Autopsy Roast & Toast QF vs Brisbane & Changes for St Kilda Semi Final

[Bazzar]

Who is Chris Scott? Who else will play as the second ruck?

Broad and Kmack first time around, that won't be happening again... lol.

 

[db26]

Unclear whether both Astbury and Balta in the back line is a grest idea. Balta as second ruck is the simplest way to deal with the issue and solve the second ruck issue at the same time.

Like I said both Balta and Astbuty had 2 goals kicked on them that's with lions tall up there guys who a 200cm plus.How can you go with one big key monster back.

 

[Roksman]

I've stayed clear of this thread since the loss and that was a good decision.

Balta to ruck should be banned on all threads.

 

[db26]

Yep, Balta as second ruck creates opportunity to bring someone in for more agility and run out of defence.

Marshall will tear Balta up his the best young ruck going around he aren't know average ruck.We finally settle Balta and now we want to move him.

 

[Bojangles17]

Yeah fair point. Just thought we looked super slick and quick without Dave. Balta looked capable of taking the big boys I thought.

Da should be used in a lock down role and match up Balta so he can use his agility and dare , they def can combine well in same defence , couldn’t tell for entire game but DA on hipwood wasn’t a good match up after Balta had a day out on him earlier

 

[Tiger for ever]

How many of the remaining teams have more than one monster key forward target for Astbury and Balta respectively to match up on?

 

[Bojangles17]

How many of the remaining teams have more than one monster key forward target for Astbury and Balta respectively to match up on?

DA to king
Balta to membrey
Grimes to small and med forwards , butler maybe

 

[Tiger for ever]

DA to king
Balta to membrey
Grimes to small and med forwards , butler maybe

Membrey is listed at 6'2". My point is that Balta was given his opportunity and proved himself as an alternative to Astbury not an offsider. Arguably the selectors should have made a hard decision one way or the other when Astbury recovered. But now the question remains what is the best back line set up and who gives Nankervis a break against St Kilda and against Port and Brisbane/ Collingwood/ Geelong if it comes to that?

 

[tiger_tough]

Membrey always turns it on against us.

 

[Dr Awkward]

If you are gonna post f*** off to the idea of Balta in the ruck you at least need to post an alternative.

 

[fargothegreat]

Even if we feel Nank needs a bit of support in the ruck, Chol is not the man to provide it. The way I see it there are four options:

1. Play an undersized ruck in Caddy or Broad
2. Play Caddy forward and use one of Lynch and Jack as second ruck.
3. Have one of Astbury or Balta back Nank up
4. Debut Miller

I think we'll go with option one as plan A and bring in Caddy, and if that's not working move to Astbury as option B.

 

[Tiger for ever]

Membrey always turns it on against us.

I think Membrey is a very good player and does present well overhead but he is not 6'6" with long arms that can't be chopped and meets the ball at some ridiculous height. In today's game defenders need to be able to run and gun. Half the time it is the forward trying to bring the ball to ground. Forwards need to defend and now defenders need to attack ... what an anti intuitive state of affairs.

 

[theyellowsash]

Who is Chris Scott? Who else will play as the second ruck?

maybe a ruckman?

or we could do a chris scott and move a backman to the middle. while we are at it lets put cotchin at chb, have a starting midfield of george, rioli and kmac, lynch on a wing, and leave dusty in the goal square while we are getting 5 inside 50 a quarter.

 

[Tiger for ever]

maybe a ruckman?

or we could do a chris scott and move a backman to the middle. while we are at it lets put cotchin at chb, have a starting midfield of george, rioli and kmac, lynch on a wing, and leave dusty in the goal square while we are getting 5 inside 50 a quarter.

Oh I forgot we have an unopened packet of ruckmen for just this occasion.

 

[mauricerioli]

Woulda got off if it was Cotchin he won the ball.

EFA

 

[tigerdan]

Some weird defensiveness about Balta providing chop out in the ruck.

We've tried Chol the past two games and he's been absolutely shit, and not only that, his head is not in the game. If we play Chol as backup ruck this week we may as well give up now. He is not going to magically get better until he goes back to a lower level and regains some confidence and form.

We either play Nank all game on his own and risk him pulling up sore for the next game, or we get someone else to take the odd centre bounce (throwins are less of a problem as pretty much anyone can put their hand up for it).

So who's it going to be?

