Round #2 Match Committee

[GVGjr]

OK, who are the likely ins and outs for the game against the Lions?

[SlimPickens]

Ins: DFA and minson
Outs: jones and stack


I would really like to see the match committee make an example of some senior players much like st Kilda did a few years ago. Unfortunately I don't see us dropping the skipper.

[Ozza]

Out: Markovic, Djerrkerra; Jones

In: Lake, Wallis; Minson

[DOG GOD]

With JBrown out, i wouldnt be surprised to not risk Lake if he's not 100% so...

Out: Djerrkerra (inj) Wood (inj)
In: Minson Addison

[Hotdog60]

Ins: DFA and minson
Outs: jones and stack


I would really like to see the match committee make an example of some senior players much like st Kilda did a few years ago. Unfortunately I don't see us dropping the skipper.

I like DFA as in, Wood maybe an out through injury.

Lake will come back as Brown will be out and give Lake half a game.

Ins DFA, Lake(Sub).

Out Stack, Wood (inj) or Jones if Wood is ok

[Dazza]

Out : Markovic, Wood

In: Lake, Addison

** I think Jones needs time in the team. Made position well but couldn't stick his marks. Used the ball well when he had the chance.
*** Dropping cross was tempting. With players like Moles and Wallis waiting in the wings he'd want to perform much better than he did today.
**** Would get Roughead in if he is right to go.

[jazzadogs]

With JBrown out, i wouldnt be surprised to not risk Lake if he's not 100% so...

Out: Djerrkerra (inj) Wood (inj)
In: Minson Addison
Didn't know Djerkurra had been injured...any word on this?

Wood's injury is a huge setback.

In: Addison, Lake (assuming he's ready), Minson
Out: Wood (inj), Jones, Markovic


I'm sure this will be discussed on almost every thread, but I don't see how we can afford to use Williams as our second ruck. Hudson is an underrated player, but that doesn't mean we can expect him and our CHB to dominate the ruck for an entire match.

Even expecting Williams to ruck, then go back and cover the resting ruckman. It's a lot easier for Minson/Roughy to ruck then go forward, because when you go forward you are, to a degree, controlling how much you have to run and can actually have a rest. The one ruckman strategy may work against some teams, but there are better options than Williams ie Barlow, Skinner.

EDIT: should also say that Jones is being dropped for balance, because with Minson in we may be too top-heavy, not because Jones had a necessarily bad game.

[SquirrelGrip]

Out: Djerkerra, Wood (both inj), Jones, Boyd, Giansiracusa
In: Wallis, Addison, Minson, Skinner, Veszpremi

Where was our Captain today?

[Max469]

Where was our Captain today?

MISSING IN ACTION

[DOG GOD]

Didn't know Djerkurra had been injured...any word on this?

He was subbed off for Sherman and was sitting on the bench with an ice pack under his leg, so maybe a hamstring?

[EasternWest]

Heard someone mentionin the radio that Picken has broken jaw. Is this true? That would make him a forced out too I guess?

[Bulldog Joe]

IN
A second ruckman or we can out the entire match committee.

[LostDoggy]

Without definitely knowing the injuries I would say...

Out stack, jones
In Addison, minson or roughy as sub

[Happy Days]

In: Minson, Lake, Wallis

Out: Jones, Stack, Wood

Don't think we should waste Sherman as the sub again; unique idea to use it in conjunction with a burst player, but realistically its made for a second ruck.

[Scorlibo]

What happened to Wood and DJ?

[Go_Dogs]

In: Lake (if fit), Addison, Minson, Wallis

Out: Markovic (if Lake fit), Wood (inj), DJ (inj?), Jones

If DJ isn't injured might consider dropping someone else.

Wallis to play as a defensive midfielder. I'd have a lot more confidence with him sticking to the task than some others at the moment.

[Bulldog Joe]

In: Minson, Lake, Wallis

Out: Jones, Stack, Wood

Don't think we should waste Sherman as the sub again; unique idea to use it in conjunction with a burst player, but realistically its made for a second ruck.

Disagree on that strategy. We need 2 rucks available FROM THE START.

Sherman did fail to have an impact but the whole team were going poorly when he was subbed on.

[BulldogBelle]

I guess its not worth trying to select the team that the Match Committee (MC) would pick. They wouldn't know how to pick their nose, let alone an AFL side. So I'll have a go at the side that I would like.

First here is the pecking order of those innies and outies.

Auto Choices
Boyd, Matthew
Cooney, Adam
Cross, Daniel
Giansiracusa, Daniel
Gilbee, Lindsay (form to be monitored closely)
Grant, Jarrad
Griffen, Ryan
Hall, Barry
Hargrave, Ryan (auto inclusion when fit)
Higgins, Shaun
Hudson, Ben
Lake, Brian (auto inclusion when fit)
Liberatore, Thomas
Morris, Dale
Murphy, Robert
Picken, Liam
Ward, Callan
Williams, Tom L.
Wood, Easton

Borderliners and those who show promise

1. Roughead, Jordan can improve. You must look towards the finals and play those players now. Minson has now attained the best form that he is capable of. Minson is too stupid, and too likely to do something that will lose us a game rather than win us one.

2. Hill, Josh, seems like he can play back. Has some nice skills.

3. Wallis, Mitchell, the more games that you can get for him the better he will get.

4. Jones, Liam, no criticisms for his entry into the side just now, was a bit of a risk and I would have had him in the reserves, but you have to take risks every now and again otherwise you get nowhere. He has the potential, he is on the cusp of a breakout.

5. Reid, Sam, could develop into a permanent.

6. Skinner, Zephaniah, has special skills.

7. Schofield, Jayden, can run and compete.

8. Veszpremi, Patrick, can run and compete.
9. Tutt, Jason, can run and compete.
10. Cordy, Ayce, needs to show us something so we can move him up the list.
11. Markovic, Lukas, can run and compete.
12. Minson, William, risky due to possibility of doing something stupid. I don't care if he is presently doing better than Roughead, Roughead will be better when the time counts,

Need to show more
1. Howard, Christian
2. Hill, Tom

Hacks to be used when nobody else is available
1. Djerrkura, Nathan
2. Moles, Brodie
3. Sherman, Justin
4. Addison, Dylan

Dismiss these guys and save effort and expense and lost opportunities for others.
1. Hooper, Andrew
2. Stack, Brennan
3. Mulligan, James

We need to restructure the team somewhat to quicken up the midfield and make the backline more secure and to lessen the disruption caused by using only one ruck. Done in an instant by putting Cross to the back pocket and including Roughead. If during the match the situation arises that Cross can't kick the ball clear, he just employs the Collingwood around-the-boundary-and-oops-out-of-bounds method.

I would persist with Jones as he seems to be having a real go. Ward needs to go to half back flank.

Outs:
Stack, best he is ever going to be is a C grader, so why persist with all of the money and resources as we will at best just get another Addison.
Wood, Injured.
Sherman, I have not seen any form from him, also by the Sydney fans he is said to be a stupid guy, so that's a risk.
Djerrkura, might be injured.

Ins.
Roughead, relief ruck and relief key forward, on the bench
Wallis, relief centre
Skinner, can play forward and about the middle.
Vezpremi, for Djerrkura

Bring in Lake for Markovic if possible.

[mjp]

Out: Djerkerra, Wood (both inj), Jones, Boyd, Giansiracusa
In: Wallis, Addison, Minson, Skinner, Veszpremi

Where was our Captain today?

You drop two of the leaders after round 1? Great move. Your 'where was our skipper'
question implies you want to see leadership - if you want them to show it, you have to pick them first!

[Greystache]

Out: Djerkerra, Wood (both inj), Jones, Boyd, Giansiracusa
In: Wallis, Addison, Minson, Skinner, Veszpremi

Where was our Captain today?

We should have made the statement last year, instead we went in completely the opposite way and made him captain. We've made our bed, now we have to lie in it.

[AndrewP6]

I guess its not worth trying to select the team that the Match Committee (MC) would pick. They wouldn't know how to pick their nose, let alone an AFL side. So I'll have a go at the side that I would like.


Hacks to be used when nobody else is available
1. Djerrkura, Nathan
2. Moles, Brodie
3. Sherman, Justin
4. Addison, Dylan

The bold bit is designed to elicit a laugh, right?


Sherman, I have not seen any form from him, also by the Sydney fans he is said to be a stupid guy, so that's a risk.


And the Sydney fans are relevant because ???

[BulldogBelle]

You drop two of the leaders after round 1? Great move. Your 'where was our skipper'
question implies you want to see leadership - if you want them to show it, you have to pick them first!

I reckon that SquirrelGrip made a fair comment there. I never saw either Boyd or Gia going around trying to gee up the boys.

[BulldogBelle]

The bold bit is designed to elicit a laugh, right?



And the Sydney fans are relevant because ???

Should be Brisbane fans, my error there.

Tell me what you have seen in him then? I repeat that I have seen nothing at all and I have not seen anybody who has the courage to give me a favourable opinion.

[the banker]

Out Stack, Wood (inj) DJ (inj) Markovic

IN Addison, Roughead, Vespa, Lake

[Bumper Bulldogs]

We should have made the statement last year, instead we went in completely the opposite way and made him captain. We've made our bed, now we have to lie in it.

Don't stress Greystache, he'll come good, It was just round one and I'm sure things will improve now and he Boyd will do us proud come the business end f the year.

A concern more for me is how the club can turn this game into a positive and keep the membership drive in full throttle.

Round one of 22...... Yes a poor start but we don't have our best side and the Don's had a heap to play for.

[LostDoggy]

Outs:
Wood (injured)
Markovic

Ins:
Lake
Addison

[Before I Die]

Don't stress Greystache, he'll come good, It was just round one and I'm sure things will improve now and he Boyd will do us proud come the business end f the year.

I have no doubt that Boyd would follow instructions to the absolute letter. So this begs the question; "What are the instructions he is receiving"?

[Dazza]

Did Willi play this weekend? If so how did Vezspremi and Wallis go?

[LostDoggy]

Did Willi play this weekend? If so how did Vezspremi and Wallis go?

Willi played intra club - Wallis got a corky not sure if he will be available. Conditions weren't great @ Whitten Oval.. Lake was really good He should be back in this week.

[G-Mo77]

I'm surprised to see so many want Stack dropped. I thought he did OK and with Wood out for a looooong time he'll be needed off the half back.

Obviously Wood will be out. Such a shame. :mad:

Markovic battled hard but just didn't look up to it.

Do we drop someone because of the terrible result as well?

Anyway my 2 at this stage.

Out: Wood, Markovic
In: Addison, Lake

[azabob]

Did Willi play this weekend? If so how did Vezspremi and Wallis go?


Willi played intra club - Wallis got a corky not sure if he will be available. Conditions weren't great @ Whitten Oval.. Lake was really good He should be back in this week.

Apparently Vez kicked five.

[AndrewP6]

I'm surprised to see so many want Stack dropped. I thought he did OK and with Wood out for a looooong time he'll be needed off the half back.

Obviously Wood will be out. Such a shame. :mad:

Markovic battled hard but just didn't look up to it.

Do we drop someone because of the terrible result as well?

Anyway my 2 at this stage.

Out: Wood, Markovic
In: Addison, Lake

I thought the reverse - Markovic tried hard, Stack looked clueless.

[G-Mo77]

Stack did turn it over a few times but I thought his game was passable.

[LostDoggy]

Wood having surgery tonight for torn ligaments probably out for 6 .. no break

[bornadog]

According to Eade Lake and Gilbee may play next week. Addison will be available as well and he also conceded the one ruckman didn't work, so could be up to four changes next week.

[LostDoggy]

Out: Djerkerra, Wood (both inj), Jones, Boyd, Giansiracusa
In: Wallis, Addison, Minson, Skinner, Veszpremi

Where was our Captain today?

Dont entirely disagree with this at all.

[bornadog]

I thought the reverse - Markovic tried hard, Stack looked clueless.

I thought he played ok in the backline, one of his better performances. Eade was happy that Marcovic kept Hurley to two goals considering how many times the ball landed in the Bombers fwd 50.

[alwaysadog]

[/B]

I thought he played ok in the backline, one of his better performances. Eade was happy that Marcovic kept Hurley to two goals considering how many times the ball landed in the Bombers fwd 50.

I'm an agnostic as far as our fringe defenders go ie yet to be convinced, but I don't have a fixed mind about them, today I thought both stood up under enormous pressure, not brilliantly but certainly they weren't embarrassed by their performances.

I sometimes wonder if some of the critics of certain players would write the same comments whether they saw the game or not.

Perhaps they are so disposed to a certain point of view that they only see those things that confirm their predilection, it's easy to fall into that trap especially when disappointment is running amok.

[LostDoggy]

I thought Stack was ok - he took a step forward as a backman. Yes, he got out of position on a couple of occasions, but he wasnt robinson crusoe there! With Wood out now, we need a running backman who can break the lines.

Jones needs game time. We need to keep some faith with him - he has the attributes to be a really useful asset for us - he needs to perform, yes, but he also needs some decent service and i thought he ran to some good spots, got his hands on the ball but they didnt stick today. He is quick and good when the ball hits the ground. I really hope the match committee keep him in the team for at least the next 3-4 rounds.

The thing that has been at the back of my mind has always been - can the likes of Boyd / Cross / Gia carry us to a premiership......do they have the heart and ability to lead the team? I am not prepared to answer my own question on the back of one game, but the fact that i keep asking myself this question is not a good sign at all.

Griffen and Cooney were both not 100% fit - which at round 1 is a bit of a concern.....

[Bulldog Revolution]

With Wood injured I'd give a reprieve to Stack and Hill as the team is crying out for some rebounding defenders and we just have to find some more players capable in that role

I did not like the one ruckman selection, and Eade has publicly said that is was a mistake

Its hard as I'd very much like us to persist with Jones as I see him as a very important part of the future

If Lake is fit he will replace Markovic.

I have no idea what changes I'd make, probably not many

[Rocco Jones]

As disappointing as the game was, I am not sure we can really make too many changes because the players who were most disappointing were our senior/'star' players.

I gave a bit of crap to Markovic and Stack during the game but in hindsight, considering the absolute barrage they were under, I think both were OK.

I don't blame the attitude of Boyd and Cross for the way they play, I blame Rocket and the MC. Players are meant to follow their coach's instructions. I am not inner sanctum but surely giving someone the captaincy is a fair indication that you think they are following team plans. I am not actually anti having Cross and Boyd in the same side, but they simply have to have more accountable roles.

[LostDoggy]

I reckon that SquirrelGrip made a fair comment there. I never saw either Boyd or Gia going around trying to gee up the boys.

Never have seen Gia try to Gee Up The Boys

[LostDoggy]

I'd leave Marcovic in for a week or 2, He wasn't bad, actually did a reasonable job.
And leave Lake to get more fitness, strewth it's only week 1 and we have Brissie & GC, do we really need Lake for them or should we take the opportunity to get some miles into Lucas

[The Underdog]

Never have seen Gia try to Gee Up The Boys

What actions is this "geeing up of the boys" meant to include?
What do other players do to "gee up the boys"?

Sorry, I thought he had a shocker today but I don't get this criticism.

[LostDoggy]

What actions is this "geeing up of the boys" meant to include?
What do other players do to "gee up the boys"?

Sorry, I thought he had a shocker today but I don't get this criticism.

Personally, I don't think he is a "Leader" on the field

[The Underdog]

Personally, I don't think he is a "Leader" on the field

I'm not sure what he needs to do to demonstrate leadership to you, in your seat.
He certainly seems to communicate to his team mates and appears to be quite pro-active in directing other players.

[G-Mo77]

Would love a guy like Roughead in the side. What's his status?

[anfo27]

I'm not sure what he needs to do to demonstrate leadership to you, in your seat. He certainly seems to communicate to his team mates and appears to be quite pro-active in directing other players.

He needs to have an influence in big games and not put the finishing touches on wins against run of the mill sides. Leadership is standing up when the chips are down and I have never seen that from Gia.

[anfo27]

I guess its not worth trying to select the team that the Match Committee (MC) would pick. They wouldn't know how to pick their nose, let alone an AFL side. So I'll have a go at the side that I would like.

First here is the pecking order of those innies and outies.

