Preview Qualifying Final - Sydney Swans vs GWS Giants

[Bandicoot]

Puts more pressure on Mcdonald maybe but feel like he has been building an Amartey hasn't .

Parker, Hayward even Papley more likely to hold a mark at the moment than Amartey , makes us more unpredictable.

Can still keep Adams who I presume we have been holding a bit for September , Campbell's speeds been handy lately.


But my guess is he ditches Campbell or Adams and makes one of them sub.

So many keep making the same error. We have to remove four from the 23 who played in the last game hence they won't be the sub.

 

[Bandicoot]

With regards to our 23rd player, i have seen Amartey's and Lloyd's names come up as suggested outs. I would almost guarantee neither will be left out.

Can't see us not going with 3 tall forwards in our best 22. GWS have a tall defensive setup and we will get killed in the air if we only take 2 and count on Hayward and Parker to aerially compete.

Re Lloyd, he has been great in his new role on a wing and sliding back to HB. We will need his running to compensate for JMac who will be short of a gallop. I wouldn't be surprised if JMac is our sub.

So who takes the 23rd position out of Adams, Campbell, Fox or Cleary? I'd say Adams will get it and may even start if JMac starts as sub. It certainly would not be my preference as I think Campbell's form is much better but there is clearly something Tay is doing which Horse and the team value. Might be his leadership and experience as I have noticed him often
directing his team mates and they seem to listen.

Whoever it is, I'm trusting our brains trust has their reasons and it will give us the best chance of winning on Saturday

We had 23 players play last round which includes the sub. Added to that 23 we will be bringing back 4 making a total of 27. Therefore we need to lose 4 just to get back to the 23. I'd suggest the first to go will be Francis, Fox and Cleary leaving Adams or Campbell to be the unlucky one.

 

[caesar88]

So many keep making the same error. We have to remove four from the 23 who played in the last game hence they won't be the sub.

Guilty!

I simply can't wrap my head around the number of ins and outs needed with the sub rule.

I'm always reminded of that scene from the Office where Michael Scott doesn't understand his office's annual surplus so he asks his accountant to explain it to him as if he were explaining it to a ten year old.

 

[Kbroome]

For me it effectively comes down to a field one, sub one, drop one out of:
Lloyd, Adams and Campbell

I can see logic in what ever combo you go for whether it be experience, contest or run etc

 

[caesar88]

I hardly ever get a selection prediction right, watch me suddenly become Nostradamus now that I've predicted my second-favourite Swans player will get dropped.

 

[Kbroome]

I hardly ever get a selection prediction right, watch me suddenly become Nostradamus now that I've predicted my second-favourite Swans player will get dropped.

I feel like im going to be gutted either way with who is the final name that gets dropped. Thats the true annoyance of a fully healthy squad is a role player has to drop out

 

[Wheresbuddy]

We had 23 players play last round which includes the sub. Added to that 23 we will be bringing back 4 making a total of 27. Therefore we need to lose 4 just to get back to the 23. I'd suggest the first to go will be Francis, Fox and Cleary leaving Adams or Campbell to be the unlucky one.

If you look at the highlighted players ie Adams, Campbell, Fox, Cleary and add in Francis as the definite out, then it makes sense that the 23rd player will be one of the 4 I have cited.

 

[The King!]

So many keep making the same error. We have to remove four from the 23 who played in the last game hence they won't be the sub.

Yeah hence why I was speculating the 4th to go

In Heeney, Mccartin, Papley, Jmac

Out Francis , Cleary , Fox , let's say Campbell

then say adams is sub

So not sure what your issue is with me taking 4 out and bringing 4 into the 23 or why that is a mistake.

 

[Bandicoot]

Yeah hence why I was speculating the 4th to go

In Heeney, Mccartin, Papley, Jmac

Out Francis , Cleary , Fox , let's say Campbell

then say adams is sub

So not sure what your issue is with me taking 4 out and bringing 4 into the 23 or why that is a mistake.

You're correct.

 

[The King!]

You're correct.

Hooray, week peaked

 

[Bloods86]

If we're hellbent on bringing both Jmac and Paps back... then I'd do the following swaps.

Out: Francis Adams Cleary Lloyd
In: McCartin Heeney Paps Jmac
Sub: Fox

I'd prefer to only bring 1 back in week 1, then retain either Cleary (instead of Papley) or Lloyd (instead of Jmac). But I don't think I'm getting my way.

