Preview Round 16 - Friday night lights Swans v Cats, Season defining game SCG, 7:50pm 30th June

[bedford]

Goodes 2012 being a noticeable exception.

But he only did the knee during the game

 

[bedford]

good grief ... bedford made a joke! that has to be a very bad omen for geelong ...

My 2nd one this season

 

[Donza]

Buddy probably kicks 4 or 5 against the Eagles. I can see him offering more than say McLean up forward, however with Amartey getting back to fitness, I think we need McLean for the backup ruckwork, he's doing his role well enough.

Once Amartey is considered able to be the only backup ruck, Buddy is an option. Amartey himself isn't going to be dropped off his game vs the Eagles, and the extension announcement.

Buddy kicks 4 or 5.

Swans score 122 to 34. Vs WC.

Buddy is targeted 52% of the time in fwd fifty.
Drops 5 marks. Earns 1 free kick
Swans take a total of 14 marks inside forward fifty.

Thats what would have happened.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Buddy kicks 4 or 5.

Swans score 122 to 34. Vs WC.

Buddy is targeted 52% of the time in fwd fifty.
Drops 5 marks. Earns 1 free kick
Swans take a total of 14 marks inside forward fifty.

Thats what would have happened.

You are generous on him only dropping 5 in his current form. My main issue is our mids seem to think he's the only forward.

If he plays, get him off a wing and nowhere near a forward line, it might work.

 

[dosser]

My 2nd one this season

It's becoming a habit now. Go easy there...

 

[Donza]

You are generous on him only dropping 5 in his current form. My main issue is our mids seem to think he's the only forward.

If he plays, get him off a wing and nowhere near a forward line, it might work.

He doesn't have the fitness to play near a wing.

He's a liability now.

He's cooked from having to play so many matches consecutively.

 

[Bloods86]

Buddy kicks 4 or 5.

Swans score 122 to 34. Vs WC.

Buddy is targeted 52% of the time in fwd fifty.
Drops 5 marks. Earns 1 free kick
Swans take a total of 14 marks inside forward fifty.

Thats what would have happened.

Of course, from all the other times we've played witches hats with Buddy in the team.

 

[Donza]

Of course, from all the other times we've played witches hats with Buddy in the team

The thing is. Whenever Buddy plays. The delivery into fwd 50 is overwhelmingly directed at him.
Its just a habit.

Other coaches have seen this occur for 10 years.
Defenders know how to defend.

He's fallen off a cliff this year. Sadly.

 

[caesar88]

I don't think Horse would've done the hypothesizing over what Buddy would or wouldn't have done against West Coast. I think regardless of how bad they were, he'd have respect for the opposition and the process. He'd be looking at who did the role they were supposed to do against West Coast. All three young forwards undeniably did what would've been required of them, so I think it's less about Buddy himself and more the question of how you could justifiably drop one of those three, and what kind of message would that be sending if you did?

 

[Donza]

I don't think Horse would've done the hypothesizing over what Buddy would or wouldn't have done against West Coast. I think regardless of how bad they were, he'd have respect for the opposition and the process. He'd be looking at who did the role they were supposed to do against West Coast. All three young forwards undeniably did what would've been required of them, so I think it's less about Buddy himself and more the question of how you could justifiably drop one of those three, and what kind of message would that be sending if you did?

I'd actually say four forwards.
Heeney is in that conversation as well.

 

[Nuggetz]

I liked paps & heeney setting it up for others last week. They trusted their teammates to kick goals, rather than just relying upon themselves which showed some chemistry & cohesion in the front half. I hope it continues as it'll help make our forward line unpredictable which is more dangerous than relying on 1 or 2 main goal kickers imo.

So the mid rotations since bye have featured: Heeney, Parker, Rowbottom, Warner, Gulden, Mills, Papley, Sheldrick. If you were to break it down into levels of midfield gametime. I would say:
1st - Parker/Rowbottom
2nd - Mills/Warner
3rd - Gulden/Sheldrick
4th - Heeney/Papley

I can see Heeney getting more midfield gametime this week, as we've used him in the midfield against bigger/stronger mids. I can also see Sheldrick fluctuating with his actual midfield gametime but that's a pretty deep & versatile midfield group moving forward imo.

