Preview Round 2 Syd vs Haw ("Poo n' Wee at the SCG")

[Ticky009]

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Logan may end up with Sicily. This would be interesting as each strive to keep the other accountable.

 

[BarneyBent]

Hawthorn aren't exactly brimming with tall options at either end. We certainly don't need to bring in another key defender against them.

We could bring in Francis forward, but I think a more likely option is we go smaller up forward, perhaps getting Hayward to play a defensive role on Sicily. Especially if it's going to be wet.

Roberts to get a full game, probably Sheldrick in as sub.

 

[Bloods86]

Hawthorn aren't exactly brimming with tall options at either end. We certainly don't need to bring in another key defender against them.

We could bring in Francis forward, but I think a more likely option is we go smaller up forward, perhaps getting Hayward to play a defensive role on Sicily. Especially if it's going to be wet.

Roberts to get a full game, probably Sheldrick in as sub.

No-one's suggesting playing with 4 KPDs though. It's a case of "next best tall" and you can re-jig from there (e.g. Gould in, one of the 3 talls in our backline with forward experience goes forward, or Gould plays a lock down role on Sicily). Obviously if it's overly wet, or someone like Amartey is fit, then it's a different matter.

We rarely change our structure regardless of injuries/form, or weather, but Roberts in for Buddy would be fine anyway.

 

[caesar88]

Warner or Gulden will probably cop their first tag of the year in Maginness this week.

 

[wills2g]

Warner or Gulden will probably cop their first tag of the year in Maginness this week.

I remember near the end of the season last year against St Kilda Warner got tagged by Windhager but he was still effective and got 20+ disposals so I think he'll be fine against Maginness but I hope Gulden has learnt to deal with it as he was pretty much taken out of the GF by Geelong. Cant remember who it was though that was on him

 

[BarneyBent]

No-one's suggesting playing with 4 KPDs though. It's a case of "next best tall" and you can re-jig from there (e.g. Gould in, one of the 3 talls in our backline with forward experience goes forward, or Gould plays a lock down role on Sicily). Obviously if it's overly wet, or someone like Amartey is fit, then it's a different matter.

We rarely change our structure regardless of injuries/form, or weather, but Roberts in for Buddy would be fine anyway.

If Reid or Amartey were fit then sure, but I can't see us debuting Gould as a forward. And I also can't see us moving either McCartin forward. If we want to keep the same structure then to be it has to be Francis forward, but I suspect we'll go small.

A McAndrew debut is an outside possibility as well.

 

[Donza]

Gould ain't playing.

Joel Party is injured no? Or coming back?

IMO Roberts will be named on the bench. Parker will spend more time forward.
Sub will be Gus.

 

[Kiama Chris]

McAndrew in for Buddy if it is dry and they want to keep structure or Roberts comes in

Should be a solid win as well. Hopefully enough to make sure we get pick 19 in the draft

I quite like this. The Hawk rucks did well against Bums. Let Stretch do a bit more rucking than usual and Pete spend a bit more time forward with Hayden playing from the square and Logan roaming. That could work quite well.
Otherwise no need to change.
Maybe Gus to sub to maintain the love.

 

[Kirkswan]

So you're saying we should be talking about toasties?

Be my guest! I don't subscribe to the notion that anything we say or do has the power to impact the game.

I thought the toastie round was heaps of fun, with everyone happy and laughing and joking (except poor Ticky009 who kept trying to get us back on track!).

 

[Kirkswan]

I like some of the hawks kids, just think they are at the bottom of a climb up

My thoughts exactly! We'll see how good Mitchell and his team are, and how good the players are over the next two years I'd say, if they're really good. If not, maybe a few more...

 

[caesar88]

IMO McAndrew has to be the sub.

We are already gonna have only two talls in McLean & McDonald. If Ladhams was to go down in the ruck, and say McLean had to take over rucking (which is already an incredibly dire situation), we'd be up against two ruck-men (Reeves & Meek) and we'd have only one tall inside 50 (McDonald.)

We'll likely already have Roberts in as an extra mid/small forward, so we will be covered for run. So we need to cover for talls.

 

[Bloods86]

IMO McAndrew has to be the sub.

We are already gonna have only two talls in McLean & McDonald. If Ladhams was to go down in the ruck, and say McLean had to take over rucking (which is already an incredibly dire situation), we'd be up against two ruck-men (Reeves & Meek) and we'd have only one tall inside 50 (McDonald.)

We'll likely already have Roberts in as an extra mid/small forward, so we will be covered for run. So we need to cover for talls.

If we only go in with the 2 tall forwards (and Ladhams), which given all available history, is unlikely.