 

[GoulburnSwan]

I’m just cranky that All you hear on 360 is about dogs v hawks, or crap about Carlton. Now they are replaying f..king Collingwood winning last year. Jesus!!! We only have to win on Saturday by 1 point or preferably we smash them. I’m so nervous. QBE hate me again so not invited to the box (hey if they are going f..k up a $1mill claim, I’m going to let them have it - and I did !!) so will be watching from my comfy lounge here in GTOWN

 

[GoTheSwannies]

Yeah hence why I was speculating the 4th to go

In Heeney, Mccartin, Papley, Jmac

Out Francis , Cleary , Fox , let's say Campbell

then say adams is sub

So not sure what your issue is with me taking 4 out and bringing 4 into the 23 or why that is a mistake.

That's my preferred ins/outs and pretty sure that's how it'll pan out.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that McI will be the sub.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that McI will be the sub.

At first I thought that was short for McLean... and thought. Surely horse has learned not to use a tall as sub?

 

[the hypnotoad]

I’m just cranky that All you hear on 360 is about dogs v hawks, or crap about Carlton. Now they are replaying f..king Collingwood winning last year. Jesus!!! We only have to win on Saturday by 1 point or preferably we smash them. I’m so nervous. QBE hate me again so not invited to the box (hey if they are going f..k up a $1mill claim, I’m going to let them have it - and I did !!) so will be watching from my comfy lounge here in GTOWN

home ground always a good option

 

[LukeParkerno1]

At first I thought that was short for McLean... and thought. Surely horse has learned not to use a tall as sub?

The Mark Seaby as sub in the wet still takes the cake

 

[liz]

At first I thought that was short for McLean... and thought. Surely horse has learned not to use a tall as sub?

Brodie Grundy was named as sub for the final H&A game this year against the Crows. He was only elevated into the 22 after Heeney was a late withdrawal.

Though they might always have been intending to hold Heeney out, and naming Grundy as the original sun was just playing games. To what end, I have no idea.

 

[MF]

I feel like im going to be gutted either way with who is the final name that gets dropped. Thats the true annoyance of a fully healthy squad is a role player has to drop out

Even the player who has to play sub will be rough

 

[RilesMacca]

Alongside Paps and Juzzy coming back in, the tweaks in our team from the last few games has made us look more solidified. Parker forward, Florent on a wing and Mills full time defence. They could be key factors this finals series, something we didn't have in the first half of the season.

 

[Kiama Chris]

The closer we get the more I like the idea of McInerney as the sub. Run Adams hard for the first two and a half quarters then sub him.
Cunningham McCartin Rampe
Blakey Melican Mills
Gulden Warner Lloyd
Jordon McDonald Hayward
Papley Amartey Parker
Grundy Heeney Rowbottom
Roberts McLean Florent Adams
Sub McInerney

 

[kneecapper]

The closer we get the more I like the idea of McInerney as the sub. Run Adams hard for the first two and a half quarters then sub him.
Cunningham McCartin Rampe
Blakey Melican Mills
Gulden Warner Lloyd
Jordon McDonald Hayward
Papley Amartey Parker
Grundy Heeney Rowbottom
Roberts McLean Florent Adams
Sub McInerney

Has Horse even made a non-enforced sub earlier than the 4th quarter this season? Always seems like he sees the sub as injury cover rather than a tactical impact position.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Has Horse even made a non-enforced sub earlier than the 4th quarter this season? Always seems like he sees the sub as injury cover rather than a tactical impact position.

Without checking I suspect you're right but McInerney would still be an excellent sub as he can cover the whole ground.

 

[liz]

Has Horse even made a non-enforced sub earlier than the 4th quarter this season? Always seems like he sees the sub as injury cover rather than a tactical impact position.

He subbed out Warner pretty early in the Port game so as to get Parker on. Didn’t have a huge effect, but we did eventually score six goals something after conceding the first 79 points.

Not a typical move - or match - though.

 

[McRobie]

The question around starting Paps and McInnerny comes down this, imo.
Are they best 22 when fit? Yes.

So if we are to give ourselves the best chance to win the flag you’ve got to get them game time right now in order to get them match fit for GF.
Could playing them underdone be the reason we lose this weekend? possibly but very unlikely.

So the risk v necessity is pretty clear.

They must play.