Prediction Round 2: Changes Vs St Kilda + pre-match discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
That might be the case.

But the club should not be handing him a debut as the medical sub.

Its simply unacceptable and unfair on the kid.

Its not needed Henry or even Brandon Walker can be the sub for an emergency injury during the match.
I think he'd probably be rapt at sitting on the bench. Shouldn't count as a game if he doesn't get on though.

That's assuming he is medical sub.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Darcey and Banners to kick four each with Meek to kick a behind and a goal to quieten the hoard.



🤞...
 
Hypothetically who are the first 4 Covid top ups we bring in? Feel like it could happen in the next few rounds.
You'd think the boys that trained with us (or in Strom's case requested we trained with us). That's Cullen, Derksen (or some bloke from the NT with a similar name), Schlensog, Polson and Rogers from memory - could be another few as well.
 
I'm not so much questioning why Meek is still in, I'm questioning why we nurse Darcy in the FWD line if he's not 100%

If thats the case just play Treacy in the FWD line and give Darcy another week FFS, how hard is it
I don’t think it’s about “nursing” Darcy through, it’s about holding our structure, Lobb can stay as a permanent forward (let’s face it, he’s our best tall without Tabs in the team) and playing two rucks means they should be able to stay on the ground close to 100% game time, splitting Ruck/Forward closer to 50/50 and thus we always have two towers up front.
The real question for me, is how they decided Banfield is better than Treacy for the 3rd tall/medium forward, I would loved to have seen Treacy on the 3rd best tall defender.
 
I don’t think it’s about “nursing” Darcy through, it’s about holding our structure, Lobb can stay as a permanent forward (let’s face it, he’s our best tall without Tabs in the team) and playing two rucks means they should be able to stay on the ground close to 100% game time, splitting Ruck/Forward closer to 50/50 and thus we always have two towers up front.
The real question for me, is how they decided Banfield is better than Treacy for the 3rd tall/medium forward, I would loved to have seen Treacy on the 3rd best tall defender.
You can keep the structure, of two forwards. Treacy pinch hits in the ruck rotations.
All 3 of Darcy, Lobb, Treacy, I have huge faith in Darcy kicking goals, similar to
Gawn.
 
You can keep the structure, of two forwards. Treacy pinch hits in the ruck rotations.
All 3 of Darcy, Lobb, Treacy, I have huge faith in Darcy kicking goals, similar to
Gawn.
If Treacy is pinch hitting in the ruck it means Darcy is spending 80% ruck time and 20% in the bench, that means Lobb is on his own for that 20% that Treacy is in the ruck.
My preference would have been playing all of Darcy, Meek Lobb and Treacy giving us 3 permanent talls and leaving Banfield out. Treacy is just as good defensively as Banfield but adds more of a threat offensively
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I thought he was well short of being ready last week...
He was better than Banfield last week and can only improve at just 19 years old with only 15 games played.
I don’t like to be hating on Banfield but if the Match committee keep playing guys clearly not at the required standard for success in the AFL what do they expect from the fans?
Treacy could play in a hypothetical future freo flag in the next 3 or 4 years. Banfield won’t.
If there is minimal difference between the output of two players right here and now, which could be argued in this example based on last week, you surely pick the one with more scope to grow into a better player in future every single time?
 
If someone maligned like a Croad, Anthony, Kersten etc played that sort of game Treacy played he would of been dropped no questions asked.

In an ideal world Meek would of made way too if Tabs was ready. Looks like Big Darc will play deep fwd and Lobb Higher up (hopefully I'm wrong as i like Lobb in the goal square) Meek has to pull his finger out. Marshall has huge aerobic capacity.

I would of been more aggressive and played a more mobile fwd line. Lobb probably matches up well with Marshall, so I'd go Lobby 65% in ruck and Darcy 35% alternating at FF. Then Freddy and Sturt (probably as ready as Treacy was) as 2nd talls. Would of dropped Banners for Erasmus.
 
He was better than Banfield last week and can only improve at just 19 years old with only 15 games played.
I don’t like to be hating on Banfield but if the Match committee keep playing guys clearly not at the required standard for success in the AFL what do they expect from the fans?
Treacy could play in a hypothetical future freo flag in the next 3 or 4 years. Banfield won’t.
If there is minimal difference between the output of two players right here and now, which could be argued in this example based on last week, you surely pick the one with more scope to grow into a better player in future every single time?
Banfield will be dropped when Sturt is ready. Treacy and Banfield don’t play the same role. Colyer doesn’t come in to replace Tabs it’s like for like. Me, I would kept Treacy and bought in Ras to replace Banfield
 
If someone maligned like a Croad, Anthony, Kersten etc played that sort of game Treacy played he would of been dropped no questions asked.
See there’s a reason those players are/were maligned though. Every debutant in a freo jumper starts off with the same goodwill from the fans. Play well, show some elite traits and you will not be maligned. But turn in repeated rubbish performances and you start slipping into the “whipping boy” category. Unfortunately that’s the way it is at every AFL club.
 
Gawd we wait soooo long to uncover a big bustling forward of our own and then drop him first chance we get. Crazy.
Treacy is underdone - had a disrupted pre-season, especially the back end of the pre-season. Banfield though I would have dropped him for a different reason. He must be doing things in the background that we dont see. I expect when the likes of Erasmus and Sturt are ready Banfield will be ready to lead the Peel B&F.
 
See there’s a reason those players are/were maligned though. Every debutant in a freo jumper starts off with the same goodwill from the fans. Play well, show some elite traits and you will not be maligned. But turn in repeated rubbish performances and you start slipping into the “whipping boy” category. Unfortunately that’s the way it is at every AFL club.
There's also a reason why fans have scapegoats who still get games regular like. Because fans generally have a piecemeal view of players games filtered through a haze of emotion. Coaches will have much more comprehensive awareness of the players games, including stats and isolated footage. Objectivity is crucial.
 
Treacy is underdone - had a disrupted pre-season, especially the back end of the pre-season. Banfield though I would have dropped him for a different reason. He must be doing things in the background that we dont see. I expect when the likes of Erasmus and Sturt are ready Banfield will be ready to lead the Peel B&F.
He still managed to hit the scoreboard and get two shots at goal? Our lack of forwards is a problem so why the **** are we dropping the forward we should be developing.
 
He still managed to hit the scoreboard and get two shots at goal? Our lack of forwards is a problem so why the fu** are we dropping the forward we should be developing.
If we line up with that forward line, would have to be the worst in the AFL.
The future is now, just not playing in purple.
We should at least double our winning score this week?
Lucky we are playing the Saints because a good team would put us to the
sword.
 
If we line up with that forward line, would have to be the worst in the AFL.
The future is now, just not playing in purple.
We should at least double our winning score this week?
Lucky we are playing the Saints because a good team would put us to the
sword.
Lol you think a forwardline of Meek Lobb and Banners is better? We are playing too tall they are just going to waltz out of our F50 with no pressure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top