One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on March 24, 2010, 05:08:09 PM

Title: Teams for Round 1
Post by: one-eyed on March 24, 2010, 05:08:09 PM
Carlton

B: Bret Thornton, Michael Jamison, Aaron Joseph
HB: Paul Bower, Jarrad Waite, Jordan Russell
C: Ryan Houlihan, Marc Murphy, Heath Scotland
HF: Andrew Carrazzo, Lachie Henderson, Kade Simpson
F: Setanta O’hAilpin, Matthew Kreuzer, Eddie Betts
Foll: Robert Warnock, Bryce Gibbs, Brock McLean
I/C: Joe Anderson, Mitch Robinson, Andrew Walker, Chris Yarran
Emg: Shaun Grigg, Sam Jacobs, Kane Lucas
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: wayne on March 24, 2010, 05:10:13 PM
From what i've read on Carlton forums, Murphy still might not be right.

Lucas in late maybe?
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: wayne on March 24, 2010, 05:19:12 PM
Richmond

B: Shane Edwards Kel Moore Chris Newman
HB: Mitch Farmer Luke McGuane Will Thursfield
C: Dustin Martin Brett Deledio Ben Nason
HF: Tom Hislop Jack Riewoldt Richard Tambling
F: Relton Roberts Mitch Morton Robin Nahas
Foll: Troy Simmonds Daniel Jackson Trent Cotchin
Int: Ty Vickery Ben Cousins Daniel Connors, Adam Thomson
Emg: Dean Polo Graham Polak Matthew White
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: crannyvegas on March 24, 2010, 05:20:45 PM
i like that team.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Muscles on March 24, 2010, 05:36:33 PM
Did they accidently transpose the fullbacks and the halfbacks?

Is the forward line too short?

I think we need another tall who can play.   What did the Postman do to lose a spot?
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WA Tiger on March 24, 2010, 05:37:23 PM
Richmond

B: Shane Edwards Kel Moore Chris Newman
HB: Mitch Farmer Luke McGuane Will Thursfield
C: Dustin Martin Brett Deledio Ben Nason
HF: Tom Hislop Jack Riewoldt Richard Tambling
F: Relton Roberts Mitch Morton Robin Nahas
Foll: Troy Simmonds Daniel Jackson Trent Cotchin
Int: Ty Vickery Ben Cousins Daniel Connors, Adam Thomson
Emg: Dean Polo Graham Polak Matthew White


Farmer and Edwards down back, not sure about that, very small backline with both of them down there IMO and get ready for lots of goals withe Edwards turnovers. Connors hopefully will line up back there with Edwards on the bench. Don't really think our forward line has much bite either without Polaks name, just the matter of him crashing the packs would be enough, but obviously not.

Oh well just as long as they all put in I suppose, I really don't think Edwards........ well I will move on.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Penelope on March 24, 2010, 05:47:24 PM
Hardwick's playing funny buggers?

Have they lined up with morton at FF and tambling at HF, at all in any of the practice matches?

Late withdrawal for polak?
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WA Tiger on March 24, 2010, 05:57:23 PM
Hardwick's playing funny buggers?


Lets hope so al because as you look through the Blues line up it is pretty tall in most positions.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Smokey on March 24, 2010, 06:25:10 PM
Hardwick's playing funny buggers?

Have they lined up with morton at FF and tambling at HF, at all in any of the practice matches?

Late withdrawal for polak?

Don't take any notice of the positions Al, just the players.  No team will line up as listed, they will all have their specific roles and targets.  What is more interesting to me is the height factor - we have gone smaller than I thought we would so I'm wondering if we are backing ourselves to run them a bit ragged in the first game, especially given that the skill level is usually down a bit and the taller blokes might not be quite on their marking games this early in the season.  Just a theory.

PS Al, I've told my 2 young blokes to look out for a bearded old fella that might be having trouble boarding the plane in Darwin and help him out if he looks like he needed it.