The simple answer is Balta takes a few centre hitouts and 5 min of general play as ruck, and then Nank gets back at it. I'd even consider bringing in Broad to provide cover in the back line but someone has to walk the plank for that to happen and i'm not sure who.

 

[Tiger for ever]

Even if we feel Nank needs a bit of support in the ruck, Chol is not the man to provide it. The way I see it there are four options:

1. Play an undersized ruck in Caddy or Broad
2. Play Caddy forward and use one of Lynch and Jack as second ruck.
3. Have one of Astbury or Balta back Nank up
4. Debut Miller

I think we'll go with option one as plan A and bring in Caddy, and if that's not working move to Astbury as option B.

Markov was ahead of Broad for selection at last count and given he is no ruck then straight to Option 3 ... Astbury pinch hitting and not Balta... get the same structural outcome.

 

[Bojangles17]

Marshall will tear Balta up his the best young ruck going around he aren't know average ruck.We finally settle Balta and now we want to move him.

Sec ruck , Marshall has been spending more time forward with Ryder in the ruck , hasn’t been as good as last year

 

[Tiger for ever]

Some weird defensiveness about Balta providing chop out in the ruck.

We've tried Chol the past two games and he's been absolutely sh*t, and not only that, his head is not in the game. If we play Chol as backup ruck this week we may as well give up now. He is not going to magically get better until he goes back to a lower level and regains some confidence and form.

We either play Nank all game on his own and risk him pulling up sore for the next game, or we get someone else to take the odd centre bounce (throwins are less of a problem as pretty much anyone can put their hand up for it).

So who's it going to be?

The simple answer is Balta takes a few centre hitouts and 5 min of general play as ruck, and then Nank gets back at it. I'd even consider bringing in Broad to provide cover in the back line but someone has to walk the plank for that to happen and i'm not sure who.

It solves itself
Chol OUT Markov/ Broad/ Caddy IN
Aarts OUT Lynch IN

 

[Roksman]

If you are gonna post f*** off to the idea of Balta in the ruck you at least need to post an alternative.

Some weird defensiveness about Balta providing chop out in the ruck.

We've tried Chol the past two games and he's been absolutely sh*t, and not only that, his head is not in the game. If we play Chol as backup ruck this week we may as well give up now. He is not going to magically get better until he goes back to a lower level and regains some confidence and form.

We either play Nank all game on his own and risk him pulling up sore for the next game, or we get someone else to take the odd centre bounce (throwins are less of a problem as pretty much anyone can put their hand up for it).

So who's it going to be?

The simple answer is Balta takes a few centre hitouts and 5 min of general play as ruck, and then Nank gets back at it. I'd even consider bringing in Broad to provide cover in the back line but someone has to walk the plank for that to happen and i'm not sure who.

Do you think it's a coincidence that Balta finally became a consistent AFL footballer once they stopped moving him around? You can't keep moving a young KPP all over the ground and expect him to develop cohesively. He also said it his most recent interview that it was driving him crazy and he couldn't settle into AFL.

Also, since moving to defence he TOG% is 95-100% every game. When he was in the ruck he was only playing 50-60% TOG as he doesn't have a tank to get to contests all over the ground.

So would you rather having Noah pinch hitting in the ruck and then sitting on the pine or get games into him for our KPD for the next 10 years? Astbury and Grimes aren't getting any younger and Noah will have 70-100 games by the time they retire if we keep him in defence.

Can't rob Peter to pay Paul.

I'm not going to comment on Chol until I see the team tomorrow but one thing I do know is he is more useful pinch hitting off the bench rather than a Lynch replacement.

 

[STRUGGLETOWN EST1885]

Chol didnt work last week because he had to play as Lynch but then also help Nank who was belted by 2 Ruckmen.

This line up is different, we have Lynch which means Chol's main focus will be to give Nank a break and then try push forward or back. Its an easier role for Chol to play and a smarter decision as Chol still has a lot to learn.

I like it, we cant go into a match with 1 Ruckman only and expect him to play 80% he will be stuffed, saints losing Ryder can now turn this from a break even to a possible advantage our way and a chance to wear Marshall down like the Lions did to Nank last week.

As for the players not having confidence, i find that a bit of a reach, we have shown plenty of times this year how flexible we are to changes being made to personal and decisions made.

Chol's decision may not work then so be it, but we have to try something a bit out of left field IMO, we need to see if this works so we have something different to try against Port and possibly Brisbane if we can win on Friday.