Auto Choices
Boyd, Matthew
Cooney, Adam
Cross, Daniel
Giansiracusa, Daniel
Gilbee, Lindsay (form to be monitored closely)
Grant, Jarrad
Griffen, Ryan
Hall, Barry
Hargrave, Ryan (auto inclusion when fit)
Higgins, Shaun
Hudson, Ben
Lake, Brian (auto inclusion when fit)
Liberatore, Thomas
Morris, Dale
Murphy, Robert
Picken, Liam
Ward, Callan
Williams, Tom L.
Wood, Easton

Borderliners and those who show promise

1. Roughead, Jordan can improve. You must look towards the finals and play those players now. Minson has now attained the best form that he is capable of. Minson is too stupid, and too likely to do something that will lose us a game rather than win us one.

2. Hill, Josh, seems like he can play back. Has some nice skills.

3. Wallis, Mitchell, the more games that you can get for him the better he will get.

4. Jones, Liam, no criticisms for his entry into the side just now, was a bit of a risk and I would have had him in the reserves, but you have to take risks every now and again otherwise you get nowhere. He has the potential, he is on the cusp of a breakout.

5. Reid, Sam, could develop into a permanent.

6. Skinner, Zephaniah, has special skills.

7. Schofield, Jayden, can run and compete.

8. Veszpremi, Patrick, can run and compete.
9. Tutt, Jason, can run and compete.
10. Cordy, Ayce, needs to show us something so we can move him up the list.
11. Markovic, Lukas, can run and compete.
12. Minson, William, risky due to possibility of doing something stupid. I don't care if he is presently doing better than Roughead, Roughead will be better when the time counts,

Need to show more
1. Howard, Christian
2. Hill, Tom

Hacks to be used when nobody else is available
1. Djerrkura, Nathan
2. Moles, Brodie
3. Sherman, Justin
4. Addison, Dylan

Dismiss these guys and save effort and expense and lost opportunities for others.
1. Hooper, Andrew
2. Stack, Brennan
3. Mulligan, James

We need to restructure the team somewhat to quicken up the midfield and make the backline more secure and to lessen the disruption caused by using only one ruck. Done in an instant by putting Cross to the back pocket and including Roughead. If during the match the situation arises that Cross can't kick the ball clear, he just employs the Collingwood around-the-boundary-and-oops-out-of-bounds method.

I would persist with Jones as he seems to be having a real go. Ward needs to go to half back flank.

Outs:
Stack, best he is ever going to be is a C grader, so why persist with all of the money and resources as we will at best just get another Addison.
Wood, Injured.
Sherman, I have not seen any form from him, also by the Sydney fans he is said to be a stupid guy, so that's a risk.
Djerrkura, might be injured.

Ins.
Roughead, relief ruck and relief key forward, on the bench
Wallis, relief centre
Skinner, can play forward and about the middle.
Vezpremi, for Djerrkura

Bring in Lake for Markovic if possible.

I have to say James i did get a bit of a laugh out of this. Some of this was tounge in cheek right? either way I found it amusing to read.

[soupman]

Played Well

Grant, Murphy, Higgins, Hill, Liberatore, Picken

Auto picks

Cross, Boyd, Sherman*, Williams, Giansiracusa, Ward, Hudson, Griffen, Cooney, Hall, Morris

The vulnerables

Stack: Wasn't terrible in a defence that was under seige. Was solid defensively, I'm just not sure that he is ever going to be any better in other areas. He doesn't use the ball well (see kick to wing under no pressure), he doesn't get a lot of it and he doesn't really create down back. Unless he can become a good lock down player like Picken I just don't see a role for him long term. However at this point I probably have him still playing next week.

Jones: Tries hard and will be good, but still yet to have it comes together at AFL level. Unfortunately he doesn't offer much if he isn't taking marks, and his disposal isnt good enough to make the few possessions he is currently getting hurt enough. I like him in the side though.

Djerrkura: Clearly tries hard, and I believe he has shown sings of being able to fill roles we need players in. However for someone who is in our side for defensive pressure he needs to make a bigger impact when he catches people. ATM his tackles are shrugged too easily. His goal showed how his pace can be used to good effect but I'm not sure he gets enough of it around the ground to justify his inclusion.

Markovic: I thought he was solid without being spectacular. I would be ahppy to keep him in the side, and I'm not that concerned about his ability to play at this level. I think today showed that he is only a replacement for Lake on paper, and really highlighted just how good Lake is.

Injured

Wood

The possibles

Wallis: Obviously has big raps on him, and after Libba's debut the demand for Wallis' debut will be stronger as he is supposedly the better of the two (just saying how it's been reported, it's too early to tell). Pre-season form was ok, not sure he adds that much more to the side just yet.

Addison: I believe he is back this week. Could play multiple positions and help plug up our injury plagued defence until Gilbee and Hargrave get back. Will be in the mix but not sure he should be picked.

Minson: Pre-season form was good, including having an influence around the ground. Concerns that if he comes in we may be a bit big and slow, especially as teams were commenting this week how much more tiring it is without the 4th bench player. Ahead of Roughead because I haven't really heard about Roughead performing well in pre-season and I'm not even sure he is fit enough at this stage.

Veszpremi: A player I think many of us really want to see in the side. Not sure whether he will be picked though. In the pre-season he indicated he could be that player that just keeps bobbing up for 2 or 3 goals a game, but not sure if he adds much outside of this. If the MC believes he can offer decent defensive pressure though I'd pick him.

Lake: If he's match fit, or nearly match fit we should play him. Lake is the difference between our backline being average and awesome. There is no point playing him anywhere else if he is ready to go.

Moles: An option because he is generally tidy, has some pace and could play through a number of positions. Not sure if his pre-season form was anything great but I expect him to be in the mix.

Barlow: Only in the mix because I think the MC will consider him as a versatile second ruck type. Not sure I want this to happen, but may be worth a try.

*Sherman doesn't really fit in any of the groups, but will be in the side. Contrary to what Mr Cuming says the MC at least believe he can add some run and carry toi the side, and that was something we lacked today, amongst other things.

My Changes

I'm putting Lake straight back in assuming he is cleared to be able to play the majority of the match. I think with Brisbane missing Brown we can afford to sub him out if need be, and we need him up and running sooner rather than later. I would also like him to have two games before the bye. Markovic comes out for Lake purely for team balance. If Lake is no good Markovic remains in the side.

We can't continue playig Hudson as our only ruckman. It's going to kill him by round 8 and we are goling to get smahsed in the middle if we do it. I think the MC will pick Barlow because he can help out other areas of the ground. For this reason I will nominate him, because he can partly cover for the absence of Wood as well while i think Minson makes our forwardline even more stagnant. If it was a proper 4 man bench though like previous years Minson would be in (I hate this sub rule. It's going to kill the career's of players like Minson).

I'm really tempted to put Veszpremi in, but I don't know who for. Honestly I think Jones is the player he is fighting for his spot, and I'm not sure Jones deserves to be dropped yet. I'll probably leave this one alone atm, but I really want to get Veszpremi in the side ASAP. I also have him fighting for the last spot in the side, which for me is between Veszpremi, Addison and Djerrkura. I'm not sure Djerrkura adds enough in any particular position, I like Addison for his hardness and think he could play a number of roles. I am a believer in giving players a proper go at it though if possibole so I'll give Djerrkura another week to show he can give us something. If he is injured as rumoured though I'll probably go with Addison with Veszpremi very stiff.

I also expect Sherman to help out across half back because we need another running player there otherwise it's all left up to Murphy.

My side:
FB: 38. Dale Morris, 36. Brian Lake, 18. Brennan Stack
HB: 2. Robert Murphy, 12. Tom Williams, 10. Justin Sherman
C: 5. Matthew Boyd, 4. Daniel Cross, 20. Josh Hill
HF: 1. Jarrad Grant, 19. Liam Jones, 14. Callan Ward
FF: 13. Daniel Giansiracusa, 28. Barry Hall, 7. Shaun Higgins
R. 15. Ben Hudson, 16. Ryan Griffen, 17. Adam Cooney

Int: 21. Tom Liberatore, 42. Liam Picken, 43. Ed Barlow
Sub: 33. Nathan Djerrkura

EM: 22. Dylan Addison, 32. Patrick Veszpremi, 37. Lukas Markovic

Out: Easton Wood (inj), Lukas Markovic (omitted)
In: Brian Lake, Ed Barlow (New: Sydney)

[LostDoggy]

Against the Lions I,d be happy with a few changes but to bring Lake and Gilbee back too soon would be huge mistake , at least another week or two before a fitness test for them.

B Stack- Markovic- Morris
HB Sherman- Williams- Murphy
C Giansiracusa- Boyd- Liberatore
HF Grant- Jones- Veszpremi
F Addison- Hall- Higgins
R Hudson- Picken- Ward

Bench- Roughead- Cross- Hill

Sub- Skinner

Out- Wood (inj ) , Griffin, Cooney, Djerrkura

In- Roughead, Sherman, Veszpremi, Addison, Skinner

.

[Ozza]

Never have seen Gia try to Gee Up The Boys

Watch closer. He'd be the player that gets around to other guys the most out of the whole side.

[Mofra]

Even if Lake comes back in, I would like to see Markovic retained.
His supposed pace issues were readily apparent (yes Hurley isn't super quick, but he did catch Watson and a few other on the ground) and managed to keep Hurley to 2 goals from 71 inside 50s.

Stack would actually bre a decent HB option if he could ever keep his feet - his ball use wasn't too bad and defensive efforts at times reasonable, but he seems to be on ice skates.

Liberatore surely keeps his place in the side after yesterday's effort - I missed the last part of the game (wedding) but even if he faded I'd keep him in and sub him off.

We do need a second ruckman - do we have reports from the Willy intra-club? The best performed ruckman comes in for mine. Wont nominate outs/ins until we get match reports.

[Topdog]

Never have seen Gia try to Gee Up The Boys

In that case you have never watched with your eyes open.

[LostDoggy]

I guess there is a difference in watching the game from the ground against watching on the TV when evaluating players, I am sure there is an element of perception.

Watching the TV, Stack looked lost and out of position, made silly choices and had very bad disposal, tackles that didn't stick, slow, he seemed caught between two players, unable to read the play, fumbly when he actually did get near the ball. I am sure he tried hard but he has not ever looked AFL quality to me.

In my view maybe people (including Rocket) jumping on the leadership group, as they should in the context of this game, is masking the fact that Stack isnt up to it. Sure he tried really hard and the ball was going in there a lot I just didn't see him contribute anything of substance with all that opportunity. The ball was in his area a lot and he couldn't get his hands on it, the handful of times he did, he made a mess of it.

If you were to rate the players, without expectation, on meaningful contributions during the game then from my point of view Stack would be in the bottom three on nearly every occasion I have watched him play.

To restate my point, I do not think Stack is AFL quality and I dont see the potential or moments of magic that come from nearly every other player out there.
But... I do not think he was the reason we lost the game on the weekend or any other time.

Our leaders, our midfielders, our ruck department, our forward line, our selection and our game day coaching all combined to produce a deplorable effort. It concerns me that we can perform this badly, we have pulled out games like these in each of our last few years of top four rating. Some serious thought needs to go into our ruck department and we have some options there, maybe Minson and Roughy are a more mobile combination that could of went with Ryder and Hille? We have other fringe player too like Barlow and even Skinner, the right balance is there and may be different per opponent.

However it is round one, new coach for the bombers and a lot of passion. I always say that round five is when you really get an idea of how a team is going. We have Collingwood round 6 and a bye in round 4 so that could be a defining game.

[LostDoggy]

Heard someone mentionin the radio that Picken has broken jaw. Is this true? That would make him a forced out too I guess?

Pffft. As if a broken jaw would stop Liam “The Demolition Man” Picken. He'll crack it back in place Rambo-style and rock up to recovery with a smile on the face.

In: Addison, Minson/Roughead
Out: Wood, Djerrkura

It's no use dropping the senior guys if there's nobody to replace them. What a way to make a statement — throw the next game and put yourself further behind the eight ball.

[Desipura]

You drop two of the leaders after round 1? Great move. Your 'where was our skipper'
question implies you want to see leadership - if you want them to show it, you have to pick them first!

How many chances do the leaders get?

[Desipura]

I thought the reverse - Markovic tried hard, Stack looked clueless.

Stack did ok given how many forward entries, there are a lot more players worse than Stacky yesterday

[soupman]

Well thought out soupaman. Given that we went in with one ruckman, do you think Barlow is the answer? Is Sherman a backman? ( I am not sure where he played
in Brisbane)

Honestly I don't see Barlow as the answer. But I believe the coaching stuff think he is capable of performing the role I have nominated him for, and if we are going to try it out it might as well be this week. I would prefer Minson in the side atm, but I'm not sure if that will disadvatange us with the sub rule and the limited bench. The sub rule gets talked up as killing the careers of players like Minson by many (including me), but it may just prove to be a lifeline for players like Barlow.

As for Sherman, I know at Brisbane he has played in multiple positions, including a good stint at half back in his B&F year IIRC. I know Rocket spoke about him yesterday as a player that could play up forward, in the middle or down back and I think if he's going to be that run and carry player we need, then we need him replacing the lost drive from Harbrow, Hargrave, Wood and Gilbee across half back. I'm not sure we have anybody else as suited to this role, with the next best viable option probably being Moles (I'm expecting Griffen to also have short stints here but play predominately as a midfielder).

[Bulldog Joe]

Minson MUST play.

Forget about the sub rule and everything else. When Hudson went out of the ruck the 1st time for a spell, we got smashed and never recovered.

Hille and Ryder had full reign without a body crashing in to them and simply were fresher than our options. It also allowed them to have an impact forward because they got it pretty easy with about 30% game time against Hudson each.

If the rotations are the problem, keep the big guys on the ground.

Forward pressure is not relevant if you can't win enough ball.

We have got proper ruckman - USE THEM!!!!!

[Sedat]

Hille and Ryder had full reign without a body crashing in to them and simply were fresher than our options. It also allowed them to have an impact forward because they got it pretty easy with about 30% game time against Hudson each.
They are good up forward as well - Essendon look like being one of the major beneficiaries of the sub rule, having two quality ruckmen that can cause damage up forward as well.

Huddo is old school bash and crash, brilliant in at the stoppages but doesn't really get to cause much damage around the ground. Minno was tried up forward in 2008 without massive success - the sub rule is going to perplex our MC for the first few weeks of the season while we trial different structures with our ruck set-up.

[Remi Moses]

Monumental stuff up not playing the Second ruckman against that ruck div.
In Lake Addison Minson or roughy
Out markovic (unlucky) Wood Stack

[LostDoggy]

Lake?

Yeah, whoops. Of course…

[Desipura]

Minson would not have made much difference. I would go with Roughy or Barlow into next weeks game. I only see Minson in the side iif Jones or Hudson is out otherwise we just have another tall in our forward line who cannot take a contested mark.

[G-Mo77]

As I asked earlier what is Roughhead's status? With these stupid interchange rules he's a very valuable player to have in the team.

[Mantis]

As I asked earlier what is Roughhead's status?

Of the little I saw of him in the pre-season he looked a long way off.

He didn't touch the thing in our NAB Cup game and from reports he was poor in Bunbury.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Why are people refraining from dropping senior players? Such advice as "give them a chance to bounce back" is rubbish. "It's only one game" - again, rubbish. You've had an entire pre-season to plan, and you come up with that? Needless to say, that ... is rubbish.

Make a statement. Prove to the rest of the football world we don't accept those performances under ANY circumstances. We don't care who you are. This is a new year, and the way I see it, the foot needs to be stamped HARD and EARLY.

I'll scream if we keep giving chance after chance, chance after chance.

It's gone on for far too long.

[G-Mo77]

Of the little I saw of him in the pre-season he looked a long way off.

He didn't touch the thing in our NAB Cup game and from reports he was poor in Bunbury.

Thanks for the info even though it's pretty disappointing.

[Mantis]

I'll scream if we keep giving chance after chance, chance after chance.

It's gone on for far too long.

Can you let me know when & where this 'scream' will take place?

[always right]

As for Sherman, I know at Brisbane he has played in multiple positions, including a good stint at half back in his B&F year IIRC. I know Rocket spoke about him yesterday as a player that could play up forward, in the middle or down back and I think if he's going to be that run and carry player we need, then we need him replacing the lost drive from Harbrow, Hargrave, Wood and Gilbee across half back. I'm not sure we have anybody else as suited to this role, with the next best viable option probably being Moles (I'm expecting Griffen to also have short stints here but play predominately as a midfielder).

