Preview Round 19 - Brisbane v Sydney @ The Gabba (Sunday 1:10pm AEST)

[Crusha]

A brief reminder of Henry's game from a few weeks ago (VFL) .....

From the VFL Thread

 

[harvester]

Congratulations Henry Smith!!
Good luck, and enjoy your first game for the mighty Lions

 

[Nunez]

Smith has well and truly earned this debut.

My favourite VFL moment from earlier this year was watching live v the Pies and he was in a one on one contest on the wing. Absolutely monstered the (strong and older) opponent, took an incredible contested mark then nailed a perfect pass.

My brother who is a harsh critic of footballers remarked at how much he hated Elixuh ... Followed by praising Smith and was shocked he was an unknown player and looked to have great potential.

Point being - kid can play!

 

[Elixuh]

Smith has well and truly earned this debut.

My favourite VFL moment from earlier this year was watching live v the Pies and he was in a one on one contest on the wing. Absolutely monstered the (strong and older) opponent, took an incredible contested mark then nailed a perfect pass.

My brother who is a harsh critic of footballers remarked at how much he hated Elixuh ... Followed by praising Smith and was shocked he was an unknown player and looked to have great potential.

Point being - kid can play!

Your brother just won’t let it go will he. I only pushed him down the stairs at gate two twice. He needs to move on. Or I’ll do it again.

 

[WheildonTheAxe]

I like this team selection!

Great to see Brain get another turn instead of Connor who is not in good touch. Brain looks good overhead and had some lovely kicks.

Morris has proven himself as a young star but hasn't had the impact the last few weeks which is very reasonable for an emerging forward. This gives us an opportunity to reward and trial Smith with more flexibility in the ruck and height in the forward line

 

[On the quiet]

Absolutely, and there is some frustration that they got off on a technicality, but ultimately the same thing could happen again this weekend. The silence from the AFL about whether the tackles were correct or not is typical. They won't come out and admit an error, but they also won't come out against the tidal wave of opinion from the footballing community that this is a step too far and that initial tribunal decision was incorrect.

I'm sure the MRP guidelines and matrix will change over the off-season. The legal wording will be strengthened, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a change in the MRO classifiable offense table, that allows for a 1-week suspension for this kind of thing.
"in the event a player is concussed via an accidental incident, the instigator of the contact is subject to a 1-match suspension".
This provides the incentive to take all reasonable precautions without being hit with a sledgehammer of a 3-match ban. 1-week is still a penalty, but not enough to worry about contesting. Hopefully they also change the "Intentional-low-body" sanction to a week instead of a fine.

agree, i probably could have accepted Charlie getting 1 match ban (and not because Duggan is out for a week) but two or three weeks was too much for what is still a good 'ball and all tackle'. IMO Bedford's is a technically correct tackle and should not be banned. There just has to be some changing to the rules next year, as you have alluded.

 

[On the quiet]

Hopefully Big O isn't out. Morris dropped?

i think Morris (who has been very good for a first year player) probably needs a rest so Morris out and Smith in

 

[Happy_Neale]

Like the addition of Smith, essentially will mean Hipwood can play the role Morris has been filling meaning Smith is likely to stay close to goals and Joe probably a bit higher up the ground. Morris didn’t give us much defensively so should be an instant improvement with Eric

 

[On the quiet]

How does the bolded "fix" anything though? (BTW, not having a crack at you!)

Would you also propose that any incident be subject to the suspension? (eg, accidental head-clash, knee in a marking contest, knee to the head of a player on the ground - eg, McPharlin on Brown). It's even more of a slippery slope.........

Even if Cameron had've got 1 week initially, I would've wanted us to challenge, purely on principle.

When there aren't any realistic alternatives under the circumstances (this goes for Bedford too), anything that happens after that is incidental. Reading the transcripts of the tribunal, and the "alternatives" offered up, just goes to show how out of touch the AFL is (or more to the point, the impact of getting lawyers involved).

Do we really want to see players think twice about tackling? (which both Dunkley and Fagan alluded to this week). Granted there is some nuance in this, but I felt the two tackles being reportable offences this week "crossed a line" for me.

You simply can't de-risk the game completely. There needs to be a level of acceptance of risk (read, incidental injury) that goes with the game.

