Preview Round 7: Essendon vs Western Bulldogs, Carrara, Friday 17/07/20, 7:50 PM

[bennyg12]

Actual perfect conditions

the game's at 7.50pm the due will be in just like wet weather game

 

[Dave]

the game's at 7.50pm the due will be in just like wet weather game

Hopefully we learn from this week and aclimatise better.

 

[Halftimehero]

Actual perfect conditions

Its the dew that makes it slippery up there in night games.

 

[ghostdog]

We wont run with multiple taggers, we will most likely play Langford or Hibberd as an accountable Mid on Bont around clearances and have that HF defensive job on JJ. That is as defensive as we will go.

I think Redman for mckenna is pretty simple its what we do for Shiel that is the question.

No I don't think so either and I'd be surprised if we have a run-with role at all. It actually perplexes me that we would experiment with it last year, find success with it, and then not go with it at all since. Clarkey could be forgiven for feeling perplexed as well. Maybe that was John and Ben trialling and testing things.

 

[militiaa]

My fear is we are the same old Essendon where if we lose too many good players we just fall away and get smashed.

My hope is we have become one of those system based "soldier out, soldier in" teams that wins regardless of cattle.

This week will provide some confirmation of one or the other.

The new game style gives me more hope than in the past

 

[Howard Moon]

Dogs only know how to play one way. They'll try lock it in. I'm worried about our aimless kicks out of 50. We gotta be smarter. With or without Shiel, we have the foot speed to expose the space in behind like carlton are doing atm.

Ridley looks on whimsically

 

[Vander18]

Good week to play Hooker forward - Hurley to Scache And Francis back in to play on Bruce. Redman a straight in for McKenna. Gleeson an unlucky omission to create room for Franger and free up Hooker. Could come straight back in depending on match ups the following week.

Hooker forward to crash packs and make sure Keith and Wood don’t intercept at will.

Cant go head to head in the midfield without Shiel and Heppell - Clarke in for Shiel and given the job to follow Bont and shut him down. Langford to stay forward - can’t play him too much midfield with Stringer our.

 

[OsteitisPubis22]

So as we know there will be a couple forced changes this week, not sure what else Cahill can do to get a game. I would have though Clarke was a good in for Shiel, but can see Parish moving up the ground (as he should) and the. The possibility of bringing Cahill in.

Ned, is a very crafty player, solid finisher and a very hard worker.

Francis and Redman are in our best 22, simple as that. Both must come back in.

I really like how we matchup against the dogs.
Both in defence and up forward.

Ins: Cahill, Francis, Redman
Outs: Shiel (susp) McKenna (Inj) Gleeson

FB: Francis Hooker Ridley
HB: Saad Hurley Fantasia
C: Langford Mcgrath Ham
HF: Smith Mckernan Tippa
FF: Cahill Townsend Laverde
FOL: Phillips Merrett Parish
Int: Redman Hibberd Zaharakis Snelling

Emg: Gleeson Mosquito Clarke


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[citizen-erased]

So as we know there will be a couple forced changes this week, not sure what else Cahill can do to get a game. I would have though Clarke was a good in for Shiel, but can see Parish moving up the ground (as he should) and the. The possibility of bringing Cahill in.

Ned, is a very crafty player, solid finisher and a very hard worker.

Francis and Redman are in our best 22, simple as that. Both must come back in.

I really like how we matchup against the dogs.
Both in defence and up forward.

Ins: Cahill, Francis, Redman
Outs: Shiel (susp) McKenna (Inj) Gleeson

FB: Francis Hooker Ridley
HB: Saad Hurley Fantasia
C: Langford Mcgrath Ham
HF: Smith Mckernan Tippa
FF: Cahill Townsend Laverde
FOL: Phillips Merrett Parish
Int: Redman Hibberd Zaharakis Snelling

Emg: Gleeson Mosquito Clarke


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Whilst i think Gleeson would be stiff, we should be investing heavier in Francis and Redman....Gleeson does link up nicely in that backline though
And i'd love to see Cahill come in and see if he can be a goal threat.

 

[cAsEy_18]

I think what we’re all forgetting is, despite us not having many problems at the moment, Guelfi is the answer to all of them.

 

[OsteitisPubis22]

Whilst i think Gleeson would be stiff, we should be investing heavier in Francis and Redman....Gleeson does link up nicely in that backline though
And i'd love to see Cahill come in and see if he can be a goal threat.

Nothing against Gleeson, but as I said Francis and Redman are just simply in our best team and bring more then Gleeson. It’s a good thing when a few players are stiff, not a luxury we have had in a while.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[EnolaGay]

If our back line can continue their good form and replicate Carlolton's effort, we should be well and truly in this game. Crazy-Bevo will have them fired up after their thrashing last week, so it will be hot from the start. It will be a good test for our young midfield without Shiel and Stringer (centre bounces).

 

[DapperJong]

Nothing against Gleeson, but as I said Francis and Redman are just simply in our best team and bring more then Gleeson. It’s a good thing when a few players are stiff, not a luxury we have had in a while.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Honestly I feel a bit more relaxed with Gleeson bringing it out of defense than Francis. And on current form, Redman has been poorer than usual. But as you say, luxury to have a choice.

 

[Bombers36]

With McKenna a certain out we have 2 obvious options to replace him in Guelfi and Redman. The other option would be to bring in a tall defender in Zerk or Francis and throw Hooker forward. So thats 4 AFL standard defenders we have waiting in the wings which highlights our depth in this part of the ground...!!