 :whistle  ;D

Oh, and are we still on at Y & J's?
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: RollsRoyce on March 24, 2010, 06:29:17 PM
So,let me get this straight, we have to cover a resting ruckman whose 200cm, plus two more forwards of 199cm and 196cm respectively, with Thursfield (192cm and a beanpole) McGuane (192cm and a stick insect) and Moore(190cm).
Meanwhile up forward, we have one tall marking option and basically five crumbers. :help
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Penelope on March 24, 2010, 06:38:23 PM
Hardwick's playing funny buggers?

Have they lined up with morton at FF and tambling at HF, at all in any of the practice matches?

Late withdrawal for polak?

Don't take any notice of the positions Al, just the players.  No team will line up as listed, they will all have their specific roles and targets.  What is more interesting to me is the height factor - we have gone smaller than I thought we would so I'm wondering if we are backing ourselves to run them a bit ragged in the first game, especially given that the skill level is usually down a bit and the taller blokes might not be quite on their marking games this early in the season.  Just a theory.

PS Al, I've told my 2 young blokes to look out for a bearded old fella that might be having trouble boarding the plane in Darwin and help him out if he looks like he needed it.

 :whistle  ;D

Oh, and are we still on at Y & J's?

I was looking the dearth of big blokes smokey. Tambling there on his own didnt surprise me but to see him there with Morton at FF and Polak and emegency I was curious if such a forward setup had been trialled at all. If not I'd guess that someone picked to play already knows their not.

Yep Y&J's it is.

As for the other thing, just look at my avatar.

Will you be Melb before us?

Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Smokey on March 24, 2010, 07:22:04 PM

As for the other thing, just look at my avatar.

 :lol

Quote

Will you be Melb before us?


Yep, we are due in at 11.35 and will have to wait (with a beer or 2) - probably see you at the baggage carousel.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: mat073 on March 24, 2010, 07:25:08 PM
One has to ask....Whats Polly still doing on the list .

However I am Gobsmacked :gobdrop that Jayden Post is not in the team.

Happy not to see White/Polo/ Tuck/McMahon in the team.

Great to see 4 newbies in the team.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: jezza on March 24, 2010, 07:33:25 PM
So,let me get this straight, we have to cover a resting ruckman whose 200cm, plus two more forwards of 199cm and 196cm respectively, with Thursfield (192cm and a beanpole) McGuane (192cm and a stick insect) and Moore(190cm).
Meanwhile up forward, we have one tall marking option and basically five crumbers. :help


So your solution?

Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WilliamPowell on March 24, 2010, 07:34:07 PM


However I am Gobsmacked :gobdrop that Jayden Post is not in the team.

I have to say I am not surprised he hasn't been picked

If they picked on form over the entire pre-season then it aint no great surprise - his pre-season was nothing great  ;D
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: yellowandback on March 24, 2010, 07:38:02 PM
I hope we dont lose either vickery or simmonds to injury, we'll be faaaaaaaaarkt!
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: one-eyed on March 24, 2010, 07:50:13 PM
Healy on 3aw tonight said David King doesn't think Cousins should play.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: yellowandback on March 24, 2010, 07:54:24 PM
Healy on 3aw tonight said David King doesn't think Cousins should play.

and he is sooooo credible.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: wayne on March 24, 2010, 08:02:36 PM
Who's David King?
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Stripes on March 24, 2010, 08:30:38 PM
I'm amazed Polak is an omission after all preseason structuring up with him taking the FF position. Judging on our size I can only draw the conclusion that we are aiming to out pace them and beat them for elusiveness.

If Simmonds can show Warnock up it will force Kruezer back into the middle and weaken then up forward. Game will be won or lost in the midfield as always.

Stripes
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: RollsRoyce on March 24, 2010, 08:53:01 PM
So,let me get this straight, we have to cover a resting ruckman whose 200cm, plus two more forwards of 199cm and 196cm respectively, with Thursfield (192cm and a beanpole) McGuane (192cm and a stick insect) and Moore(190cm).
Meanwhile up forward, we have one tall marking option and basically five crumbers. :help




So your solution?