The wording would have to be a little more specific, otherwise there could be a lot of footy acts caught up, as you have mentioned.

I have for a few years now disliked a player (sometimes a back trying to play aggressive) getting kneed in the back or the back of the head and suffering serious injuries, but the AFL loves the small forward putting the knee up and taking the specky so likely knees in marking contest will still be allowed, and probably rightly so as it is a spectacular part of the game. There are work places that simply cannot eliminate every risk, but they do have a duty to mitigate as much is reasonably practicable, I think the AFL is clumsily getting there.

 

[Berrygood]

Well then, Henry gets his shot in for Morris and McKenna has been managed, out for Starce. That'll make a few here happy.

Henry will play, he'll be given an opportunity. Swans aren't the tallest in defense so he might jag a goal, and against Grundy it might be better to split time in the ruck. Grundy will run 1 ruck off his feet, 2 rucks might have the puff to hold him accountable. Throw Joe in at times. It's enough to at least confuse Grundy. Anyway I hope Henry goes well. I hope he shows enough promise for the future.

If Henry isn't working or we need more run, he can be subbed off quickly as Morris has been.

As to who will be sub. Reville named in the 18 so it won't be him. Starce is a straight swap for McKenna so Brain should hold his spot. He got some wraps from Fages during the week for his full game. It may be the case that Fletcher is made sub this week. A good option to add run and impact when needed.

Good on Fages for making these changes. Some would say overdue for McKenna. Good to recognise that Morris needs a refresh and act. Unexpected for Fages.

 

[Nunez]

I love Brucey, but he'd be the 23rd man for me. Think he is one big pre season away from being a best 22 wingman.

 

[Perrip]

If Henry isn't working or we need more run, he can be subbed off quickly as Morris has been.

As to who will be sub. Reville named in the 18 so it won't be him. Starce is a straight swap for McKenna so Brain should hold his spot. He got some wraps from Fages during the week for his full game. It may be the case that Fletcher is made sub this week. A good option to add run and impact when needed.

Wonder if we'll make Fletcher sub again to get run post-1/2 time?

 

[Ceebee]

Wonder if we'll make Fletcher sub again to get run post-1/2 time?

Actually like him as a sub . He is having a really good year , had him in my best players on Sunday .
Very underrated young player .

 

[BuntonRules]

Wonder if we'll make Fletcher sub again to get run post-1/2 time?

As long as we use him. At least the whole last quarter. If we are fit at that stage, roll the dice, Fages.

I really rate Shadeau. Just a natural footballer. Just needs, and has Earn'd, time at the top level.

Blew that, wrong quote. think Brain will get the job, but I want him to get TOG.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Wonder if we'll make Fletcher sub again to get run post-1/2 time?

Fletcher played a great game against West Coast. One of his better games - with 15, at times very classy disposals. Took some great contested marks, was composed and had some great goal assists. I am a massive fan. When Lester retires, Fletcher could be the one.

 

[KissKiss]

I've liked how we've rotated the sub around the last few weeks to give a heap id the young guys a rest. Wouldn't be against giving Ah Chee a turn this week just to keep giving several players a break. He is a perfect sub in being flexible across the field

Otherwise think Reville is one for me. He can impact better off a shorter game time

 

[braddsey]

How does the bolded "fix" anything though? (BTW, not having a crack at you!)

Would you also propose that any incident be subject to the suspension? (eg, accidental head-clash, knee in a marking contest, knee to the head of a player on the ground - eg, McPharlin on Brown). It's even more of a slippery slope.........

Even if Cameron had've got 1 week initially, I would've wanted us to challenge, purely on principle.

When there aren't any realistic alternatives under the circumstances (this goes for Bedford too), anything that happens after that is incidental. Reading the transcripts of the tribunal, and the "alternatives" offered up, just goes to show how out of touch the AFL is (or more to the point, the impact of getting lawyers involved).

Do we really want to see players think twice about tackling? (which both Dunkley and Fagan alluded to this week). Granted there is some nuance in this, but I felt the two tackles being reportable offences this week "crossed a line" for me.

You simply can't de-risk the game completely. There needs to be a level of acceptance of risk (read, incidental injury) that goes with the game.

No crack interpreted.

