115​	302​	20​	12​	33​	30​					22​	17​	6​
Opposition	177​	43​	85​	262​	14​	12​	22​	19​					17​	22​

[Top]