My solution? Structure up the side properly. We can't afford to play three undersized key defenders on giants.Instead of Moore,bring in say Post,or Rance. Why isn't Post even in the squad? If Carlton are going to have a resting ruckman at full-forward,then bring in Browne or Graham to sit in the hole and block off his supply. With the height mis-matches we have down back tomorrow on a dry night, this has the potential to get really ugly again.
Up forward, well we'll see how they set up. I'm hoping that Vickery starts on the ground, and spends a lot of time up forward.  I can't see Jack and five crumbers working. I would have liked a third tall marking option. I was at training today, and Astbury did the full session. I was disappointed he didn't make the cut. But if not him, then even Polak just as a decoy tall as mooted. Isn't that why he was added off the rookie list ahead of Gourdis? (who also could've helped our key defensive structure).
The bottom line is, they are obviously trying to beat Carlton for pace. I hope it works, and I'll happily take the stuff if it does. But I think they are taking a HUGE risk by going in with such a small team, when there were other options available.      
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: RollsRoyce on March 24, 2010, 08:55:01 PM
So,let me get this straight, we have to cover a resting ruckman whose 200cm, plus two more forwards of 199cm and 196cm respectively, with Thursfield (192cm and a beanpole) McGuane (192cm and a stick insect) and Moore(190cm).
Meanwhile up forward, we have one tall marking option and basically five crumbers. :help


So your solution?


Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WA Tiger on March 24, 2010, 09:19:32 PM
So,let me get this straight, we have to cover a resting ruckman whose 200cm, plus two more forwards of 199cm and 196cm respectively, with Thursfield (192cm and a beanpole) McGuane (192cm and a stick insect) and Moore(190cm).
Meanwhile up forward, we have one tall marking option and basically five crumbers. :help




So your solution?



My solution? Structure up the side properly. We can't afford to play three undersized key defenders on giants.Instead of Moore,bring in say Post,or Rance. Why isn't Post even in the squad? If Carlton are going to have a resting ruckman at full-forward,then bring in Browne or Graham to sit in the hole and block off his supply. With the height mis-matches we have down back tomorrow on a dry night, this has the potential to get really ugly again.
Up forward, well we'll see how they set up. I'm hoping that Vickery starts on the ground, and spends a lot of time up forward.  I can't see Jack and five crumbers working. I would have liked a third tall marking option. I was at training today, and Astbury did the full session. I was disappointed he didn't make the cut. But if not him, then even Polak just as a decoy tall as mooted. Isn't that why he was added off the rookie list ahead of Gourdis? (who also could've helped our key defensive structure).
The bottom line is, they are obviously trying to beat Carlton for pace. I hope it works, and I'll happily take the stuff if it does. But I think they are taking a HUGE risk by going in with such a small team, when there were other options available.      


100% agree RR, I am also not sure why the hell we would elevate Polak and then NOT select him in round one. If we are not selecting Polak for round one why didn't we wait on the second Rookie elevation until someone else can put their hand up.. ???
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Rodgerramjet on March 24, 2010, 09:29:35 PM
I like the team that has been picked. I think it has been picked on merit and that to me is the way to reward your players that are putting in. I'm not surprised to see the ommission of Polak, towards the end of the pre season he tappered of and wasn't playing well. Yes we are trying to win this game and se will be trying to win every game we play, but remember there will be alot of R&D (Research and Discovery) regarding the capability and potential capability of the players on our list in positions known and otherwise, this is a process that will be ongoing every week of this season. Somethings may look crazy and absurd to you but remember there is method in the madness. Hardwick has picked this side on merit, good start.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Hellenic Tiger on March 24, 2010, 09:33:57 PM
I too and tending to sway as to why there is no Post in the side also.

I really like the look of our midfield with Martin coming off one wing.
How good is it to have Cotchin in for round one? :thumbsup

I'm expecting one change by game time tomorrow.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Chuck17 on March 24, 2010, 09:34:59 PM
I probably have to agree with the selection of a team of merit being a good thing.

Alternatives so far have canvassed Graham, Polak, Rance, Brownes just for the sake of structure and height.  I think a key point missing in these names is firstly form and second ability.

