Preview Lions v Suns Sunday 5th May @ 7.10 pm The Gabba

[Dalions]

Zero chance. That's too big a change, we won't do it.

Going off Fagans presser, there is a possibility

 

[Nunez]

I very much doubt we will change 2 wingers in the same game.
I would be very surprised, it’s not the way we do things.
I am with Nunez I think Fletch has been ok.

I think he's looked his best when around stoppages too. Has a future on the ball.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I'll profess to having no great idea as to how best to use the sub. But surely having your best endurance runner in that role makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?

 

[Nunez]

I'll profess to having no great idea as to how best to use the sub. But surely having your best endurance runner in that role makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?

View attachment 1979188

I think it confirms what we all thought after we didn't use the sub against Melbourne: the coaches give no ****s about the sub.

 

[Nathan Barley]

I'll profess to having no great idea as to how best to use the sub. But surely having your best endurance runner in that role makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?

View attachment 1979188

Why?

 

[Grasshopper17]

Sharp doesn’t make much sense as sub, as already highlighted due to his running capacity.

Bruce won’t be sub given it’s his first game, although depending how he goes he may be the one who gets subbed off?

I’d be reluctant to put Kai as the sub as I don’t think he’s really ever shown an ability to impact in that role in the past. He’s been better playing from the opening bounce.

That leaves Noah and his form doesn’t warrant being sub, given how he’s been performing.

In summary, who knows?

This is why I'd make McKenna sub.

I like the idea of Zorko being sub as a general rule, as he tends to perform better earlier in games, as far as I've noticed anyway.

But last week McKenna couldn't hit the side of the barn. So he can go sit in the back row for a couple of quarters as far as I'm concerned.

Also, Fages rates him so it would make us more likely to actually use the sub at a sensible time! (ie mid to late third quarter)

 

[Grasshopper17]

Why?

Because he's our best runner! Use him over 4 quarters. Use some other bloke who doesn't have the same tank as the sub. And sub somebody else off with similarly less tank.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Because he's our best runner! Use him over 4 quarters. Use some other bloke who doesn't have the same tank as the sub. And sub somebody else off with similarly less tank.

So the decision for who plays as the sub should be solely based off tank?

I think bringing someone on at 3 quarter time who won’t need a rest could be advantageous.

 

[JasRulz63]

I'll profess to having no great idea as to how best to use the sub. But surely having your best endurance runner in that role makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?

View attachment 1979188

I mean endurance of other qualities don't really matter when you bring them on with 2 minutes left in the game anyway.

 

[Grasshopper17]

So the decision for who plays as the sub should be solely based off tank?

I think it should have a massive bearing when our performances late in quarters and games has been so consistently sh!those

 

[Nathan Barley]

I think it should have a massive bearing when our performances late in quarters and games has been so consistently sh!those

What if it weakens our non red time performance?

 

[Grasshopper17]

What if it weakens our non red time performance?

Don't pick him at all then.

 

[Chucky_23]

Adelaide division 6 ressies Lions have set the standard today. Let’s go Brisbane!

 

[martinson]

I remember Ted Hopkins coming on for Carlton at half time when they'd been pantsed and winning a GF for them.

It was the only decent game he ever played before or afterwards. A huge flukey outlier that won a flag.

Your sub is the sub because he's not good enough ,or considered not good enough ,to be in the Top 22, and since the sub has been introduced I can barely remember one of them having an influence on the game.

There are a couple of notable historical exceptions. We had Vossy on the bench in a final against Adelaide because he basically couldn't run with knee damage. He came on after half time on the half forward flank and completely dominated winning the game for us. I remember Ayres in the post match being asked did he think Voss changed the course of the game and his face contorted into a wry smile ( a first for him ) and he said. 'Well he wasn't bad was he '

Richmond likewise played Royce Hart on the bench in a final because of a damaged knee and he came on after half time and went bang , bang , bang and won the game for them . He only had a half in him.

So my proposition is this. Whoever you have as sub doesn't matter except don't make it a lumbering ruckman like Fort in case one of your midfielders goes down.

And if you have Voss or Hart as your sub or some other superstar then sure go for it..

 

[Grasshopper17]

Your sub is the sub because he's not good enough ,or considered not good enough ,to be in the Top 22, and since the sub has been introduced I can barely remember one of them having an influence on the game.

I would be very surprised if every club views their sub as "not good enough to be in the 22". I'm sure there are some clubs who are using it far more tactically than that.

And there have definitely been impactful subs in games. Just the other week Adelaide's sub turned the game against Carlton and kicked the winning goal. Sam Berry.

Certainly we've rarely if ever had an influential sub but that is hardly aided by the fact I don't think we have much of an idea how to use it properly.

 

[martinson]

I would be very surprised if every club views their sub as "not good enough to be in the 22". I'm sure there are some clubs who are using it far more tactically than that.

And there have definitely been impactful subs in games. Just the other week Adelaide's sub turned the game against Carlton and kicked the winning goal. Sam Berry.

Certainly we've rarely if ever had an influential sub but that is hardly aided by the fact I don't think we have much of an idea how to use it properly.

Who would you have as sub then Grasshopper ?

Using them properly is fine but you're so much dependent on external events. Like who goes down when ,and the state of the game..