The AFL needs to be seen to doing everything they can to discourage actions that may cause a head injury. So if they had an accidental-incident, they are providing for this, without the harsh "careless 3-weeks" penalty. At the same time, it will more softly try to change player behaviour. I think we do want players to think more about how they tackle - we don't want players being lost to the game through head injury. If something does go a little bit wrong though (because players do play very close to the line, and sometimes step over), it doesn't necessarily mean it's careless - but accidents will happen.

You could still contest Charlie's tackle at the Tribunal, but because it's grey area it can always go either way.
Same with Bedford's tackle. Maybe the Giants defence weren't up to the task, but they tried to argue the severity from severe to medium which implies a concession that the tackle could be interpreted in multiple ways.

Regarding something like McPharlin-Brown - there was no instigator. McPharlin was running through, Brown spun around into McPharlin's knee. A head-clash - as long as both players are going for the ball there is no instigator - unless one of the players gets there late (ie. if Cripps smash on Ah Chee had been a head knock).

Totally agree you can't de-risk the game, but you have to do everything possible to discourage risk... without making accidents hangable offence.

 

[McIvor]

I like Henry as a long term ruck prospect but I am dead set against playing 2 rucks against the Swans.

I am far less hopeful of a win with a slower team out there, why would we do this against the best gut running side in the competition who can cut you to ribbons with quick play on and handball receives? ... It has me flummoxed.

Note- I would love Henry to prove me wrong and play a blinder in a Lions win.

I’m with you Jason; was actually optimistic prior to the team being finalised; can’t believe we’re playing a second ruck and in fact, if memory serves, we always struggle playing well or winning with two rucks. Just seems a really odd game to bring in a debutant ruck.

 

[McIvor]

Individually though; as Nunez said, I am thrilled for Henry, four years on the list and finally gets his go and from what I’ve seen in the twos this year, has improved out of sight, unsurprisingly for rucks as they take time.

Must be a decent lad to, could’ve told Gunston to stick it when he gave up his #19 for him but of course hope he goes well and forges a long career ahead with the Lions.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I do think the swans will be pretty keen to knock us off, whereas the pies didn’t seem to care too much about the docklands game - almost kept their powder dry for the finals.

I get the feeling that were we in a slightly better position (ie even if we'd just beaten Carlton), this might be the sort of match where neither team would be prepared to put all their cards on the table, preferring to keep a couple up their sleeve in case they meet in a final. Like, maybe we wouldn't send anyone to Heeney, Warner or Gulden. Just go head to head with them. And then, in a final, bang, lock down on all of them.

Chris Scott for one might have been thinking that way regardless.

But Fagan and Longmire don't really seem the type to play these sorts of Sheedy-esque mind games.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Your brother just won’t let it go will he. I only pushed him down the stairs at gate two twice. He needs to move on. Or I’ll do it again.

Why does Nunez's brother go for Essendon?

 

[Grasshopper17]

I like this team selection!

Great to see Brain get another turn instead of Connor who is not in good touch. Brain looks good overhead and had some lovely kicks.

Morris has proven himself as a young star but hasn't had the impact the last few weeks which is very reasonable for an emerging forward. This gives us an opportunity to reward and trial Smith with more flexibility in the ruck and height in the forward line

Yep. Looks like to me we are really trying to stretch Sydney for height in defence. If it has the added effect of forcing Blakey to be more accountable than he might otherwise be, well all the better.

You'd expect Blakey to go to Smith where possible to provide him the greatest opportunity to run off and create. So it would make sense for us to hold Smith as our deepest forward wherever possible, ensuring that Blakey's starting point is as far back as possible, hopefully limiting his influence.

That said, the job on Blakey will need to be a whole-of-front-6 job, not just a one on one affair.

 

[Grasshopper17]

When Lester retires, Fletcher could be the one.

 

[Timetoroarlike44]

Intrigued as to sub situation.

Ah chee - thought he would get blakey?

Fletcher - was a match winner late

Smith - no flexibility

Brain - 7th defender

So not sure who?!

 

[Tom14]

Intrigued as to sub situation.

Ah chee - thought he would get blakey?

Fletcher - was a match winner late

Smith - no flexibility

Brain - 7th defender

So not sure who?!

Bruce again probably.