 

[Kiama Chris]

agree with that ... i can't see any argument for dropping sheldrick
but i don't think they'll drop papley ... his form is down but he was very close to a big game last week, things just didn't go right ... most importantly, he was busy trying to get involved
i think francis's problem is confidence but i would also back melican, i still think he's someone we should persist with and he'll keep steadily improving

The originally selected team for WC had Hayward. He will most likely return for Clarke.
No need for any other change forward or mid.
McCartin is a must to return if fit enough.
Neither Melican nor Francis did anything to deserve dropping but Geelong are not that tall. One will most likely go. My choice would be Melican but either can be argued.

 

[The King!]

Some of you should play for england - they only talk slightly more about what would have happened than people do re if Buddy player last week

 

[MF]

I don't think Horse would've done the hypothesizing over what Buddy would or wouldn't have done against West Coast. I think regardless of how bad they were, he'd have respect for the opposition and the process. He'd be looking at who did the role they were supposed to do against West Coast. All three young forwards undeniably did what would've been required of them, so I think it's less about Buddy himself and more the question of how you could justifiably drop one of those three, and what kind of message would that be sending if you did?

I agree with this. It's up to them to hold their spots now and show us they can work as a trio.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I don't think Horse would've done the hypothesizing over what Buddy would or wouldn't have done against West Coast. I think regardless of how bad they were, he'd have respect for the opposition and the process. He'd be looking at who did the role they were supposed to do against West Coast. All three young forwards undeniably did what would've been required of them, so I think it's less about Buddy himself and more the question of how you could justifiably drop one of those three, and what kind of message would that be sending if you did?

This plus he very deliberately rested Amartey for the fourth quarter to not run him right out of gas. IMO he had already made up his mind barring injury.
This forward line is good enough if the mids get it done.
Swans by 4 goals

 

[Jewelsbon]

Yeah I know Buddy hasn't exactly been great this year, but the other 3 haven't exactly dominated games either.

There's a gulf the size of Stewart Dews arse crack between the expectations some have of those 3 and the current reality.

I'm not against the 3 of them getting selected ahead of Franklin right now because like it or not, they'll probably be our forward line next year, but on this years form alone Franklin isn't any less deserving of a starting 22 spot than the rest.

Yep totally agree. My only issue with Buddy playing isn't with Buddy himself, it's that EVERY OTHER BLOODY PLAYER kicks to him continuously, even if he's got an opposition player on each leg, arm and one sitting on his shoulders - drives me insane!

 

[SM]

Buddy kicks 4 or 5.

Swans score 122 to 34. Vs WC.

Buddy is targeted 52% of the time in fwd fifty.
Drops 5 marks. Earns 1 free kick
Swans take a total of 14 marks inside forward fifty.

Thats what would have happened.

You must have a pretty low footy IQ to think that.

 

[McRobie]

If we pick Buddy we lose.

 

[Millky95]

I liked paps & heeney setting it up for others last week. They trusted their teammates to kick goals, rather than just relying upon themselves which showed some chemistry & cohesion in the front half. I hope it continues as it'll help make our forward line unpredictable which is more dangerous than relying on 1 or 2 main goal kickers imo.

So the mid rotations since bye have featured: Heeney, Parker, Rowbottom, Warner, Gulden, Mills, Papley, Sheldrick. If you were to break it down into levels of midfield gametime. I would say:
1st - Parker/Rowbottom
2nd - Mills/Warner
3rd - Gulden/Sheldrick
4th - Heeney/Papley

I can see Heeney getting more midfield gametime this week, as we've used him in the midfield against bigger/stronger mids. I can also see Sheldrick fluctuating with his actual midfield gametime but that's a pretty deep & versatile midfield group moving forward imo.

And Heeney still nearly kicked 10

 

[Donza]

You must have a pretty low footy IQ to think that.

What a odd insult

 

[SM]

What a odd insult

It was sarcasm (thus the eye roll) as I completely agree with you. I also agree with you that it's an odd insult to a valid point.

 

[Donza]

It was sarcasm (thus the eye roll) as I completely agree with you. I also agree with you that it's an odd insult to a valid point.

All good.

Lost context due to being on my phone while walking along a deserted beach.

 

[bedford]

It's becoming a habit now. Go easy there...

Have a fair few bad habits

 

[caesar88]

All good.

Lost context due to being on my phone while walking along a deserted beach.

That sounds strangely disconcerting Bomza. Let us know if we need to send out a rescue party!

 

[ShireSwan]

Any danger in Horse out coaching Scott for a change? If he selects the correct team and pulls the right levers during the match we are in with half a chance.