In the end I don't think it will matter though as we have a crap side and what matters if it moves slightly crappier or slightly less crappy.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Gigantor on March 24, 2010, 09:39:07 PM
This team is going to evolve as the season progresses.I have no problem with any of the selections...lets give our coaches time to stamp their style on this team.
As if we really have a choice
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: big tone on March 24, 2010, 09:46:50 PM


However I am Gobsmacked :gobdrop that Jayden Post is not in the team.

I have to say I am not surprised he hasn't been picked

If they picked on form over the entire pre-season then it aint no great surprise - his pre-season was nothing great  ;D

How has Thompson's pre-season been? Have not really heard his name to much? Massive surprise for mine him being in the side.
Hope he proves me wrong because i think he is a DUD!
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WA Tiger on March 24, 2010, 09:58:08 PM
Sorry I don't agree with the posters saying that this team has been selected on merit, please explain how Edwards has deserved a spot based on merit over Tuck??
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WilliamPowell on March 24, 2010, 10:01:01 PM
How has Thompson's pre-season been? Have not really heard his name to much? Massive surprise for mine him being in the side.
Hope he proves me wrong because i think he is a DUD!

big tone - I saw 3 out of the 4 pre-season games.

I thought Thomson was Ok in Tassie, very good in Yea and crap in Morwell. I wouldn't have picked him but at the same time I am not surprised he's in the side

Dan Connors is one that I'm surprised made the team  
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: bojangles17 on March 24, 2010, 10:20:45 PM
Did they accidently transpose the fullbacks and the halfbacks?

Is the forward line too short?

I think we need another tall who can play.   What did the Postman do to lose a spot?

not sure where posty has stamped himself right now...sounds like TV will get first dibbs at a Key forward post, I reckon he'll line upo with one of Nahas or robers on bench, I agree, looks to small with Bling, nahas, and RR down there
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WA Tiger on March 24, 2010, 10:33:54 PM
How has Thompson's pre-season been? Have not really heard his name to much? Massive surprise for mine him being in the side.
Hope he proves me wrong because i think he is a DUD!



Dan Connors is one that I'm surprised made the team  

I will bite then..... ;D :D ;), I thought from what I have read accross the forums and from media reports that he wen't very well during the pre season, were they all wrong??
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Smokey on March 24, 2010, 10:53:05 PM

Dan Connors is one that I'm surprised made the team  

I will bite then..... ;D :D ;), I thought from what I have read accross the forums and from media reports that he wen't very well during the pre season, were they all wrong??

I agree WAT.  I didn't see a lead-up game but all reports (except WP's  ;) ) seemed to point towards Connors being reasonable so personally I'm not surprised.  But, as I said, that is all based on hearsay.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: MADTIGER2010 on March 24, 2010, 11:15:42 PM
So,let me get this straight, we have to cover a resting ruckman whose 200cm, plus two more forwards of 199cm and 196cm respectively, with Thursfield (192cm and a beanpole) McGuane (192cm and a stick insect) and Moore(190cm).
Meanwhile up forward, we have one tall marking option and basically five crumbers. :help


Post, Gourdis and Astbury would be perfect additions in place of Moore, Hislop and Simmonds  8)
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: tony_montana on March 24, 2010, 11:22:31 PM


It's only round 1, we will get to see everyone have a reasonable run at various stages this season, so no need to stress about lineups
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Mr Magic on March 24, 2010, 11:26:21 PM
Boy is that a new look side.
Bring it on!
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: RollsRoyce on March 24, 2010, 11:29:30 PM
This is the predicament I see with our big-man stocks at the minute. Griffiths is behind schedule a bit coming off the shoulder injury. Rance and Graham seem to have gone backwards over the summer. Browne may not be quite ready yet. Post seems to have inexplicably fallen out of favour with the selectors, while Astbury, who was progressing nicely, has been put back a bit by injury. Gourdis played some good footy as a key defender, and was probably unlucky to be pipped for a senior elevation by Polak,who was then left out of the side anyway.
So where does this leave us? With pretty much the same undersized forward and defensive set-ups that struggled so much last year. Aside from all the new onballers, which I'm rapt about, I don't like the look of tomorrow night's side, and I can't wait til some of the new names I mentioned come on.  
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: the claw on March 24, 2010, 11:58:28 PM
lol here they are talking up structures and how we are going to go bigger  and how we are going to play kids and they come up with that side.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Infamy on March 25, 2010, 05:36:09 AM
I'm wondering if the forecast 29 degree heat has something to do with adding more smalls to the side. I imagine there will be a lot of rotations and hoping to run some tiring big men off their feet.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WilliamPowell on March 25, 2010, 07:25:02 AM
How has Thompson's pre-season been? Have not really heard his name to much? Massive surprise for mine him being in the side.
Hope he proves me wrong because i think he is a DUD!