Otherwise, you could end up subbing out a small for McAndrew, if something isn't working out, then shortly after, another small goes down (happened a few times over the weekend for clubs), and we're at a disadvantage.

 

[caesar88]

If we only go in with the 2 tall forwards (and Ladhams), which given all available history, is unlikely.

Otherwise, you could end up subbing out a small for McAndrew, if something isn't working out, then shortly after, another small goes down (happened a few times over the weekend for clubs), and we're at a disadvantage.

I mean, what other option do we have but to go in with two tall forwards and Ladhams? No one else is available...

(Unless maybe Amartey? But haven't heard anything about him lately...)

 

[sataris]

So you're saying we should be talking about toasties?

Be my guest! I don't subscribe to the notion that anything we say or do has the power to impact the game.

I thought the toastie round was heaps of fun, with everyone happy and laughing and joking (except poor Ticky009 who kept trying to get us back on track!).

As Chief Toastie Officer I approve these messages.

 

[Bloods86]

I mean, what other option do we have but to go in with two tall forwards and Ladhams? No one else is available...

(Unless maybe Amartey? But haven't heard anything about him lately...)

I mean if we're so concerned about Ladhams not being able to ruck a game, or McLean being backup, or worried about the 2-tall structure not working for us, you just play McAndrew to begin with.

 

[caesar88]

I mean if we're so concerned about Ladhams not being able to ruck a game, or McLean being backup, or worried about the 2-tall structure not working for us, you just play McAndrew to begin with.

Those aren't the concerns though, the concerns would be a simple injury to Ladhams, which let's face it, has been known to happen to Swans ruckmen...

 

[Bloods86]

Those aren't the concerns though, the concerns would be a simple injury to Ladhams, which let's face it, has been known to happen to Swans ruckmen...

Those are all concerns you've used to justify McAndrew as sub.

 

[caesar88]

Those are all concerns you've used to justify McAndrew as sub.

No, the concerns I used were that the structure on both lines turns to shit.

The concern isn't McLean being the back-up. If Ladhams went down, McLean wouldn't be back-up then. He'd be the main ruck, against two Hawthorn rucks.

And if McLean is the main ruck, then he's not forward, so the concern isn't the 2-tall forward line, because there wouldn't be two talls. There would be McDonald as the only tall.

So it would have a negative knock-on effect to our entire forward half. Why not take the option to combat that if it's there for us to use? Why use it on a mid or a runner when we're already bringing an extra one into the team anyway?

 

[ShireSwan]

Has anyone thanked the AFL for giving us a loverly couple of warm-up games to start the year?
The other likely top six candidates all playing each other over both weeks.

 

[Kiama Chris]

No, the concerns I used were that the structure on both lines turns to s**t.

The concern isn't McLean being the back-up. If Ladhams went down, McLean wouldn't be back-up then. He'd be the main ruck, against two Hawthorn rucks.

And if McLean is the main ruck, then he's not forward, so the concern isn't the 2-tall forward line, because there wouldn't be two talls. There would be McDonald as the only tall.

So it would have a negative knock-on effect to our entire forward half. Why not take the option to combat that if it's there for us to use? Why use it on a mid or a runner when we're already bringing an extra one into the team anyway?

Don't bring in a small. Desperation stuff.
If Amartey survived the VFL game OK either he or Stretch come in to maintain the team structure.
Amartey would be the better ruck cut out.
If we bring in Stretch he can take a bigger share of the ruck duties and Ladhams can spend some time forward relieving Logan and Hayden.
Either would work MUCH better than bringing in a small.
Then Sheldrick a turn as sub.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I mean, what other option do we have but to go in with two tall forwards and Ladhams? No one else is available...

(Unless maybe Amartey? But haven't heard anything about him lately...)

Picture on VFL thread

 

[BloodySwan]

Has anyone thanked the AFL for giving us a loverly couple of warm-up games to start the year?
The other likely top six candidates all playing each other over both weeks.

That changes very quickly. The next 3 games are Demons, Port, Tigers and Cats.

Still, can't get ahead of ourselves. If we don't give the Hawks the respect they'll come out strong and it will be too close a game

 

[ShireSwan]

If we're ever going to give a young inside mid a run you'd think this would be the week.
Parker into the forward line to take Buddy's spot and play one of Angus or Roberts?

 

[Punts]

Scg smaller ground , plus buddy isn’t a contested mark

Just go smaller front half for the week

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Now led by a rookie coach the President didn’t want, after the ex-coach was knifed by players who didn’t want him, all against the wishes of a President that nobody wants. And to top it all off, the rookie coach didn’t want the players who knifed the ex-coach, resulting in the unwanted players being traded/delisted in a fire sale that the President who nobody wants didn’t want. It’s a wanton mess.

Absolute poetry. Outstanding review