Personally I don't see Sherman as the answer down back....but the next two weeks are probably ideal tiime to test it. What worries me is his decision making. There's a definite kamikaze-look when he runs with the ball and with forwardline pressure all the rage, I'd be worried as to what he might do if caught in traffic.

As I said the next two week's opponents give us the opportuntity to try a few things. With Lake likely to return I don't think Markovic deserves to be dropped based on yesterday's performance....and going by Rocket's comments, I don't think he will be.

As much as I hate seeing Williams risking another season ending injury I think the match committee might resist the urge to bring Minson back in and instead perserver with Williams as our relief ruckman....at least for this week Can't see them keeping Markovic in the side and bringing both Minson and Lake into the side. At least Williams has mobility on his side to play other positions.

[azabob]

They are good up forward as well - Essendon look like being one of the major beneficiaries of the sub rule, having two quality ruckmen that can cause damage up forward as well.

Huddo is old school bash and crash, brilliant in at the stoppages but doesn't really get to cause much damage around the ground. Minno was tried up forward in 2008 without massive success - the sub rule is going to perplex our MC for the first few weeks of the season while we trial different structures with our ruck set-up.

Why didn't we trial different structures in the pre-season comp??

[LostDoggy]

I'm really concerned about the second ruck position. Our rucks aren't versatile or too slow to play forward (this may / or may not extend to Roughead). I know it's a knee-jerk round 1 reaction but I think teams like Essendon are going to do best out of the sub-rule with the inclusion of Ryder as a forward.

Would be interesting to see how they would go if either he or Hille are injured.

Any recent news on Cordy as with a game of new sub-rule under the belt he seems to be the perfect player for the rule..? I was livid when I saw Williams go into the ruck on Sunday, surely (much like the Minson forward experiment) this gameplan has be condemned to history. It is third or fourth time it hasn't worked

[soupman]

Personally I don't see Sherman as the answer down back....but the next two weeks are probably ideal tiime to test it. What worries me is his decision making. There's a definite kamikaze-look when he runs with the ball and with forwardline pressure all the rage, I'd be worried as to what he might do if caught in traffic.


Long term I don't see him there either, but seeing as of the players we would expect the drive to come from (Murphy, Wood, Gilbee, Hargrave) only Murphy is fit I'm not sure we are spoilt for choice. Short of trying a Griffen there and robbing the midfield (wouldn't have been the case yesterday) or trying Moles there I think this is the most logical move.

As for keeping Markovic in the side, I'm not sure he fits if Lake plays. I don't think Markovic deserves to be dropped but I also don't think we can carry that many big blokes if Lake comes in, especially if we decide to bring a Minson or even barlow in as the second ruckman.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Can you let me know when & where this 'scream' will take place?

You'll hear it right across the western suburbs should it eventuate. ;)

[LostDoggy]

I think people should not waste their time writing things like "drop Boyd & Gia" it aint going to happen, you guys know that as well as I do.
I'm wondering if playing people like Jones, Stack and Libba in the same side is a good idea. Bringing new people into the side is better done gradually. As of the weekend I'd have put Libba in and left the other 2 out and try them bit by bit.
Filling the gaps in the side with inexperienced bulldog players, young and old (this includes Shermans, Djerrkuras etc) is not a good option, especially against a good side.

[Mantis]

I think people should not waste their time writing things like "drop Boyd & Gia" it aint going to happen, you guys know that as well as I do.
I'm wondering if playing people like Jones, Stack and Libba in the same side is a good idea. Bringing new people into the side is better done gradually. As of the weekend I'd have put Libba in and left the other 2 out and try them bit by bit.
Filling the gaps in the side with inexperienced bulldog players, young and old (this includes Shermans, Djerrkuras etc) is not a good option, especially against a good side.

What other options did we have?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I think Jones looks a fair way off. Still struggling to hold marks, position himself accurately and judge the flight of the ball. I wouldn't be upset if he was kept in the side, but I think he looked a little out of his depth. Perhaps Veszpremi would be a good swap.

[LostDoggy]

Dylan Addison?
Will Minson as a 2nd ruck or maybe the sub like some have said and put Sherman on the bench.
Moles,
Veszpremi,

I'm not saying you can't have a handfull of new (young and old) dogs players, just I think they went with one youngin too many and one newbie too many.

[Before I Die]

Personally I don't see Sherman as the answer down back....but the next two weeks are probably ideal tiime to test it. What worries me is his decision making. There's a definite kamikaze-look when he runs with the ball and with forwardline pressure all the rage, I'd be worried as to what he might do if caught in traffic.

As I said the next two week's opponents give us the opportuntity to try a few things. With Lake likely to return I don't think Markovic deserves to be dropped based on yesterday's performance....and going by Rocket's comments, I don't think he will be.

As much as I hate seeing Williams risking another season ending injury I think the match committee might resist the urge to bring Minson back in and instead perserver with Williams as our relief ruckman....at least for this week Can't see them keeping Markovic in the side and bringing both Minson and Lake into the side. At least Williams has mobility on his side to play other positions.

Why not leave Williams at CHB and use Markovic as the relief ruckman. He has a strong build, has rucked at Williamstown, has a good pair of hands and can play back or forward. He could be our Leigh Brown. Having no respect for Leigh Brown, I can't believe I just said that, but the game has changed.

[Bulldog Joe]

I was livid when I saw Williams go into the ruck on Sunday, surely (much like the Minson forward experiment) this gameplan has be condemned to history. It is third or fourth time it hasn't worked

Minson is much more successful as a forward than Williams as a ruckman.

Will was close to a goal a game average from playing about 40% game time forward

[GVGjr]

Why not leave Williams at CHB and use Markovic as the relief ruckman. He has a strong build, has rucked at Williamstown, has a good pair of hands and can play back or forward. He could be our Leigh Brown. Having no respect for Leigh Brown, I can't believe I just said that, but the game has changed.

That's a good point but I'm not sure he can do the job that Leigh Brown can.

[Mantis]

I think Jones looks a fair way off. Still struggling to hold marks, position himself accurately and judge the flight of the ball. I wouldn't be upset if he was kept in the side, but I think he looked a little out of his depth. Perhaps Veszpremi would be a good swap.

How would Vez go flying against 2 defenders to long bombs?

[comrade]

How would Vez go flying against 2 defenders to long bombs?

Probably as well as Jones - terrible.

We don't need a forward to replace Jones, we need a ruckman.

[Mantis]

Probably as well as Jones - terrible.

We don't need a forward to replace Jones, we need a ruckman.

Concrete hands Minno or a kid in Roughy who will get his dodgy shoulders belted from pillar to post?

It wouldn't matter if we had Wayne Carey at CHF he would still get smashed in every contest.

[comrade]

Concrete hands Minno or a kid in Roughy who will get his dodgy shoulders belted from pillar to post?

It wouldn't matter if we had Wayne Carey at CHF he would still get smashed in every contest.

CHF is a worthless position if we can't win the ball cleanly from the middle and deliver it correctly. The Bomber mids got an armchair ride from their ruck duo (and they outworked us).

What we need is a second ruckman to support Hudson - either we replace Jones with Minson or Roughy or we replace Wood with Barlow who plays exclusively as the 3rd defender/second ruck.

[Go_Dogs]

CHF is a worthless position if we can't win the ball cleanly from the middle and deliver it correctly. The Bomber mids got an armchair ride from their ruck duo (and they outworked us).

What we need is a second ruckman to support Hudson - either we replace Jones with Minson or Roughy or we replace Wood with Barlow who plays exclusively as the 3rd defender/second ruck.

Agree with the first part that it doesn't matter who it is, if you're kicking to an outnumbered contest time and time again, chances are we'll lose a lot more than we win.

I agree to a certain extent that a second ruck would help.

Not having seen the game though, I wonder how many Bomber goals came as a direct result of stoppage dominance, compared to how many we coughed up trying to clear the ball from our D50? Given that from the radio broadcast we seemed to always be kicking to an outnumbered contest moving the ball forwards, it seems to me that we weren't moving the ball smart enough or quick enough coming out of defence.

It appears as though Rd 1 has exposed a lot of flaws, thankfully we have a bit of time to sort them out before September.

I guess it's also worth mentioning that a lot of good sides have been beaten by 'quicker' sides, such as Carlton/Essendon in recent years - perhaps we got caught napping. Malcolm Blight always said the season starts in Rd 2, so hopefully we know more in the next couple of weeks about what sort of season we might be in for.

[Dazza]

Essendon were certainly cleaner around the stoppages. They'd get the ball then handball it back to an open player and then they'd spread and run forward.

On the other hand we'd win the ball we'd either boot it forward or try to handball to a player pretty much standing right next to the original player. Not sure if this was because there were too many contested ball winners in the one side or if we just got our structures completely wrong.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Agree with the first part that it doesn't matter who it is, if you're kicking to an outnumbered contest time and time again, chances are we'll lose a lot more than we win.

I agree to a certain extent that a second ruck would help.

Not having seen the game though, I wonder how many Bomber goals came as a direct result of stoppage dominance, compared to how many we coughed up trying to clear the ball from our D50? Given that from the radio broadcast we seemed to always be kicking to an outnumbered contest moving the ball forwards, it seems to me that we weren't moving the ball smart enough or quick enough coming out of defence.

It appears as though Rd 1 has exposed a lot of flaws, thankfully we have a bit of time to sort them out before September.

I guess it's also worth mentioning that a lot of good sides have been beaten by 'quicker' sides, such as Carlton/Essendon in recent years - perhaps we got caught napping. Malcolm Blight always said the season starts in Rd 2, so hopefully we know more in the next couple of weeks about what sort of season we might be in for.

If only that were true.

[azabob]

I guess it's also worth mentioning that a lot of good sides have been beaten by 'quicker' sides, such as Carlton/Essendon in recent years - perhaps we got caught napping. Malcolm Blight always said the season starts in Rd 2, so hopefully we know more in the next couple of weeks about what sort of season we might be in for.

It seems we get beat by Carlton and Essendon more often than not lately.

Our next two weeks perhaps won't give us an indication at all (unless we lose) of what type of season we will have.

[Bulldog Joe]

It seems we get beat by Carlton and Essendon more often than not lately.

Our next two weeks perhaps won't give us an indication at all (unless we lose) of what type of season we will have.

Lose the next 2 weeks and we can all think of going away on holidays.

[boydogs]

Out: Wood (inj), Markovic, Ward
In: Roughead, Lake, Addison

The Williams as 2nd ruck experiment didn't work, so we need Roughead in. Lake comes back in for Markovic if ready, and Addison back from suspension. Hopefully Dylan performs as he did in the 2010 finals series, if so he should be a regular IMO.

[Go_Dogs]

It seems we get beat by Carlton and Essendon more often than not lately.

Our next two weeks perhaps won't give us an indication at all (unless we lose) of what type of season we will have.

We've had the wood over Essendon for a long time, but agree re: Carlton.


You're also probably right to some extent about the next couple of weeks but hopefully we can get our tactics right, our better players up and running and start to see us execute better pressure on the ball carrier etc.

[bornadog]

Out: Wood (inj), Markovic, Ward
In: Roughead, Lake, Addison

The Williams as 2nd ruck experiment didn't work, so we need Roughead in. Lake comes back in for Markovic if ready, and Addison back from suspension. Hopefully Dylan performs as he did in the 2010 finals series, if so he should be a regular IMO.

So drop one of the midfielders who had 21 disposals, 16 contested possessions, 8 tackles?

Ok, thats your opinion, but I think there were worse players than him.

[EasternWest]

We've had the wood over Essendon for a long time, but agree re: Carlton.


You're also probably right to some extent about the next couple of weeks but hopefully we can get our tactics right, our better players up and running and start to see us execute better pressure on the ball carrier etc.

Didn't they beat us first time we played them in 2010? 9 points springs to mind for some reason.

[comrade]

Didn't they beat us first time we played them in 2010? 9 points springs to mind for some reason.

Prior to Sunday, we had beaten them 7 of the last 8 times.

[Go_Dogs]

Prior to Sunday, we had beaten them 7 of the last 8 times.

Even looking as far back as 2000, we've had a fair record against them (from memory).

[The Pie Man]

Even looking as far back as 2000, we've had a fair record against them (from memory).

Though aside from one 50 + win in 07 (I think) I can never remember us belting them...I've always wanted to do that. We've copped a few from them over the years. The Moorcroft mark game was painful

[Mantis]

I would like to think we would bring in Schofield to play in Wood's position.

It was seen by the opportunities he received in the pre-season that he wasn't far away and with our run from defence a huge concern I would hope he would come in over the next 2 games such that he is given a taste against 2 of the teams that are expected to be the worst performed.

He showed against Brisbane in our practice match that he plays with some dare & dash and we seriously need some in our team.

[GVGjr]

I would like to think we would bring in Schofield to play in Wood's position.

It was seen by the opportunities he received in the pre-season that he wasn't far away and with our run from defence a huge concern I would hope he would come in over the next 2 games such that he is given a taste against 2 of the teams that are expected to be the worst performed.

He showed against Brisbane in our practice match that he plays with some dare & dash and we seriously need some in our team.

A bold selection and one that Rocket might very well have in mind. Ideally I'd like to see him with a few VFL games under his belt but he could be given his chance this week. Has he got the stamina to play significant minutes? Libba looked spent at times so could we afford another?

[EasternWest]

Prior to Sunday, we had beaten them 7 of the last 8 times.

No problem with that in theory.

But the sides we both had for those first six games would probably be fairly different, so it's really only recent-ish results that hold a lot of currency IMO. If you look only at last year/this year, it's 2-1 to them, and I think current form is more relevant.

Except of course when I'm talking to my Essendon friends. Then I'll be sure to remind them it's 7-2 us :).

[Mantis]

Out: Wood (inj), Markovic, Ward
In: Roughead, Lake, Addison

The Williams as 2nd ruck experiment didn't work, so we need Roughead in. Lake comes back in for Markovic if ready, and Addison back from suspension. Hopefully Dylan performs as he did in the 2010 finals series, if so he should be a regular IMO.

What role do you see Addison filling?

[The Pie Man]

I would like to think we would bring in Schofield to play in Wood's position.

It was seen by the opportunities he received in the pre-season that he wasn't far away and with our run from defence a huge concern I would hope he would come in over the next 2 games such that he is given a taste against 2 of the teams that are expected to be the worst performed.

He showed against Brisbane in our practice match that he plays with some dare & dash and we seriously need some in our team.

He'd certainly give us a personality injection - which I don't underestimate the importance of (still remembering Hoopers semi final goal celebration fondly)

[Mantis]

A bold selection and one that Rocket might very well have in mind. Ideally I'd like to see him with a few VFL games under his belt but he could be given his chance this week. Has he got the stamina to play significant minutes? Libba looked spent at times so could we afford another?

I would think the pace of the game would be quite different next week compared to last which would probably help his case and I would think there will be some suitable match-ups against 2 pretty inexperienced teams.

The movement of the ball from defence was as bad as it's ever been and with our game style being all about unpredictable ball movement we can't fill up our back half with players who only run in straight lines. Murphy can run the angles and that's about it with no Wood. From the little I have seen of Schofield he is light on his feet, has good vision and is the type player who will take a risk... We need this type of player in our back half.

[Rocco Jones]

What role do you see Addison filling?

Defensive forward for mine.

I think we are in between a rock and a hard place when it comes to our 2nd ruck. A few will remember my part timer ruck bandwagon and it's even stronger now due to the sub rule but I can also definitely understand how we don't have a great 2nd ruck option.

Rucks now need to spend more time up forward and I really cringe at the thought of Minson spending so much time forward. I would have had Markovic and Williams swapping roles yesterday but I would like to see Barlow in the 2nd ruck role. None of our 2nd ruck part timers are actually strong ruckmen so I think it's futile finding the one that impersonates one the best. I think Barlow can actually offer us a bit of role and an option in other areas. His elite running would benefit from the sub rule.

[comrade]

Defensive forward for mine.

I think we are in between a rock and a hard place when it comes to our 2nd ruck. A few will remember my part timer ruck bandwagon and it's even stronger now due to the sub rule but I can also definitely understand how we don't have a great 2nd ruck option.