On SM-G980F using BigFooty.com mobile app

All very good points made here mate. I reckon Chol stays if only to help out Nank but he can be used almost in a utility type role because of his athleticism. Yes we never want to see Chol in the role he was forced to play last week. It threw out our whole forward line dynamics. Having Lynchy back straightens us up, releases JR8 to lead up more and not have 2 defenders hanging off him and gives Rioli and Castagna a better chance to get off the chain when the ball hits the ground. I'm pretty confident it's Cadds in for Aartsy but who's the unlucky omission for Lynch? My gut says it's probably Pickett if only for his undisciplined acts last week. A pity cause I rate Marlion highly.

 

[Cotcho]

So it's ok to just line blokes up and run through them ? My younger brother now has epilepsy caused by repeated concussions in country football. He was a fine on-ball player in and around leagues in country Victoria and got taken out like this a bunch of times. Blokes just lining him up and running through him with no eyes for the footy.

I'd get a phone call from Mum (I'm in WA) saying he was in hospital for observation again. Someone took him out.

He not only suffered repeated concussions but also post concussion syndrome and now can't work, can't concentrate for extended periods and really has no quality of life like he used to. He's only 40 and has been diagnosed with scarring on the brain.

His prognosis long term isn't great. He isn't the happy go lucky brother I once knew.

So I find your throw away comment that it's ""soft because it's a final" in quite poor taste. Perhaps educate yourself that concussion is real, it has real impact and probably the biggest single issue confronting contact sports in the world. Perhaps you've been under a rock or something but all body contact sporting codes are trying to rub out head high contact for years now because we are beginning to understand those long term impacts.

Two high profile and amazing footballers died this year and both suffered brain injury as a result of repeated concussions. Vale Polly Farmer and vale Danny Frawley. I met Polly Farmer fifteen years ago when he was in his 60s and he was a beautiful gentle bloke but was basically non communicative and had to have a carer with him at all times.

The LAST thing we need is players shirt fronting blokes and deliberately targeting the head. I've looked at the replay of Long a bunch of times and he had NO eyes for the ball. Everyone now knows if you choose to bump and you hit the head then you better be ready to suffer the consequences...because the bloke you hit suffers them for long after...

I can see you’re highly emotional so not toooo much point responding but I’ll try plead my case.

I just didn’t think there was much in it. I don’t know how you know for a fact that Long deliberately hit him in the head. I saw a player with lowered knees who’s shoulder hit the ball whilst McRae dropped his knees and tried to take evasive action. If you watched the game he came in off the square to impact the contest on a number of occasions. If he was deliberately picking guys off as you seem to be suggesting why didn’t he hit others in the head the several other times in the game? Or the many other games throughout the season that he’s done the same?

Judging it from an unbiased, much less emotionally invested position than you, I see a player choosing to bump who turns his head and braces for contact not to collect the head but to collect the body/ball. He does collect him in the head and therefore should be judged on the force/consequence of the action. Which there was very little as McRae got up and took his kick and played the rest of the game out well.

The whole “if you choose to bump and collect the head you’re in trouble” is ridiculous. Unlike your accusations of being “uneducated “ on the issue I do know a significant amount about concussions. Again, from an unbiased logical position I see just as many players getting concussions from accidental head knocks in tackles, accidental knees to the head in marking contests, accidental arms in the head from attempted spoils, hitting head on ground in a whipping motion after a marking contest, getting hit on the head from picking the ball up in traffic. We don’t have the same stance on any of that. If you choose to tackle and get it wrong, should you be in equal trouble? You have to remember the mere act of bumping is not an illegal action in the game so by rights it should be help in the same manner as a tackle gone amiss. Is there even evidence to suggest higher incidents of concussions from bumps versus other common actions on the game?

At the end of the day I saw it more as a free kick rather than a suspension given McRae got right up and took his kick. Given the increased intensity and speed of a final.

We have free kicks and 50s for actions which are on the lower end in terms of force.

Sounds like you’re very passionate on the issue and see it one way, which is fine. I hope you’re as strong on every other legal on field action, which makes head high contact.

 

[YeOldTiger]

I can see you’re highly emotional so not toooo much point responding but I’ll try plead my case.

