Preview R11: Changes vs Eagles

Remove this Banner Ad

Injuries aside, this is a long, long way from what I thought our best 22 for this year would look like back in February.
And anyone who posted this exact predicted team during the preseason would have been labelled a Port troll
 
I think it's a return to the structure pre-Collingwood. The whole year we've played three KPDs with one in more of an interceptor role watching the third most dangerous forward and the other two watching the two biggest goal threats (plus Max on the small). For example against Brisbane it was Butts on Hipwood and Keane on Daniher. Last week with Worrell out we added Hamill because Collingwood didn't really have tall forwards other than Cox. This week it's back to the old structure with the third tall replacing Worrell, just delayed by a week.
It still makes no sense when Hamill did very well in that role and the Eagles are no taller up forward than Collingwood.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Oh he hasn't given up on the eight, he won't get there but he'll stuff the development of this club trying
We really need that wildcard finals round and top 10 to come in
 
It still makes no sense when Hamill did very well in that role and the Eagles are no taller up forward than Collingwood.
I agree he was good but we've dropped players after playing well before. I'd be surprised if we didn't drop a small who plays in the backline often (could also be Nank of course).
 
I think Cook is going out tbh, trained with the 'B' team at training today. Surely Hamill isn't going out after his best game at AFL level and shutting down the most dangerous small forward for the opposition.

Bench will probably be Crouch, Keays, Nank and Hamill with Cook or McHenry as the sub.

Cook going out would be the cherry on top this shit sandwich
 
I agree he was good but we've dropped players after playing well before. I'd be surprised if we didn't drop a small who plays in the backline often (could also be Nank of course).
It would be good if they applied this harsh selection stance to a certain few untouchable players in the side...
 
It would be good if they applied this harsh selection stance to a certain few untouchable players in the side...
Problem is I don't think it's about being 'harsh', it's about having a specific structure with pre-defined roles and wanting three talls when there's two tall defensive options to mark, so we can have a less accountable tall interceptor. If Hamill is dropped it's because Max has the small defensive stopper role and because Smith/Nank/Jones etc are ahead of him when it's not primarily a defensive role.

Obviously I'm just speculating and for all I know they'll play Hamill in the ruck. But that's my guess about what's happening.
 
It still makes no sense when Hamill did very well in that role and the Eagles are no taller up forward than Collingwood.
Can you tell us the last occasion when you could see the sense in the team selection?

Just another week of confusing and irrational selections. I'd love to be the fly on Nicks head at selection committee to see how they come up with this rubbish week after week.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I hope we lose.

I do too, but feel we will do enough to scrounge together an unconvincing win which will wall paper over cracks and renew the gold pass of all the underperforming 'senior' players.

Nicks will come out and say how "we stuck to our DNA" and beat a "really good team". Then gets to select the same players next week.

Its the AFC way.
 
We’ve hit the point where the fans want a loss to either force a change in selection policy or a change in coach.
Lol there's no way 'the fans' want that. It's like 20 people who all post on this board. I guarantee you all the Crows fans at the game on Sunday will be cheering for a win.
 
How many times have we made unforced changes this year? Anyone would think we were top 4 and contending for the Flag. This week every other side has a player (Omitted) from last weeks side except North, Sydney and us
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top