Dan Connors is one that I'm surprised made the team  

I will bite then..... ;D :D ;), I thought from what I have read accross the forums and from media reports that he wen't very well during the pre season, were they all wrong??

Well I don't pay much attention to media reports as they seem to base most of their views on stats. Let's not forget one media report after the Pies praccy game said "martin had a bad day" and the kid didn't even play ... so enough said about the media  ;D

I've explained in numerous posts why I was disappointed with Connors' performances but in short his disposal, decision making and most importantly his lack of defensive pressure (eg chasing his opponent) were the things disappointed me during the pre-season.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WA Tiger on March 25, 2010, 10:43:35 AM
How has Thompson's pre-season been? Have not really heard his name to much? Massive surprise for mine him being in the side.
Hope he proves me wrong because i think he is a DUD!



Dan Connors is one that I'm surprised made the team  

I will bite then..... ;D :D ;), I thought from what I have read accross the forums and from media reports that he wen't very well during the pre season, were they all wrong??


I've explained in numerous posts why I was disappointed with Connors' performances but in short his disposal, decision making and most importantly his lack of defensive pressure (eg chasing his opponent) were the things disappointed me during the pre-season.

Well WP if you feel that way about Connors you must think less of Edwards surley because his disposal and decision making would have to be one of the worst if not the worst in the team. Add that to the fact that he is always caught holding the ball and is easily thrown out of the contest. Please don't tell me you rate him better than Connors and he has been selected.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Francois Jackson on March 25, 2010, 11:23:42 AM
How has Thompson's pre-season been? Have not really heard his name to much? Massive surprise for mine him being in the side.
Hope he proves me wrong because i think he is a DUD!



Dan Connors is one that I'm surprised made the team  

I will bite then..... ;D :D ;), I thought from what I have read accross the forums and from media reports that he wen't very well during the pre season, were they all wrong??


I've explained in numerous posts why I was disappointed with Connors' performances but in short his disposal, decision making and most importantly his lack of defensive pressure (eg chasing his opponent) were the things disappointed me during the pre-season.

Well WP if you feel that way about Connors you must think less of Edwards surley because his disposal and decision making would have to be one of the worst if not the worst in the team. Add that to the fact that he is always caught holding the ball and is easily thrown out of the contest. Please don't tell me you rate him better than Connors and he has been selected.

Edwards would not get a game with 14 other clubs.

Opposition players must laugh when they are pitted against him.

Aside from him, Thompson (DUD) & Hislop i think its a good line up. Post should be in the team also.

If you are picking the team based on pre season form then Moore, Edwards, Thompson  etc etc shouldnt be playing in this game.

Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WilliamPowell on March 25, 2010, 12:15:34 PM
Well WP if you feel that way about Connors you must think less of Edwards surley because his disposal and decision making would have to be one of the worst if not the worst in the team. Add that to the fact that he is always caught holding the ball and is easily thrown out of the contest. Please don't tell me you rate him better than Connors and he has been selected.