Rucks now need to spend more time up forward and I really cringe at the thought of Minson spending so much time forward. I would have had Markovic and Williams swapping roles yesterday but I would like to see Barlow in the 2nd ruck role. None of our 2nd ruck part timers are actually strong ruckmen so I think it's futile finding the one that impersonates one the best. I think Barlow can actually offer us a bit of role and an option in other areas. His elite running would benefit from the sub rule.

Who does Barlow replace?

[LostDoggy]

2nd ruck who can play around the ground and do some mercurial things -- wasn't Zeph Skinner mentioned by many here to be a possibility for this? Is he thereabouts? Or still physically too far off? Didn't he kick a bag in pre-season?

I don't know what Barlow has done recently but he must be a much better player than the eker I saw play for Sydney if he's going to be the answer to our structural problems.

[comrade]

I don't know what Barlow has done recently but he must be a much better player than the eker I saw play for Sydney if he's going to be the answer to our structural problems.

Collingwood fans said similar things about Leigh Brown. I'm not saying Barlow is the answer, but he could be a contributor if given the right role.

What we do know is going in with one ruckman is fraught with danger yet overloading with lumbering talls will makes us even slower, especially if we persist with Jones.

Barlow is tall yet can run better than anyone. Can he tap ruck? Who knows.

[LostDoggy]

Ia Roughead available?

[Bulldog Joe]

Collingwood fans said similar things about Leigh Brown. I'm not saying Barlow is the answer, but he could be a contributor if given the right role.

What we do know is going in with one ruckman is fraught with danger yet overloading with lumbering talls will makes us even slower, especially if we persist with Jones.

Barlow is tall yet can run better than anyone. Can he tap ruck? Who knows.


Ia Roughead available?

Stop all this nonsense.

JUST PLAY MINSON

The reports of his pre-season were very encouraging and his strength is needed.

We don't have anyone else that can provide his level of contest in the ruck.

His forward work is not that bad.

Averaged close to a goal a game in 09

[comrade]

Stop all this nonsense.

JUST PLAY MINSON

The reports of his pre-season were very encouraging and his strength is needed.

We don't have anyone else that can provide his level of contest in the ruck.

His forward work is not that bad.

Averaged close to a goal a game in 09

If Jones doesn't play, I'm happy for another ruckman to be picked. My preference is for Roughead, only because he is a much better forward target and isn't prone to brain explosions. His tap work is very good also. I wouldn't have a problem if we picked Minson, either.

I actually want two ruckmen in, at the expense of Jones. I want Roughy, you want Minson but we're thinking along the same lines.

BUT....

If we persist with Jones, we have to pick a pinch hitting ruckman who can play elsewhere and who can RUN, otherwise we will overrun. Barlow fits this bill.

Minson is a first ruckman. Hudson is a first ruckman. Hudson is the preferred first ruckman. Neither can really do much other than ruck. With the new rules and less rotations, playing them both makes our team unbalanced - especially if we continue to play Jones.

[SlimPickens]

I would like to think we would bring in Schofield to play in Wood's position.

Agree with this i would love to see this kid given a go. I'd imagine Brisbanes forward line will be very raw, so the perfect chance to play him. I was also at the Brissy practice match and he really impressed me, not to mention he has a bit of mongrel about him.

[bornadog]

If Jones doesn't play, I'm happy for another ruckman to be picked. My preference is for Roughead, only because he is a much better forward target and isn't prone to brain explosions. His tap work is very good also. I wouldn't have a problem if we picked Minson, either.

I actually want two ruckmen in, at the expense of Jones. I want Roughy, you want Minson but we're thinking along the same lines.

BUT....

If we persist with Jones, we have to pick a pinch hitting ruckman who can play elsewhere and who can RUN, otherwise we will overrun. Barlow fits this bill.

Minson is a first ruckman. Hudson is a first ruckman. Hudson is the preferred first ruckman. Neither can really do much other than ruck. With the new rules and less rotations, playing them both makes our team unbalanced - especially if we continue to play Jones.

I don't agree with this. Why can't we play two ruckman plus Jones and Hall in the forward line. Collingwood do? They have Jolly, Brown, Dawes and Cloke. Works well for them.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I don't agree with this. Why can't we play two ruckman plus Jones and Hall in the forward line. Collingwood do? They have Jolly, Brown, Dawes and Cloke. Works well for them.

We have Grant as well.

I know he can run fast, but he still plays like a marking forward.

[Mantis]

We have Grant as well.

I know he can run fast, but he still plays like a marking forward.

Higgins & Gia also play as marking forwards... If we bring in Vezspremi he will play as a marking forward.

On Grant we have seen when he plays on bigger bodied defenders he tends to struggle and at this point of his career he really needs to play as the '3rd' tall.

[Mofra]

A bold selection and one that Rocket might very well have in mind. Ideally I'd like to see him with a few VFL games under his belt but he could be given his chance this week. Has he got the stamina to play significant minutes? Libba looked spent at times so could we afford another?
Libba & Schofield to be the subbed on & off players? We get gametime into two youngsters and provide some spark in the side.

[comrade]

I don't agree with this. Why can't we play two ruckman plus Jones and Hall in the forward line. Collingwood do? They have Jolly, Brown, Dawes and Cloke. Works well for them.

Jolly does the majority of the ruck work, and Brown plays elsewhere (both back and forward).

Also, we're not Collingwood.

[Mantis]

Defensive forward for mine.



With this in mind how do you see our forward-lne structuring up then?

And do you want Addison to lock down on the oppositions best rebounder like he did in the finals or just play as a battering ram/ tackler to hold the ball in?

[Mantis]

Jolly does the majority of the ruck work, and Brown plays elsewhere (both back and forward).



Hudson played 80% game time on Sunday and I assume all of this was in the ruck so if he is to continue to play high minutes will we get any major benefit out of playing Minson or Roughy for the what equates to 6 or 7min a qtr? I think not especially when you would consider that to bring this 2nd rucks time up they would have to spend over half the game playing in a secondary role which I can't see either of these 2 fulfilling just now.

Also can we suggest that Huddo's poor game was as a direct result of the increased time on the ground because from memory his normal game time last year was around 65-70%?

Much to think about for our MC.

[Hotdog60]

Hudson played 80% game time on Sunday and I assume all of this was in the ruck so if he is to continue to play high minutes will we get any major benefit out of playing Minson or Roughy for the what equates to 6 or 7min a qtr? I think not especially when you would consider that to bring this 2nd rucks time up they would have to spend over half the game playing in a secondary role which I can't see either of these 2 fulfilling just now.

Also can we suggest that Huddo's poor game was as a direct result of the increased time on the ground because from memory his normal game time last year was around 65-70%?

Much to think about for our MC.

Mantis posters have touch on Barlow as the second ruck option, but would Skinner also be an option?
Being raw and most likey under done for a full game he could rest up forward and has rucked at state level. Could he be our Paddy Ryder or is it too soon to throw him in the deep end.

[Mantis]

Mantis posters have touch on Barlow as the second ruck option, but would Skinner also be an option?
Being raw and most likey under done for a full game he could rest up forward and has rucked at state level. Could he be our Paddy Ryder or is it too soon to throw him in the deep end.

I think that Skinner is too raw at present and would think that Barlow would be a better option at this point in time.

As far as the Ryder comparison goes :

Skinner - 189cm - 78kg
Ryder - 197cm - 95kg

Yeah I think not.

[dogman]

For this week, out Jones, Woods, Stack and Djerrkura
Ins Lake, Minson, Addison and Veszpremi

Back six
Morris, Markovic, Lake
Hill, Williams, Murphy

Ease Lake into the side and play Markovic on the most dangerous tall, just let Lake read and setup play, so more a Hargrave role.

I thought Hill was pretty good last week in defence.

Forward Six
Higgins, Hall, Viszpremi
Picken, Grant, Sherman

This is a better mix of talls, quicks and tackling pressure.

[Mantis]

My changes are:

In - Schofield, Barlow, Lake
Out - Wood (inj), Djerrkura, Markovic

[Bulldog Joe]

In the past I have often been pleased that the side is picked by the Match Committee and not posters on the web.

After last week's debacle with selection, I am not so sure that some of you are not on the match committee, but I fervently hope that sanity prevails with team selection.

We have good ruck depth. We must use it. Stop all this talk about Barlow, Skinner, Markovic and Williams as second ruck options.

Minson and Roughead are adequate forward. Minson has strength as a ruckman and allows more conservative use of Hudson. It will help our clearance work enormously and that is where we were most deficient against the Bombers.

In fact if we are to go with the fantasy of one ruckman it should be Minson who actually takes more marks than Hudson, despite the negativity about Will's hands.

PS
Official stats have Hudson with 2.9 per game and Will with 2.8 but I believe Hudson has generally played more game time.

[Bulldog Joe]

For this week, out Jones, Woods, Stack and Djerrkura
Ins Lake, Minson, Addison and Veszpremi

Back six
Morris, Markovic, Lake
Hill, Williams, Murphy

Ease Lake into the side and play Markovic on the most dangerous tall, just let Lake read and setup play, so more a Hargrave role.

I thought Hill was pretty good last week in defence.

Forward Six
Higgins, Hall, Viszpremi
Picken, Grant, Sherman

This is a better mix of talls, quicks and tackling pressure.

I like the idea in the back six as Lake does have the mobility and would have more licence to run forward.

Don't like Grant as the key forward as he is just not robust enough for that role unless he is going to continually be the lead up in the way Murphy was previously used.

[Desipura]

BJ why did 14 other clubs not try and trade for Minson? Only GC showed mild interest, what does that tell you?

[Bulldog Joe]

BJ why did 14 other clubs not try and trade for Minson? Only GC showed mild interest, what does that tell you?

It only tells me that he was more valued at the Dogs than by other clubs (and probably by lots of supporters).

Fact is that they were assessing on 2010 when Will had a horror run.
He is better than that.

[Mantis]

Minson and Roughead are adequate forward. Minson has strength as a ruckman and allows more conservative use of Hudson. It will help our clearance work enormously and that is where we were most deficient against the Bombers.

In fact if we are to go with the fantasy of one ruckman it should be Minson who actually takes more marks than Hudson, despite the negativity about Will's hands.



From what I have seen this year Roughead is a shell of what we saw last year (probably due to off season surgery) and needs time.

Minson is poor up forward and has performed reasonably well in the ruck at times, but I can't see him and Hudson in the same team.

As far as using Hudson more conservatively who picks up the slack? If Hudson's game time drops from 80% on the weekend to 65% who plays these extra minutes?

[soupman]

BJ why did 14 other clubs not try and trade for Minson? Only GC showed mild interest, what does that tell you?

That the sub rule is killing him.

Every side already has an established first ruck of equal or better value than Minson. Adelaide were possibly the only club without anyone obviously better, and they had their eyes on Jacobs early. Minson is very capable of playing ruck, but as you can see in the last 3 or so pages his work elsewhere is questionable, and that is what scared clubs off of him. For his sake I wish he had've gone to GC, because he could finally play as a number 1 ruckman there.

[Bulldog Joe]

From what I have seen this year Roughead is a shell of what we saw last year (probably due to off season surgery) and needs time.

Minson is poor up forward and has performed reasonably well in the ruck at times, but I can't see him and Hudson in the same team.

As far as using Hudson more conservatively who picks up the slack? If Hudson's game time drops from 80% on the weekend to 65% who plays these extra minutes?

We did very well in 08 and 09 with Hudson and Minson in the same side.

If Hudson shares the ruck duties with Minson, he will also last the season better than if expected to take on the majority of ruck duties alone. In tandem they also wear down opponents.

All this talk of Minson being poor forward is over exaggerated. In 08 and 09 he was close to a goal a game despite spending somewhere around half a game forward.

Obviously I have little support for my views on Will on the forum, but I am confident that given an adequate chance he will prove his worth.

The alternative of using Williams obviously DID NOT WORK.
There is absolutely no reason to think that Barlow or other options would do any better.
The evidence from round 1 is that we need to improve our clearance work.
Will is the best option to do that as he can influence the contest at the stoppages.

[comrade]

W

The alternative of using Williams obviously DID NOT WORK.
There is absolutely no reason to think that Barlow or other options would do any better.
The evidence from round 1 is that we need to improve our clearance work.
Will is the best option to do that as he can influence the contest at the stoppages.

I don't disagree with this but if Will plays, Jones can't IMO.

[soupman]

I don't disagree with this but if Will plays, Jones can't IMO.

This is the issue I have as well. Playing Minson very much limits how many talls we can have elsewhere.

[Mantis]

We did very well in 08 and 09 with Hudson and Minson in the same side.

The game has changed since then. We cannot have these 2 playing just 65% game time like they did back then.


If Hudson shares the ruck duties with Minson, he will also last the season better than if expected to take on the majority of ruck duties alone. In tandem they also wear down opponents.

If Hudson is playing as the sole ruckman and is showing signs of physical strain he should be rested. I would have no problem having Minson play the role as no. 1 ruck, I just don't see how we can play him as the no.2.


All this talk of Minson being poor forward is over exaggerated. In 08 and 09 he was close to a goal a game despite spending somewhere around half a game forward.

That was before we had Hall who is playing the same role and has averaged over 3 goals a game.

We would struggle to play both Minson & Hall in the same forwardline as they both aren't great defensively or good on the ground.

[bornadog]

Jolly does the majority of the ruck work, and Brown plays elsewhere (both back and forward).

Also, we're not Collingwood.

I mention Collingwood as they are the benchmark. You haven't excatlty answered my question, why we can't have all those players in, ie two rucks plus Jones and Hall?

[comrade]

I mention Collingwood as they are the benchmark. You haven't excatlty answered my question, why we can't have all those players in, ie two rucks plus Jones and Hall?

Jolly is a pure ruckman, Brown isn't. Jolly probablt takes 65-70% of the ruck contests, especially in the middle.

Brown can pinch hit either forward or back, depending on rotations - i.e. if Dawes is off, Brown goes forward. If both key forwards are on, Brown can go back and allow a midfielder to rest.

Mantis sums it up pretty well...


The game has changed since then. We cannot have these 2 playing just 65% game time like they did back then.


If Hudson is playing as the sole ruckman and is showing signs of physical strain he should be rested. I would have no problem having Minson play the role as no. 1 ruck, I just don't see how we can play him as the no.2.

[Bulldog Joe]

The game has changed since then. We cannot have these 2 playing just 65% game time like they did back then.

I see them as playing more game time and resting forward to allow the midfield rotations to have priority.



If Hudson is playing as the sole ruckman and is showing signs of physical strain he should be rested. I would have no problem having Minson play the role as no. 1 ruck, I just don't see how we can play him as the no.2.

Don't disagree with this, but this is when Roughy (or Cordy) gets a run.



That was before we had Hall who is playing the same role and has averaged over 3 goals a game.
Yet as a team we scored more goals with Will averaging close to 1 goal a game.


We would struggle to play both Minson & Hall in the same forwardline as they both aren't great defensively or good on the ground.

This may be valid, but a good defensive minded forward is of limited value if the ball does not get in to the forward 50.

It simply needs better ball use so that we hit targets and then the defensive part is less important.

I understand that the game has moved on with forward pressure now being the catch cry.
The introduction of the sub is designed to slow the game down and the runners will suffer.

There is an old adage that the speedsters may slow but the talls don't get shorter.

Instead of copying everyone else, we need to use our resources most effectively and that includes 2 real ruckmen.

We actually have 5 in various stages of development.

[soupman]

Yet as a team we scored more goals with Will averaging close to 1 goal a game.


So are you suggesting we drop Hall and go back to our midget forwardline? Adding Minson doesn't automatically make us average more goals.



There is an old adage that the speedsters may slow but the talls don't get shorter.


The issue here is that by the time the sppedsters have slown and the talls haven't shrunk the talls are too buggered from chasing the smalls and the game is over anyway. Besides the opposition are too busy playing possession footy in their back half.

[Mantis]

I see them as playing more game time and resting forward to allow the midfield rotations to have priority.

You still need to have some effect on the game and I can't see wither Will or Huddo being effective up forward against decent opposition.


Yet as a team we scored more goals with Will averaging close to 1 goal a game.

I would think that would have more to do with the support cast on offer.


This may be valid, but a good defensive minded forward is of limited value if the ball does not get in to the forward 50.

It simply needs better ball use so that we hit targets and then the defensive part is less important.