I just didn’t think there was much in it. I don’t know how you know for a fact that Long deliberately hit him in the head. I saw a player with lowered knees who’s shoulder hit the ball whilst McRae dropped his knees and tried to take evasive action. If you watched the game he came in off the square to impact the contest on a number of occasions. If he was deliberately picking guys off as you seem to be suggesting why didn’t he hit others in the head the several other times in the game? Or the many other games throughout the season that he’s done the same?

Judging it from an unbiased, much less emotionally invested position than you, I see a player choosing to bump who turns his head and braces for contact not to collect the head but to collect the body/ball. He does collect him in the head and therefore should be judged on the force/consequence of the action. Which there was very little as McRae got up and took his kick and played the rest of the game out well.

The whole “if you choose to bump and collect the head you’re in trouble” is ridiculous. Unlike your accusations of being “uneducated “ on the issue I do know a significant amount about concussions. Again, from an unbiased logical position I see just as many players getting concussions from accidental head knocks in tackles, accidental knees to the head in marking contests, accidental arms in the head from attempted spoils, hitting head on ground in a whipping motion after a marking contest, getting hit on the head from picking the ball up in traffic. We don’t have the same stance on any of that. If you choose to tackle and get it wrong, should you be in equal trouble? You have to remember the mere act of bumping is not an illegal action in the game so by rights it should be help in the same manner as a tackle gone amiss. Is there even evidence to suggest higher incidents of concussions from bumps versus other common actions on the game?

At the end of the day I saw it more as a free kick rather than a suspension given McRae got right up and took his kick. Given the increased intensity and speed of a final.

We have free kicks and 50s for actions which are on the lower end in terms of force.

Sounds like you’re very passionate on the issue and see it one way, which is fine. I hope you’re as strong on every other legal on field action, which makes head high contact.

Cotcho, I appreciate that you took time to consider your answer and reply in full respectfully. Yes it is an emotional issue for me for obvious reasons. I'm not going to debate it with you any further except to say that the jury on Long's tribunal last night stated that they were shocked McCrae was able to get up and continue and they found that it was indeed worth a week. Clearly these kinds of acts are being rubbed out of the game.

I meant no offence saying you needed to educate yourself, I merely meant that it's pretty obvious that this kind of action, where the head is hit, whether targeted or not is being rubbed out in contact sports around the world.

Clearly we couldn't have contact sports at all if accidental head hits are rubbed out altogether. What should be rubbed out are acts like Longs which are seemingly intended to cause injury, otherwise why else didn't he simply tackle ?

All sports people have a duty of care to their opponents. This is contact, team sports, not MMA or boxing. Bumping is fine as long as you don't get someone in the head. We all know that now.

If you punch someone in the head on the street, or run into them with your shoulder and smash them in the face, that's assault.

In AFL there's no protection. No helmets. The head is sacrosanct and so it should be. My brother is testament to that.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Cheers and go Tigers.

 

[Snooza 100]

Caddy has to come back..

On Redmi Note 7 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[tigerdan]

Do you think it's a coincidence that Balta finally became a consistent AFL footballer once they stopped moving him around? You can't keep moving a young KPP all over the ground and expect him to develop cohesively. He also said it his most recent interview that it was driving him crazy and he couldn't settle into AFL.

Also, since moving to defence he TOG% is 95-100% every game. When he was in the ruck he was only playing 50-60% TOG as he doesn't have a tank to get to contests all over the ground.

So would you rather having Noah pinch hitting in the ruck and then sitting on the pine or get games into him for our KPD for the next 10 years? Astbury and Grimes aren't getting any younger and Noah will have 70-100 games by the time they retire if we keep him in defence.

Can't rob Peter to pay Paul.

I'm not going to comment on Chol until I see the team tomorrow but one thing I do know is he is more useful pinch hitting off the bench rather than a Lynch replacement.

Thought this might be the line of reasoning.

We're here to win three more finals and win a flag. We can move a young KPP wherever we want if it gets us a flag. I'm not saying that to be a w***er about it, i'm saying circumstances are forcing us to do it and the only other legitimate option is Chol, and he's useless right now.

No-ones saying tap him on the shoulder and say change of plans mate, you're number 1 ruck for the rest of the year.

We're here to win the next three games and a flag, any concerns about making him the best backman he can be have to take a back seat. I doubt three games where he's asked to help out for 5 minutes at a time are going to stunt his development.

We very much can rob peter to pay paul when we are in a must win final. Chol is so useless right now that playing him we may as well have one less player on the field.