Well WAT you didn't ask me about Edwards your question was about Connors

Would I have selected Edwards ahead of Connors? Yes because based on the pre-season games I saw I thought he was slightly better but not much. His decision making int he pre-season was a lot better than 2009. let's wait and see what happnes in the real stuff tonight

Would I have selected Edwards? 50/50 decision based on his pre-season form. thought he was average in Tassie, good in Yea and poor in Morwell

Does that cover everything  ;D

Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WA Tiger on March 25, 2010, 02:46:17 PM
Well WP if you feel that way about Connors you must think less of Edwards surley because his disposal and decision making would have to be one of the worst if not the worst in the team. Add that to the fact that he is always caught holding the ball and is easily thrown out of the contest. Please don't tell me you rate him better than Connors and he has been selected.

Well WAT you didn't ask me about Edwards your question was about Connors

Would I have selected Edwards ahead of Connors? Yes because based on the pre-season games I saw I thought he was slightly better but not much. His decision making int he pre-season was a lot better than 2009. let's wait and see what happnes in the real stuff tonight

Would I have selected Edwards? 50/50 decision based on his pre-season form. thought he was average in Tassie, good in Yea and poor in Morwell

Does that cover everything  ;D



Sort of WP... ;), still can't figure out why Edwards over Connors though, watch Edwards get thrown around like a leaf tonight, don't think that will happen to Connors. But each to thier own... :thumbsup
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: jackstar is back again on March 25, 2010, 02:47:40 PM
Edwards role tonight, run and carry through the corridor. ;)
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WA Tiger on March 25, 2010, 02:49:14 PM
Edwards role tonight, run and carry through the corridor. ;)

Yeah without being caught or turning the ball over :whistle............ oh well thats the end of that.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: cub on March 25, 2010, 02:53:41 PM
I must admit the 1 game I saw against Geelong he was quite good at it. Albeit 1 practice game and all  ???
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WA Tiger on March 25, 2010, 03:18:17 PM
I must admit the 1 game I saw against Geelong he was quite good at it. Albeit 1 practice game and all  ???

I hope he can carry that into tonights game.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: TigerLand on March 25, 2010, 03:32:10 PM
So,let me get this straight, we have to cover a resting ruckman whose 200cm, plus two more forwards of 199cm and 196cm respectively, with Thursfield (192cm and a beanpole) McGuane (192cm and a stick insect) and Moore(190cm).
Meanwhile up forward, we have one tall marking option and basically five crumbers. :help




So your solution?



My solution? Structure up the side properly. We can't afford to play three undersized key defenders on giants.Instead of Moore,bring in say Post,or Rance. Why isn't Post even in the squad? If Carlton are going to have a resting ruckman at full-forward,then bring in Browne or Graham to sit in the hole and block off his supply. With the height mis-matches we have down back tomorrow on a dry night, this has the potential to get really ugly again.
Up forward, well we'll see how they set up. I'm hoping that Vickery starts on the ground, and spends a lot of time up forward.  I can't see Jack and five crumbers working. I would have liked a third tall marking option. I was at training today, and Astbury did the full session. I was disappointed he didn't make the cut. But if not him, then even Polak just as a decoy tall as mooted. Isn't that why he was added off the rookie list ahead of Gourdis? (who also could've helped our key defensive structure).
The bottom line is, they are obviously trying to beat Carlton for pace. I hope it works, and I'll happily take the stuff if it does. But I think they are taking a HUGE risk by going in with such a small team, when there were other options available.      


100% agree RR, I am also not sure why the hell we would elevate Polak and then NOT select him in round one. If we are not selecting Polak for round one why didn't we wait on the second Rookie elevation until someone else can put their hand up.. ???

Completly agree WAT.

Is there a rule where we had to nominate a rookie?

Woudl have liked to have seen Tuck up fwd. Maybe Coburg can play him out of the square. Who knows his defensive side and passing skills are problems.. I think he'd be alright at the top of the square
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: mightytiges on March 26, 2010, 01:24:15 AM
So,let me get this straight, we have to cover a resting ruckman whose 200cm, plus two more forwards of 199cm and 196cm respectively, with Thursfield (192cm and a beanpole) McGuane (192cm and a stick insect) and Moore(190cm).
Meanwhile up forward, we have one tall marking option and basically five crumbers. :help
So your solution?