I understand that the game has moved on with forward pressure now being the catch cry.
The introduction of the sub is designed to slow the game down and the runners will suffer.

There is an old adage that the speedsters may slow but the talls don't get shorter.

Instead of copying everyone else, we need to use our resources most effectively and that includes 2 real ruckmen.

We actually have 5 in various stages of development.

It's going to be interseting how it plays out, but at present I don't see the value in playing Huddo & Will in the same team - you obviously do and that's fine. I guess we can will just wait and see what the MC come up with as the model that was on offer on Sunday isn't going to work, but we do have some options (many of which have been discussed here) so hopefully the MC make the correct call.

[mjp]

In fact if we are to go with the fantasy of one ruckman it should be Minson who actually takes more marks than Hudson, despite the negativity about Will's hands.


Are you seriously suggesting Minson plays ahead of Hudson and using a stat saying that Minson takes .1 of a mark less per game than Hudson to support the argument?

[Bulldog Joe]

Are you seriously suggesting Minson plays ahead of Hudson and using a stat saying that Minson takes .1 of a mark less per game than Hudson to support the argument?

Yes I am serious if we are only to play one ruckman.

My observation is that Hudson fatigues more than Minson and I do recall Minson doing quite well on the occasions he has carried the ruck.

I rate Hudson as a better clearance player himself, but Minson is equally proficient around the ground.

I just don't see Hudson as being able to carry the workload for as long as Minson.

Since he has been at the Dogs Huddo has been less effective late in the season and this will not be improved by running him into the ground as the sole ruckman.

I have stated my preference is to see both playing.

Incidentally the stats were an afterthought. Across their careers it is very close, but if we go back to 2009 Will took an extra mark per game compared to Hudson. He also contributed 35 goals in the 2 years pre Barry Hall while sharing the ruck duties with Hudson and racking very similar numbers in all other areas.

2010 was a write off for Will with illness and injury and Hudson had probably the best year of his career. But it is only 2010 that would have Hudson clearly ahead. There is much more upside to Will than Huddo on 2010 form.

[Bulldog Joe]

You still need to have some effect on the game and I can't see wither Will or Huddo being effective up forward against decent opposition.
As I have quoted elsewhere Will as a forward was not that bad, and if the price of having a second ruck is to settle for the level of contribution he previously provided,I see that as a reasonable balance.


I would think that would have more to do with the support cast on offer.
Yes I concede that the support cast was much poorer in 2010 when Barry arrived and we saw the demise of Aker and Johnson


It's going to be interesting how it plays out, but at present I don't see the value in playing Huddo & Will in the same team - you obviously do and that's fine. I guess we can will just wait and see what the MC come up with as the model that was on offer on Sunday isn't going to work, but we do have some options (many of which have been discussed here) so hopefully the MC make the correct call.

I guess we can agree to disagree, at least until we seem some evidence supporting either viewpoint.

The evidence from round 1 certainly does not support the 1 ruckman view.

Incidentally, if you look at the round 1 results from all games, the trend seemed to be that the team with the better of the rucks finished the stronger.
Carlton over Richmond
Geelong over St Kilda
Sandilands over Brisbane
Adelaide over Hawthorn (McKernan was impressive)
Essendon over us
Dean Cox over North Melbourne
I did not see any of the Sydney Melb game so unsure on that one.

[LostDoggy]

Hacks to be used when nobody else is available
1. Djerrkura, Nathan
2. Moles, Brodie
3. Sherman, Justin
4. Addison, Dylan

I just got back from the AFL rain-shadow that is NSW, and this comment was one of the first I was confronted with. Given Addison's reverence on WOOF, I was surprised that no one objected (besides a few replies of bemusement to the post in general).

And while I probably wouldn't go as far as calling Addison a hack, I agree, Mr. Cuming that Addison should only play when our best 22 isn't available. :eek:

Out: Wood, Jones
In: Minson, Veszpremi

[LostDoggy]

Also can we suggest that Huddo's poor game was as a direct result of the increased time on the ground because from memory his normal game time last year was around 65-70%?

Much to think about for our MC.[/QUOTE]

I think this point is the interesting one becasue the 2nd Ruck question is not just about the performance of the player we select there, it is really about team balance. The positive impacts of selecting a specialist ruck are not just about what they bring themselves but how they help the team and effect the opposition.

If we play a second specialist ruck, we allow Hudson to reduce his game time which may improve his ability to compete at a high intensity at stoppages. The ongoing presence of a specialist ruck should allow us to perform better at stoppages in general increasing our supply of atacking ball and reducing our load in defensive running. Generally you would expect that a midfielder defending will cover more ground then the attacking player. With improved clearance performance the we will therefore increase the fatigue in the opposition through an increase in their own defensive running.

The selection of the second ruck also means that the opposition do not get a break from big bruising guys bashing into them at every stoppage (more Minson then Roughead in mind here). Players don't just tire from running around, frequent heavy impacts and having to wrestle for the ball are likely to greatly increase the fatigue of opposition players. Again having big aggresive specialist Rucks at stpppages reduces the heavy lifting required from our other players.

So while the seond ruck does not add run based on his own input if used effectively he improves the run left in our other players and reduces it in the opposition. It is this aspect that I feel many commentators miss when looking at the second ruck queston.

Of course if we you dont rate either Minson or Roughead as rucks then the above is null and void. But if you look at our performance over the last few years I think you will find that games where we played two specialist Rucks will show a distinct improvement in clearances.

[EasternWest]

I just got back from the AFL rain-shadow that is NSW, and this comment was one of the first I was confronted with. Given Addison's reverence on WOOF, I was surprised that no one objected (besides a few replies of bemusement to the post in general).

And while I probably wouldn't go as far as calling Addison a hack, I agree, Mr. Cuming that Addison should only play when our best 22 isn't available. :eek:

Out: Wood, Jones
In: Minson, Veszpremi

I'm not sure "Addison reverence" is correct. I think most people take offense when a player is dismissed as a hack, when they're clearly not.

As to whether he's a best 22 player, maybe maybe not, so I don't think you're incorrect. But hack he is not.

As for no reactions to JC's post, well, he's an entertaining lunatic who occasionally speaks sense. I think he's to be encouraged.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I just got back from the AFL rain-shadow that is NSW, and this comment was one of the first I was confronted with. Given Addison's reverence on WOOF, I was surprised that no one objected (besides a few replies of bemusement to the post in general).

And while I probably wouldn't go as far as calling Addison a hack, I agree, Mr. Cuming that Addison should only play when our best 22 isn't available. :eek:

Out: Wood, Jones
In: Minson, Veszpremi

James Cumming isn't a real poster. He's just another character of Rocco Jones like Igor was.

No-one really thinks the stuff James posts.


It's a joke, Joyce.

[the banker]

I think we have to manage Hudson. He is very old school in style but is a fantatsic competitor and much the gel of the team. As Roughead may need to get into the season a bit we need Will in the team, but we should be developing Jones. Jones may have to keep developing at Willi for the first part of the season until Roughie fires up....Will gets his chance, Grant to CHF (not keen on him getting a lot of attention and having to pack mark) Vespa in to a pocket. Lake in the shaggy role appeals.

Lake Markovic Picken
Morris Williams Murphy
Sherman Boyd Ward
Gia Grant Hill
Vespa Hall Higgins

Hudson Cooney Griffen (Stack sub?)


Murphy/Hill interchange

Cross Minson Libba

[Rocco Jones]

Who does Barlow replace?

Barlow is that he is so 'versatile' (a fine line between that and equally crap everyone) he can practically replace anyone without really needing to change the structure.

FWIW I would replace him with either DJ or Jones. I would probably keep Jones due to his upside.


With this in mind how do you see our forward-lne structuring up then?

And do you want Addison to lock down on the oppositions best rebounder like he did in the finals or just play as a battering ram/ tackler to hold the ball in?

I have my belief on modern day 'forward lines'. If you're not very dangerous in a scoring sense you must be a defensive forward. The role depends on Picken for mine. If the opposition's best rebounder is more dangerous than their best outsider than I would have Picken on them with Addison as the battering ram you mentioned. If the outsider is most dangerous than I would have DFA on the rebounder if that makes sense.


James Cumming isn't a real poster. He's just another character of Rocco Jones like Igor was.
.

I wish
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just on the 2nd ruck issue. With the new sub rule, players have to pick up about 5% TOG to make up the slack and it seems like ruckmen are going to take more than their even share due to their ability to offer impact whilst being fatigued.

Mantis mentioned Hudson having 80% TOG, pretty much all of that in the ruck. If Minson is to play he will need to spend at least half the game in the forward like, that's about 2/3'S of his total time on ground.

So let's look at it. Others have mentioned Will is a better forward than our other options are as rucks. I don't believe that to be true but even if it is, the 2nd ruck role involves twice as much TOG outside the ruck than it does actually in the ruck.

Do I think Minson is a much better ruckman than Barlow? Sure. Hell, I also think he is clearly a superior footballer but the modern game and the sub rule have bastardised the role to the extend that jack of all trades, clearly masters of none are a better option than Minson when he is paired up with another out and out ruckman.

[LostDoggy]

Are you seriously suggesting Minson plays ahead of Hudson and using a stat saying that Minson takes .1 of a mark less per game than Hudson to support the argument?

I might go in to bat for Bulldog Joe a bit here. Apologies in advance if I mis-interpret anyone...
If this year does end up going pear shaped and we move into development mode, then yes I would play Minson as first ruck with a view to retiring Hudson.

But as we are in Round 2, then obviously Hudson plays as he is our best ruckman atm. I am of the opinion though that as the year goes on, the gap between Hudson and Minson will close.

I agree with most that Minson and Hudson are similar players in that they are both specialist ruckman and ideally, Roughead plays as Number 2. But with Roughead's injury troubles, I would easily choose Minson over the likes of Barlow, Williams, Markovic and Skinner as Number 2. Put it this way, if another team was playing any of these guys as a ruckman, would you be rubbing your hands with glee and pointing to a probable game winning advantage? I know I would.

Moving forward to say next year, I would not keep both Minson and Hudson on the list. One has to go for team balance.

If Cordy develops like we hope, a Roughead / Cordy combination is a potential beauty. In this case, I would trade Minson and keep Hudson for one more year.
If Cordy still looks years away or potentially unable to be what we hope (a Clarke/Ryder type), then I would retire Hudson and keep Minson.

[Rocco Jones]

Wow, funny the way this thread has gone.

After such a shocking performance, who would have imagined one of our most valuable players who actually was one of our best on Sunday would even be mentioned when it comes to the outs.

I totally believe that a lot of the issues Minson has with finding a role in the team are due to Hudson's limitations as they are both pure, out and out 1st ruck types. Thing is, Hudson is an elite pure ruckman and Will is average to poor/average.

[LostDoggy]

Wow, funny the way this thread has gone.

After such a shocking performance, who would have imagined one of our most valuable players who actually was one of our best on Sunday would even be mentioned when it comes to the outs.

I totally believe that a lot of the issues Minson has with finding a role in the team are due to Hudson's limitations as they are both pure, out and out 1st ruck types. Thing is, Hudson is an elite pure ruckman and Will is average to poor/average.

Just curious, which part of what I wrote do you disagree with? Or is it all of it?

[Bulldog Joe]

Wow, funny the way this thread has gone.

After such a shocking performance, who would have imagined one of our most valuable players who actually was one of our best on Sunday would even be mentioned when it comes to the outs.

I totally believe that a lot of the issues Minson has with finding a role in the team are due to Hudson's limitations as they are both pure, out and out 1st ruck types. Thing is, Hudson is an elite pure ruckman and Will is average to poor/average.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Hudson should be an out.

He is a better player when he has good support in the ruck role, allowing him adequate respite and some assistance in wearing down his opponents.

You believe we can make do with one ruckman. I believe we can't and the only team that can is Freo with Sandilands and even he did not get through the season in 2010.

In round 1 the teams with the best rucks finished games better.

If you look at Carlton, Hampson who was hopeless most of the game provided some critical plays in the last quarter.

You don't rate Will, but his form was pretty good in tandem with Hudson in 08 and 09 while 2010 was a write off due to illness and injury.

With the sub rule midfielders will tire but Ruckman will not get shorter.

[BulldogBelle]

I'm not sure "Addison reverence" is correct. I think most people take offense when a player is dismissed as a hack, when they're clearly not.

As to whether he's a best 22 player, maybe maybe not, so I don't think you're incorrect. But hack he is not.

As for no reactions to JC's post, well, he's an entertaining lunatic who occasionally speaks sense. I think he's to be encouraged.


Thank's DFA4pm, that's just so nice. And you too Sockeye, associating me with Rocco Jones is a real compliment. ( A lunatic with a genius, great ).

Oh what a shame that Roughead hasn't continued with his improvement from last year. What the heck is wrong with him? If his improvement continued both he and Hudson would surely be certain starters.

I think that Bulldog Joe is on the right track though. We need two ruckmen. We need Minson to come in. Its 'London to a brick on' that if Williams and Jones keep rucking they will do themselves an injury, besides it having a destabilising effect on our setups.

[Rocco Jones]

You believe we can make do with one ruckman. I believe we can't and the only team that can is Freo with Sandilands and even he did not get through the season in 2010.


I am not sure we can make do with just one ruckman, I actually believe both our options are a big worry. Will doesn't fit the 2nd ruck role AND we don't really have a good part timer option. Basically I think all our options for the 2nd ruck role are poor, just that Barlow fills it less poorly than others.

A lot of fans seem to take the 2nd ruck role as if it were 1943. Due to Hudson's limitations, our 2nd ruck needs to spend twice as long outside the ruck as he does in it. That's about 20% TOG in the ruck, a massive sacrifice to pay for someone who is awful outside the ruck.

You mentioned only Freo play with one ruckman. Other than Carlton is there a team that started with 2 out and out ruckmen?

Crows- S.McKernan is more of KP than a ruck and filled in as 2nd ruck. Tippett will do the same when he is back

Lions- Clark offers them flexibility going with Leunberger

Carlton- Hampson and Warnock are two pure ruckmen and the closest to what you seem to want but I believe they are more flexibility than the pair of Will and Hudson

Collingwood- Brown being the poster child of the basterised 2nd ruck role

Essendon- Perfect combo for the new game. Both ruckmen can ruck and play forward.

Freo- Sandi is the best ruck in the game so plays there as much as possible with anything resembling a tall guy giving him a chop out

Cats- Ottens can play forward but still matched up with part timer in Hawkins

Suns- Fraser + kid ruckman. Fraser can spend time forward

Hawks- Renouf and Hale are another pure ruck combo but I think they see Hale as a forward option. I don't rate their set up but Hale is definitely more of a forward option than Will.

Dees- Stefan Martin played R1. Not too much time in the ruck left after Jamar's share. Martin seems half KP, half ruck type.

North- All their rucks were injured. Interesting to see what they do if H-Mac, Goldstein and Petrie are all fit.

Port- They seem like they will go in with a KP filling in when Brogan's off.

Richmond- Angus Graham gives them more forward than Will.

Saints- Hard to tell which way they will go with all the injuries to their ruck stocks.

Swans- Seaby was originally listed as an emergency, came into the 22 as a sub and only came on late. It will be interesting to see how they use him and Mumford. Both very much on the pure ruckmen side however I rate Seaby higher than Will as both a ruckmen and a tall dunce up forward.

Eagles- Cox and NicNat who was out R1. NicNat and Cox both better than Will forward.

Carlton are the only team that went in with two out and out ruckmen. I think Warnock and Hampson are spuds up forward but I still rate them higher there than Will.




You don't rate Will, but his form was pretty good in tandem with Hudson in 08 and 09 while 2010 was a write off due to illness and injury.


I do rate Will, however I rate him as a ruckman rather than a 2nd ruck. They are very different roles, especially if you're 1st ruck is as limited as Hudson. Actually to call it a 2nd ruck rule is very misleading. TWICE as much time is spent elsewhere.

The game is very different to 08 and 09.

One thing a lot of people seemed to have ignored is the extremely high standard of the Hille and Ryder combo. Absolutely perfect for the modern game.

[Rocco Jones]

Thank's DFA4pm, that's just so nice. And you too Sockeye, associating me with Rocco Jones is a real compliment. ( A lunatic with a genius, great ).