 

[eth-dog]

I don't think we should make any unforced changes, especially to a defence that is conceding a goal 18.4% of the time it enters forward 50, we're currently .02% behind Port in this stat. The Dogs usually play 2 talls and 4 smalls up front and they might consider resing a couple of their younger players due to a 5 day break then a 6 day break like West and Richards along with the obvious Butler out for Crozier. So maybe for them:

Out: West, Butler, Richards
In: Crozier, Cavarra, Porter

And us:

Out: Shiel (susp), McKenna (finger)
In: Redman, Stewart

Basically forces Hibberd to play inside midfield rather than dropping him wherever suits, and allows Laverde to get a genuine mismatch on Williams.

FB: Gleeson (Cavarra) - Hooker (Bruce) - Redman (Wallis)
HB: Ridley (Dale) - Hurley (Schache) - Saad (Vandermeer)
MF: Langford - Hibberd - Ham
HF: Zaharakis (Crozier) - Stewart (Cordy) - Walla (Johannisen)
FF: Townsend (Wood) - McKernan (Keath) - Laverde (Williams)
OB: Phillips - Parish - McGrath
IC: Smith - Snelling - Merrett - Fantasia

I want Townsend to tag Wood so we can get a genuine chance to dominate the airways.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Too early for Stewart, he’s only played a scratch match hasn’t he? We’d get more out of Francis forward at this stage

 

[TheGrizz]

Club video shows us training at night last night.

Probably a good idea seeing that the conditions seem o be very different at night than day in QLD so training to the night conditions for Friday seems a reasonable step.

 

[Ambrosia]

Redman is the obvious one to replace McKenna. No idea who comes in for Shiel.

I like the idea of Stewart as we look seriously undermanned up front when Mckernan is in the ruck but obviously hasn’t played enough footy.

Begley would make some sense as you assume we’ll be pushing Hibberd from the wing/hff position to more midfield and then Langford from the forward line to the wing.

Cahill possibly if the appeal doesn’t get up. I don’t like bringing in kids for 1 game then straight back out again.

Francis and send Hooker forward. I don’t mind it but seems unlikely.

Tom Bellchambers. I still fear the coaching staff rate him highly and will experiment with two ruckman.

It’s actually not a bad idea to bring in Guelfi to play the utility role that Hibberd was playing.

 

[faible]

Basically forces Hibberd to play inside midfield rather than dropping him wherever suits

Oh optimistic Ethan!

Clearly we need to play the guy we recruited as an inside mid, anywhere but the midfield. Until we ruin him. Then drop him. Then play him in the midfield in the lower levels where he dominates. Then play him out of position at AFL level. Then wonder why he isn't any good. Then delist him.

 

[Mr Bultitude]

I don't think we should be making drastic changes to a side that is clearly clicking. I don't understand the obsession with Hooker forward. It's never a structural choice, more a break glass in case of emergency option, so if we're desperate at some point in a match fine, but not as his starting position.

I appreciate that our forward line has the consistency of a Jackson Pollock painting, however I feel it's our airtight defence that's kept us in it the last few rounds. Conceding less goals gives our forwards less scoreboard pressure, hence we could be as shockingly inaccurate as we were last week and still outscore. I'd be hesitant to mess around with our back line too much.

 

[Ambrosia]

I don't think we should be making drastic changes to a side that is clearly clicking. I don't understand the obsession with Hooker forward. It's never a structural choice, more a break glass in case of emergency option, so if we're desperate at some point in a match fine, but not as his starting position.

I appreciate that our forward line has the consistency of a Jackson Pollock painting, however I feel it's our airtight defence that's kept us in it the last few rounds. Conceding less goals gives our forwards less scoreboard pressure, hence we could be as shockingly inaccurate as we were last week and still outscore. I'd be hesitant to mess around with our back line too much.

Hooker played permanent forward in the year we were the highest scoring team in the comp.

He’s clearly a better KPF than Mckernan and we have plenty of options in defence. I’m not saying he should definitely play forward but it’s fairly obvious why it’s discussed.

 

[Mr Bultitude]

I don't doubt his ability up forward. But given he made AA as a defender I have the mindset of that's where he stays. I love it just as much as the next person when he's "kicking bloody goals", but again my opinion is that he's more serviceable up back. Happy to be proven wrong if they swing him and he kicks a bag.

 

[Milanista28]

We could've/should've kicked 15 goals last week, forward mix worked, I doubt they change much, Hooker will always be plan b.

 

[faible]

I don't doubt his ability up forward. But given he made AA as a defender I have the mindset of that's where he stays. I love it just as much as the next person when he's "kicking bloody goals", but again my opinion is that he's more serviceable up back. Happy to be proven wrong if they swing him and he kicks a bag.

For me it comes down to where we have depth. BZT & Francis are both solid KPD's that can provide a large portion of what Hooker does down back, and are available.

Up forward we have Daniher, Stewart, McKernan and Stringer who are arguably our only passable KPF's at AFL level. Of which 3 are effectively unavailable.

Stewart looks pretty close to being available, and Daniher might only be a few weeks off. But currently we have 1 KPF in McKernan who is also our relief ruck, then Laverde is our next best marking target.

 

[Fridge16]

Can someone refresh my memory on Stewart. Is he a genuine marking key forward or is he more like Mitch Brown that is a tall guy playing a medium forward role?