My solution? Structure up the side properly. We can't afford to play three undersized key defenders on giants.Instead of Moore,bring in say Post,or Rance. Why isn't Post even in the squad? If Carlton are going to have a resting ruckman at full-forward,then bring in Browne or Graham to sit in the hole and block off his supply. With the height mis-matches we have down back tomorrow on a dry night, this has the potential to get really ugly again.
Up forward, well we'll see how they set up. I'm hoping that Vickery starts on the ground, and spends a lot of time up forward.  I can't see Jack and five crumbers working. I would have liked a third tall marking option. I was at training today, and Astbury did the full session. I was disappointed he didn't make the cut. But if not him, then even Polak just as a decoy tall as mooted. Isn't that why he was added off the rookie list ahead of Gourdis? (who also could've helped our key defensive structure).
The bottom line is, they are obviously trying to beat Carlton for pace. I hope it works, and I'll happily take the stuff if it does. But I think they are taking a HUGE risk by going in with such a small team, when there were other options available.      

Agree RR. We paid massively for going far too short. Left us with no options to change things up in the ruck, down back or up forward.

Not sure what we can do about it short-term in the backline as the form and ability of our key defenders especially McGuane and Moore is retreating at a rate of knots and we have no better replacements in the wings.

Up forward we just lacked another tall marking option at least. Too easily for the opposition to close down Jack and Morts. Carlton played a loose man in defence and killed us. Having Hislop as a hit up key forward makes no sense at all. Being so small up forward proved a pointless strategy as our small forwards hardly took a mark nicking into space inside 50 or got a crumb all night. Too many times we had everyone up and no one down. Nahas has to remember his days at Port and the fundamental rule of being front and square. He's got bad case of second year blues so far this year.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WA Tiger on March 27, 2010, 01:03:17 AM
Edwards role tonight, run and carry through the corridor. ;)

Yeah without being caught or turning the ball over :whistle............ oh well thats the end of that.

So.............. ::)
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: tigersalive on March 27, 2010, 07:31:23 AM
Edwards role tonight, run and carry through the corridor. ;)

Yeah without being caught or turning the ball over :whistle............ oh well thats the end of that.

So.............. ::)

DIdn't turn it over as much as some others.

He plays next week.

Newman is the one that is somehow avoiding an absolute bake around here.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Infamy on March 27, 2010, 08:06:16 AM
Edwards role tonight, run and carry through the corridor. ;)

Yeah without being caught or turning the ball over :whistle............ oh well thats the end of that.

So.............. ::)

DIdn't turn it over as much as some others.

He plays next week.

Newman is the one that is somehow avoiding an absolute bake around here.
He is? I think it's been universally agreed that he played terrible
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: tigersalive on March 27, 2010, 08:16:15 AM
Edwards role tonight, run and carry through the corridor. ;)

Yeah without being caught or turning the ball over :whistle............ oh well thats the end of that.

So.............. ::)

DIdn't turn it over as much as some others.

He plays next week.

Newman is the one that is somehow avoiding an absolute bake around here.
He is? I think it's been universally agreed that he played terrible

Well compared to the script that is berating Edwards every second post it appears so.
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: WA Tiger on March 27, 2010, 12:31:13 PM
Edwards role tonight, run and carry through the corridor. ;)

Yeah without being caught or turning the ball over :whistle............ oh well thats the end of that.

So.............. ::)

DIdn't turn it over as much as some others.

He plays next week.

Newman is the one that is somehow avoiding an absolute bake around here.
He is? I think it's been universally agreed that he played terrible

Well compared to the script that is berating Edwards every second post it appears so.

We all know what Newman is capable of doing when he has decent players around him, supporting him. We actually have no clue as to Edwards capabilities because he has never, never, never shown anything!!! Sorry maybe once.. ::)
Title: Re: Teams for Round 1
Post by: Penelope on March 31, 2010, 08:35:22 AM
Newman is the Captain of an AFL Club, yet he needs good players around him to show his worth? What ever happened to a leader leading by example? Surely if any player in the side should be capable of standing up and shining as a lone hand it is the Captain?