I am almost too afraid to ask which one am I meant to be. I think you are both a lunatic and a genius, but that's why you are my favourite poster on all of the internets.

[Mantis]

Oh what a shame that Roughead hasn't continued with his improvement from last year. What the heck is wrong with him? If his improvement continued both he and Hudson would surely be certain starters.



He had a major shoulder operation in the off season... Give the kid some time.

[Go_Dogs]

With all the talk regarding Minson as the 2nd ruck who can play forward too, I must say I noted with interest how Carlton were able to have Hampson and Warnock drift forward, create a mis-match and take a few good grabs. I wouldn't necessarily say that either are better suited to the role than Will, and given his mobility appears better than it was last year no reason to think he can't stick at least a couple of marks per game. His set shot kicking is actually fairly reliable for mine too.

It's an interesting one, and I certainly see the merits in the Barlow argument as others have posted.

Probably will be something that we adjust to over the course of the year, pending on what's working, fatigue and the opposition.

[Bulldog Joe]

Rocco

I can't seriously believe that you rate any of
Angus Graham
Warnock and or Hampson
Renouf and or Hale
as better than Minson.

My point about round 1 was that teams with the best ruck combination finished games the strongest.

It is not just about ruck or where they spend time it is about the cumulative effect of imposing bodies in contests and winning stoppages.

If we play Minson he reduces the wear and tear on Hudson and maintains a competitive presence at the stoppages ALL the time. I would expect Will to spend at least 40% of game time in the ruck and he does offer a presence forward. He also takes the forward line ruck contests when he is there and this has resulted in goals in the past.

The option we used Round 1 and I suspect Barlow as well will not provide that and simply require Hudson to push further forward to take ruck contests or rely on Barry doing that work. Neither of those scenarios give me much confidence in building a challenge for the flag.

[lemmon]

What about using either Minson or Hudson as the sub, I guess in theory letting them run themselves into the ground for a half at perhaps 90% gametime then being able to bring on a fresh ruck without having to use them in the 21.

[Rocco Jones]

Rocco

I can't seriously believe that you rate any of
Angus Graham
Warnock and or Hampson
Renouf and or Hale
as better than Minson.

My point about round 1 was that teams with the best ruck combination finished games the strongest.

It is not just about ruck or where they spend time it is about the cumulative effect of imposing bodies in contests and winning stoppages.

If we play Minson he reduces the wear and tear on Hudson and maintains a competitive presence at the stoppages ALL the time. I would expect Will to spend at least 40% of game time in the ruck and he does offer a presence forward. He also takes the forward line ruck contests when he is there and this has resulted in goals in the past.

The option we used Round 1 and I suspect Barlow as well will not provide that and simply require Hudson to push further forward to take ruck contests or rely on Barry doing that work. Neither of those scenarios give me much confidence in building a challenge for the flag.

I rate Minson ahead of all of them as ruckmen.

I rate all of them ahead of Minson as forwards.

Our 2nd ruck role involves twice as much TOG outside of the ruck as it does in it.

Will with 40% TOG in the ruck? So Hudson spends 60% in the ruck? Does that mean Hudson spends 15-20% TOG up forward? Whichever way you paint it, with the sub rule we will need Hudson and Will to make up more than 50% TOG outside of the ruck. That to me is frightening. Don't get me wrong, Barlow spending 20% TOG in the ruck is frightening too, just less so than Will/Hudson 50% up forward.

[Rocco Jones]

What about using either Minson or Hudson as the sub, I guess in theory letting them run themselves into the ground for a half at perhaps 90% gametime then being able to bring on a fresh ruck without having to use them in the 21.

Because it robs Hudson of the burst/spread out rests.

More regular short breaks > Less regular long breaks.

[Go_Dogs]

I rate all of them ahead of Minson as forwards.

Really? A couple of them, yes perhaps but I certainly wouldn't have it as clear cut as that. Minson has a huge, wide body. Given the way that teams often break on a turnover into a forward entry, I think there is a lot of opportunity for Will to get dangerous against a small opponent, or even receiving a bit of blocking from Hall, or holding the pack off a bit so someone else can have a clearer run at a mark.

Yes, he is no Tippett or Hille etc, and would be a bit of a liability once the ball hits the deck. But considering what we got out of Jones (who I'm certainly not writing off on the basis of one poor game when the side was playing terribly) would replacing him with Minson end up costing us overall? At least we'd get some serious grunt in the clearance, and it would probably allow Hudson to play a more meaningful role even if he's only play 5-10% less game time pending on how he's feeling any given week.

[Rocco Jones]

Really? A couple of them, yes perhaps but I certainly wouldn't have it as clear cut as that. Minson has a huge, wide body. Given the way that teams often break on a turnover into a forward entry, I think there is a lot of opportunity for Will to get dangerous against a small opponent, or even receiving a bit of blocking from Hall, or holding the pack off a bit so someone else can have a clearer run at a mark.

Yes, he is no Tippett or Hille etc, and would be a bit of a liability once the ball hits the deck. But considering what we got out of Jones (who I'm certainly not writing off on the basis of one poor game when the side was playing terribly) would replacing him with Minson end up costing us overall? At least we'd get some serious grunt in the clearance, and it would probably allow Hudson to play a more meaningful role even if he's only play 5-10% less game time pending on how he's feeling any given week.

I am probably being harsh on Will, or more to the point, generous to the others. The advantage that Warnock and Hampson have is they can swap over roles to create some element of surprise up forward, where Will is matched with Hudson who offers next to nothing forward. Will and Hudson just really don't compliment eachother.

I agree that Will has a wider and stronger body than most of those guys but that body is also attached to concrete hands. I do think there's value in what you say about replacing him with Jones though and like I said, I don't really even like my 2nd ruck option.

If Will is to play, I don't think we can fit in Jones. Jones is totally about his upside for mine. If we were playing in a GF next week I wouldn't have him near the side but getting games into him can pay off for us long term.

[Go_Dogs]

I am probably being harsh on Will, or more to the point, generous to the others. The advantage that Warnock and Hampson have is they can swap over roles to create some element of surprise up forward, where Will is matched with Hudson who offers next to nothing forward. Will and Hudson just really don't compliment eachother.

Certainly an important consideration, and probably the one thing that does really hold him back. Essendon are definitely going to be one side that benefits from the new rule, as the Crows probably are too, for that very reason.

For mine, Hudson's lack of flexibility shouldn't really hold Will back though. I'm actually starting to wonder if Hudson may not be in our best 22 come seasons end? Massive call I know, but I could see the potential benefit in going with a Minson/Barlow combo or Minson/Roughead if he can progress over the course of the season as it probably helps the rotation side of things, and possibly we don't lose too much as far as actual ruck/clearance output.

[bold-dogg]

Giansiracusa Marcovic Morris

Griffen Williams Hill

Murphy Cross Ward

Higgins Hall Boyd

Veszpremi Grant Hahn

Hudson Cooney Picken

Minson Addison Moles Sherman

Gia can kick better than Cross or Boyd
Lake game fitness at Willy
Murphy marking option out on the wing
Cross stays behind the ball
Hall up the ground with Boyd/Addison locking ball
in the forward line. Benefiting Barry who's good at
ground level & at assists.
Grant & Hahn hovering, and Veszpremi deep.
Picken lockdown.
Moles has a good record with forward assists,
and I've tried to add some maturity to gameday.
Sherman or Liberatore as sub.
Hahn if Hargrave is on LTI list, that is.
Looking forward to Reid coming into this side.
Jones, Roughead, Cordy and a few others are still
developing , I reckon.

I've utilised ideas from posters on this board - any
bad ideas are my own - just some playful thoughts
after the debacle last weekend.

[Sedat]

Minson was our big bodied 'key forward' in 2008 and kicked close to 30 goals for the season spending only intermittent time up forward. He clunked a couple of strong pack marks in the PF against Geelong and unfortunately sprayed them - it's a fine line between the perceived success and failure of a speculative positional move. I know I'm in the minority, but IMO he's not the complete liability up forward that he gets pigeon-holed as. He could competently take the load up forward when Hall is having a breather, and his presence would give our no.1 ruckman the opportunity to run games out stronger and be preserved for the entire season.

Roughy has had a poor pre-season by all accounts but he similarly has key forward marking ability to also chop out Baz up forward and Huddo in the ruck if Minson's form wanes and Roughy's form improves. The "1 ruckman 1 follower" system works only if your key ruckman can contribute aerobically around the ground - think Cox or ever a Fraser type (Essendon has the best of both world with Ryder as the follower who can contribute around the ground and up forward, and Hille as the ruckman who is also very dangerous up forward). By contrast our no.1 ruckman is a contested possession stoppage specialist, so we need to preserve our prize ruck asset for the whole season, and to do that we need another 'proper' ruckman to ease the load IMO. Hudson's skill set really means that one of our one-paced contested possession winning mids can be sacrificed, but which one?

[Doc26]

Oh what a shame that Roughead hasn't continued with his improvement from last year. What the heck is wrong with him? If his improvement continued both he and Hudson would surely be certain starters.



He had a major shoulder operation in the off season... Give the kid some time.

On the topic of Roughead I understand he had an interrupted preseason. How far away is he ?Like Jones we need to get game time into him sooner rather than later. By season end we need Jones to be pushing out Barry's claim and similarly Roughy knocking down Huddo's door. Maybe some short term pain in persevering with these 2 for the longer term good. If their bodies are right to go, both need to be regulars for 2011.

[Sockeye Salmon]

What about using either Minson or Hudson as the sub, I guess in theory letting them run themselves into the ground for a half at perhaps 90% gametime then being able to bring on a fresh ruck without having to use them in the 21.

I was about to post this.

We are all talking about two ruckmen whoneed to play 50% game time each - in the ruck. Well there's a position where you share game time, it's called a sub.

[LostDoggy]

I was about to post this.

We are all talking about two ruckmen whoneed to play 50% game time each - in the ruck. Well there's a position where you share game time, it's called a sub.

Yeah, this.

[LostDoggy]

For this week, out Jones, Woods, Stack and Djerrkura
Ins Lake, Minson, Addison and Veszpremi

Back six
Morris, Markovic, Lake
Hill, Williams, Murphy

Ease Lake into the side and play Markovic on the most dangerous tall, just let Lake read and setup play, so more a Hargrave role.

I thought Hill was pretty good last week in defence.

Forward Six
Higgins, Hall, Viszpremi
Picken, Grant, Sherman

This is a better mix of talls, quicks and tackling pressure.

Interesting

[LostDoggy]

Giansiracusa Marcovic Morris

Griffen Williams Hill

Murphy Cross Ward

Higgins Hall Boyd

Veszpremi Grant Hahn

Hudson Cooney Picken

Minson Addison Moles Sherman

Gia can kick better than Cross or Boyd
Lake game fitness at Willy
Murphy marking option out on the wing
Cross stays behind the ball
Hall up the ground with Boyd/Addison locking ball
in the forward line. Benefiting Barry who's good at
ground level & at assists.
Grant & Hahn hovering, and Veszpremi deep.
Picken lockdown.
Moles has a good record with forward assists,
and I've tried to add some maturity to gameday.
Sherman or Liberatore as sub.
Hahn if Hargrave is on LTI list, that is.
Looking forward to Reid coming into this side.
Jones, Roughead, Cordy and a few others are still
developing , I reckon.

I've utilised ideas from posters on this board - any
bad ideas are my own - just some playful thoughts
after the debacle last weekend.

Bold-Dogg, I like this. Ya put a bit of thought into it, unlike the MC.
Like to see someone apartfrom me is looking fwd to Reid coming back ;)

[Bulldog Joe]

I was about to post this.

We are all talking about two ruckmen whoneed to play 50% game time each - in the ruck. Well there's a position where you share game time, it's called a sub.

I can't see how this is an option.

The subbed player is out of the game, but the ruckman needs some rest through the game.

If we used the ruckman as sub we would still have the same problem with the relief ruck when the ruck rested.

We need the 2 in the 21.

[Mantis]

We are all talking about two ruckmen whoneed to play 50% game time each - in the ruck. Well there's a position where you share game time, it's called a sub.

Do these 2 rucks play a half straight or do they have rest periods?

Who rucks while they rest?

[Go_Dogs]

Do these 2 rucks play a half straight or do they have rest periods?

Who rucks while they rest?

Also, what happens if a midfielder gets injured in the first 5 minutes? Obviously this would apply if the 2 rucks were in the 21 also, but having a fresh running player as the sub has certain advantages.

Still, interesting idea.

Did Sydney play a 2nd ruck as their sub on the weekend? Didn't catch much of the game so no idea how it went...

[LostDoggy]

Giansiracusa Marcovic Morris

Griffen Williams Hill

Murphy Cross Ward

Higgins Hall Boyd

Veszpremi Grant Hahn

Hudson Cooney Picken

Minson Addison Moles Sherman

Gia can kick better than Cross or Boyd
Lake game fitness at Willy
Murphy marking option out on the wing
Cross stays behind the ball
Hall up the ground with Boyd/Addison locking ball
in the forward line. Benefiting Barry who's good at
ground level & at assists.
Grant & Hahn hovering, and Veszpremi deep.
Picken lockdown.
Moles has a good record with forward assists,
and I've tried to add some maturity to gameday.
Sherman or Liberatore as sub.
Hahn if Hargrave is on LTI list, that is.
Looking forward to Reid coming into this side.
Jones, Roughead, Cordy and a few others are still
developing , I reckon.

I've utilised ideas from posters on this board - any
bad ideas are my own - just some playful thoughts
after the debacle last weekend.

Barry at CHF? I think he's too old for that. Too much ground to cover to be effective. Prefer Murphy there despite the fact that I think it would shorten his career.

Hahn? Mmm. Showed some form and might be worth a go but I suspect the game has passed him by plus we need to develop one of our recruits instead.

The back half just won't have played together much. Might be a problem.

Griffen to half back is fine except he does a lot of other work around the ground and would be needed as an onballer at stages.

I'd have Wallis in but we need to be careful with youngsters who will be up and down in form and cannot be relied upon to carry this side.

[Mofra]

Yes, he is no Tippett or Hille etc, and would be a bit of a liability once the ball hits the deck. But considering what we got out of Jones (who I'm certainly not writing off on the basis of one poor game when the side was playing terribly) would replacing him with Minson end up costing us overall?
Very much it would cost us. Jones made position to the right areas, giving guys in the defensive half a target to kick to. Minson simply would not have made that sort of position, nor would his defensive efforts be in the same stratosphere as Jones who never stops chasing.

The sub rule has really hurt us if Roughy doesn't get back to form soon - he actually can lead & mark in the F50.
Hall, Roughy & Jones can play tall, Grant is quick and plays as a crumber on occasion anyway. All four can play in the forwardline, I'm less confidant Minson can contribute there.

[SlimPickens]

Also, what happens if a midfielder gets injured in the first 5 minutes? Obviously this would apply if the 2 rucks were in the 21 also, but having a fresh running player as the sub has certain advantages.

Still, interesting idea.

Did Sydney play a 2nd ruck as their sub on the weekend? Didn't catch much of the game so no idea how it went...

I thought Sydney using a second ruck as a sub really cost them, they clearly ran out of legs in a game they should have won. Bringing on Seaby late cost them, purely hypothetical but if a midfielder had of come on they would have won.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Do these 2 rucks play a half straight or do they have rest periods?

Who rucks while they rest?

I'd ruck them right through, they only have to do it for a half. It not as if they have to save any petrol tickets for the second half. I'd start Minson rather than Hudson and let Hudson have a crack when their rucks are starting to feel the pinch a bit.

Worst case they would take 3 min breaks each quarter. There might not even be centre contest during that time (of course there might be as well).

[Sockeye Salmon]

I thought Sydney using a second ruck as a sub really cost them, they clearly ran out of legs in a game they should have won. Bringing on Seaby late cost them, purely hypothetical but if a midfielder had of come on they would have won.

Seaby was their 3rd ruck though, that was dumb. They already had Mumford and White (and Goodes if they really had to).

Longmire said they used Seaby as the sub because they knew Mumford was carrying an injury and they didn't think he would last the game. Seaby was there to back up White if Mumford broke down.

[SlimPickens]

Seaby was their 3rd ruck though, that was dumb. They already had Mumford and White (and Goodes if they really had to).

Longmire said they used Seaby as the sub because they knew Mumford was carrying an injury and they didn't think he would last the game. Seaby was there to back up White if Mumford broke down.