If you plan for a tactical sub and no one gets injured and you really need them then sure , but what if the guy you intended taking off is firing or the game is unfolding in a way you didn't envisage.

 

[scoman]

Adelaide division 6 ressies Lions have set the standard today. Let’s go Brisbane!

View attachment 1979321

Thats like a goal a minute! I'm not sure how they could even get that done? I wonder how many times the oppo touched the ball save 24 kick ins.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I'd be making McKenna the sub and when he comes on I'd be shifting Answerth forward to apply pressure. The way we've been going one of the forwards will need subbing

This is why I'd make McKenna sub.

I like the idea of Zorko being sub as a general rule, as he tends to perform better earlier in games, as far as I've noticed anyway.

But last week McKenna couldn't hit the side of the barn. So he can go sit in the back row for a couple of quarters as far as I'm concerned.

Also, Fages rates him so it would make us more likely to actually use the sub at a sensible time! (ie mid to late third quarter)

 

[Grasshopper17]

Thats like a goal a minute! I'm not sure how they could even get that done? I wonder how many times the oppo touched the ball save 24 kick ins.

I was wondering how many inside 50s the other mob had. They must have won just about every centre clearance!?

 

[BRAB]

I wonder if Sharp’s running power would be even more noticeable if he came on fresh against tired bodies. I swear I remember him doing it early in his career.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I wonder if Sharp’s running power would be even more noticeable if he came on fresh against tired bodies. I swear I remember him doing it early in his career.

I'm sure it would. But any decent player should look noticeably fresher coming on as the sub. McKenna, Zorko, Sharp, whoever.

 

[martinson]

I'd be making McKenna the sub and when he comes on I'd be shifting Answerth forward to apply pressure. The way we've been going one of the forwards will need subbing

So what about injuries ? It happens all the time ,someone either goes down and gets carted off or someone else gets stitched up and goes on.

I just think the game's too random to plan for a tactical sub. And once you use it a game ending injury to someone else and you're cooked.

But I can see McKenna and Zorko being great subs as long as you get to use them when and where you want to . Otherwise I'd have them in the team.

 

[M Malice]

Latest forecasts for tomorrow, first one is the BOM, 2nd is Accu Weather which I find usually more accurate >

Brisbane area​

Cloudy. Very high chance of showers, most likely from the late morning. The chance of a thunderstorm. Light winds.
_______________________________
Occasional rain and drizzle, mainly early on.

Night partly cloudy.​

 

[Grasshopper17]

So what about injuries ? It happens all the time ,someone either goes down and gets carted off or someone else gets stitched up and goes on.

I just think the game's too random to plan for a tactical sub. And once you use it a game ending injury to someone else and you're cooked.

But I can see McKenna and Zorko being great subs as long as you get to use them when and where you want to . Otherwise I'd have them in the team.

I certainly think you can plan for various contingencies tho. And I actually think we are well set up for most of them.

For example, say we make McKenna sub, but we lose a key defender. We shift Gardiner to defence, McKenna comes into the game, Answerth goes forward and we play 2 tall forwards.

If we lose a small defender McKenna replaces them like for like (more or less).

If we lose a winger, Wilmot shifts to a wing and McKenna rolls in behind him.

If we lose a midfielder, we probably replace him by having multiple guys spend more time there than otherwise. Rayner, Zorko etc.

If we lose a ruckman, I guess that's the one contingency we don't really accommodate, but do we really want Fort as our sub? Joe and Dunks pinch hit in ruck, Rayner/Zorko spend more time forward and in midfield, and we play 2 key forwards basically.

If we lose a small forward, Answerth replaces him and McKenna comes into defence.

And if we lose a tall forward, we probably just go with 2 tall forwards, McKenna comes on and I'm still switching Answerth forward for his pressure. If we really want to play 3 key forwards still, Dunks goes into the ruck and Zorko spends more time in midfield. But given Gold Coast's height down back, going small might not be the worst thing from a match up perspective.

 

[martinson]

I certainly think you can plan for various contingencies tho. And I actually think we are well set up for most of them.

For example, say we make McKenna sub, but we lose a key defender. We shift Gardiner to defence, McKenna comes into the game, Answerth goes forward and we play 2 tall forwards.

If we lose a small defender McKenna replaces them like for like (more or less).

If we lose a winger, Wilmot shifts to a wing and McKenna rolls in behind him.

If we lose a midfielder, we probably replace him by having multiple guys spend more time there than otherwise. Rayner, Zorko etc.

If we lose a ruckman, I guess that's the one contingency we don't really accommodate, but do we really want Fort as our sub? Joe and Dunks pinch hit in ruck, Rayner/Zorko spend more time forward and in midfield, and we play 2 key forwards basically.

If we lose a small forward, Answerth replaces him and McKenna comes into defence.

And if we lose a tall forward, we probably just go with 2 tall forwards, McKenna comes on and I'm still switching Answerth forward for his pressure. If we really want to play 3 key forwards still, Dunks goes into the ruck and Zorko spends more time in midfield. But given Gold Coast's height down back, going small might not be the worst thing from a match up perspective.

Yeah I can see all that.

So I don't think it makes all that much difference who we have as sub because as you've pointed out we have the capacity to switch a lot of our players around anyway.

As long as we don't have someone as sub who would've been better value in the team in the first place.