Yep what didn't make sense is why the subbed off Reid, not Mumford. Anyway back to the topic at hand.

[Topdog]

It's ok as a tactic but if a midfielder gets injured we would be screwed.

[LostDoggy]

Horses for courses but I think Huddo's should not be the automatic first ruck choice, certainly against Essendon a combination of Will and Roughy would have been far better.

My reasoning:

Will and Roughy are far more mobile than Huddo, it would have given us options on Hille and Ryder.

In my opinion Will in 2008 and 2009 was right up with Hudson as a ruckman, in a different mold. When we are struggling to get the ball away Will is the only man that can punch it into the forward fifty, theres your plan B! Will can bash and crash in ruck contests too weakening, hurting, slowing down guys like Ryder. Will is getting a lot of criticism for last year, he was horrifyingly sick. Will gets criticism for a lack of ability as a forward, I thought he did ok seeing as he is a specialist ruckman!

The biggest argument for Huddo is that he plays as an extra inside mid. Is that really something we need right now? How about someone that can run with or man up on a damaging Hille or Ryder? At least try to make them accountable, Huddo cant keep up with them.

I certainly would be throwing Will and Roughy to the wolves for these next two games. What benefit do we get from playing Huddo? Its like sending Ponting to Bangladesh... what better chance to give a young guy a go rather than boost a near retired players average?

[Mofra]

Worst case they would take 3 min breaks each quarter. There might not even be centre contest during that time (of course there might be as well).
Cooney has never lost a ruck contest in the centre square ;)

[Mofra]

Horses for courses but I think Huddo's should not be the automatic first ruck choice, certainly against Essendon a combination of Will and Roughy would have been far better.
Huddo still seemed like our no 1 choice during the pre-season, whilst Roughy was behind Minson for much of it (due in part to shoulder surgery).

Form will dictate selection throughout the year, but Hudson was picked as the form ruckman and will be given a chnace to redeem himself in the next two weeks.

[BulldogBelle]

For this week, out Jones, Woods, Stack and Djerrkura
Ins Lake, Minson, Addison and Veszpremi

Back six
Morris, Markovic, Lake
Hill, Williams, Murphy

Ease Lake into the side and play Markovic on the most dangerous tall, just let Lake read and setup play, so more a Hargrave role.

I thought Hill was pretty good last week in defence.

Forward Six
Higgins, Hall, Viszpremi
Picken, Grant, Sherman

This is a better mix of talls, quicks and tackling pressure.

++

I like the idea of Morris being player on a smaller forward

I also like the idea of Markovic being player on the stay at home FF, or the resting ruckman, and Lake being used to read the play and peel of his man (given he reads the play so well)

Grant may not be as effective as the CHF, probably better suited as a lead up flanker role- but apart from Jones we dont have many other options

OK

To add to 'dogmans' post here is my team

B) Morris, Markovic, Lake
HB) Hill, Williams, Murphy
C) Griffin, Boyd, Liberatore
HF) Picken, Grant, Sherman
F) Higgins, Hall, Veszpremi

Rucks) Hudson, Ward, Cooney

Bench: Addison, Gia, Jones, Minson (sub)


I have omitted Cross, Addison gives us more than Djerrkura, Gilbee to be eased back in at Willi, Lake, Murphy & Hill to play the rebounding defender roles and give us drive from the backline

Cooney and Griffin to play the outside roles whilst they both arent at 100% fitness- Sherman and Higgins to rotate between the wing and HF and also play as outside mids

Picken and Addison to play the defensive forward role(s)

Ward, Libba, Boyd and Gia to play the inside roles- with Boyd tagging anyone dangerous

Markovic/Williams/Jones to give Hudson a breather in the ruck until Minson is subbed on for Hudson. Markovic/Williams/Jones to give big Will a breather int he ruck when he is resting in the forward pocket

[BulldogBelle]

I wish we had a way of sneaking in Vezspremi or Moles!

[LostDoggy]

Huddo still seemed like our no 1 choice during the pre-season, whilst Roughy was behind Minson for much of it (due in part to shoulder surgery).

Form will dictate selection throughout the year, but Hudson was picked as the form ruckman and will be given a chnace to redeem himself in the next two weeks.

I'm not sure that being the number 1 choice as a ruckman should mean that he is automatically selected from week to week. Its the best 22 vs most suitable 22 question.

[Maddog37]

I would not mind seeing Jones and Williams swap ends at times too.

Would be nice to see if Tom can play forward IMO. Jones would benefit being led to the ball and spoiling just to get used to the game at times as well and it is easier to learn AFL in defence.

NOt a permanent swap but just ten minutes here and there.

If gia is not being used in rotations I would suggest Vesz may be a better option(not with any confidence but he needs a chance at some stage).

When does the VFL start? Until then it is near impossible to know who is playing well beyond the 22 picked on Saturday.

[Mofra]

I'm not sure that being the number 1 choice as a ruckman should mean that he is automatically selected from week to week. Its the best 22 vs most suitable 22 question.
If someone is in form, that isn't an automatic selection though - that is the best available selection.

[The Pie Man]

++


B) Morris, Markovic, Lake
HB) Hill, Williams, Murphy
C) Griffin, Boyd, Liberatore
HF) Picken, Grant, Sherman
F) Higgins, Hall, Veszpremi

Rucks) Hudson, Ward, Cooney

Bench: Addison, Gia, Jones, Minson (sub)



This would be close to my team - only changes for me are Minson on the bench, Jones completely out, and either Moles/Stack/Schofield as the sub.

Cross won't get dropped though - so I'd take Ves out of that team for Cross, Addison to the FP, Cross to the bench, and add Ves to the list of possible subs.

[Mantis]

Heard that Lake wasn't on the training track today so I am not sure where that puts him in regard to playing this week.

[stefoid]

Markovic battled hard but just didn't look up to it.


Hurley is no chump, and there was a lot of ball entering the essendon forward line. I thought he did OK. As Lakes understudy does he go out anyway? Maybe.

[Mofra]

Heard that Lake wasn't on the training track today so I am not sure where that puts him in regard to playing this week.
Interesting - with Brown a certain out, he may be given more time.
Perhaps the "out till after the bye" crew have been on the money all summer.

[stefoid]

I am a bit perplexed by those saying 'Jones had a shocker, out he goes!"

You would have to be saying that for about 3/4 of the side, wouldnt you?

We dont have too many of his type around at the moment and Id love to see him played into confidence and form.

[1eyedog]

Huddo was smashed on Saturday it's true, but he is an old man who was expected to carry it all by himself on the weekend (Williams contribution aside). It's easy to forget what he gave us last year as number 1 ruckman, he was as good if not better on the ground than he was in the air and often did Cross' and Boyd's work for them. His contested possession count last year was 1st class and he reguarly fed our runners.

He gives us so much more than the obvious but he needs support.

He will make a strong contribution again this season.

[Mantis]

I am a bit perplexed by those saying 'Jones had a shocker, out he goes!"

You would have to be saying that for about 3/4 of the side, wouldnt you?

We dont have too many of his type around at the moment and Id love to see him played into confidence and form.

Agree.

I will be disappointed if he is dropped for this weeks clash. He is the type of player we need in our team and the only way he is going to get better is if we get games into him, especially games against teams we should beat anyway.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Huddo was smashed on Saturday it's true, but he is an old man who was expected to carry it all by himself on the weekend (Williams contribution aside). It's easy to forget what he gave us last year as number 1 ruckman, he was as good if not better on the ground than he was in the air and often did Cross' and Boyd's work for them. His contested possession count last year was 1st class and he reguarly fed our runners.

He gives us so much more than the obvious but he needs support.

He will make a strong contribution again this season.

I'm actually worried that Hudson and Hall might be this year's version of Johnson & Akermanis.

[bornadog]

I'm actually worried that Hudson and Hall might be this year's version of Johnson & Akermanis.

No matter how fit you are and what you did the year before, age catches all athletes eventually. The body changes in your 30's, however, there are those that are effected a little later in their 30's. Huddo has one thing on his side and ie he started off later than others in AFL football so his body isnot as battered.

[Ghost Dog]

I'm actually worried that Hudson and Hall might be this year's version of Johnson & Akermanis.

If things start to go pear shaped, I do worry about Hall's temper. All the good work of last season could be easily undone in a tantrum.
Huddo gets the job done. I can't figure out why Rocket gave him a spray unless he wasn't listening to instructions.

[Mofra]

I'm actually worried that Hudson and Hall might be this year's version of Johnson & Akermanis.
Both were carrying injury to start the season and never really got going, except for Johnson having one good 4 week period.

Contingency wise we were berift of small forward types last year which hurt us - with Minson & Roughead & Jones, we have younger types who can come in and replace them structurally (although not in the same class as yet).

[Happy Days]

I'd ruck them right through, they only have to do it for a half. It not as if they have to save any petrol tickets for the second half. I'd start Minson rather than Hudson and let Hudson have a crack when their rucks are starting to feel the pinch a bit.
Worst case they would take 3 min breaks each quarter. There might not even be centre contest during that time (of course there might be as well).

Really like this idea, think its the most effective way of using the sub.

In any given game, there are a bunch of guys we could rotate through the middle; Boyd, Cross, Cooney, Griffen, Higgins, Gia, Libba, Dj, Ward, Picken, Sherman (just from this weekend's 22), but we only had one guy who could ruck with any effectiveness.

Having a fresh ruckman at half time, especially one of Hudson's quality, would be much much more advantageous than supposed midfield "fresh legs".

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I think Hall will be OK, but I worry about Hudson - particularly with the sub rule.

I think he may be in trouble, personally.

[mjp]

Really like this idea, think its the most effective way of using the sub.


What if a non-ruckman gets injured?

[SlimPickens]

Picken and Addison to play the defensive forward role(s)[/B]


Who from Brisbane do you feel warrants a defensive forward on them?

[SlimPickens]

I am a bit perplexed by those saying 'Jones had a shocker, out he goes!"

You would have to be saying that for about 3/4 of the side, wouldnt you?

We dont have too many of his type around at the moment and Id love to see him played into confidence and form.


Well said, Jones has played what 10 games of senoir footy now. Perfect oppurtunity against Brisbane to get some confidence up.

[Sockeye Salmon]

What if a non-ruckman gets injured?

What if Hudson had got injured last week?

If we play a second ruckman and a non-ruckman gets injured we are in exactly the same boat - down to the exact same 21.

[Happy Days]

What if a non-ruckman gets injured?

I think the rule calls for an amount of pragmatism to be brought into it. Like I said, we have a swag of players who can play in the middle, and, aside from Hall, Lake and Morris, I don't think we have any player who another player in the 22 couldn't cover for any given game.

Using the sub strategically rather than to cover injury, whilst admittedly more risky, gives us the best chance to use the rule to our advantage.

If we were playing a final, I would want it to be used this way.

[boydogs]

So drop one of the midfielders who had 21 disposals, 16 contested possessions, 8 tackles?

Ok, thats your opinion, but I think there were worse players than him.

As another poster said, one of Boyd, Cross, Gia, Higgins and Ward needs to go - if we haven't learnt that from the Essendon game, then it was truly a waste. Djerrkura & Sherman need to play full games to add pace IMO. There are too many attacking minded slow players in the side, maybe I have picked the one least fitting this description but I see him as behind the other 4 at the moment.


What role do you see Addison filling?

He'd be a good sub, probably in the bottom 6 of the 22 and pretty versatile. In the starting 21 I would make him a defensive forward.


I was about to post this.

We are all talking about two ruckmen whoneed to play 50% game time each - in the ruck. Well there's a position where you share game time, it's called a sub.

They'd get too tired towards the end of their halves I reckon, you need more regular breaks. I don't think any other side used the sub for a second ruckman in round 1.

[Hotdog60]

The MC must be having a hard time picking the team, it's been opened up for the supporters to have a go.

See the LINK (http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/fanzone/competitions/best22/tabid/17498/default.aspx)

Ok Woofers here's your chance.

[Dazza]

As another poster said, one of Boyd, Cross, Gia, Higgins and Ward needs to go - if we haven't learnt that from the Essendon game, then it was truly a waste. Djerrkura & Sherman need to play full games to add pace IMO. There are too many attacking minded slow players in the side, maybe I have picked the one least fitting this description but I see him as behind the other 4 at the moment.



He'd be a good sub, probably in the bottom 6 of the 22 and pretty versatile. In the starting 21 I would make him a defensive forward.



They'd get too tired towards the end of their halves I reckon, you need more regular breaks. I don't think any other side used the sub for a second ruckman in round 1.

I think Sydney used it. Was a disaster. They really needed a running player.

[Doc26]

I'm actually worried that Hudson and Hall might be this year's version of Johnson & Akermanis.

Was thinking something similar although had more to do with Lyndsay than these two. To be fair to an ageing Huddo he was hardly given a sporting chance against a fresh Hille and Ryder.

[boydogs]

I think Sydney used it. Was a disaster. They really needed a running player.

Yep my mistake, Seaby was their sub. Still, 1/16 and not with much success...

[LostDoggy]

Well said, Jones has played what 10 games of senoir footy now. Perfect oppurtunity against Brisbane to get some confidence up.




Jones must spend the season in the seniors.

He has only played six games, he just turned twenty, and his first year at the club was spent playing school footy. His development for the long term must be a priority and he'll only learn about AFL football by playing in the seniors.

Quality key position forwards don't grow on trees. That's why we've only been able to develop one of them in the past twenty one years (and he debuted in 1990).

The dominant key forwards in the game today have significant experience:

Brown - 201 games
Riewoldt - 198 games
Hall - 275 games
Pavlich - 237 games
Franklin - 121 games
Roughead - 126 games
Cloke - 125 games

With the exception of Brown (who besides being a freak started with the best midfield in the AFL on his side and with other big bodies around him), the players listed above weren't match winners at the beginning of their careers. All of them played games much worse than Jones did against Essendon; but all were backed in by their clubs and given the time needed to develop because football clubs understand that key position forwards are the rarest and most valuable commodity in football.

Even the young forwards in the league who hope to become the next generation of stars have at least five times the experience that Jones has.

Jack Riewoldt was seen as Johnny Come Lately last year, but is in fact playing his 70th game this week. His performances in his first thirty games were hardly awe inspiring, but Richmond continued to play him.

Tippett's played 65 games, Dawes has played 31, Hurley has played 30, Henderson has played 35, Hansen has played 51 and Gumbleton has played 22 (and he needs a lot more time which Essendon will give him). Patty Ryder is developing nicely; he's played 94 games so far.

Once again, Jones has played in the seniors just six times.

He has potential and the club genuinely believes that he can make it, so we have to give him every opportunity to develop. Jones' selection shouldn't be a week by week proposition; it should be a certainty unless he is injured or not obeying instruction or team rules.

If we don't back Jones in (and Grant - who looks much better after his 22 games in the seniors so far) this year then we'll be missing our only opportunity of building a post-Hall forward line that will be ready when Barry retires.

They simply have to play. If that costs us sometimes, then we simply have to wear it.

Exactly the same argument can be made about playing Roughead this year. Not only is he a promising ruckman but he also shows good natural instincts when playing in the forward line (something Will Minson has never really shown in his one hundred plus games of footy so far).

Playing him at every opportunity this year has two benefits: 1. His superior forward play to Minson would allow us to play both ruckman on the ground at the same time, which is crucial when rotating midfielders through the three man bench; 2. He needs regular senior football to develop so he can become our number one ruckman when Hudson retires.


IN: Roughead

KEEP: Jones

[Ghost Dog]

Jones must spend the season in the seniors.

He has only played six games, he just turned twenty, and his first year at the club was spent playing school footy. His development for the long term must be a priority and he'll only learn about AFL football by playing in the seniors.

Quality key position forwards don't grow on trees. That's why we've only been able to develop one of them in the past twenty one years (and he debuted in 1990).

The dominant key forwards in the game today have significant experience:

Brown - 201 games
Riewoldt - 198 games
Hall - 275 games
Pavlich - 237 games
Franklin - 121 games
Roughead - 126 games
Cloke - 125 games

With the exception of Brown (who besides being a freak started with the best midfield in the AFL on his side and with other big bodies around him), the players listed above weren't match winners at the beginning of their careers. All of them played games much worse than Jones did against Essendon; but all were backed in by their clubs and given the time needed to develop because football clubs understand that key position forwards are the rarest and most valuable commodity in football.

Even the young forwards in the league who hope to become the next generation of stars have at least five times the experience that Jones has.

Jack Riewoldt was seen as Johnny Come Lately last year, but is in fact playing his 70th game this week. His performances in his first thirty games were hardly awe inspiring, but Richmond continued to play him.

Tippett's played 65 games, Dawes has played 31, Hurley has played 30, Henderson has played 35, Hansen has played 51 and Gumbleton has played 22 (and he needs a lot more time which Essendon will give him). Patty Ryder is developing nicely; he's played 94 games so far.

Once again, Jones has played in the seniors just six times.

He has potential and the club genuinely believes that he can make it, so we have to give him every opportunity to develop. Jones' selection shouldn't be a week by week proposition; it should be a certainty unless he is injured or not obeying instruction or team rules.

If we don't back Jones in (and Grant - who looks much better after his 22 games in the seniors so far) this year then we'll be missing our only opportunity of building a post-Hall forward line that will be ready when Barry retires.

They simply have to play. If that costs us sometimes, then we simply have to wear it.

Exactly the same argument can be made about playing Roughead this year. Not only is he a promising ruckman but he also shows good natural instincts when playing in the forward line (something Will Minson has never really shown in his one hundred plus games of footy so far).

Playing him at every opportunity this year has two benefits: 1. His superior forward play to Minson would allow us to play both ruckman on the ground at the same time, which is crucial when rotating midfielders through the three man bench; 2. He needs regular senior football to develop so he can become our number one ruckman when Hudson retires.


IN: Roughead

KEEP: Jones

Excellent post. And 30 plus body goes down hill pretty fast. Less time than we think up our sleeves.

[mjp]

What if Hudson had got injured last week?

If we play a second ruckman and a non-ruckman gets injured we are in exactly the same boat - down to the exact same 21.

Sort of.

Playing one ruckman is always a roll of the dice that you make to gain a strategic advantage (RUN). Against Essendon, I can only guess the MC figured we would be short of a runner or two and therefore made the one ruckman decision.

Playing two ruckman you are taking not so much a safety first approach as a traditional approach. It has a lot of merit. But if you make one ruckman the sub, then you really aren't providing yourself much 'cover' for injury...which really is all the sub is good for. To me making a ruckman the sub is the worst of both worlds - you restrict your ability to run late in a game (because if you dont get an injury, in the middle of the third quarter the sub is really just another rotation)...at the same time, you dont have the 'traditional' benefit of being able to ensure a strong physical presence at all contested ball situations...the one ruckman will be forced to go without a break for long periods and his effectiveness will be limited.

Essendon have the ruck thing nailed - two rucks who are athletic and versatile and, in the case of Ryder a legit option for both key back and key forward. Not too many other sides can boast of that kind of capability hence all the pinch hitting we have been seeing with the likes of Tom Williams.

[The Underdog]

I'm actually worried that Hudson and Hall might be this year's version of Johnson & Akermanis.

I know Hall has missed criticism because he kicked a couple of goals and the ball didn't spend much time in our forward 50 but there were some worrying signs in his game.

[SlimPickens]

Jones must spend the season in the seniors.

He has only played six games, he just turned twenty, and his first year at the club was spent playing school footy. His development for the long term must be a priority and he'll only learn about AFL football by playing in the seniors.

Quality key position forwards don't grow on trees. That's why we've only been able to develop one of them in the past twenty one years (and he debuted in 1990).

The dominant key forwards in the game today have significant experience:

Brown - 201 games
Riewoldt - 198 games
Hall - 275 games
Pavlich - 237 games
Franklin - 121 games
Roughead - 126 games
Cloke - 125 games

With the exception of Brown (who besides being a freak started with the best midfield in the AFL on his side and with other big bodies around him), the players listed above weren't match winners at the beginning of their careers. All of them played games much worse than Jones did against Essendon; but all were backed in by their clubs and given the time needed to develop because football clubs understand that key position forwards are the rarest and most valuable commodity in football.

Even the young forwards in the league who hope to become the next generation of stars have at least five times the experience that Jones has.

Jack Riewoldt was seen as Johnny Come Lately last year, but is in fact playing his 70th game this week. His performances in his first thirty games were hardly awe inspiring, but Richmond continued to play him.

Tippett's played 65 games, Dawes has played 31, Hurley has played 30, Henderson has played 35, Hansen has played 51 and Gumbleton has played 22 (and he needs a lot more time which Essendon will give him). Patty Ryder is developing nicely; he's played 94 games so far.

Once again, Jones has played in the seniors just six times.

He has potential and the club genuinely believes that he can make it, so we have to give him every opportunity to develop. Jones' selection shouldn't be a week by week proposition; it should be a certainty unless he is injured or not obeying instruction or team rules.

If we don't back Jones in (and Grant - who looks much better after his 22 games in the seniors so far) this year then we'll be missing our only opportunity of building a post-Hall forward line that will be ready when Barry retires.

They simply have to play. If that costs us sometimes, then we simply have to wear it.

Exactly the same argument can be made about playing Roughead this year. Not only is he a promising ruckman but he also shows good natural instincts when playing in the forward line (something Will Minson has never really shown in his one hundred plus games of footy so far).

Playing him at every opportunity this year has two benefits: 1. His superior forward play to Minson would allow us to play both ruckman on the ground at the same time, which is crucial when rotating midfielders through the three man bench; 2. He needs regular senior football to develop so he can become our number one ruckman when Hudson retires.


IN: Roughead

KEEP: Jones


^^This.

Fantastic post although at the momnet Will is in front of Roughy in terms of preparation and form. I agree with your sentiment though.

[Ozza]

My concern is the balance. If we bring in a second ruckman, and they have to spend time forward - suddenly we have Hall, Jones and Minson - as well as Grant as a third tall - and Gia and Higgins without much pace.

For mine its a balance issue first and foremost - not just a "'Jones had a shocker, out he goes".

I'm all for playing Jones and getting games into him - but only if the balance of the senior side is right.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Sort of.

Playing one ruckman is always a roll of the dice that you make to gain a strategic advantage (RUN). Against Essendon, I can only guess the MC figured we would be short of a runner or two and therefore made the one ruckman decision.

Playing two ruckman you are taking not so much a safety first approach as a traditional approach. It has a lot of merit. But if you make one ruckman the sub, then you really aren't providing yourself much 'cover' for injury...which really is all the sub is good for. To me making a ruckman the sub is the worst of both worlds - you restrict your ability to run late in a game (because if you dont get an injury, in the middle of the third quarter the sub is really just another rotation)...at the same time, you dont have the 'traditional' benefit of being able to ensure a strong physical presence at all contested ball situations...the one ruckman will be forced to go without a break for long periods and his effectiveness will be limited.

Essendon have the ruck thing nailed - two rucks who are athletic and versatile and, in the case of Ryder a legit option for both key back and key forward. Not too many other sides can boast of that kind of capability hence all the pinch hitting we have been seeing with the likes of Tom Williams.

We wouldn't be missing out on the extra runner because he'll be available for the rotations from the start.

We restricted our running ability on the weekend because we couldn't use Sherman in the first half and Djurkerra was sitting on the pine in the 2nd.

[Mofra]

We wouldn't be missing out on the extra runner because he'll be available for the rotations from the start.

We restricted our running ability on the weekend because we couldn't use Sherman in the first half and Djurkerra was sitting on the pine in the 2nd.
That begs an interesting question - was the ruck aspect the only one we got wrong, or did we err by not having a sub flexible enough to play multiple positions?

[LongWait]

My concern is the balance. If we bring in a second ruckman, and they have to spend time forward - suddenly we have Hall, Jones and Minson - as well as Grant as a third tall - and Gia and Higgins without much pace.

For mine its a balance issue first and foremost - not just a "'Jones had a shocker, out he goes".

I'm all for playing Jones and getting games into him - but only if the balance of the senior side is right.

It will be a shame if Jones' development is hindered because we have too many slow midfielders and forwards. Perhaps we should be looking to rectify that problem first?

Grant does not play as a power forward and is lightening quick, so I'm not sure what you are getting at by naming him as a part of a too tall, too slow forward line?

[Mantis]

It will be a shame if Jones' development is hindered because we have too many slow midfielders and forwards. Perhaps we should be looking to rectify that problem first??

But it's much easier to drop a kid who struggled on the weekend and has played 6 games than drop any one of the slow mids/ forwards who are almost like part of the furniture.

[LongWait]

But it's much easier to drop a kid who struggled on the weekend and has played 6 games than drop any one of the slow mids/ forwards who are almost like part of the furniture.

Too true. :(

[Sockeye Salmon]

It will be a shame if Jones' development is hindered because we have too many slow midfielders and forwards. Perhaps we should be looking to rectify that problem first?

Grant does not play as a power forward and is lightening quick, so I'm not sure what you are getting at by naming him as a part of a too tall, too slow forward line?

Grant can run fast but he plays tall. No matter how fast he runs he doesn't help us when the ball hits the ground if he's the one going up for the mark.

[jazzadogs]

Could we use Gia as the sub? Start with Hudson, Minson, Hall, Jones, Williams and Lake as talls, Addison as a defensive forward.

Aim would be to sub off one of the talls around half time, letting Gia come one. Players fatigued heavily in the games on the weekend, and Gia would find it easier to keep up if he only had to compete with them when they were fatigued.

If one of the ruckmen gets injured, we can revert to the Williams as back-up plan.

If Jones/Hall gets injured, Minson will be more valuable in the forward half.

If Williams/Lake/Markovic get injured, we wouldn't realistically be able to cover them no matter who our sub was.

If a mid-sized defender gets injured, DFA can move into defence and Gia into the forward line.

And Gia can obviously cover for any deficiency in the midfield/small forward.

I highly doubt that Gia would be used as the sub, but I think a player of his type is the best option. A slightly older player, doesn't need to be super speedy, but has the smarts to exploit players who have already played a half or more.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Eade has said he wouldn't leave the same player as a sub too many times because they would lose match fitness so it's likely that a lot of players will have a go at some point.

[mjp]

We wouldn't be missing out on the extra runner because he'll be available for the rotations from the start.

We restricted our running ability on the weekend because we couldn't use Sherman in the first half and Djurkerra was sitting on the pine in the 2nd.

But had the sub been a ruckman, why would we have been better off?

First half, 3 runners on the bench + ruckman sub as opposed to last week when we had 3 runners + runner sub.

But had Djurkerra been injured, the status quo would have been retained (3 runners on the bench) whereas with a ruckman as sub we would have ended up with just two runners on the bench plus a ruckman.

I don't really disagree with what you are saying but it is a bit of a philosophical view on the sub. I see him primarily as injury cover and therefore want as flexible a player as possible - hence I have been suggesting we play Hill in that role because he can play back/mid/forward as required...if sub is Minson and we cop an injury to anyone EXCEPT Hudson, that is bad news for our gamestyle.

[Greystache]

But it's much easier to drop a kid who struggled on the weekend and has played 6 games than drop any one of the slow mids/ forwards who are almost like part of the furniture.

Agreed, and it shits me to tears!

[Ghost Dog]

Dahlhaus, from the video I have seen of him so far, is fast and handy.
Hope they give him some opportunities this season.

[LostDoggy]

It will be a shame if Jones' development is hindered because we have too many slow midfielders and forwards. Perhaps we should be looking to rectify that problem first?




It'll be more than a shame, it will be a bloody disaster.

I'm going to keep banging on about this; if Jones and Roughead don't play full seasons then we'll be inflicting serious damage on our future.

If our coaches can't incorporate talented young players into our team then they are either incompetent or too focused on the here and now.

If the balance isn't right then they need to make changes elsewhere to rectify it.

We have to be prepared to endure some bad performances now for long term success.

[Desipura]

My opinion:
In: Lake, Schofield, Vespa & Barlow
Out: Markovic (unlucky), Wood, Gia & Djerkurra

What might happen
In: Lake, Wallis, Minson
Out: Wood, Djerkurra, Markovic

[LostDoggy]

Fantastic post although at the momnet Will is in front of Roughy in terms of preparation and form. I agree with your sentiment though.




The moment Roughead finds match fitness (round three perhaps?) is the moment he replaces Minson in our team (presuming that Will's even in the team at the time).

I feel sorry for Will. A rule change designed to slow the game down has been the final nail in the coffin of the traditional 2nd ruckman role (the slowest guy on the park no less). It's stupidity, but then Collingwood's success with Leigh Brown had already demonstrated that a 2nd ruckman without versatility would struggle to succeed now at senior level.

Will's a ruckman, pure and simple. He's probably just entering his prime but he can't play in the same team as Hudson as neither can influence the forward line or defense.

We've got to push Roughead.

[Ghost Dog]

The moment Roughead finds match fitness (round three perhaps?) is the moment he replaces Minson in our team (presuming that Will's even in the team at the time).

I feel sorry for Will. A rule change designed to slow the game down has been the final nail in the coffin of the traditional 2nd ruckman role (the slowest guy on the park no less). It's stupidity, but then Collingwood's success with Leigh Brown had already demonstrated that a 2nd ruckman without versatility would struggle to succeed now at senior level.

Will's a ruckman, pure and simple. He's probably just entering his prime but he can't play in the same team as Hudson as neither can influence the forward line or defense.

We've got to push Roughead.

^^ Like, However, given Huddo's age would not be surprised if he gets injured and Will might still yet be able to play a role somewhere.

[Mofra]

^^ Like, However, given Huddo's age would not be surprised if he gets injured and Will might still yet be able to play a role somewhere.
Given our structure, I am worried about playing Will as anything other than the no 1 ruckman.
I hate to be seen as potting blokes on our list, but Minno just isn't a relief forward/ruckman especially when we are struggling for forward pressure in our F50 as is.

[SlimPickens]

^^ Like, However, given Huddo's age would not be surprised if he gets injured and Will might still yet be able to play a role somewhere.

Correct, not to mention Huddo could be in his final year or two. Minson still has a important role at our footy club.

[Desipura]

Given our structure, I am worried about playing Will as anything other than the no 1 ruckman.
I hate to be seen as potting blokes on our list, but Minno just isn't a relief forward/ruckman especially when we are struggling for forward pressure in our F50 as is.
Thats not potting Minno, that just putting your opinion across with a reason (and a valid one at that IMHO)

[EasternWest]

Given our structure, I am worried about playing Will as anything other than the no 1 ruckman.
I hate to be seen as potting blokes on our list, but Minno just isn't a relief forward/ruckman especially when we are struggling for forward pressure in our F50 as is.

I wouldn't say that's potting him. It's a legitimate concern.

What's his contract status? I'd imagine that Huddo will retire this year, and Will would become no. 1 with Roughead as ruck/forward. I think that would work ok.

Not sure where that leaves Cordy, or even how far he'll be from readiness by then.

[Mantis]

I wouldn't say that's potting him. It's a legitimate concern.

What's his contract status? I'd imagine that Huddo will retire this year, and Will would become no. 1 with Roughead as ruck/forward. I think that would work ok.



Will is contracted through until the end of the 2012 season.

[Ozza]

Ins are: Moles, Minson, Roughead and Wallis (all extended bench with Ward, Libba and DJ)

Out: Wood (Inj.)

[LostDoggy]

Western Bulldogs
B: Brennan Stack, Lukas Markovic, Dale Morris
HB: Robert Murphy, Tom L. Williams, Liam Picken
C: Justin Sherman, Matthew Boyd, Daniel Cross
HF: Shaun Higgins, Liam Jones, Josh Hill
F: Jarrad Grant, Barry Hall, Daniel Giansiracusa
Foll: Ben Hudson, Adam Cooney, Ryan Griffen
I/C: William Minson, Callan Ward, Jordan Roughead, Brodie Moles, Nathan Djerrkura, Mitchell Wallis, Thomas Liberatore
In: William Minson, Jordan Roughead, Brodie Moles, Mitchell Wallis
Out: Easton Wood (Ankle)
New: Mitchell Wallis (Calder Cannons)

[LostDoggy]

^^ Like, However, given Huddo's age would not be surprised if he gets injured and Will might still yet be able to play a role somewhere.



I completely agree, Ghost Dog.

He can certainly play when Huddo's injured or resting. He just can't play in the same team as him.

That has to be Roughead.